The Da Vinci Code Movie

[amal81 3]

You may have have read the ultra famous and somewhat controversial book named the 'Da Vinci code' by the author Dan Brown. 

Well as of 19th May the Movie named 'Da vinci code' is releasing worldwide, which has been directed by Ron Howard (Beautiful Mind and Cindrella man).

So what are your expectations about this movie?  Are u in any way offended by this movie or do u like 'Conspiricy Theories'?  Are u going to watch this movie or as a person with serious religious beliefs shun this movie?

[Meg 368]

When I read the book, my first thought was I had to get a large print copy for my mom.  As I anticipated, she found it fascinating.

As to my expectations for the movie, I expect Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to do a good job with it.  I hope they stick close to the book and don't go off on odd tangents the way some book-to-movie ventures do.  The book has enough twists and turns of its own that it doesn't need the moviemakers adding in additional ones.

[defcon pilot 0]

Yes...

Y'know, I think I might get the book, too.

And I always love conspiracy theories.

[Ma8thew 77]

Book was good. But apparently the film sucks. People will watch it anyway, if only because the catholic church (and others) say you shouldn't

[kiknos 0]

The conspiracy is against the Roman church that taked a strong position against american war in Iraq, so USA gov has decided to help the production of the movie.

The story is a fantastic story. I ask myself what would happen if someone write something like that about Mohammed...but I'm Christian, I understand the uman stupidity and my religion learn me to forgive and forget. Read the book, go to cinema and think at "Lord of the rings" the "Da Vinci code" is almost the same thing.

[Alkaola 18]

Da Vinci code is a back lie to destroy the christian church ....... it's just fantasy

[defcon pilot 0]

"Lord of the rings" the "Da Vinci code" is almost the same thing.quote>

Eh? How are they the same? The Da Vinci Code is about a conspiracy theory, wheras The Lord of the Rings is more of a "good vs. evil, good wins, evil withers" thing.

[dhoppeii 12]

The Da Vinci Code, which I have read 3 times is a brilliant work of fiction. The key word here is "fiction". I would suggest everyone read Dan Brown's other novels including Deception Point. The man is a master of the written word.

As to the movie, I must believe that it will be a great work of cinema. You can't go wrong with Ron Howard and Tom Hanks working together.

[xiziz 11]

The book is very good, however i think thers more truth in the book than most cristians care to belive. Brown filled in the gaps, but the story still has to be based of, and that material that its based of dose exist in reality, he has also written what these texts are in the book.

Offcource, one should not read the book as a text of truth, sine a lot has been filled in to be able to make a good book. Which it indeed is.

As for the Movie, i dont have any high expectations of it, ive seen the American Film Industry make a lot of very bad movies based on great books, and just as a whole, most of the american movies are crap.

(Edit, i thought i might add that i was Catholic, but ive said up my religion and nowadays i belive in what i feel like, not really clining to any mainstreem religion. And no, i gave up Catholosism long before Mr. Brown even started writing "The Da Vinci Code". And i read it because of the title, Leonaro was a big person, so big infact that even one of the Turtles got namned after him(Yeah, that was one of my favorite programs as a kid). Oh, and im not meaning to offend anyone)

[jvlm.123 0]

I haven't read the book, and probably won't see the movie... It's not that I'm offened by it in any way (I'm a Catholic, well... I'm not HARDCORE....In that I don't know that many prayers, don't go to mass often, hate when religion is brought into things... I'm also open minded if someone has a theory about my or other peoples' religions.). I just don't honestly care! In my opinion if it is true - which I doubt - it is true, and if it's false - it's false. In my opinion my Church would want to open its eyes to the 21st century - eg. allow priests to get married, female priests, approve contraception - the list goes on and on...

Anyway, I don't really care - there are other more important things going on...

(P.S. - Sorry if I've offended anyone there...)

[cityhawk 12]

Chances are, I won't go see that movie not b/c I'm offended but because I just don't go to the movies much, mainly b/c of money. However, if I were going to see it, I would go just for the thrills of it; I might see some things that are very controversial to my religion, but it's just a movie and, hopefully, isn't meaning to make fun of any particular religion(s). Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the movie.

[Micah 16]

I haven't read the book, but I am going to go see the movie. I'm interested to see if it is all about special affects or if it is really about the book.

[RiverCocytus 0]

well, the cannes folks 'canned' it, I hear (sorry about no link)

said the movie is kind of sterile, telegraphed, preachy... drags on.

Its hard to beat the raw emotional visceral power of the Passion... I think maybe the movie is presented in the sense not of being an interesting 'what if' thriller and mystery, but a political 'lesson' or a social message. Sad, really, if true, that they could mess up such a terrific story.

