The hype machine for that drecky novel and movie, The DaVinci Code, is rather appalling: I simply don't see what the appeal is in a poorly written and unbelievable conspiracy theory about Jesus, and the protestations from Catholics are accomplishing nothing other than to fuel further interest in a very silly story. All I can imagine is that it's feeding the same hunger for religious fables that drove the sales of those ghastly Left Behind books. Anyway, the only good thing I've seen emerge from the schlockfest yet is Ian McKellen and his comments on the Today show, written up in US magazine.
"I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer at the front saying 'This is fiction.'" McKellen responded. "I mean walking on water? I mean, it takes an act of faith."
That's cutting to the heart of the issue. The Catholic church has no grounds for complaining about a badly written, ridiculously improbable, mass-market driven work of popular fiction…unless it's because they see it as in competition with their similarly atrocious foundation document.
The comments over there are rather interesting, too. US magazine is a bit closer to the popular zeitgeist than something like Pharyngula, so the comments are a better peep into what the general public is thinking than comment threads here, and while there are a few people there who express dismay and act as if they've never imagined anyone could say something so shocking, they're very much in the minority. Most of them are cheering Ian on!
I may have to change my mind about seeing this movie, as dreadful as the reviews are. Michael Medved thinks poor box office for this movie will demonstrate the depth of Christian sympathy in the US.
One of the things you see with this movie, Tucker, as I have been writing about this for 20 years literally, that Hollywood keeps attacking religion again and again and again. Films that have anti-religious themes and particularly anti-Catholic themes and they never make a dime. They tend to do very, very badly at the box office.
Now this film has a guaranteed box office return because of the tremendous success of the novel. But the idea that, by refusing to soften some of the anti-Christian, some of the--what people would consider to be heretical themes in the movie, that they could have, by softening it, I think ensured a much greater financial indication.
Rather, people who have no interest in the religious issues judge the book and movie on its merits, and aren't inclined to waste time on it.
- Log in to post comments
The Catholic Church is silent on this book and movie.
While it is true that Opus Dei, the religious order characterized by the "evil mutant" did approach Howard for a disclaimer, which he refused to provide, the Church proper is saying nothing about it, and wisely so.
Starve the monster and it will die.
You know, even a dyed in the wool Biblical fanatic would have to admit that Jesus was a real person. And as such Jesus ate food, drank water and performed other bodily functions.
It sort of lends a whole new meaning to the popular phrase "Holy Shit!"
You'd think.
Argh. . . that's supposed to be evil albino. I have no idea where the word mutant came from.
Um, technically, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't *have* a foundation document, except maybe the Nicean Creed. They are literally free to make dogma up as they go along. Which is why they found it easier to make peace with Darwin than the Luther-inspired Protestants which *do* take the Bible as the foundation.
Great observation... insane people can't stand competing insanities.
I don't care what you say. I've been looking forward to seeing a murderous albino monk in American cinema for decades and I'm going to see it, dammit!
Walking on water? That's nothing. I'm waiting for the dragon to knock 1/3 of the stars in the heavens down to Earth! That'll be one hell of a show!
The Da Vinci Code is Fiction. So is Jesus.
It's amusing watching all the priests line up on CNN to tell Wolf Blitzer that people need to read the Bible to get the facts. Oh, the irony.
My main gripe with the Da Vinci Code is that how on earth would a vial of vinegar stay fresh for 400 years?
Oh, really? While the leaders of Christianity's oldest sect may be more reserved than most religious types, they are indeed kicking up a fuss this time. Perhaps the pope himself is keeping quiet, but when Cardinal Arinze says that people should assault the movie producers with lawsuits, I'd say that's something other than keeping silent. And Arinze is a senior member of the hierarchy.
It would indeed be better, and wiser, for them to dismiss the whole thing casually and with understated disdain. But when senior prelates say they can no longer "forgive and forget," it plays into the hands of the promoters.
God those comments on the Us Magazine site are funny! Here are some highlights:
This one almost made me laugh soda out my nose:
This one reminds me of http://www.realultimatepower.net
And another:
And another:
And another:
And another:
And another:
Here's an interesting question: Has intelligent life evolved yet on Earth? It seems our species is only on the verge.
