• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Da Vinci Code

Apparently censors in Thailand are planning to cut the last ten minutes out of the film because they've been persuaded it's blasphemous. That's one way of stopping people from going to see it, but surely everyone who's interested knows the ending, and the supposed blasphemy, anyway?
 
The word from Cannes is that DVC was subjected to "derisory laughter" during the screening and that Sir Ian McKellen in an interview described the book as "codswallop", A wonderful word that, methinks. The critics can be harsh at cannes but this time I think they hit the nail on the head. ;)
Da Vinci Code' Draws Boos and Yawns From Europe's Film Critics

(The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Bloomberg.)

By Farah Nayeri

May 18 (Bloomberg) -- ``The Da Vinci Code,'' the 2 1/2-hour adaptation of Dan Brown's bestseller, drew sneers from Europe's film critics a day before its release to audiences worldwide.

``It was a very bizarre, very silly beginning to the festival,'' wrote the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw, one of dozens of critics invited to a preview before the film opened the Cannes Film Festival yesterday.

Bradshaw said that during the screening, the closing revelations received ``a storm of incredulous laughter and the owl-like hooting that French audiences use to express derision.''

French critics hooted in print, too. ``The most eagerly awaited film since the birth of Jesus'' looks like a ``low-budget dud,'' wrote Liberation's Philippe Azoury and Didier Peron, mocking Tom Hanks's ``bowl haircut,'' actor Jean Reno's ``appalllllllling'' shirts and Ron Howard's directing.

``Humor is desperately lacking in this pseudo-quest for the Holy Grail,'' wrote Le Figaro's Marie-Noelle Tranchant. She said the actress Audrey Tautou, who plays the cryptologist Sophie Neveu, ``has a hard time believing she is the great-granddaughter of Jesus Christ. So do we.''

In the film, Harvard Professor Robert Langdon (played by Hanks) investigates the death of an elderly Louvre curator on the museum's premises. He and cryptologist Neveu find clues in the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci pointing to a major historical cover-up: that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered her child.

`Information Overkill'

More than one European critic complained that Brown's intricate plot was hard to follow on the big screen. ``The author's insistence on packing a maximum of truths, half-truths and conspiracy theories into every page of the book translates into complete information overkill in the film,'' Tobias Kniebe wrote in Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung. ``The characters lecture, make connections and draw conclusions at break-neck speed.''

An Italian reviewer questioned the movie's French-Riviera unveiling. ``It was a gross mistake to bring the film to the festival,'' Corriere della Sera's Tullio Kezich wrote. ``The verdict on `The Da Vinci Code' was pronounced at Cannes. France is not the land of the guillotine for nothing.''

Still, audiences, not critics, will make or break the film when it opens in cinemas across the planet tomorrow, as Diego Galan of the Spanish daily El Pais said. ``Critics may not be the appropriate audience for this flat adventure film, which is technically brilliant but short on ideas, except those that originate in the famous Dan Brown novel,'' he wrote.

Meanwhile, John Walsh, writing in London's the Independent, explained why he hated ``The Da Vinci Code'' and its ``bombardment of the senses (and mind).''

Monk Dolls

``If only it had been enough for 43 million people in the world to buy the book and digest its atrociously written pile of old rope in the privacy of their own homes,'' wrote Walsh. Instead, sites mentioned would soon be deluged with ``lowing herds of imbecilic visitors'' and shops would overflow with ``Silas-the-homicidal-monk dolls.''

The damage didn't stop there. ``It's the way the Code leaves its tainting fingerprints on so many lovely things -- most notably Leonardo da Vinci,'' sighed Walsh. Today, the Italian Renaissance master is ``merely a bit-part player in a tawdry farrago of hazy symbols and threadbare conspiracy.''
http://www.bloomberg.com
 
:lol: Silas the homicidal monk dolls....heheheeh. Oooh, would it come with...er...devices?
 
for decades i have been trying to destroy the catholic church; finally ron howard may acheive its destruction with this film and a little help from the Opus Dei protests.
 
GadaffiDuck said:
:lol: Silas the homicidal monk dolls....heheheeh. Oooh, would it come with...er...devices?
If it doesn't I'll be very very disappointed and have to hope that it has a "punish self" string pull activator :lol:
 
Released: May 15, 2006
The Da Vinci Code – American Catholics Don’t Buy It



As the media hype reaches a boiling point over the release this Friday of a new motion picture including inflammatory claims about Jesus Christ, most American Catholics do not believe the basic premise of the film or the book on which it is based, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International/Contemporary Catholic Trends telephone survey shows.


The survey of Catholics nationwide also found that the movie The Da Vinci Code will drive more Catholics than not to the scriptures. A plurality – 42% – said that after hearing about the book and movie, they intend to seek truth by studying the Bible more closely.


