Film: The DaVinci Code

[DigitalDuality]

^
Surely there's quite a bit of fallacy..and alot of fiction gets taken as fact. That's the problem with displaying facts and research in a piece of fiction.

Unlike Dan Brown, i'm not a fan of various conspiracy theories, there's no historical evidence that proves Mary M. had sexual relations with Jesus, or carried his child for instance.

But alot of what he has said, is readily available information about the growth and changes made to christianity over the years.

I've seen the Catholic books out on store shelves trying to damn it every way they can think of. But i think it's a matter of picking what to accept as fact, what to be skeptical about, to distinguish his research from his fiction and what to write off as incorrect.. or just flat out wrong. I think if you can do that, you get much more from his books.

 

[Petersko]

Actually, a lot of his material is taken directly from a book I read five or six years ago - "The Templar Revelation", a book extremely popular with conspiracy nuts, but thoroughly discredited.

 

[DigitalDuality]

^Yes is it is..
I believe all these were his main sources..
The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince;

Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln;

The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, both by Margaret Starbird. (Starbird, a self-identified Catholic, has her books published by Matthew Fox’s outfit, Bear & Co.)

Another influence, at least at second remove, is The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker.

The problem i have.. is that mostly those who wish to attack christianity prop up all.. most. or alot of these things Da Vinci Code and the sources themselves claim. Catholics/Christians do nothing but attack the living hell out of it.

Of all the books made about this.. i have been searching for an.. objective as possible critique.

But you cannot tell me that Christians have not stolen holidays from pagans.... that the story of Pilate isn't suspicious, that Constantine and various kings included, excluded and changed things around, that the idea of a gender balance in Christianity was wiped out long long ago largely due to Rome's patriarch.. and continued on by Victorians, Puritans, and a multitude of eras.. to the point its even present today. That whole gospels have been lost, destroyed, and even some found, later claimed to be heresy due do political agendas of religious instittuions. That Catholics started lies about Mary M being a prostitute. etc.. i could go on and on.

Take the Sabbath day for instance. Is it Saturday or Sunday? Jews think its saturday.. Christians disagree. The date was moved to convert pagans from a shared day. As stated by Zorn once before in another thread.. if there's a discrepancy between the Jews and Christians over the accuracy of something, nine times out of ten, you're better off looking at the Jewish texts... b/c christianity has been famous for changing around their religion.. as if God called up on the hotline.

I think the important thing.. is to get people to question their religion.. and at least look into it, rather than accepting it from a preacher's or parent's mouth just because they said so. And realize .. alot of common thoughts about stories, characters, etc.. is actually incorrect in the bible at times, or has huge potential to be ( looking past the supernatural stuff of course).

 

[DigitalDuality]

Some similar threads covering these issues:
Lucifer/Devil/Satan's Imagery
History Of The Bible, Accuracy Etc.
Jesus... Mr. Popular The Da Vinci Code.....

 

[cravNbeets]

i started angels and demons yesterday and i cant put it down cant wait to read Da Vinci Code. as far as the film goes, whomever said harrison ford as langdon i totally agree with..... if it was harrison ford 12 years ago if russelle crow comes anywhere near that film i'd boycott. i know he prolly doesnt fit the perameters (physical) of langdon, i'd like to see johnny depp sign on

 

[Petersko]

But you cannot tell me that Christians have not stolen holidays from pagans.... that the story of Pilate isn't suspicious, that Constantine and various kings included, excluded and changed things around, that the idea of a gender balance in Christianity was wiped out long long ago largely due to Rome's patriarch.. and continued on by Victorians, Puritans, and a multitude of eras.. to the point its even present today. That whole gospels have been lost, destroyed, and even some found, later claimed to be heresy due do political agendas of religious instittuions. That Catholics started lies about Mary M being a prostitute. etc.. i could go on and on.

No I can't. Catholicism is found on the back of war, lies and propaganda.

But I refuse to make the classic mistake of "acceptance by association". If I tell you three truths while I tell you one lie, you may believe the lie because you know the three truths are correct.

Sure, some of Browns claims are accurate. But some of them are wrong, and others are just unsupportable conclusions.

 

[Psyastic]

Upcoming Film: The DaVinci Code

Check out the trailer:

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/thedavincicode/

5 More months, but I'm already really excited. The book is freakin great and with the director as Ron Howard and an all star cast including Tom Hanks and Ian McKellan, this looks to be quite good. I can't wait!

