Dealing with The DaVinci Code - A Strategy to Minimize Its Impact

E-mail ^ | April 2006 | Anonymous

[Rockitz]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING MAY 19TH?

May 19th is the date the Da Vinci Code movie opens. A movie based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a badge of honor.

What can we as Christians do in response to the release of this movie? I'm going to offer you the usual choices -- and a new one.

Here are the usual suspects:

A) We can ignore the movie. ........

The problem with this option: The box office is a ballot box. The only people whose votes are counted are those who buy tickets. And the ballot box closes on the Sunday of opening weekend. If you stay home, you have lost your chance to make your vote heard. You have thrown your vote away, and from Hollywood's point of view, you don't count. By staying home, you do nothing to shape the decision-making process regarding what movies will make it to the big screen.

B) We can protest. ........

The problem with this option: It doesn't work. Any publicity is good publicity. Protests not only fuel the box office, they make all Christians look like idiots. And again, protests and boycotts do nothing to help shape the decisions being made right now about what movies Hollywood will make in the next few years. (Or they convince Hollywood to make *more* movies that will provoke Christians to protest, which will drive the box office up.)

C) We can discuss the movie. We can be rational and be ready with study guides and workshops and point-by-point refutations of the lies promulgated by the movie. ........

The problem with this option: No one's listening. They think they know what we're going to say already. We'll lose most of these discussions anyway, no matter how prepared we are, because the power of story always trumps the power of facts (why do you think Jesus taught in parables?!). And once again: rational discussion of history does nothing to affect Hollywood's choices regarding what movies to make.

But there's a fourth choice.

D) On May 19th, you should go to the movies.

Just go to another movie.

Save the date now. May 19th, or May 20th. No later than Sunday, May 21st -- that's the day the ballot box closes. You'll get a vote, the only vote Hollywood recognizes: The power of cold hard cash laid down on a box office window on opening weekend.

Use your vote. Don't throw it away. Vote for a movie other than The DaVinci Code. If enough people do it, the powers that be will notice. They won't have a choice.

The major studio movie scheduled for release against DVC is the DreamWorks animated feature Over the Hedge. The trailers look fun, and you can take your kids. And your friends. And their friends. In fact, let's all go see it.

Let's rock the box office in a way no one expects -- without protests, without boycotts, without arguments, without rancor. Let's show up at the box office ballot box and cast our votes. And buy some popcorn, too.

May 19th. Mark your calendars now: Over the Hedge's opening weekend. Buy a ticket.

And spread the word. Forward this e-mail to all the Christians in your address book. Post it on your blogs. Talk about it to your churches. And let's all go to the movies.

[Coleus]

St. Ephrem the Syrian, If Christ is Not God, Our Salvation is a Lie (Rejecting the DaVinci Code)

 

Why Does Sony Fear Free Publicity?

[birbear]

Pardon me for getting distracted....but can you explain to me how Tom Hanks and Ron Howard ever came to be such geniuses? I'm really dying to know. Well, almost, but not quite. I mean it can't be just the acting or directing. Can it? I doubt that, but I cannot figure out why else it is so. Call me naive.

Hehehehehee. I think most of it has to do with being in the right place at the right time. Hanks wowed critics and audiences with "Philadelphia". A one time "Bosum Buddy" being cast as an HIV patient suing his company for discrimination. Quite a big step for Hanks, and one that paid off. Followed up with another Oscar for Forrest Gump (a movie I have a lot of problems with, but was entertained by the Hanks character.) And I thought he did pretty well as Jim Lovell in Apollo 13 (which was directed by Ron Howard). Those three movies pretty much elevated Hanks to super-star status.

And I think he remains there because people genuinely like the person of Tom Hanks. Yeah, he contributes to liberal/democratic causes, but he (from what I've seen) hasn't used his celebrity to endorse left wing causes. On the contrary, he's used it to help WWII veterans and the space program. Two things that I, personally, can stand behind. And he hasn't become so full of himself that he acts like a maniac, (unlike another famous Tom who shall remain nameless.)

And he's bankable. "The Terminal" wasn't his best work, but he generally pulls a movie into the 100-200 million dollar range.