The movie is based on a novel by Dan Brown. According to news reports, its plot revolves around a conspiracy by the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the “true” story of Jesus. The book claims the Vatican supposedly knows it is living a lie concerning Jesus, but it does so to maintain its influence. The book also speaks to a church-led conspiracy to suppress Christ's alleged marriage to Mary Magdalene, and his fathering of a royal bloodline with her. The book contends she is the real Holy Grail because she carries the "blood" of Jesus within her, whom Leonardo da Vinci worked into his art. Critics of the novel and movie describe the plot as inaccurate and sacrilegious.


The survey shows that two–thirds of Catholics who were familiar with The Da Vinci Code storyline did not believe that the leaders of the Catholic church understand the truth as portrayed in the film but are suppressing it. Just 12% said they believe the book over their church leaders. More than one in five – 21% – said they are unsure about the claims in the book.


Women were less certain of their church leaders than men. While 78% of men said they do not believe church leaders are suppressing the “truth” as portrayed in the film, just 58% of women agreed. One in four women said they were unsure about the suppression of information about Jesus by church leaders.


There was little difference of opinion on the topic between those who had been raised Catholic and those who had converted to the faith.


Asked whether recent reports about the book or movie would affect their personal efforts to seek truth through studying the Bible, 42% of Catholics said it would make them more likely to do so, while 18% said the reports would make them less likely to do so. One–third of respondents said the media reports would have neither effect on their pursuit of truth.

The survey was conducted May 2–10 of 1,049 Catholics nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.1 percentage points.

(5/15/2006)


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1110
 
Members of Opus Dei try to set record straight
Movie puts focus on order that puzzles even many Catholics
Chris Schneider © News

Clare Chavez, of Denver, a member of the Catholic lay organization Opus Dei, checks on her 6-week-old baby, Pilar Chavez, as she sleeps underneath a window at their home in Denver on Thursday. Chavez is one of approximately 20 members of Opus Dei in Colorado.STORY TOOLS
Email this story | Print

RELATED STORIES
'Da Vinci' no masterpiece
A portrait of 'Da Vinci'
Public imagination tough act to follow
By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News
May 19, 2006
Denver investment banker Steve Markel recalls being with a group of colleagues when the chat turned to the latest book rage, The Da Vinci Code.
Somebody brought up the lurid assassin character who hailed from an odd Catholic organization called Opus Dei.

"I said, 'Well, I'm from Opus Dei.' They were just totally shocked. They've known me for 20 years."

" 'My gosh,' " one said, " 'you're just a normal person!' "

Today, when The Da Vinci Code movie opens nationwide, filmgoers will see a fictional, coldhearted Opus Dei killer who flagellates himself and takes his murderous marching orders from an evil bishop.

Contrast that with Markel, the -real Opus Dei member: a 48-year- old father of five who likes to golf, ski and fly-fish.

He'll reluctantly see the film "because I have friends in the world who will ask, and I want to be able to talk intelligently about it."

Another of the 20 or so Opus Dei members in Colorado is Clare Chavez, 33.

In her sunny Denver backyard last week, Chavez cuddled 6-week- old Pilar as Fernando, 6, Emmet, 4 and Maria 2, swarmed around the swing set her husband built.

A brief mommy moment arose when one son had a surprise encounter with worms.

"Emmet," she comforted him gently, "you like worms."

Forget assassins; the real work of Opus Dei, members say, is in what they call the sanctification of daily life.

"Whatever work we're doing," says Chavez, "it becomes the work of God."

On Tuesday, Chavez will join a panel at the Archdiocese of Denver to explain Opus Dei. Even other Catholics are puzzled by the organization, dogged since its beginnings 75 years ago by controversy, and once again by The Da Vinci Code.

Most-asked question: Is there really a device that members wear to "mortify" themselves?

Yes, it's a metal band called a cilice, found in religious supply stores. And yes, it's worn by Opus Dei's celibate members, including spokesman Brian Finnerty, 43, who lives with others in the headquarters in New York.

"It's an uncomfortable piece of metal worn around the thigh for a couple of hours a day," Finnerty says.

"But nobody would ever be encouraged to do something that would cause physical injury. It's something that causes discomfort as a token reminder of the love that Christ showed to us."

Such practices were common throughout religious orders before Vatican II, says Raymond Arroyo, author of Mother Angelica, a biography of the founder of a Catholic broadcast network.

"They would strike themselves lightly, token strikes, not painful unto themselves, but as a reminder of the sufferings of Christ."

In Opus Dei, the optional practice survived, though not for married members: "I've never even seen (a cilice)," Markel says.

That lay people could follow such disciplined lives was seen as controversial even when Opus Dei was formed in 1928 by the Spanish priest Jose Maria Escriva. Mortifications? Holiness? Such talk was seen as trespassing on the turf of priests.

