The DaVinci code, (sigh) a review and thoughts.Hope you bring truckers roid cushion to the flick. The original title "The Never Ending Story" was already taken so they went with the “Da Vinci Code.”
Okay so I feel a bit silly. Did I really think that Ron Howard, Dan the man Brown and a wavy haired Tom Hanks were going to give Orthodox Christianity a sizeable headache?
So the movie wasn't horrible. I found it mildly entertaining to say the least. It reminded me of that big scene in Lord of the Rings where they all meet around the round table and all those flashbacks take place. The whole film was pretty much endless dialogue, mingled with flashbacks and two good chase scenes.
Poor Albinos. They can't seem to get a break. I think I have seen at least 5 movies that have evil Albinos running amuck. If you have an Albino child you might as well start warming up to the mob or start prepping them for the life of a hit man. One of the things that still struck me was the magnitude of the film’s accusation. If you have been keeping up with the news online and reading for the sake of argument a few other atheist blogs you will notice that this theory in this movie or something similar to it is pretty much the theory that they all buy. Lock, Stock and Barrel. And to whatever credit I can muster for them, I believe that it is the best argument that they have to date. Here it is in a nutshell: (skip this next paragraph if you are tired of hearing it)
Jesus was a good and powerful teacher. His followers kept his teachings after his death. Some believed that he was resurrected some did not. There was much arguing that went on. The Romans hated Christians. They got killed for a couple hundred years because they believed in this troublemaker rabbi. Along the way some other people wrote accounts of Jesus. These were written at least a hundred years after His death. These are the Gnostic Gospels. They include books like Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Judas.
Along comes Constantine 3 or 4 hundred years later. He has a dream. (No not that kind of dream Forky.) The dream shows him winning big battles with a Christian symbol on sword toting Roman’s shield. He tries it. He wins big battle. He decides to make Christianity legal and puts the Christian symbol on everything. Christians get a break from being the favorite dish on the all- you-can-eat Lion buffet and become respected and flourish. Christianity then gets mingled with Mithraism, the pagan religion of Rome, the cult of the Bull. Constantine sees division in the Christian world and decides to unite them. Constantine MAKES Jesus divine and picks only the books in the Canon that would present him as divine. (These just happen to be the books that were written closest to the life of Jesus but that’s beside the point.) Jesus is raised to stature of divine and Christianity picks up a bunch of things from Mithraism. Underneath all of this lies the theory and proof of Jesus’ humanity/non-divinity where Jesus knocks up Mary Magdalene and she has a little bambino. She splits for France and the line of Jesus is the actual Holy Grail.
Uh Huh.
To a real historian, Christian or Atheist, this theory is a bunch of smoldering elephant crap. Even the educated movie critic sees the stupidity of it all. I love what Roger Ebert says about this theory.
"I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane."What is fascinating about this theory is how easily and readily it is swallowed. I believe that people are looking for an excuse to get out of facing the Gospels wielded by nagging Evangelical Protestants polluting our television screens and airwaves.
The Gospels do present a real problem to the non-believer. They are considered valid Historical documents withstanding the test of time and scrutiny of Hostile Historians, but they have a problem; those darn Miracles. They are supposedly written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses and yet they contain things like healing blind men, walking on water, and a Man who claimed to be one with Almighty God and proved it by rising from the dead. The gospels do not leave many options. They have that distinct aroma of something real yet they involve something so miraculous that if it were true it would be the single greatest event in the history of the Universe.
Now lets offer the theory to which most Historians agree. Sometime between 3 B.C. and 40 A.D. a Man named Jesus lived. He lived, taught and did some pretty revolutionary things. He must have caused quite a stir. He must have been doing and saying things that really ticked off the Head-Honcho Jews. So revolutionary that it got him killed. His existence is recorded by other valid historical sources besides the Gospels and the Epistles. The fact that he is even recorded in other historical records only doing his thing for three years in small villages and towns around Palestine is pretty amazing stuff. So he was killed and had followers. His followers claimed that they saw him resurrected from the dead. They were so overwhelmed by seeing him crucified and raised that they gave their lives, proclaiming this good news. The Christians were a Jewish cult, derived from Jewish customs and rules, which the Jews called the Law to which the Christians claimed that Jesus fulfilled. The religion spread. The Jews got mad. It kept spreading. The Romans got mad. The early Christians thought Jesus was coming back any day and when they realized that He might not come back while they were alive, they wrote down in the form of a biography (bios) the Gospels the earliest being Mark and the other two probably using Mark as their model. This all happened within the generation that saw Jesus crucified.
Christianity spreads. There are debates among Christians on just how divine Jesus was. Some said the he was more divine than man. This made sense to the Gnostics because they considered the flesh to be crappy therefore how could God inhabit crappiness? Well these kinds of debates went on for a while and true Christianity still flourished. Constantine did have the dream. He did declare Christianity the Religion of choice thanks to his big win. Constantine really didn't care as much for religion as he did for power and uniformity. He then assembled the council of Nicaea and Christians came together and stamped out heretical views and decided what they believed to be the valid Scriptures (our cannon) and important interpretations of already existing views of Christ. The Nicene Creed is a beautiful example.
