Mel Gibson Slams Da Vinci Code

NewsMax ^ | 05/22/2006 | Carl Limbacher

[ClancyJ]

So, are you telling us that we need to keep quiet when Jesus is used as a punching bag, to be mocked, distorted, blasphemed? Afterall - it is so much fun to get back at those Christians you know.

Jesus died on the Cross for us, he had nails in his hands and feet, was mocked, ridiculed and tortured. And, we are to stand quietly by when 2000 years later He is still mocked?

What if your mother or father were depicted as prostitutes, criminals, perverts? Would you pay money to go see that movie and not say anything in their defense?

[Diamond]

...fiction relies on a smattering of factual elements to create a good story.

For historical fiction, as a particular genre, to be credible the underlying facts have to have some semblence of accuracy. Nobody expects that every detail to exact, every character to have existed, and line of dialogue to have been spoken, etc. But Brown bungles the facts of history so badly that it's funny. In fact, when I read how Daniel Henniger, in last Friday's Wall Street Journal summed it up I was laughing so hard I'm sure people in the office were looking at me:

The real accomplishment of "The Da Vinci Code" is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits. The genre's future is limitless, with the following obvious plots:

Bill Clinton is directly descended from Henry VIII; Hillary is his third cousin. Jack Ruby was Ronald Reagan's half-brother. Dick Cheney has been dead for five years; the vice president is a clone created by Halliburton in 1998. The Laffer Curve is the secret sign of the Carlyle Group. Michael Moore is the founder of the Carlyle Group, which started World War I. The New York Times is secretly run by the Rosicrucians (this is revealed on the first page of Chapter 47 of "The Da Vinci Code" if you look at the 23rd line through a kaleidoscope). Jacques Chirac is descended from Judas.

Cordially,

[ClancyJ]

I say "good for you" in pointing out the hypocrisy even here.

[RobbyS]

The divinity of Jesus is based on a historical claim: that Jesus rose from the dead. Christian faith, if it means anything, is the belief that that claim is true and does not depend on how you or I "feel" about the matter. Acceptance of that claim is what distinguishes one from the Jews, from Muslims, and from the pagans. It even distinguishes Christians from Hindus, who are willing to accept Jesus' divinity (as an avatar of the divine) but not his humanity.

[PigRigger]

Prove, from the bible alone, that Christ was NOT married....

True, it is never stated directly that Christ was not married. Yet, you would think at His crucifixion and burial they would have pointed out His wife and Children in some manner, as they did His mother.

Of course, those that believe He was will state that those pieces of the Gospels, and the New Testament, were conveniently left out to support His Devinity....

[Revolting cat!]

The author's name was Rolf Hochhuth.

[RobbyS]

Anything aimed at the Church will strike at Jesus. If the Church has been living a lie, it is a lie about Jesus. Muslims do not respect us, because this is exactly what they believe. The Koran teaches them that Jesus was not the son of God, that Jesus never rose from the dead, because he was not crucified, that the only way properly to honor Jesus is to embrace Islam.

[VRWCmember]

It says something else that they would not dare make a "major motion picture" based on a book that likewise mocks Islam.

I'm still waiting for Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to make a major motion picture of "The Satanic Verses" for worldwide release.

[ClancyJ]

Just what do you find in a movie that claims the Bible lied and that Christ was not as those believers were led to believe that makes you want to "own" it.

I have a question, are you a Christian?

I am sure there are many Jewish people who don't believe that Jesus is the Savior that will gladly support this movie. But, they are not seeing a movie that claims God lied to them. To them being blasphamous against our Savior is nothing. But, it is to us.

[RobbyS]

Amazing how a lie can become part of the Liberal canon.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Prove, from the bible alone, that Christ was NOT married. It would have been *VERY* odd for any rabbi or, for that matter nearly any 30 year old man, to not be married; so normal that it would bear no comment.

It is actually easier to prove he wasn't married than it is to prove it. Even though the Bible is silent on this.

If Jesus was married, then the wife would accompany Him everywhere he went...no mention of her cooking, cleaning or even nagging...or even being there at the death, removal from the cross, or even at the Tomb to take care of the body... a wifely duty.

[VRWCmember]

The Da Vinci Code is not "historical" either, but simply a piece of fiction a la "National Treasure."

But the Knights Templar and the Society of Masons are real. Are you suggesting that there isn't really an invisible map on the back of the Declaration of Independence? Next you'll be trying to tell me that the Lost Ark of the Covenant is not really stored in a secret archive building in Washington DC?