The secular world, with its emphasis on equality and sexual freedom, has problems with Opus Dei, too. Men and women are segregated in prayer settings such as retreats. And there are two designated kinds of members, celibate and married.

Add in Spanish politics and the late Escriva's intensity - he's been declared a saint, but detractors still call him arrogant and authoritarian - and the ingredients are in place that make Opus Dei "the most controversial force in Roman Catholicism," writes John Allen, a writer for the National Catholic Reporter and author of four books, including Opus Dei, published in 2005 by Doubleday.

No smoking gun

Some hard-core critics were disappointed that Allen's heavily researched book, which explored Escriva's personality, warts and all, as well as the political machinations surrounding Opus Dei, failed to find a smoking gun.

"Where's the juice? The excitement? It's not there," says Chavez, referring to the book's findings. "There's nothing terribly flamboyant about what we do. It's everyday life. We're just trying to live it very well."

As Allen put it, "Think of it as the Guinness Extra Stout of the Catholic Church. It's a strong brew, definitely an acquired taste, and clearly not for everyone."

Clare Chavez was working with inner city youth in Chicago - one of a number of Opus Dei service projects - where she met her future husband Fernando, who graduated with a foreign service degree from Georgetown University.

Fernando, now a co-owner of a Denver recycling firm, never felt called to join Opus Dei, nor has Markel's wife Nancy, though both are supportive and take part in prayers and activities.

Chavez starts every day kneeling before a crucifix and a statue of Mary, offering up her day in God's service.

She goes to daily Mass - if Fernando can't stay with the kids, she brings all four with her. She says her rosary while nursing 6-week-old Pilar, or during the kids' nap time.

The contract she signed with Opus Dei - renewed every year - also obligates her to work in an apostolate, or outreach that helps people and spreads the gospel.

Members also agree to support Opus Dei financially, though no specific amount is required, she says.

Before joining Opus Dei, members spend 6 1/2 years in prayer and preparation, guided by a spiritual director and priests associated with Opus Dei.

"It's a long process because it's a divine vocation - and nobody wants to make a commitment they can't keep," says Chavez, a Chicago native with a degree in philosophy. "These obligations are not for the weak at heart."

Members say joining Opus Dei is a specific call from God, which may come as a quiet, inner conviction, growing over time: "Nobody tapped me on the shoulder - I didn't get flowers or anything," Chavez says, with a smile.

Brother followed sister

Markel came about it differently - 15 years ago his sister Mary Jane announced she had joined Opus Dei as one of the celibate members.

Her brother set out to learn more.

Over the years, he, too, discerned a call from God, but didn't join until three years ago: "I just liked the fact it seemed so natural - to live in the world and God was calling me in my position to be holy," Markel says.

Celibate members live in Opus Dei centers, where they hold down worldly jobs but pool their financial resources and live as a supportive family, Finnerty says.

Detractors, some of them former members, call the organization strict and cultlike. Finnerty says the organization has been open to all questions.

Opus Dei, he says, is a commitment freely made "every step of the way."

Tonight, the New York headquarters is scheduled to be the setting for Hardball with Chris Matthews. And when "a corny little video" produced by Opus Dei was ridiculed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, members chose to respond with humor, Finnerty says.

"You know you're breaking into pop culture when you're on Jon Stewart."

Or when you're playing a lead role in a best seller and a Hollywood movie.

What is Opus Dei?

Latin for "Work of God," it is an organization of lay people, advised by group of affiliated clergy, who seek to bring God into their daily lives.

• Founded: In 1928 by the Rev. Jose Maria Escriva in Madrid, Spain. Today, there are 85,000 members worldwide; 3,000 in U.S.

• First U.S. bishop associated with Opus Dei: Former Denver Auxiliary Bishop Jose Gomez, now Archbishop of San Antonio. Gomez was formerly chief vicar of Opus Dei for Texas.

• How to become a member: Requires more than six years of spiritual preparation with the organization. Members sign a contract agreeing to a daily life of prayer, Mass, good works and, according to their ability, financial support. The contract is considered for life, but is renewed every year on March 19, the Feast of St. Joseph.

• U.S. headquarters: 243 Lexington Ave., New York City; Web site: www.opusdei.org

• In Denver: Panel on Opus Dei and other aspects of The Da Vinci Code, 7 p.m. Tuesday at Bonfils Hall, the Archdiocese of Denver, 1300 S. Steele St. Free and open to the public.

www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/
 
Holy Sepulcre!
"The Da Vinci Code" shows that conspiracy theories have no limits.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, May 19, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

"The Da Vinci Code" would not be the subject of this column had it not sold 60.5 million copies, according to its publisher Doubleday. Of course this does not make it the best-selling book of all time. That title, as irony would have it, goes to the Bible, half of which one of Dan Brown's characters dismisses as "false."

