Film: The DaVinci Code

[Pander Bear]

"cockthirsty" is what really seals the deal.

 

[DigitalDuality]

I find it amusing and distasteful that the people here who are so cockthirsty for this movie/book are completely gung ho about overlooking facts, dissention, and the outright absence of evidence when they read TDC.

I don't waste my time on Pulp like this, but I'm pretty familiar with the historical Jesus, Christian Heresies, Gnosticism, and books like Holy Blood. YES: there are differences of opinion. YES: this subject is open to speculation and reinterpretation. However, you people appear hellbent on a popular interpretation (which claims to be as infallible as the Bible's proponents claim, btw). I'm left wondering why.

Could it be that you're very interested in taking Fundies down a peg and undermining the orthodoxy of a world religion. And forcing people to question their acceptance of established doctrine. I would like to do all those things too. I'm not, however, about to stoop to conspiracy theories masquerading as the incontrivertable evidence in order to kick start it.

I'm not either, but is it common knowledge, yes or no, that most of xtian holidays (in terms of date) are just knock offs of previous pagan ones? Is it not true that christianity wasn't solely some patriarch? Ask someone, anyone who studies christian history and biblical intepretations and they'll attest to that...and hell most of the time those people are fundies.

It's just lots of little shit like that, that i do think people should be aware of, especially if they believe in it. I'm not out to convert people away from christianity, but not to take common belief amongst the masses and what your preacher tells you to think every Sunday at face value.

The books themselves..Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, do go a long way to show the upmost respect towards the ideals of faith. It never curses though that believes nor does it belittle them.

Where it's belittling is in its inaccuracies. But as SA said, it can be enjoyed purely as a work of fiction without placing much trust in the supposed "facts" in the book. It's cliche, it's pulp, it's plot line is re-used in 2 books to a "T", but the formula is a decent one. I'd probably be able to read a third based off his little formula and still enjoy it.. but it'd be pushing it.

 

[Pander Bear]

^^
whats the point if christianity isn't some virginal perfect belief system. Every singly world faith has a history, and christianity is no exception.

No, I don't suppose its common knowledge that the placement of Christmas coincides with holidays associated with Saturn and Mithras. Does that matter? Most Christians have been exposed to the idea that Jesus was probably born in a warmer month. It doesn't bother them, because they know they're celebrating a tradition. Same thing with Christmas trees, Valentines day cards (which pretty much ceased being a christian holiday long before the founding of the first greeting card company), easter eggs, et cetera. People understand, even if its only in the back of their mind, the difference between a doctroine of faith and a holiday/liturgical tradition.

Christianity isn't just some partiarch? Well, Christ is the SON, of God, THE FATHER. The jesus movement took all commers, acording to the gospels (cannonical and apocryphal), including non-semites, women, and the cursed/posessed/diseased. You can thank the culture that adopted the stripe of Christianity that YOU ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH for the following 1600 years of adulteration and political/cultural twisting. Is that common knowledge? I guess not, even though its on TV. Does it have to be? Only if its part of some plan to to call to the attention of the devout that the secular world has some interesting opinions and information that relates to them.

Fundies, of course, wont be swayed one bit by any of this stuff. The unifying trait all fundamentalist sects share isn't strict literal interpretation, its the promise that there are forces at work that will try to sway them with words they will find compelling. Its the immunization.

The academic study of the life of the real Jesus, the early church, the European connections and legends, et cetera is something I find very appealing. The popular selling of that study is motivated by two things

1) money, of course.

2)Debasing orthodox christianity in order to shake an entire demographic into secularization and moral equivalency. Trying to get NASCAR dads to act with the same ambivalence towards religion as Reform Jews demeans them, and the vocal exponents of tripe like TDC are the ones who will walk away looking like secular humanists who think they have all the answers (something they share with findies, ironically).

I don't mean any of this to appear as a defense of Christianity, Orthodoxy, or Conservatism in general. But getting caught up in this is making yourself a pawn in the culture war, whether you like it or not. I certinly don't want the conservatives to win the war, but I'd rather see both sides destroy themselves before I see a side thats supposed to stand for logic, human dignity, and reason resort to manipulation, conjecture, and lies to win.

 

[SA]

As in the wise words of Lebowski, fuck it.

/me hands SA the bowl

Hey now! There's a deal breaker if I ever saw one!

Sold!

 

[cravNbeets]

Chuck Palahnuik is another fine example of someone who recycles their particular use of various literary tools over and over and over and over and over throughout his works, Tom Robins as well. Both are excellent authors IMO.

the obvious difference between writers like robbins and palahnuik and writers like dan brown can be summed up in 1 word:

style

as in brown doesnt have any.

i enjoyed angels and demons simply bc it was a page turner. the story eventually takes a few too many twists and turns but i still enjoyed the novel overall. da vinci code was more of the same so of course i didnt enjoy it as much but i can still see the appeal. frankly it is probably the better of the two novels.

brown's presentation of outdated, contested, or otherwise shaky contentions as hard facts works against his credibility as a historian but not a mainstream writer of fiction. middle america may find him edgy but i dont know what that has to do with me.

cc's post said it all as far as im concerned im just babbling

 

[mariacallas]

i just wanted to quote my goddamn post why?