Ron Howard is similarly likable. Who doesn't like Opie? Everybody grew up with Ron Howard. And everybody likes the fact that when he started growing "un-cute" they could still root for him as a director. And his movies have been pretty decent entertainment: Splash, Backdraft, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man. He's had a few klunkers in there, but for the most part they're above average in quality.

I actually watched the "Last Temptation" on VHS back in the day after the (years after actually) protests ended. I think that it was exactly one day after actually. Coincidence I am sure. Gee, the Man ....was actually interested in a life human? That seems hard to believe considering what we all know in these days. You know, we are all mortal, there is no God, and the Cubs will never win the Series. If there was really a God, then the Cubs would lose in the 7th game. Every thinking person knows that. How could a man destined to save the world ever even for an instant be even remotely interested in those matters which have driven lesser men to acts which have lead to wars and upheaval among societies?

I had a Bible teacher one time (I went to private Christian schools from K-10) mention that Christ had to feel all of a normal man's temptations in order to really know what it was like to be a "man." Makes sense to me. I'll leave it to the theologians here to discuss that point.

It is not that I am a fan of the likes of Scorsese, but he has made me think at times. Mostly I think that I despise his ass because (among other things) of his rebuke and pronouncements against our sitting president while he was wining and dining on foreign terrain. He was dissing our Troops while my son and his comrades were putting their collective asses on the line in order to protect his reprobate self and those of his ilk as well as the rest of us here in the shittiest place on Earth that we can't seem to keep people out of. Still, I did like Temptation, and I liked "Gangs" a whole lot. Call me a cynic.

I had to go through IMDB to find a list of his movies. I didn't realize I've actually seen (and enjoyed) several of them. "Goodfellas" is in my top 10 favorites. I never saw "Temptation" though, maybe I should rent it. I also really enjoyed "Color of Money" (before that Tom guy went really off the wall). My ex-wife rented "Bringing out the Dead" I had interesting dreams after that one.

Entertainment (or Art if you will) is supposed to let us look at reality a bit differently. Good art will take you on a fascinating "what if" journey. Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just a journey of somebody's mind. The great artists of the ages were skilled in applying colors and lines and circles to make us think of different aspects of God and Creation. Great musicians are skilled at creating music that transforms mood. Writers craft words that spellbind the imagination. Hollywood directors (the good ones) create alternate realities for us to explore.

But it's up to the individual to understand that it's not real. :-)

[Conservative til I die]

IT'S FICTION! And of no importance.

Being fiction does not make it "of no importance". If a film is telling falsehoods about Christ, Christianity, and the Church, it is also leading people away from the aforementioned as well.

Being that we certainly don't think God is fiction, this is a troubling thing. Catholics and other Christians have a duty to set the record straight on the Da Vinci Hoax.

[Conservative til I die]

That doesn't mean there are those who won't use its message as an excuse not to believe. I spoke to a seemingly intelligent man on the plane a couple years ago who informed me that it was true.

Similarly, a seeming intelligent Catholic I know was touting the Gospel of Judas story yesterday as if it was some great revelation. "Oh, the Church has lied and covered up the truth for 2000 years. Judas was OK. He'll be a saint soon, too." Now, this person is a gay "Catholic" so one might say he's already gone. But all this type of stuff does is add fuel to the fire.

The only thing I could think of after hearing his praise of the Gospel of Judas is that he doesn't realize he's in effect calling Jesus a con man, with "Saint" Judas as his coconspirator.

[Conservative til I die]

The whackos who think it is history and not fiction are off the rocker, and the ones who want to burn it because they are afraid people think it's real are just plain overreacting.

No one I have seen is calling for mass book burnings. However, I have personally met people who think the Da Vinci Code is real. And they are not bad people, nor are they Christ- or Christian-haters. They are ignorant of Christian doctrine, however.

Doesn't it bother you that a book like this could lead people away> from the true Christ? I don't see anyone saying that the Da Vinci Code is bringing them to orthodox Christianity.

[Conservative til I die]

Yeah, because if people "stray from the church", that makes them apostates, right? They shouldn't be able to do that! Off with their heads!

If you're issue is with using the phrase "the church", fine, let's just say straying from Christianity. You think it's a trivial thing for a person to lose one's soul? You do know what that means right? Eternity in Hell and all that.