Like the Bible but unlike Mr. Brown's novel, most of the books in the sales Pantheon have had utilitarian staying power--McGuffey's Reader, the Guinness Book of Records, Noah Webster's "The American Spelling Book," Dr. Spock's baby book and the World Almanac. Now comes "The Da Vinci Code," selling twice as many copies as the 30 million attributed to Jacqueline Susann's "The Valley of the Dolls."

"The Valley of the Dolls" was about people having sex. "The Da Vinci Code" is about Jesus leaving Mary Magdalene pregnant with his baby while he dies on the cross. So in a sense, Mr. Brown's novel respects tradition.

Still, it boggles the mind, and the struggling soul, that "The Da Vinci Code" has sold 60.5 million copies in 45 languages. Sales in the U.S. are 21.7 million, in the U.K. nine million, more than 4.7 million each in France and Japan, 3.6 million in Germany, 1.2 million in China and, no surprise, 143,000 in Romania.

A righteous army has formed to prove everything Dan Brown says about the early Christian church is false, which it most certainly is. Mr. Brown's history pales against the real story of Christianity's first centuries. I recommend two gems: Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" (Penguin) and Peter Brown's "The Rise of Western Christendom" (Blackwell). Grand, thrilling drama.

But markets don't lie. Clearly Mr. Brown knows something that is true. What is it?





To answer the mystery of Dan Brown's unholy tale, I visited the church-like quiet of Barnes & Noble on Manhattan's Sixth Avenue and asked an attendant where the book was. He arched his brow--as Mr. Brown's characters tend to do every few paragraphs--and whispered, "The Da Vinci table is over there."
The table held many treasures. I discovered the polymathic physician Sherwin B. Nuland's "Leonardo da Vinci," a delightful Penguin biography that has nothing to do with Mr. Brown's book. Checking that no one who knew me was nearby, I opened "The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus" because its cover promised an "Interpretation" by the eminent English professor Harold Bloom, a sometime contributor to this page, who remarks that the book's first Saying "is not by Jesus but by his twin."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, preparing for today's opening of Tom Hanks and Ron Howard's apparently awful movie, has created a "Da Vinci Code" Web site addressing such issues as "The Witch Killing Frenzies." A spokesman for the bishops, in a nice touch of self-confident understatement, said the bishops would be concerned "if only one person" came away from "The Da Vinci Code" confused about the church. OK, maybe three or four did.

During my own long, hard slog through "The Da Vinci Code" lectures on the sacred feminine and the pagan roots of iambic pentameter, I most appreciated how Dan Brown, his own authorial eyebrow raised, slyly slips in a wink-wink sentence lest people think he really is nuts.

Chapter 40: "Everyone loves a conspiracy." (Italics, needless to say, Mr. Brown's.)

Chapter 48: "It was all interconnected."

Chapter 55, after Prof. Teabing's arcane summary of eighty gospels (Mr. Brown's italic): "Sophie's head was spinning. 'And all of this relates to the Holy Grail?'" My thoughts exactly, Sophie.

But the final clue to the hoax arrives in Chapter 60: "Langdon held up his Mickey Mouse watch and told her that Walt Disney had made it his quiet life's work to pass on the Grail story to future generations." I'll bet that line isn't in the movie.





Here's my theory of "The Da Vinci Code." Dan Brown was sitting one night at the monthly meeting of his local secret society, listening to a lecture on the 65th gospel, and he got to thinking: "I wonder if there's any limit to what people are willing to believe these days about a conspiracy theory. Let's say I wrote a book that said Jesus was married. To Mary Magdalene. Who was pregnant at the Crucifixion. And she is the Holy Grail. Jesus wanted her to run the church as a global sex society called Heiros Gamos, but Peter elbowed her out of the job. Her daughter was the beginning of the Merovingian dynasty of France. Jesus' family is still alive. There were 80 gospels, not four. Leonardo DiCaprio, I mean da Vinci, knew all this. The 'Mona Lisa' is Leonardo's painting of himself in drag. Da Vinci's secret was kept alive by future members of 'the brotherhood,' including Isaac Newton, Claude Debussy and Victor Hugo. The Catholic Church is covering all this up."
Then Dan Brown said softly, "Would anyone buy into a plot so preposterous and fantastic?" Then he started writing.

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.

None of this strikes me as the least bit implausible, especially the latter. I'd better get started.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110008395
 
The Da Vinci Code

* Cert 12A

Peter Bradshaw
Friday May 19, 2006
The Guardian


Millions of readers have devoured Dan Brown's Vatican conspiracy thriller about the handsome American scholar Robert Langdon and his gamine French sidekick Sophie Neveu, who uncover shocking secrets about the 900-year-old cult the Priory of Sion, formed to guard the terrifying truth about Jesus Christ and his relationship with Mary Madgalene - a secret encoded in the paintings of top Priory of Sion member Leonardo da Vinci. Now a movie, starring Tom Hanks and Audrey "Amelie" Tautou, has faithfully brought the distinctive qualities of Brown's prose to the silver screen.