Watch the interview: McKellen tries to spin himself out of the crater left by dropping the reality bomb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDZ5uG3_LVc&search=mckellen
A transcript doesn't do this justice, it's all in the inflection. Somehow, just in the moment between saying "it takes" and "and act of faith" McKellen realizes he's about to alienate 250 million Americans--you can almost spot the exact moment--and deftly manages to inflect the words "an act of faith" in such a way as to seem like he's honoring the concept. And then he ties it all in to promoting the movie and in fact praising the audience as intelligent.
What a save--he really is an incredible actor.
My main gripe with the Da Vinci Code is that how on earth would a vial of vinegar stay fresh for 400 years?
That's your main gripe? Where would I begin?
Dan Brown is Umberto Eco without the intelligence. Eco Lite...
The Da Vinci Code. People call that a heresy? That's pretty tame. My favorite heresy (which I consider more potentially upsetting to Christians than atheism, even) is the theory that there was no such person as Jesus. Not that he wasn't divine, not that he wasn't the Son of God, not that he didn't work miracles, but that he didn't exist. He was a fictitious character.
There really is very scant evidence that there ever was such a person, at least in the time frame claimed by Christians. All the details of his life appeared first in Gospels written 50 or more years after the supposed events took place. The earliest written mention of Jesus is by Paul, and he referred to none of those details. No mention of mother Mary or father Joseph or betrayer Judas or Bethlehem. All there is is the bare bones of the story: Jesus was the son of God, was put to death and was resurrected.
cm pegged it exactly right. You could almost hear the gears grinding in McKellen's mind: "What I'm saying is grotesquely obvious to anyone well-read. But, wait! I have a business and professional obligation here, and royalties to guard. Damn, what did I just say? Well, yes, let me soften that just a bit.."
The guy is quick on his feet.
The Pope is silent maybe. But some Cardinals have said nutty things like (paraphrase)"the popularity this is a sign of self-hatred and self-destruction in our civilization"
Because, you know, if you don't believe the particular conspiracy-theory THEY believe in, you HATE YOURSELF AND WORSHIP DEATH.
Another code to contend with? I admit, I know nothing of what you folks are talking about, but then again, I've been cloistered in the monastery for quite some time, but this code that you call Da Vinci, it does sound somewhat like the code Bro. Juniper has been puzzling over for I suppose nearly a decade, that being the "Charley Ruggles Code." I must say, these codes and ciphers are always a enigma to me, I do prefer koans.
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
I was watching Jerry and one of his minions at Liberty University (like a moth to flame) ranting about the Da Vinci Code the other night. I couldn't understand why they would lend credence to an idea they so obviously found to be blasphemous and repugnant, until at the end of their sermon the show turned into a thirty minute info-mercial selling Jerrys' new book "The Refutation of the Da Vinci Code" for only $34.99. And the additional 3 CD set for an additional amount. They couldn't have a business arrangement with....nah...
I just can't fathom why a book about Jesus having sex is upsetting so many people. Assuming there was an historical Jesus, I like to think he spent at least a little time on earth with an engorged penis. He was only human after all.
Flash forward to summer 2020! Da Vinci Code VII is flopping badly at the box office (fans don't care for movies that don't feature cephalopods). The Passion of Darwin is Mel Gibson's last ditch effort to salvage a movie career that has been tanking for ten years. The New Pharyngula is KING of the blogosphere (1 billion hits a day). And NO ONE discusses the divinity of Christ seriously anymore. I can dream, can't I?
Compass: You Albinoist!
Great comment from someone with their head screwed on straight.
Any bets on when the wider "body of the faithful" will officially start tossing Ian aside publicly simply because he's "homoseshual"?
Great comment from someone with their head screwed on straight.
Any bets on when the wider "body of the faithful" will officially start tossing Ian aside publicly simply because he's "homoseshual"?
Heresey! I refuse to believe it!
John Wilkins wrote:
John, must I slog through more Eco?
The film "The Name of the Rose" was great, but if it hadn't been for Tim Curry's reading on the book on tape of "The Island of the Day Before" the hero of that story would have found himself escaping to shattered cassettes, defenestrated from my passing vehicle. The only thing lower on my list than medievalism is postmodernism. Combined, I understand Christopher Walken's professed compulsion to steer into oncoming headlights in "Annie Hall".