Oh, and to those who believed the book, (for whatever reason) you guys are in trouble. As a story teller myself, I know that the story teller's job is not to tell the truth; its just to make the story interesting enough so you can remember key points. Its a real talent who can tell the truth AND make it interesting. The rest of us are fine spinning our yarns. Mr. Brown, Rawlings, Snicket, Grisham, King et al are very good at spinning those yarns. I think Mr. Brown may have gone a step too far in claiming (in the beginning of the book) that it is factual. Opus Dei (the Work of God) who is a tremendous force for good in the world was very unhappy, as was the catholic Church. And the Priory of Sion? Anti-semetic, french nationalist group that was a recreation of what was originally a monastic order that passed away.

So, if you want to take it as fact, you'll end up with some serious cognative dissonance. But if you take it like any story with a grain of salt, you'll enjoy yourself immensely. I sure hope the folks at Cannes are just fuddy-duddy avant garde moviophiles and not speaking for the actual quality of the movie!

As a Christian, I'll still see it... I'm sad though, to think that I might be supporting something anti-Christian. The lines have become very vague; but I'm aware that even paying taxes I end up supporting things anti-Christian. Render unto Caesar, and all that.

Hoping for the Best

RC

PS: It would be truly gracious if they admit the fallacy at the end of the movie, so that people know who the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei really are. Reputations can be ruined and great and beautiful ideas can be destroyed in such pettiness. God help us all.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I probably will see the movie.  I read the book, and Angels and Demons.  Both rather transparent attacks on the Roman Catholic Church.  However, both books are fantasy set in modern times, so they fit into my general reading pattern.

I do not intend to read any more of Dan Brown's books.  He is not a strong enough author to keep my interest.  If he is going to write science fiction (Angels and Demons) he should pick a better premise.  Demonic organizations in the RC church (or out of it for that matter) are purely conjecture and the writing is just not good enough.

[brancra 1,060]

I was amused by The Da Vinci Code, and I thought it was an interesting read. I Definitely loved the descriptive detail within the book. However, concerning its view, I place this with a certain movie about Jesus made in the 80s, and with "The Passion of the Christ". Why? Because each movie caused a furor because it was reported to be an attack on a religion. Remember, a lot of Jewish organisations were offended by the Passion because it portrayed Jews in a very unflattering light. As "The Da Vinci Code" will cast Christianity, obviously a very popular religion, in an unflattering light, they fall into the same category in that respect. A lot of people aren't exactly basing their faith off of a movie and novel anyway. 

"The movie is an attack on Christianity!"

Deal with it. 

"The movie shows the truth about the Church!"

Right. And Muslim terrorists show how Islam is s'posed to be practised.

Right now, I'm more concerned with Tom Hanks's hair. Long and slicked-back is really not a good look for him. I'd rather see Harrison Ford in his role anyway.

[ginchael 1]

Honestly, the book's subject matter is fascinating, but it's just not that great of a book. I'm a Catholic, albeit somewhat liberal and open minded (I'm reading the Gospel of Judas right now), but if anything I'll just go see it on a weekend with some friends. I'm really not offended by it at all.

[ephorex_77 0]

I wonder how Muslims worldwide would react if I were to make a film saying that Mohammed actually had a gay partner or perhaps that Mohammed's daughter was illegitimate and that his "real descendants" are actually in hiding somewhere in South Africa being persecuted by Muslim clerics. 

What I have just written is as abhorrent to the Muslim faith as the "revelation" that Christ fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, a one-time prostitute and that His "children" (it's actually quite painful typing this blasphemy) are being persecuted by His own Church, the Catholic Church.

So many people on this board have said "Tough", or "Pfftt....get over it". Well, let's say I did make a film as described above. When the outcry (and possible attacks/killings by Muslim radicals) occurs, should I thumb my nose at them and say "Pfft...tough luck"?? Would anyone on this board here who have said "Deal with it Christians" say the same thing to Muslims?? I doubt it. Christians, especially the "stuffy, witch-burning" Catholics are fair game when it comes to bashing aren't they??

The thing is, the book presents as fact what is actually rubbish, so please don't tote out the old line that "It's all harmless fiction". It really doesn't cut it. A "fact page" at the start of the book for instance, asserts that those organisations do exist. All right fine. What to the uninitiated, what exactly does a "fact" page bring to mind?? Is that not deception?? Does the book encourage (although not explicitly) the reader to take what is written as fact or at least, partly true??