Are you a Christian? Do you believe in Hell? Do you believe that people can be led astray by a book, even if fictional?

[Conservative til I die]

but it also seems to me that any who are so little educated in theology as to be seduced by such a movie, are probably already among the lost, so little harm is done by the movie there.

That's pretty pessimistic, especially when we're talking about cosmic stuff like eternal salvation/damnation of souls.

Would you have said the same about say, a Fr. John Corapi, a well-known Catholic priest and preacher? He was a hopeless cocaine addict and was in every other way living the fast, high rolling lifestyle until he reconverted. I'm sure if you met him (and many others like him) at his low point, you might have said he was lost too.

I prefer to think of the Prodigal Son.

[D-fendr]

but am unsure why those who are not catholic would be so offended by the theory.

You mean other than the lack of the resurrection and divinity of Jesus parts?

[Conservative til I die]

Then they're stupid! You did say it. Just not in so many words!

People question their faith for many reasons. It doesn't make them stupid. It makes them vulnerable. The last thing a vulnerable person needs is to be driven further away from their faith by falsehoods.

[Conservative til I die]

I've read the book. It did not turn me into an anti-catholic. So I doubt the movie will. Of course it is fiction. At no time during it's readin did I feel like "religion" in general was being bashed.

Ever consider that the world doesn't revolve around you and how things affect you and only you?

On the other hand, the fact that Cardinal Mahony is encouraging Catholic Americans to break the law and harbor illegal aliens, is not fiction. Why not speak out and protest that?

Why, is Dan Brown an illegal immigrant?

[D-fendr]

His message was more than the sermon on the mount. It is who He is and was, his relationship with the divine, and who we are and our relationship to the divine.

The DaVinci Code and its forebearers are gnostic follow-ons. They hold completely different teachings on the nature of Jesus and completely differnt teachings on who and what and how he taught.

They teach that Jesus's "true" teachings were suppressed by a conspiracy; that what Christians believe today is a result of that conspiracy.

In short: whether Jesus was married to St. Mary M. is a tiny part of the problem.

[D-fendr]

I'm not sure why there's so much debate from the Catholic masses about this novel..

Glad you weren't around during the heresies. Oh wait, you are.

[RobbyS]

Good idea.

[Conservative til I die]

So the dumb people are those who don't blindly trust in the world they are presented?

No, the dumb people are those that think that all people who accept tradition that has been historically taught and vetted can only be blindly trusting of the world they are presented.

Revising history for profit doesn't make anyone intellectual, curious, or courageous.

[Conservative til I die]

That's a complete non sequitur and you know it. I don't appreciate your feeble insults, they are rather unbecoming for a God-fearing person.

Actually, he's dead on. And no one insulted you, unless you are the one that is proposing submarines really do fly.

Frankly, your comment here was rather unbecoming one so "intellectually curious."

[Conservative til I die]

No one owns Christianity. Anyone can believe and write what he or she wants.

Your two statements are not synonomous. You are correct that no one "owns" Christianity. However, no one can believe anything they feel and have a right to call themselves a Christian. I could claim Jesus was a gay space alien but that doesn't make me a Christian.

[PandaRosaMishima]

I really don't want to see the stupid thing at all, but both my mother and my sister are all agog about it--and of course they won't go together, oh no! I have to go with them, seperatly each time of course, to see this stupid movie. Tell the truth I didn't care for the book; why do I make such promises. Maybe the visuals will be pretty and I can go with corks in my ears.

[Conservative til I die]

I can see why alternative biblical histories in general would be controversial. Still, I don't agree with those who want to shelter the rest of us from heretical ideas.

I don't think it's a matter of sheltering. It's a matter of correcting.

[D-fendr]

he DOES touch on some interesting history.

Hate to burst your bubble, but..

Hoax

[RobbyS]

Guess what Jesuswas not a rabbi. He was called rabbi out of respect. Rabbinical Judaism, as we know it, was a development of the period after the destruction of the temple. As to his being married, there is no evidence that he was. Celibacy was not unknown in the Judaism of the period. For instance, does anyone claim that John the Baptist had a wife?