 

[Jabberwocky]

I saw them filming in Edinburgh. This guy in a tux was hanging out a hotel window and there were loads of cameras and lighting etc. When i got home i read in the paper that that's what they were filming so if you see a red Peugeot 106 drive past in the background......IT'S ME :D
And i'll want royalties!

Look out for that scene.

 

[AmorRoark]

I thought the book SUCKED so I can only imagine the quality of this film. Oh, what were you thinking Ron Howard? Don't you have enough money?

 

[posner]

I thought the book SUCKED so I can only imagine the quality of this film. Oh, what were you thinking Ron Howard? Don't you have enough money?

I agree. The book insults its readers. I think Ron Howard was thinking, "I make completely insignificant films. I think this would be perfect for me."

 

[DigitalDuality]

I thought the book SUCKED so I can only imagine the quality of this film. Oh, what were you thinking Ron Howard? Don't you have enough money?

While i definately feel the book was "airport pulp" as alasdairm once called it, and definately a very mainstream read, what exactly did you not like about it?

The entire reason i loved this book is b/c it was written, not so much in style, but on a level of bullshit crap like Tom Clancy etc.. but presented ideas that most mainstream america doesn't know, never came across, or even contemplated.

I would fathom to guess a good deal of people read this book.. and questioned some very basics of their religious teachings and beliefs. That's what made it exciting to me. Now while i wouldn't take every claim in this book as fact by any means, it does tell alot about christian history the average public isn't presented in church..and it's a bit nice to see the Danielle Steel crowd be challenged a little bit.

 

[SA]

the book was "airport pulp" as alasdairm once called it

LOL! I must have missed that the first time around. That is precisely where I read my copy last february - at the airport and on the plane. Even stranger, when I got to my seat on the plane, sitting in the seat next to mine was a carry bag exactly like mine. I had gone to great lengths to pick out my bag (when I had bought it), making sure that it was not one that everyone and their mother had. The odds of running into someone with the same bag were not that special. The odds of seeing the same bag sitting on the seat next to mine on a transatlantic flight - I should have picked up a lottery ticket for that night's draw.

I got chatting with the owner of The Bag, exchanged some stories, shared some laughs. When the plane took off, as everyone else began rustling through the pages of their complimentary in-flight newsprint, we decided to join the reading ritual. We both reached into our respective The Bag and pulled out... yep, you guessed it - The Davinci Code. I won, mine was the Special (colour) Illustrated Edition.

I picked up and read "Angels and Demons" on the return trip. I enjoyed it more.

I can't picture Tom Hanks in that role. Will certainly go and see this one.

 

[posner]

what exactly did you not like about it?

The entire reason i loved this book is b/c it was written, not so much in style, but on a level of bullshit crap like Tom Clancy etc.

Although I think you answered your own question, I'll say this: A book is not a whore. The problem is that the da Vinci Code acts like one.

 

[DigitalDuality]

whether it be music, books, or movies.. sometimes it's best to dumb it down a bit and make it a bit "pop" and mainstream..so the masses get a taste or a peak into another perspective, otherwise they'll just go back to watching infomercials.

 

[posner]

^ That's fine as long as I don't have to listen, read, or watch it.

I know what you mean, but the Beatles were pop and mainstream and they fuckin rocked.

 

[mariacallas]

I finished the entire goddamn book in a record 8 hours. Twas good.
The extraordinary thing about the Da Vinci Code is that there is nothing extraordinary about it, and yet the author easily manages to hook us and reel us in. The structure of this mystery is entirely conventional. The prose style is stilted and ocassionally cheesy ; the characters bland and often stereotypical ; the only unique invention is a large albino hitman who happens to be an Opus Dei numerary, complete with cillice and a whip for self flaggelation.
There is also a British aristocrat scholar with leg braces who sounds like a compendium of all the eccentric old Brits we've ever seen in the movies.

Even the mystery isnt original : The Da Vinci Code is merely the mystery fiction version of a controversial nonfiction bestseller of the 1970s . The title of which I will refrain from mentioning, so as not to spoil your fun.

I agree that there are some interesting sections that tackle the pagan symbolism in the "religious" paintings of Leonardo, and the early Catholic Church's campaigns to supress competing religions by appropriating their symbols, rituals, et al . It was refreshing to read because these were narrated simply by the Langdon character in the form of simple lectures. Getting a grade one lecture on the Fibonacci sequence and the golden proportion was quite a treat too. Being Catholic myself, I had fun reading this stuff....and it obviously did not affect me or my beliefs in any way at all and i think anybody who takes this too seriously should be subjected to water torture and a thorough whipping.