Also, violent computer games are works of the imagination. Violent books and shows are also works of fiction, generally. So tell me, is there anyone who is going to assert that watching/playing/reading books filled with violence has NO affect on most people's mentalities?? Nobody would be stupid enough to say that works of fiction have no bearing on how people perceive things. 

We all know that the media perverts and distorts views and has certain biases. I know that, and I suffer from that bias too. How something is presented WILL without a doubt have an effect on how people view things. Just as it is with this movie. Although everyone is clamouring that it is fiction, that it is "made up", there ARE effects on how people view the Church. 

And you know, presenting Opus Dei, an actual organisation, as a maligned, megalomaniacal group is, in fact, slander and libel. If I were to write a novel saying that my next door neighbour was a sado-masochist who chopped up little girls for fun, I'd get sued, and fast, no matter how fictitious my novel claims itself to be. 

So please, don't trot out the "it's fiction" line and then sneer at the "extreme reaction" of the Church. Any rational minded person can see that the Da Vinci Code is damaging.

[ginchael 1]

As a Catholic, I understand where you are coming from, Ephorex...but you really have to take this with a grain of salt. A lot of books and movies are presented as factual when they actually are not--an example of this (although a lot less controversial, I'll admit it) is the movie Anchorman: The Ron Burgundy Story.

The New Testament is the only record we have of Jesus' life, and in all honesty the books that were to be included were voted on by the Roman Emporer Constantine at Nicea. It most definitely could not be true, but then again, it most definitely could be true. It's just now, in 2006, there is no way to tell. So, because there is that doubt, there will always be conspiracy theories. It's the same thing with the Lincoln assasination, Pearl Harbor, and September 11th. Although we know the general outline, there is no way of knowing the truth. So there are literally thousands of theories (a lot of them really out there) about these events.

So, in conclusion, just take it with a grain of salt. People get slandered all the time by conspiracy theories--essentially, that's all they are good for. :;-);

[confused04 14]

As we all know, religion is always a testy subject to discuss in a public forum so just wanted to warn people to take feelings about nation and religion very carefully so we don't step on anyone's toes.

First, I plan on going to see this movie.  Its probably going to be entertaining.  And thats the stipulation, entertaining.  NOT informative, not eye-opening... just a good story, thats all.  There are literally thousands of movies based on conspiracy theories, but I'm pretty sure none of take them seriously.

Second, jeez, if American movies suck... don't watch them, don't complain about them, don't speak about them.  Its kinda annoying if you go around saying America _____  sucks cause I certainly don't reciprocate my personal feelings about some attitudes in here.  I ask that you please say things respectfully and I don't anticipate everyone liking American things (cause I certainly don't).  But I do feel as though my toes have beens stepped on.

Third...another conspiracy theory was put into a conspiracy theory movie thread.  The United States government did NOT help fund this movie.  With record sales and a huge base of fans, the producers and marketers of this film had hundreds of millions of dollars to work with out of their own pockets.  The United States government might be wasteful, but they don't fund movies out of spite, we have rich people to do that on their own.

Fourth, the theory is interesting, but I certainly don't think it should be that offensive.  Its an alternate take that DOESNT equate to truth.  There are points in the movie that make you think, and that's good.  Religion should NOT be taken blindly and questioning is always a good thing, especially in mass organized religions such as the Catholic church.  Authority is not to be trusted naturally.  I don't trust certain things from my government, and I question that.  Because some says they are the official word of the bible doesnt negate the fact that they are a powerful government like instituation with similar powers. 

[ginchael 1]

Religion should NOT be taken blindly and questioning is always a good thing, especially in mass organized religions such as the Catholic church.  Authority is not to be trusted naturally.  I don't trust certain things from my government, and I question that.  Because some says they are the official word of the bible doesnt negate the fact that they are a powerful government like instituation with similar powers. quote>

Hear hear!

That is my belief--Questioning something is always better than accepting something blindly.  Think about it before you make your desicion, don't just accept something because a certain group or thing says it!

I will now stop spamming this thread.

[Ded 30]

Originally posted by: dhoppeii The man is a master of the written word.quote>

Hmmm... I always found the characters in Dan Brown's work ever so slightly flat.... They are all extremely shallow in terms of character depth and design. But I'll give the man credit on the whole plotline thing. He has definitely mastered that...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77 . . .

What I have just written is as abhorrent to the Muslim faith as the "revelation" that Christ fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, a one-time prostitute and that His "children" (it's actually quite painful typing this blasphemy) are being persecuted by His own Church, the Catholic Church.

. . . quote>

 

I saw this movie last night with an agnostic friend and I am having some difficulty explaining some things. 