You couldn't pay me to read DVC or Netflix the movie. To cash in, PBS is running some trash about how science got the carbon dating wrong on the Shroud of Turin. PBS!
Some of my 3D game art and design students call me Gandalf because of the long white hair and goatee. I warn them that so far as some of them are concerned, I may as well be Saruman. On the BART commute this evening, a well dressed gentleman noticed my Ray Troll "spawn till you die" t-shirt (a skull and crossed fish with gratuitously nude humans), and asked if I liked skulls. I told him I liked the artist, who has designed evolution exhibits in museums. His response was to tell me that miraculous things were happening in the universe. I was afraid. I asked him, "what, Scientology?" "No," he replied. "Bahai." I told him Bahai may as well be Scientology, just not sure whether it was a cult or religion yet, but fiction as far as I was concerned.
This aroused the ire of a nearby thumper who thrust his heavily annotated New Testament in my face and babbled something like "All facts are fiction and fiction is fact!" I invited him to leap from the moving train if he considered our circumstances fictional, but he only tried to tell me that his book was 'fiction that was fact' and treating it as fiction would be false. I said he was welcome to his fiction, but treating reality as fiction could be fatal. He thought he had me. He asked me why I cared about his book and whether or not it was fiction. "If it's fiction and you don't like it, how come you look like Jesus?" "Fine" I said. "If I'm Jesus, why aren't you down on your knees?" With an "As you wish," he hammed it up with bowed head and bent knee, to the appalled nervous laughter of other passengers. This was the right moment to put my headphones back on, and he exited at the next stop.
In the Da Vinci Code, does Jesus look like he's 51? Will they still need Him, will He still feed them, when He's 64? Should I share freeways with people every bit as crazy instead of using public transportation?
"Great observation... insane people can't stand competing insanities"
Which is why the Communists can't stand the xtians and vice versa.
Classic - thank you.
And ...
"Here's an interesting question: Has intelligent life evolved yet on Earth? It seems our species is only on the verge."
Erm - Dolphins?
Architeuthis?
John, must I slog through more Eco?
Eco isn't for everyone, but I like him. Foucault's Pendulum was a damned good Illuminati story, up there with Tim Powers for imagination. The Island of the Day Before is good, but I really liked Baudolino, which riffs off the John Mandeville travel book of the middle ages. I enjoy medieval and hermetic ideas - they're kind of the philosopher's equivalent of science fiction or comic novels.
Here's a cartoon that pretty much sums up my feelings on The DaVinci Code.
This one's actually more about the Gospel of Judas but the principle is the same.
The only thing I would add is that Preacher did a story arc that also dealt with the idea that Christ survived and bore offspring. Even without having read the Code, I'm fairly certain that the Preacher version of the story is better.
I also liked it for its hidden references to Eco's non-fiction work. For example, towards the end some soldiers are reciting prayers in various languages and one overheard line is "O fat obas kel binol..." -- which is the begining of the paternoster in the artificial language Volapük, a sort of precursor to Esperanto that was discussed in Eco's non-fiction "The Search for the Perfect Language"
As a non-Christian, and as a consumer of popular fiction, I found The Da Vinci Code to be quite good. It is not a insipid or poorly written book.
Maybe it offends you that we live in a world where such a book is plausible, i.e., a world where we can have a 2000-year old religion that is based on a 2000-year old conspiracy. But you should learn to deal with reality. If the book is absurd it is because the world (at least the human part of it) is absurd.
As a non-christian consumer of popular fiction, allow me to disagree. It's a poorly written, poorly paced thriller that feels like the author didn't plan out the plot as he went along, and just ended up spinning a conspiracy plot that ultimately goes nowhere. I honestly can't even remember what happens at the end or what the significance of anything ultimately turns out to be. I think the main characters start having sex or something.
The same conspiracy ground has been covered in far far more interesting and well written books like Focault's Pendulumn. Or even the Illuminatus Trilogy: that's not a well written book either really, but it's funny and engaging.
He does it by focusing a precise amount of chakra into the soles of his feet.