I was approached to join the Priory of Sion as an undergraduate at Cambridge. I was a naive, beardless youth reading for the Church, and an eminent literary scholar had invited me to tea in his rooms in Magdalene College. Pushing a subtly recessed mahogany panel, he opened a secret door and I was led, wonderingly, into the gigantic underground vault beneath that college, rarely, if ever, shown to outsiders. An inner chamber, lit by flickering candlelight, was thronged with sinister chanting figures in monkish robes, gathered round an enormous silver pentangle. I recognised former Cabinet minister Norman St John Stevas under one cowl. A female figure, the Prioress of Sion, sat enthroned above them. Suddenly, the chanting stopped, and there was a loud animal squealing as one monk dragged a terrified billy goat into the centre of the pentangle, its hooves skittering frantically on the marble floor. The Prioress drew back her hood and the face of Princess Margaret was revealed, contorted with livid emotion. She stood up, and produced a jewel-encrusted dagger. The floor was soon awash with blood as the Prioress slaughtered Norman St John Stevas in front of the poor animal - and the organisation arranged for a double to take his place.

Priapic dancing followed and then over coffee and petit-fours my host explained to me that in about 20 years' time, with their connivance, a novel describing the Priory's activities would appear, a novel of such deliberate and ineffable clunkiness that no one would believe it. Billions would be mesmerised. The plan was that a film would follow, which would be the same only more so, imitating the jaunty plonking rhythm of the book. It was to be sublimely implausible: the Priory's secret would be safe for another generation.

And so it has come to pass. It has to be the only explanation for this film: a bizarre succession of baffling travelogue escapades taking Hanks and Tautou, as two cardboard cutout characters on the trail of the terrible secret, scampering from the Louvre to Westminster Abbey and a remote place of worship north of the border - decoding away like billy-o with a gun-toting albino monk on their tail. If it's Wednesday, it must be Scotland. Ian McKellen plays the twinkly-eyed British scholar Sir Leigh Teabing who opens their eyes to the truth, Jean Reno is the grizzled Paris cop who suspects them of wrongdoing, and Paul Bettany is the creepo assassin-monk from Opus Dei who mortifies his flesh with a cat-o-nine-tails and a barbed "cilice" belt round his thigh. He could have put himself through a lot more agony just by nipping out to Borders for a copy of the book.

Hanks has trendy long hair, an open-necked shirt and modish suit, though he has not attempted the resemblance to Harrison Ford specified in the novel. Tautou models a discreetly professional outfit and a shoulder-length hairstyle, maintained in a state of glossily reflective perfection without the aid of a stylist. Their relationship is tepidly platonic; anything raunchier would be in poor taste, for reasons unveiled in the final reel. Chased for days and days, they do not need to eat or sleep or use sentences that ordinary human beings would use. At one stage, our un-dynamic duo find themselves on a red London double-decker bus, jabbering about getting to "Chelsea library". I would love to read one of Dan Brown's deadpan descriptions of that remarkable building.

Well, every decoding is another encoding, as the structuralists used to say, and here is a paragraph by Leonardo about cryptography I have discovered in the British Library:

"We none of us are entirely sure that you, the reader, are not just ignoring our elegant devices; it is really dangerous to be over-confident about this, or over-analytical, as we can never simply assume that exquisitely crafted codes work - yes, they are often wily and very often I have discovered a lurid symbol which is likely to be a buried message, secret or even a completely and totally clandestine image which has within it an eccentrically ordered and complex nucleus of visual clues, even including some weird xylophones, bizarre yes, but these could be the paintings which will disclose or unveil the most perilous truths to have existed."

The preceding sentence, I can now reveal, has been written in the Priory of Sion code. You take the first letter from every fourth word, starting with the first: so the first word, then the 5th, then the 9th, the 13th, and so on. It spells out a message about the future of western civilisation that is too terrifying to be stated openly.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic ... 57,00.html

Has The Da Vinci Code had any good reviews?

Jonathan Gibbs
Friday May 19, 2006
The Guardian

Stodgy, grim, ponderous. Dreary, droning, dull-witted. Hammy, stilted, solemn, talky, wooden, bloated, plodding, deathly dull, dreary. Or did I do "dreary" already? Forget the Christian right - it's that shadowy global organisation, the Critical Establishment, that has lifted its cassock and dumped unceremoniously on Ron Howard's adaptation of The Da Vinci Code.

With adjectives like these leaping off the pages of Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone et al, you wouldn't blame Howard for turning straight to the sports pages. You might even imagine him sneaking a peek at the Ridgefield Press to see if David Manning had anything nice to say about his baby. But Manning - the fictitious reviewer dreamt up by Sony a few years ago to give Hollow Man and A Knight's Tale some positive poster quotes - has remained silent on the matter of Tom Hanks and the Holy Grail.