"Why is it so offensive to think that Jesus was a husband and father?  It's not like those are bad things."

Try as I might, I'm not getting through on this point.    Maybe someone can help me explain this?

[callagrafx 3]

A dhoppeii pointed out, this is a work of FICTION based upon speculation and conspiracy theories from time immemorial....it's quite interesting to me that the Church feels threatened by works of fiction such as the Last temptation of Christ and the Da Vinci Code, are they that unsure of their faith?

Something to think about: If the Church covets marriage and the family unit as it preaches and indeed for many hundreds of years, only a Priest/Vicar/Parson could marry two people in the House of God, then their whole view of this theory is hypocritical, is it not? Another schism?

Personally, as an athiest, I found the subject matter interesting from an academic point of view but I think the one thing that everyone forgets with this type of conspiracy theory is simple human nature....who could, in all fairness, keep a secret THIS BIG for 2000 years? Can't be done (especially if you get two women together in the same bathroom)

Irrespective of your particular denomination, isn't it a good thing when these type of debates provoke thought? What makes us progress and evolve is the ability to question.

Going back on topic.....

I saw the movie last weekend and whilst the casting was excellent, the basic storyline is very stale and the twists are obvious and the pace pedestrian...no fault of Ron Howard, just the story itself.

And as for the other books, save your money, as the scenery may change and the character names may change, but all three of his other books all follow the same basic model:

academic gets dragged into trouble...meets member of opposite sex...they discover a conspiracy/cover up...they are betrayed by someone trusted...they win the day through clever manipulation and accidental discovery....at the end I wasn't sure which one I was reading.

[MayorTim 16]

I, personally, hate the book and the movie. Dan Brown presents complete fiction as fact, and Xiziz represents the general masses in falling for it (Not picking on you). The fact is, people are lazy. If they read the book, they will not take the time to actually look up any of the "Facts" in it to see if they are true, and instead most will just believe it indefinately. Basically, the entire book tries to present facts to you through narrative writing, but anyone with half a brain (and there are quite a lot of half brained people out there) would take those facts as the truth in real life, simply because of the way they are presented.

If you want the REAL facts, go to your local community chuch, and ask its pastor what parts of the book are fact and which are fiction.

[koffee 0]

I don't think the book was a work of great fiction (or non-fiction), but it was a fun, light read.  So, I'll probably see the movie.

 

Regarding slander and libel, actually slander is spoken/heard, so Dan would get hit with libel.  Since he presents his ideas as fact, he can't get off on the opinion defense.  But slanderl and libel are complex, at least in the USA.  Take Hustler Magazine v Falwell, for example.

 

I have a serious question for ephorex_77 (or anyone): I still don't get how a work of fiction is damaging to the church.  Yes, I know some people will take it as fact, but that doesn't explain it.

 

Let's say I write a book that says Jesus never even existed, and anyone who tries to get you to believe in him or worship the Catholic God is feeding you lies.  And let's say I present my book as fact.  Well, isn't that what some texts/bibles/works of some valid alterate religions say?  Is it because other religious texts claim they are right and everyone else is wrong, while Dan's book (and your example) targets a specific religion?

Btw, I had a full 12 years of RC school with curch at least once a week.  But now as an adult, I turned my back on all of that.  My choice/belief is a bit deist and a bit buddhist, with a good heaping of morals and ethics (that seem to be common to many religions) thrown in.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: koffee . . .

 

I have a serious question for ephorex_77 (or anyone): I still don't get how a work of fiction is damaging to the church.  Yes, I know some people will take it as fact, but that doesn't explain it.

 

. . .   quote>

 

I've been trying to sort this one out myself.  As far as I can tell, the damage goes like this:

Basically, the book is saying that, at the Council of Nicea, the Catholic Church did more than just edit the Bible for their political purposes.  They did a major spin doctoring job on the events that happened a couple of centuries earlier.

In other words, the church has been lying all of these years.  It can be difficult to have faith when your religious institution is actively feeding you falsehoods.  It undermines confidence in the institution.

Yes, the book is a work of fiction.  Dan Brown is pointing out a variety of historically known facts (the Council of Nicea happened, Opus Dei does exist, the Knights Templar did exist, etc) and connects the dots in a different way to form a different picture.  Some people find it interesting to look at things from a different point of view.  Others find it very unsettling.

[hello_SC4 1]

Originally posted by: MayorTim If you want the REAL facts, go to your local community chuch, and ask its pastor what parts of the book are fact and which are fiction.quote>

 

I agree with you that too many people take this book as pure fact, when it's not, although it's tempting to be understood that way.