Christopher,
There are no actual links in the three (apparent) links you posted.
I agree about Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, a fascinating occult thriller.
Exactly. I *wanted* to like the book; it's fun to see people get their undies in bunches over insults to their treasured myths; but while you can create great art while doing that (think of "The Last Temptation of Christ"), Brown has basically surpassed Bulwer-Lytton as the standard-bearer of bad prose.
I'm with PZ- I'm impressed almost to the point of being shocked by the volume and tone of pro- McKellen comments on that site. Maybe there's a tiny bit more hope for the world than I had allowed myself to believe...
As a non-Christian [almost former] English scholar who just read Da Vinci Code to see how bad it really was, I agree on most of the counts of hackishness. The writing is horrifyingly unsubtle, the puzzles are terrible, and attempts to make the characters three-dimensional are laughable. It's terrible, terrible writing. Eco did it much better, and so did Preacher.
But.
We can recognize the superiority of Eco and Ennis because we (most people reading this, that is, though there are certainly exceptions, cough cough) are used to being smart, thoughtful people who are willing to question dogma. Most of us are accustomed to thinking hard about books, and to laughing at the vagaries of religion even if we're not atheists ourselves. I appreciate The Da Vinci Code because, not only despite but sometimes because of its hackish writing, it's reaching people who haven't ever considered that religious doctrine might be constructed. Foucault's Pendulum wouldn't reach those people, and Preacher would disgust them, but this terrible book can potentially act as a Trojan Horse to deliver a pretty sweet information bomb. If it's pissing off fundamentalists, it's doing something right, even if it's doing it in a way that is not at all designed to appeal to people who can cope with Eco.
Mind you, I don't particularly think that was Dan Brown's intention. He's a lousy writer and he was probably just trying to parlay that into a bestseller, like you do. But I'm a reader-responsist, so I'm ethically bound not to care.
A lot of you just don't even know because you probably weren't brought up in Christian homes, so you really don't know any better. I guess all we Christians can do is pray for your souls.
If someone said this to my face, I'd knock their fucking teeth out.
"God those comments on the Us Magazine site are funny! Here are some highlights:
This one almost made me laugh soda out my nose:"
No kidding Troutnut. It got all Dungeons-n-Dragons early. How childish do you have to be to play the "my god can beatup your god" crap?
I just might end up going to see this, too.
But for real conspiracy theory fun, I can also recommend the Eco, as well as Everything is under Control by the same guy who co-wrote the Illuminatus trilogy.
I must agree with Plunge and Badger...my dislike of this book on literary grounds is separate from other reasons. It's just not very well-written. After reading it, my diplomatic position when discussing it with friends and family (who loved it) was to damn it with faint praise as a "fun action romp" and "likely to be a good movie."
I dislike it on other grounds, such as the glaring errors (the GPS tracker) and the strange mix of (rather ineptly) challenging dogma while eagerly supporting other canards such as the Divine Proportion. These things weren't hard to get right, but Brown still failed.
In response to Compass' first comment, I have to disagree along with the rest. I don't know what official position the Church has adopted, but my Catholic family dragged me along to church last Sunday, where I was subjected to a very long, vague and rambling sermon as to why the DVC and the Gospel of Judas was complete bunk and we should believe none of it (because the Church is very smart and did centuries of research before picking the TRUE gospels, and we should trust the Church.) Don't think I've seen a church sign in town that doesn't have an (anti) DVC event or speaker or film advertised.
I'm just SICK of hearing ANYTHING about this stupid movie and/or book(s).
Can we talk about the runaway bride, or Illian Gonzales?
And I think his self-reinvention as defender of family values demonstrates the depth of his irrelevance as film critic.
Mickey has been in my mental plonk file for many years. And it's a real shame, since I missed his penchant for coming up with "funny" nicknames.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Medved
Wow, two scatological references. I know Mickey thinks sex is icky, but does that mean he's OK with fart humor in film?
Gandalf has a point. Faith does have an uncanny way of ignoring empirically derived knowledge. Why? Because humanity has always felt the need to personify God not unlike the pre-Abrahamic idol worshippers that gave thoroughly fantastic powers to golden calves, figurines, icons and artefacts. Do you see?