[Luis Gonzalez]

The fundamentalist aspect of the far right conservatives is basically anti-intellectuallistic in nature, which is sad.

This is a work of fiction base on some long-standing stories and theories centered around the Holy Grail...it's a great yarn.

Here's a clue...The Spiderman movies are not an attack on humanity just because they portray a human being who emerges into a super being.

It's fiction.

So were the Satanic Verses...

[FostersExport]

You’ll have a difficult time trying to get everyone to agree that the church has never done anything wrong.

Jesus himself has a far better image.

[ClancyJ]

What is there to enjoy when a man chooses to write fiction denigrating the Christ who died on the cross that man (if they accept Him and follow Him) might have eternal life.

What is there to enjoy that this Christ has to be the subject so unvalued that He is fair game to cast the ignorant into unbelief of what He has done for those same ignorant?

[dmz]

Do a FR search on da vinci code. read threads (some many hundreds long). YOu'll get the controversy right quick that way.

[Michamilton]

Did Mel Gibson slander real people in his movies? The Da Vinci Code tells lies about Christ, Constatine, and slanders many real people of the Catholic Church. Mel at least renamed the people, so not to confuse anyone about what is history and what is not.

Braveheart uses real names and events in a fictionalized setting (much as the Da Vinci Code does) and was criticized for it at the time. Here's the section on historical accuracy from the Wikipedia article on the film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart)

-------------------------------

Historical Accuracy

Braveheart is essentially a work of fiction, which draws inspiration from real historical events. However, due to the intense level of detail in costuming, makeup and special effects, audiences may incorrectly assume that the production is intended to be historically accurate. Some of the "inaccuracies" in Braveheart may have been motivated by artistic reasons. The anachronistic kilts worn by the Scots make the rebels more visually distinctive, the incomplete armor and missing helmets allow viewers to recognize the actors, and changes to characters and names make the story easier to follow. Modifications to the sequence of events create dramatic juxtapositions, allowing different lines in the story to appear to occur simultaneously. Some noted critiques include:

1. Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king.
2. Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son. (Note: this idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith.) Gibson was criticised for his portrayal of Isabella's future husband, Edward II of England. Although most historians agree that Edward was homosexual, many complained that the film presented demeaning stereotypes towards Edward. In the commentary, Mel Gibson explained he had not intended to show hatred towards anyone portrayed in the film (including the English). It should also be recalled that Mel Gibson did not write the screenplay.
3. The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. The actual conflict was more of an ambush of the English as they attempted to cross the river Forth. (It is rumoured that Gibson told a Scottish local the bridge was removed as it got in the way, and the local replied "that's what the English found" [1].) The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle. Curiously, the fight shown in the film is more like the Battle of Bannockburn 17 years later, with English cavalry charging Scottish schiltrons and being repulsed.
4. The film creates the impression that William Wallace invented the Scottish schiltrons and handed out pikes just before the battle. While Wallace did bring in the innovation of the schiltron (based upon a Greek Phalanx), what is certainly not true is that he handed out the spears used just before the battle - his troops first had to be trained in their use and they had to be trained in how to deploy as a schiltron
5. Edward I's second wife, Margaret, whom he married in 1299, is absent from the film, although the span of history covered in the production includes this year. This implies his first wife Eleanor of Castile was his only spouse.
6. The film shows Irish conscripts switching sides and joining Wallace's forces at the Battle of Falkirk. The Irish forces were hired mercenaries who, from all accounts, fought well for Edward I. The Celtic soldiers who did display some rebellious tendencies were the Welsh, who had been conquered about a decade earlier. Edward I intended to use them as the first wave of attack and essentially as schiltron fodder. They did not take kindly to such intentions, even if they did not actually switch sides.
7. The film implies that Wallace's rebellion took place against a background of a fairly lengthy English occupation of Scotland. Actually, they had only invaded Scotland the year before (1296) and the mass hanging of Scottish nobles which Wallace witnessed as a boy could not have occurred at that time. There is also no record of Scottish nobles being invited to a peace talks with Edward I and then being betrayed - if anything, Edward courted the nobles as he needed their support.
8. The sword carried by Gibson is a 16th century Scottish claymore. While a sword which is claimed to have belonged to Wallace (although this is disputed) exists in Scotland, it is significantly simpler.
9. There is some controversy about whether the jus prima noctis (also known as the droit de seigneur), the supposed right of a Lord to deflower virgins in his territory, actually existed, but it certainly never existed in either England or Scotland.
10. It's unclear whether Wallace had a wife or what her name was, but according to Scottish tradition her name was Marion Braidfute, apparently her name was changed to Murron in the film so audiences would not confuse her with Maid Marian from the Robin Hood stories.
11. Wallace's long-standing hatred for the English may not have been because of his wife's death. According to one legend, it arose from the fact that two English soldiers challenged Wallace over some fish he had caught. The argument escalated into a fight, resulting in Wallace killing the soldiers.
12. The then-future King Robert the Bruce is described as "Earl of Bruce", but he was actually the youngest son of the Earl of Carrick Carrick is an ancient district in south-west Scotland, and Bruce (more accurately "de Brus") was Robert I's family name, of Norman origin.
13. Braveheart suggests Wallace supported the Bruce claim to the Scottish throne; however, Wallace supported the Balliol claim while Bruce was convinced of his father's rightful succession.
14. The reality of William Wallace's capture and execution was far worse than shown in the film.
15. The movie depicts Robert the Bruce's father (who was also named Robert) as a leper. There is no historical record of this, though Bruce himself contracted a skin disease before his death that has been alleged to be leprosy.
16. Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk. He did eventually switch sides but this was a few years later and as a result of a dispute with the Comyns (not depicted in the film) who supported the Balliol claim to the throne (as had Wallace himself). The Scottish war effort collapsed a few years later because of the defeat of their French allies by the Flemish at Courtrai in 1302. Wallace was hunted down when the Scots were forced to surrender in 1305.
17. In his speech before the battle of Stirling Bridge, Mel Gibson's Wallace alludes to a hundred years of tyranny. In fact, the 13th century was one of the few centuries when Anglo-Scottish relations were largely peaceful. This changed after the accidental death of Alexander III in 1286 and of his heiress, the Maid of Norway shortly after, when Edward I was invited by the Scottish magnates to resolve the dispute over the Scottish crown (to which there were thirteen claimants), and used this opportunity to revive English claims of overlordship. However, he chose John Balliol as the King of Scotland, although Balliol was later to oppose him with disastrous consequences.
18. The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305, in Westminster, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down a fresh rebellion of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce.
19. The film depicts Edward I defenestrating a friend and (implied) lover of the Prince of Wales. Edward never killed or harmed his son's lovers.
20. In battle, Wallace is shown painted blue with woad, a custom recorded of the ancient Picts, but one that had become extinct at least five centuries before his time, if not earlier.
21. The Scots are depicted as living in squalid, almost subterranean, houses of primitive character. In fact, by the late 13th century, Scotland was a small but reasonably prosperous medieval kingdom, with numerous small towns and many abbeys and cathedrals, much as in the rest of western Europe.
22. Some of the characters who supported Wallace are seen saying his name in Gaelic after he has sacked the English fort. This is doubtful as Wallace was a Lowlander and would have spoken Scots as his first language as would those who lived around him.
23. There is no evidence that Scotsmen came from all over the country to support Wallace: Scotland was still a feudal state and people would not leave their lands without their Lord's permission, regardless of whom he supported
24. The playing of bagpipes in the film is also wrong - these would not exist in Scotland until the 16th century.
25. There is no record of any disarmament of the Scottish people by Edward I.
26. The Scots certainly wouldn't have worn the philamore seen in the film - this wasn't seen until the 16th century. Scottish dress was the same as English at the time.
27. William Wallace was a military innovator - his armies certainly wouldn't have charged into battle. He instead used the Schiltron to fight.

Gibson, in his commentary to the film, admits many of these historical inaccuracies such as prima nocte quite candidly.

[bordergal]

I ask, so what? Mel is free to disagree, he is not free to censor.

[zook]

Let me know if you want to plan some kind of search or expedition!

[VRWCmember]

Prove, from the bible alone, that Christ was NOT married....

True, it is never stated directly that Christ was not married. Yet, you would think at His crucifixion and burial they would have pointed out His wife and Children in some manner, as they did His mother.

Of course, those that believe He was will state that those pieces of the Gospels, and the New Testament, were conveniently left out to support His Devinity....

Regarding marriage, Christ talked about the two becoming one flesh, and about what God has joined together let no man divide asunder. Christ also talked about being the Bridegroom who would come later to take the Church -- his Bride -- away to be with him in His Father's house. The Apostle Paul speaks of the qualifications of leaders in the Church and lists among them husband of one wife. He also speaks of the Church as being the Bride of Christ. If Christ had taken a wife when he walked the earth as a man, then the Church would be his second bride, and Christ would not be the husband of one wife. Therefore, the notion that Christ married Mary Magdelene (or anyone else) during his 33 years on earth is contrary to Scripture from a hermeneutical perspective.