However, what you're suggesting is like asking Microsoft which is better: the Xbox or the PlayStation. I think we all know the answer.

Anyway, I did watch the film and read the book. The book itself was entertaining and I have to say as a work of fiction I like it a lot. Of course, it can't be considered an academic text, and noone said it is. The movie, however.. Well, I wasn't as impressed by it as by the book. First of all, the storyline was adapted. Okay, maybe it was for clarity's sake, however many modifications appeared to only exist to make the film as politically correct as possible. But that wasn't the worst. The worst was that the movie itself was simply boring. Okay, so maybe I'm just not that sensitive to stuff like this, or I already knew what was going to happen because I read the book. Then again, it was amusing seeing the Smart meandring past cars and pedestrians while driving in reverse on the narrow streets of Paris..

Meg: Good point, however I have to admit that the Church's reaction to the book reminds me of their treatment of "heretics" in the Middle Ages..

[koffee 0]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

I've been trying to sort this one out myself.  As far as I can tell, the damage goes like this:

Basically, the book is saying that, at the Council of Nicea, the Catholic Church did more than just edit the Bible for their political purposes.  They did a major spin doctoring job on the events that happened a couple of centuries earlier.

In other words, the church has been lying all of these years.  

quote>

 

Ah.. I think I get it.  No, it is not that the church has been lying.  Like I said, if some other religion is right and the RC's are wrong, then yes, they are lying.

 

It is Dan's accusations that the church is intentionally lying, and then covering it up.

 

Some of the posts (like your earlier question about Jesus being a father) had me focused on those aspects which, to me, seem to be just yet another theory or take on things, just like other religions.  I wasn't thinking about the cover-up and all that.

 

Basically, though, I'm probably one of those people ephorex was talking about... just deal with it.  And if he wrote his example book, yes, I would feel the same way.  A major religion, organization, nation, or whatever is also a major target, and will face all sorts of attacks and alternate views.

 

Faith that exists in a vaccuum is worthless.  Faith that is challenged, tested, and questioned will either prove to be misguided faith or become stronger.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: koffee

Ah.. I think I get it.  No, it is not that the church has been lying.  Like I said, if some other religion is right and the RC's are wrong, then yes, they are lying.

 

It is Dan's accusations that the church is intentionally lying, and then covering it up.   quote>

That is his theory, yes.   And since that church has been recently found to be covering up other things, people might be more inclined to believe that it has a pattern of covering things up.   If things are said often enough, people tend to believe them, whether they are true or not.

Some of the posts (like your earlier question about Jesus being a father) had me focused on those aspects which, to me, seem to be just yet another theory or take on things, just like other religions.  I wasn't thinking about the cover-up and all that. quote>

I could explain the cover-up aspect of it well enough for my agnostic friend to understand.  But I couldn't explain what was so horrible about the idea of Jesus being a husband and father.  

Keep in mind that Catholics don't believe that Jesus had a brother, much less a wife and a child.  Apparently Mary and Joseph weren't supposed to be acting like husband and wife either.   I can't explain it so I'll leave that to someone else.

 

Faith that exists in a vaccuum is worthless.  Faith that is challenged, tested, and questioned will either prove to be misguided faith or become stronger.  quote>

 

Good point.  and many church officials have taken that approach and welcomed the opportunity to open a dialogue on the subject.

[koffee 0]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

I could explain the cover-up aspect of it well enough for my agnostic friend to understand.  But I couldn't explain what was so horrible about the idea of Jesus being a husband and father.  

Keep in mind that Catholics don't believe that Jesus had a brother, much less a wife and a child.  Apparently Mary and Joseph weren't supposed to be acting like husband and wife either.   I can't explain it so I'll leave that to someone else.

quote>

 

How do you explain the fact that priests and nuns can't marry?  (Or is that just self defining?)

 

And isn't there that trinity thing where they are three but still one?  (Explaining that might be hard, though.)  Cause if that is the case, and Jesus is in essence God, then it would seem logical that it would be wrong to focus on one relationship/child.

I remember the uproar about Je vous salue, Marie (Hail Mary) when that came out. in 1985.  In fact, I really doubt I would have ever discovered the film if I didn't catch the news story about religious protesters at the theater.  As a French release, it didn't hit a lot of theaters in the states, so didn't get a lot of media/religious attention.  Of course, that film made no claims to be factual, but the church really didn't like Godard's modern portrayal of Mary and Joseph.  (So much so that, I believe, the Pope condemned the film.)

Chances are, most people here never heard of that film or the uproar it caused.  It sorta makes you wonder who people will recognize and still have faith in 20 years from now: the RC church or Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code.