Self-selecting audience, I'm afraid. The comments are written, and skeptics and atheists are overrepresented among the literate.
It just occurred to me, but Michael Medved MUST have been the inspiration for Ned Flanders.
Since we don't have a real handle on any authentic on Christ's life (if there even was one), both sides are merely engaging in idle speculation-just like Sherlock Holmes, Gandalf and Arthur Dent. They were all, however, fun to ride with.
McKellen made another memorable quote at Cannes recently, the bbc has a video clip here http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_fs.stm?&bbram=1&n…. Basically he says that being as the church has problems with gay people they should be pleased to find out that Jesus was married as it would provide proof that Jesus wasn't gay! I think I'll watch the movie just for McKellen's performance.
Absolutely hilarious. And of course no one ever disgreed with their 'research'. I think the vote was like 568 -563 or something to that effect.
Of course reading it for oneself leads one to different understanding now doesn't it?
Daryl McCullough: Actually (IMO) the case can be made stronger. Earl Doherty is one of the current "mythicists" and has written extensively on various positive arguments, including the text of Hebrews 8. (This seems to say outright that Jesus had never been on Earth.)
As for the noncanonical gospels and that sort, the site Early Christian Writings is well worth perusing. Part of what helped me towards the mythicist position (see above) are all the noncanonical gospels.
John Wilkins wrote That's your main gripe? Where would I begin?
Dan Brown is Umberto Eco without the intelligence. Eco Lite...
If I were to have set my expectations higher, like, say, historical accuracy, my head would have exploded.
Given as how I dislike having my head explode all the time, and makes a mess, I set my expectations very low with conspiracy fiction.
A lot of you just don't even know because you probably weren't brought up in Christian homes, so you really don't know any better. I guess all we Christians can do is pray for your souls.
What about those of us who were brought up by a Biblical archaeologist who was also a member of the clergy?
I suppose it didn't hurt that he was also fluent in 14 languages, many of them biblical, and used to rant constantly about mistranslations, cultural misunderstandings, and the suppression of the Qumran scrolls. No wonder he raised little atheists...
What I have never understood is why self-described believers are so often worried about "assaults" on their faith - seems to me that if one truly believes - i.e., has faith - that such faith should be able to withstand the doubts of others.
Reminds me of a scene in Camus' "L'Etranger", when Meursault tells the magistrate that he is an atheist:
That was unthinkable, he [the magistrate] said; all men believe in God, even those who reject Him. Of this he was absolutely sure; if ever he came to doubt it, his life would lose all meaning. "Do you wish," he asked indignantly, "my life to have no meaning?"
Really I couldn't see how my wishes came into it, and I told him as much.
Darn it! I thought I'd finally gotten the hang of this stupid HTML!
http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2006/04/20/
Ted Rall cartoon. Funny.
I was just about to give up on the feedback at US when I came across this gem:
---------------------
Frodo Says:
I have accepted Ian McKellan as my Lord and Savior. Didn't He die to save us from the Balrog? Didn't he conquer death and return to Middle Earth?
Well, it makes as much sense as that other faery tale.
---------------------
Walked right into that one, they did.
PaulC, my favorite piece of wisdom from Medved has always been his alerting us to the hidden dangers of time-lapse photography:
As the Weekly reviewer wrote, "That's a lot to hang on a metamorphosing caterpillar.".
Frankly, Eco is a dead bore.
"To Self, Eco occupies a "perverse and tendentious position" as a writer of "superficially 'intellectual' books that... convince a great number of people they are reading something with a certain cachet. This is a loathsome confidence trick." "
Arun:
Self has some legit points about Eco's indulgences, but I could write quite a bit about what a waste of time Martin Amis (whom he admires) is.
While Eco certainly has his bad habits and his bad books, he's got interesting things to say about life today. He's not a fraud any more than Amis is.
Self is more or less trying to uphold a "highbrow" literature that doesn't exist anymore int he way it used to. He's angry at Eco mainly because Eco is one of the highbrow types who has walked all over the borders that are, seemingly, essential to Self's conception of self.
A couple of more reviews are here:
http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2006/05/da-vinci-and-criti…