For some, this will be desperate news. Perhaps you have booked your tickets for this evening and are already shivering with anticipation at the thought of further dastardly theological conspiracies. If so, then take heart. Not everybody hates The Da Vinci Code.

Consider this review, for instance: Howard's film "opens our minds and, for a few moments, our hearts". OK, that's Spirituality and Practice website. But Roger Ebert, the titan of US movie reviewers, has come out to bat for the film in the Chicago Sun-Times, calling it "preposterously entertaining" and "a superior entertainment".

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer says the film is "much more entertaining and satisfying than the novel", while the New York Post weighs in with a paean to this "crackling, fast-moving thriller that's every bit as brainy and irresistible as Dan Brown's controversial bestseller". Which, come to think of it, could be read two ways.

All this does remain largely by the by though. Critics don't kill films, and for the cast-iron combination of Hanks, Howard and Brown to fail at the box office it would require some level of conspiracy that not even the combined forces of the Catholic church and the liberal press could muster.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/fea ... 21,00.html
 
As a very young boy, my boyfriend was sent to a Catholic institution in Spain whose purpose is to indoctrinate the young into Opus Dei. It didn't work, because even at that age he thought what they were telling him was a load of tosh... :p

What I find laughable is that all the arguments surrounding The Da Vinci Code seem to be concerned with "the truth" about Jesus. Since no one alive now can possibly know what that "truth" is, or even if he existed at all, it seems to me like a load of people arguing about their imaginary friends. And if The Da Vinci Code (film or book) is enough to shake your faith then I would think you never really believed it in the first place.
 
Opus Dei is very strong in Spain. It's nowhere near as important anywhere else.

There was a documentary on The da Vinci Code on National Geographic last night. It was a repeat. They had Dan Brown on it, who was talking about 'all' the 'research' he did for the book. :roll:

Erm, hang on - didn't the Court case show that it was his wife who does all the research? ;)

And how he entered into all this 'research' with an open mind, but now completely believes it.

Yeah - stick to writing. Cus as an alternative historian, he positively sucks. ;)
 
Doubtless he'll get huge amounts for the new book, and doubtess it will hit record sales for something or other. Equally doubtless, it will get panned by critics and audiences alike.

I did enjoy The da Vinci Code, but I don't think I'd have enjoyed it half as much if I'd read it after hearing all the hype. I just thought it was a good boys' own adventure with a nice little Fortean angle that set it apart from the usual thrillers. Actually, I'm more happy at the wannabees it's spawned. Okay, some of 'em are pants, but some are great.
 
As books go, I found it an enjoyable story, easy to read and actually quite interesting.

I'll have to go & see the film, one has to doesn't one?

If nothing else, DVC has opened up minds and encouraged debate & research into fundamentalism & general spirituality.

That has to be good, right?
 
I was dragged to see the film last night and may i first say that please please all save yourselves some money and do not go despite any temptation.
This is one of the poorest films i have seen in a long time and i actually enjoyed the book.The acting is awful,Tom Hanks being especially wooden and the film meanders along with no purpose.If you haven't read the book(but then again who hasn't) i doubt if you would have a clue what is going on and if you have read the book then the film is a very poor adaption.
There is little, if any suspense,there are few action moments,the dialogue is truly awful.
My partner who has just finished the book and dragged me along into seing it being very excited about the whole thing came away dissappointed.
The one thing i noticed was that upon leaving the cinema not one person was actually discussing the movie.
Parts in the book which maybe had a build up of tension are played out on screen by one line of dialogue with no background to build up any kind of tension at all.I know people will flock to see this but if you have read the book there is no point,I would have been dissappointed to have paid £3 to rent this on dvd.very poor indeed
 
I've heard the critics are giving it a pasting, but no details as to why. So I guess that clears that one up then!
 
`Da Vinci' earns $29 million on 1st day in U.S. cinemas

Published May 21, 2006

"The Da Vinci Code" banked an estimated $29 million at the box office on its first day in U.S. theaters, an industry official said Saturday, positioning the film to turn in the strongest opening weekend for any movie this year.

Preliminary results showed that the movie, based on a best seller and starring Tom Hanks, appealed to moviegoers.

That's despite lackluster reviews.

"The reviews almost seem like a form of divine intervention," said Brian Finnerty, U.S. spokesman for Opus Dei, a group maligned in the book.

The Columbia Pictures film, meanwhile, opened in 3,735 theaters in the U.S. and grossed an average of $7,764 per screen.

"This is the first big film of the summer to exceed box office expectations," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations Co., Inc., which tracks box office receipts.

Dergarabedian said the movie could gross $80 million in its opening weekend. That would easily eclipse Tom Cruise's "Mission: Impossible III."