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

Geeez people it IS a work of fiction ; either you like it or you dont but dont go debasing it based on your opinion of the author being a total bullshitter or something. Like i said the book was devoid of any pretension whatsoever....hey I consider myself a well read person...but i'm going to refrain from mentioning other authors who deserve a beating SO MUCH more than dan brown for this piece Lighten up, enjoy the goddamn story for once without having to justify your understanding of it.

 

[mariacallas]

If I were to start worrying about the scruples or politics of every author of every work I pick up at avery airport I happen to hop into, I would never read a damn word.

word brotha.

 

[silvia saint]

if you've read the book you know how it ends. i can't see why you'd want to see this considering it is apparently faithful to the novel. i can understand something old or unknown being turned into a film (lotr or sin city for example), especially if the screenplay is slightly different or it's to be directed by a big name, but really.

 

[djwhirlpool]

Film: The Da Vinci Code

Did anyone see it this weekend? I heard it was horrible. I guess if you haven't read the book you wouldn't even know what was going on in some of it. What a let down! Not that I was surprised.

**Edit**

I meant I was disapointed to hear that it wasn't all it was hyped up to be. Therefore, I was let down.

 

[SA]

Did anyone see it this weekend? I heard it was horrible. What a let down!

djwhirllpool, why would you say it was a letdown without even having seen it? I think it was just a case of being way too overhyped prior to its release. I enjoyed Angels and Demons more than The Davinci Code; I'd read them back to back, in reverse order. I mentioned before that I really couldn't picture Hanks in the main role, but will have to reserve my own judgement until I watch the film. I'll let the hype down first.

 

[cravNbeets]

even though she hasnt seen the film yet, pooly is absolutely right- a complete let down. i read angels and deamons first and was totally sucked in for 2/3 of the book simply because of the frantic pace of the plot. by the end, i was pretty disenchanted with dan brown's writing style (or lack there of) and his seemingly endless plot twists. i read da vinci code and found that it was much, much, much.....much more of the same BUT i thought it would make a great film.

i was absolutely bored to tears. hanks turned in bar none the most drab uninspired performance i've ever seen from him. all the roles were badly portrayed and undeveloped ( i blame that on the book though). the only character who actually transitioned well from the novel to the screen was 'silas' and he was still remotely corny

visually this film was atrocious as well. the scenes that flash-back to "historical" events were embarassing. i dont know ron howards body of work inside and out but i'd venture that this is his weakest offering ever.

2 stars

UTSF

 

[Banquo]

poll added

 

[SA]

hanks turned in bar none the most drab uninspired performance i've ever seen from him

When I'd said that "I really couldn't picture Hanks in the main role", I was afraid that what you described above is the impression he would leave. To me, putting Hanks in that role was akin to casting Clive Owen as James Bond. Both a mistake (imho), one was held back, one made it. Or did he?

 

[Ernestrome]

Hanks was pretty bad. IMO the film needed hammed up a lot more - Mckellen and bettany made a good effort. Tatou was ok.

 

[DigitalDuality]

As an agnostic with semi-interest in the gnostic gospels, i loved the book. I found it faulty in terms of "facts" (i also find people anal retentive in seperating fact from fiction also), i found it entertaining. It broached a very deep subject in a very mainstream airport pulp format and made it readily accessible to the masses.

If anything i love the book for being entertaining and getting people talking and questioning, not necessarily their faith, but the structures and history that they've been taught. Hopefully a great deal of people read the book.. and then went and read up on Constantine, Sacred Geometry, gnostic gospels, etc.. and expanded beyond their own little world for a moment.

After seeing the film, and i'll give it a 2 out of 5 from a person's perspective that read the book. If i hadn't read the book, i would've given it a 1 out of 5. It left out alot, didn't explain alot, and the character development sucks. Cravn is right on Tom hanks performance, absolutely horrible and bland.

I am in love with the main actress, as i was when i first saw her in Amelie. She's pure class and beauty IMO without being overly-sexed. That being said, her acting in this i found to be the best of all present, and hers wasn't all that great.

Movie sucked.

 

[mariacallas]

Man......after hearing what Cravn and DD (who both read the book like myself) said I have no other choice but to believe that it's horrible

 

[@lterEgo]

sad. i read the book and although i found the writing flat and flavorless, i thought the story itself was pretty compelling. this is one of those rare books that i figured would make a better movie. it's too bad that everything i've heard about the film so far is negative. i guess i'll wait and catch this one on netflix.

 

[L2R]

^yeah i was 50/50 on paying to see this on that same premise: The film can only improve on the book.

The one factor that sealed the deal with me not wanting to pay a cent towards that title, is i found out that a The Da Vinci Code video game is due on xbox, ps2 and pc.

Dan Brown has completely sold his soul on this POS.

 

[goatofthenever]

A video game? Are you serious? lol

I'm not bothering with the movie due to bad casting. Ron howard? He's a bit too melodramatic for the story, and Tom Hanks is probably annoying as Robert Langdon.
Although, Jean Reno is Fache.

 

[arizona83]

As someone who never read the book I found the movie a bit hard to follow at some points but it all came together at the end. It was a little dragged out and I lost concentration a couple of times. I did find the plot quite interesting, but a little far fetched. It wasn't what I hoped for but I've seen worse.