I noticed also that Brown often seemed to be on the verge of criticizing the Church and the Opus dei and then he swiftly backs off. Cant blame him Clunky, un original, chicken - and yet I had dark circles under my eyes and a migraine because I couldnt put the book down. Amazing. The Da Vinci Code's main strength than, IMHO, is its blistering pace - free of literary aspirations or anything that can bog down the mock-serious plot. It's a meaty story and I can only hope the movie will leave me satisfied as well. ERGO : I agree with DD dammit yes it is a good book and it doesnt deserve to be called "horrible" or whatever. It's a pretty damn decent read IMHO. Kthks

 

[AmorRoark]

Taken from a review I read written by Timothy Riedy, titled "Breaking the Code", published in the Commonweal Journal on Sept. 12, 2003:

The problem, it seems, is that some people have taken the story to be true. Indeed, Brown has encouraged this confusion by insisting upon the book's historical accuracy. Asked in an interview how much of the novel is based on fact, he replied: "All of it."

At least one expert disagrees. Writing in the New York Times last month, Bruce Boucher, a curator at the Art Institute of Chicago, disputed several facts in the book, including Brown's contention that Mary Magdalene was pictured in DaVinci's Last Supper, disguised as the Apostle John. (Brown offers this as partial proof of her relationship with Jesus.) It's true that no one would mistake DaVinci's John for a linebacker. Still, Brown seems guilty of confusing art with fact.

Less has been written about the book's theology, but it's just as problematic. Brown relies heavily on the Gnostic Gospels, predictably presenting them as secret texts that reveal the real "truth" about Jesus' life and teachings. This is familiar stuff: Elaine Pagels for the Robert Ludlum set. But it also an incredibly simplistic reading of both history and theology.

More troublesome is Brown's reliance on Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. Published in 1983, the book centers on the Prieure de Sion, a secret society founded in the twelfth century, and a nineteenth-century French priest who argued that French Merovingian dynasty of the seventh century carried the royal blood of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. At one point in The DaVinci Code, Leigh Teabing, a character named for Leigh and Baigent, pulls their book from his shelf and declares: "To my taste, the authors made some dubious leaps of faith in their analysis, but their fundamental premise is sound." Really?

Back in 1990, University of Chicago Professor Martin E. Marry called Holy Blood "sensationally misguiding." "I saw nothing at all in the earlier book--absolutely hokey," he told me via email. "I've not read The DaVinci Code but know it's built on the same kind of thing. There's no hint of a clue of [a] whisper of evidence in any documents from the time .... These things come and go every few years and this one will pass, too. Good entertainment, but 'ungrounded.'"

Brown has argued that historical arguments are themselves suspect because history is written "by those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived." This is a cop-out. It is disingenuous for Brown to present his book as factual and then hide behind questions like "how historically accurate is history itself?" He should stick to fiction.

http://search.epnet.com.ezproxy2.lib.depaul.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=10811330

Authors who either knowingly or ignorantly publish radical historical inaccuracies piss me off to no end.

 

[SA]

A book is not a whore. The problem is that the da Vinci Code acts like one.

So does The Bible, through those unscrupulous pimps (preachers/evangelists), yet millions upon millions buy into that whoredom too. The difference here is that the The DaVinci Code was written with the purpose of making money for its author.

Beyond that, The DaVinci Code is a novel.

novel: a extended fictional work in prose; usually in the form of a story

People should really enjoy it as such, and nothing more.

I think the thread title, "Film: The DaVinci Code", refers to an upcoming fictional thriller motion feature, not a factual documentary. When the time comes, I plan to rate it strictly on that basis, and not embark on a crusade to prove or disprove its factual accuracy or the author's true intentions.

 

[posner]

^

That's not what I meant.

 

[Psyastic]

Beyond that, The DaVinci Code is a novel.

novel: a extended fictional work in prose; usually in the form of a story

People should really enjoy it as such, and nothing more.

I think the thread title, "Film: The DaVinci Code", refers to an upcoming fictional thriller motion feature, not a factual documentary. When the time comes, I plan to rate it strictly on that basis, and not embark on a crusade to prove or disprove its factual accuracy or the author's true intentions.

Well said. I really can't stand it when people start saying that a book/movie should be something or start delving into to its factual reliance. If you over analyze the validity of the material you may miss the fact that the piece of work is provacatively entertaining.