Source

One can only wonder if the Opus Dei protests helped?? Then again the best course of action might have been for them to ignore it but it does raise their profile and there is no such thing as bad publicity (see the medical experiments that went wrong leading to an increase in interest from people looking to take part!!).
 
What Do Christians Know?

by Carl E. Olson
Posted May 19, 2006

The way some pundits and journalists are telling it, you might think that many Christians are too narrow-minded and emotionally fragile to understand that "The Da Vinci Code" is just a novel (and a movie and an industry). The common theme of more than few recent articles and editorials has been, "Hey, Christians, lighten up and realize that it's only fiction!"


Buy Now
Such pieces miss two important facts. First, that many (if not most) of the readers who have accepted some or all of Dan Brown's assertions about historical figures and events are not Christian. In fact, they appear to be decided non-Christian and quite happy that the mega-selling novel has finally "revealed" the truth about the allegedly nasty, violent, woman-hating Catholic Church. Secondly, Christian critics of the novel take fiction seriously not because they don't "get it," but because they actually respect fiction and the arts in general. They are rightly concerned that if art, even popular art, is completely divorced from truth, it eventually erodes artistic and cultural integrity, as well as knowledge about important facts.

This, sadly, is ignored in the rush to paint critics of the novel and the movie as knuckle-dragging Bible-thumpers who don't know Leonardo da Vinci from Chicken Little. Actor Ian McKellen, who plays the character of the historian Leigh Teabing in the cinematic version of the Code, waded in the other day, squarely aiming at those who take the Bible seriously as a source of truth.

"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction," McKellen said in an interview. "I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."

Oddly enough, McKellen had previously said, in another interview, that when "I read the book I believed it entirely. . When I put the book down I thought what a load of potential codswallop." Prior to the film being shown at the Cannes Film Festival, he even said that novelist Brown had argued his case "very convincingly". His case for what? If it's "just fiction" and therefore, we are told, merely entertainment, why would it make a case for anything?

Ironically, McKellen's comments, however glib they might have been, are self-defeating. If the Bible really is fiction, as he apparently thinks it is, then why is he concerned about it? After all, this is a man who admits that he tears pages out of Gideon Bibles in hotels. But if he is upset by a work of fiction, how is he any better than Christians who are upset by a different work of fiction? And if the argument is made that although the Bible is fiction, it has had a great influence on religion, culture, politics, and much more, then we have to conclude, logically, that fiction can profoundly shape hearts, minds, and actions. Which means that "The Da Vinci Code," which clearly has influenced the beliefs and perspectives of many readers, should be taken seriously. Despite being fiction. It is, in a way, a type of Trojan horse-poison wrapped in the guise of a gift.

Director Ron Howard has also tried to have it both ways. "I chose this story because I thought that many of the ideas in this novel were very thought-provoking and very intriguing," he said in a May 11 interview. "As a storyteller, I thought about it in great detail and decided that it was a great way to take a work of fiction that many people would want to see on film and actually generate discussion and debate. So ultimately, I feel that's a very healthy thing. When fiction stimulates the mind and results in a dialogue between [groups of] people, that's a good thing."

But when it became clear that some of the dialogue involved opposition to the movie, Howard changed his tune. This past Thursday the Italian press reported that Howard said that "to tell someone not to go see the film is an act of militancy and militancy generates hatred and violence." So you can tell someone falsehoods about the Catholic Church in a work of fiction, but you should never encourage reaction to those falsehoods? If some Christians feel as though they are being blindsided by the Coded Craziness, it could be because they are victims of an artificially constructed one-way street.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14979
 
Peddling pagan temptations

Father Raymond J. de Souza
National Post


Thursday, May 18, 2006


A confessor of mine once delivered himself of this sage aphorism: If there is not enough time to read the good books, there cannot be any time to waste reading the bad ones. I doubt he has read The Da Vinci Code. I haven't. Even if I thought it worth wasting the time, my taste in recreational reading does not run to thrillers comprised of anti-Catholic tall tales.

Nonetheless, Dan Brown has proved himself an adept salesman, and the release of the movie version of his novel tomorrow has made The Da Vinci Code very much the hot topic. After all of the coverage -- commentaries, summaries, rebuttals, debates, boycotts, lawsuits -- I feel like I have read it. It certainly is taking up too much time. Despite the hullabaloo, I find it hard to get excited. There has always been a vast market for lurid stories about the sinister secrets of the Catholic Church, especially in English-language letters, where anti-Catholicism, latent or explicit, is as common as, well, Mark Twain, who was honest enough to write: "I have been educated to enmity toward everything that is Catholic, and sometimes, in consequence of this, I find it much easier to discover Catholic faults than Catholic virtues."

Mr. Brown's shocking tales are meant as an indictment of Christianity and the Catholic Church root and branch. The Church has regularly dispatched foes more erudite and more ferocious than Mr. Brown, and it remains hard to take him seriously. But the commercial success of his book is a serious indictment of the enfeebled state of Christian formation in our culture. To put it bluntly: Only the weak of mind or weak of faith are taken in by the serial nonsenses peddled by Mr. Brown. Weak-mindedness is dangerous to the faith, as faith requires the discipline of distinguishing between mysteries beyond, but not contrary to, our reason, and mere claptrap that requires suspending critical judgment altogether.

Faith does not require great intelligence, let alone academic credentials. It does require common sense, or better, a common wisdom. Indeed, the great liberating power of Judeo-Christian revelation was that it freed man's transcendent character from the oppressive world of pagan religion, with its secret knowledge, godlike natural forces, arbitrary powers and fanciful myths and legends. The great innovation of biblical religion is that it is accessible to the common wisdom of common people.

Yet the old pagan temptations never entirely fade away, and it is to those longings for a more complicated, more fantastic, more spectacular, religion that Mr. Brown's novel is aimed.

After all, the fundamentals of the Christian creed can be summarized in a few sentences easily learned by schoolchildren and recited aloud from memory by the whole congregation on Sunday. They are great mysteries to be sure -- Trinity, incarnation, redemption, salvation, crucifixion, resurrection -- but they are simple enough to explain. Contrast that with the account Mr. Brown offers of a centuries-long fraud, sustained by shadowy groups, imperial politics, ruthless brutality and latterly revealed by a secret code "hidden" in one of the world's most famous paintings.

The Christian Gospel offers a coherent, comprehensible account of reality that invites the assent of faith. It requires a choice with consequences. Mr. Brown's dissent from Christianity offers a bewildering and incredible amalgam of falsehoods and implausibilities, painting a picture of a world in which the unenlightened are subject to the manipulations of the few. Call it paganism, Gnosticism, or simply hucksterism, but Mr. Brown is in a long, and occasionally lucrative, tradition.

My suspicion is that the popularity of The Da Vinci Code lies precisely in that it avoids putting the simple choice of faith before us -- a choice that has consequences. It provides instead the comfortable paralysis of not being responsible; after all, if the whole religious architecture of the West is the mother of all frauds, what is left to do but simply go to the movies?

There are some Christians who think that they can make lemonade out of Mr. Brown's sour lemon. Perhaps. God does write straight with crooked lines, though in this case I remain skeptical. The weak-minded who accept a novel riddled with errors instead of the Gospel are not looking for faith, but rather an alternative to it.

Alternatives are always at the ready. Sony Pictures and Mr. Brown are not the first to sell the story that Jesus ran off with Mary Magdalene. Christian tradition considers Mary Magdalene a saint because she repented of her prostitution. The writing of books and the making of movies are not quite such ancient professions, but they are not immune from the same temptations.

- - -
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/colu ... d=46231f57
 
Went to see it last night. Certainly was a remarkable feat. How you make a thriller into such a boring film I don't know! They also changed some things to do with Sophies relations stupidly and unneccessarily at the end. I suspect it will confuse anyone who hasn't read the book and is still awake at the end of the film. And didn't they make all the churches look dark? Roslin looks fabulous, though slightly made up here and there.. ;) I thought Paul Bettany was creepy as Silas.

Its possible that the book is just not going to translate well into film in the first place. :?
 
On the plus side, and assuming this film defies the critics and makes huge amounts of cash, it might mean that some of Dan Brown's other work may get adapted for the big screen. "Deception Point", for one, screams out to be made into a movie.

Take away the ridiculous hype over DVC, and he's not actually a bad thriller-writer at all. Not in the Robert Ludlum class, nor even, perhaps, MacLean or Bagley, but he's several thousand times better than Colin Forbes, for instance.
 
Oh yes. He's not bad. He's just not brilliant.

I much prefer Angels and Demons anyway.

Interesting you didn't enjoy the film much, Min. I've heard it getting a pasting by the critics, but not why. I suspected there was just too much damn plot for a film, but I didn't suspect they'd screw around with the plot.

Hmmm.....do I go and see it after all? :?:
 
The rumour is that Angels and Demons is being filmed next. You can't argue with the box office.
 
I saw the film on Sunday, it's a bit slow in places, but it livens up when Ian McKellen is on screen (everyone else takes it far too seriously). Paul Bettany is creepy could afford to go a bit more OTT. I noticed a couple of plot tweaks, but they don't make it any less silly.

I quite enjoyed the thing.
 
Angels and Demons would probably translate into film a bit better. For me though, it depends on how much they show of the murders! :cross eye

Did everyone else spot Picknet and Prince on the bus behind Robert and Sophie?

Rave, even though I didn't think it was very good I would still go and see it, if you know what I mean. :)
 
I know what you mean, Min. Constantine was like that.

You know me, I can't resist temptation :lol:
 
Back
Top