The film truly comes of as a fictional depiction. Come on, Mary Magdalene buried under the Louvre? Tom Hanks give the best performance he can which is saying a lot. The French chick can only be so French and mysterious without getting annoying. The plot twist at the end of the film borders on a Scooby Doo ending.
As a film I give it a C+ to a B-. It is long-winded and ponderous. How could it not? It only has to re-explain the history of western civilization for the past two thousand years while throwing in a couple of car chases, a mean Albino, and introduce Jesus' great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great Grandaughter.
29 comments:
I saw it yesterday. I was very excited, but as usual the build up was anti-climactic. I enjoyed it on a whole. A good film and for me it's always exciting to see the world in a hubub over a fictional thing. People are so silly sometimes. Anyway! Back to the movie. I enjoyed it more than you I think. I thought "french girl" aka Audrey Tautou, who also starred in Amelie, was charming, but not academy material. My biggest bone to pick! What happened to the climax. How could you have a two hour and fifteen minute build up and forget to put in a climax. YAWN!
The whole theology issue? Star Wars has more merit, and I took this film in as having an interesting story line. As for Tom Hanks I'll watch him in anything. I love his acting and consider him the Jimmy Stuart of today. He can do anything and make it wonderful.
I have a question I want to throw out there. Why are Christians so easily threatened if they believe in a one and true God? Do they really think that a movie is going to compromise thousands of years of history? Is it because they are bored and wished they had a more interesting life so subconsciously spice it up with a conspiracy?
Joey,
I think your question is so true and interesting. I have asked many of my friends and family the same question. If the book is fiction, why are y'all so worried about it, and if you are strong in what you believe, why do you care? Well, the two responses I get are: 1) We don't want the truths to be questioned. We don't want people to believe the "wrong" things. I put "wrong" in quotes b/c so many different denominations all believe something is "wrong" about the others, so where is the surprise on this reason. Well, if it is "wrong" to you, what an amazing opportunity to spread the truth! 2) My mother-in-law and several others are the reason behind 2. So, she read the book, is very strong in her faith, agreed it is fiction, but she just didn't want to have the book's questions or ideas in her head. I think many people just don't want to ponder the ideas of the book b/c it goes against a lot of their beliefs. Does any of this make sense?
See, I have this arguement a lot with people/family b/c you won't watch certain movies or TV shows (fictional), but you will come and see me in an opera (which they love the opera, not just coming b/c I am in it) that has a womanizer as the tenor (The Duke) who rapes a young girl (Gilda) and the father (Rigoletto)hires a hit man (Sparafucille) to kill the womanizer while the hit man's hooker sister (Maddalena, the mezzo, of course) seduces him. Where are the boundries? It is all fiction. Is it b/c it is live theater and AMAZING music, so people think they won't actually show nudity or question what is okay for them to view as entertainment? Well, that is wrong people. I just saw Rigoletto at Lyric Opera of Chicago (not Europe mind you) and wow a naked chorus woman and the Duke touching any part he wants. So, why doesn't this kind of entertainment still raise questions in their minds or make them turn away b/c it isn't true to how THEY live their lives? Why do people justify what is ok and what isn't?
Wow, long thoughts there.
So, I read the book (loved it), but won't see the movie until Monday b/c of too many people. I can't comment on the movie till then, if I have left any room for it. :)
Lindsey,
I'm totally with you on this. My family is neck deep in opera and I'm very familiar with Rigoletto and many, many others. I boil it down to fear. People who don't question and don't open up their minds to the possibility of being wrong are leaning on their own understanding more than the foundation of the Word. Mighty strong words perhaps, but I come from a lovely family who live in fear for the most part. In fact they sound hauntingly like yours Lindsey. If we could only be reminded of the two most successful devices of evil which are first FEAR and second IGNORANCE. Fear dominates the entire list if you think about it. Ignorance becomes a symptom and that leads to some really bad representatives of our faith if you ask me.
I'll wait for the video.
In all fairness, I don't bother to see very many movies in the theater any more anyway. It has to be something really spectacular and visual, like Star Wars, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings... you know something like that. It's the experience of seeing it on a giant screen, surrounded by breathtaking sounds and experience that draws me to the big screen movies.
The exception would be a date movie, when I just want to take my wife out and be mindlessly entertained for a few hours. But this doesn't really sound like "date movie" material.
For the record, I should admit that I have a plasma TV and home theater system, so when I say I'm waiting for the video, it doesn't really mean I'm settling for a vastly inferior experience anyway.
Seth want plasma screen. Seth want surround sound. Hey C-Hammer! I saw that you blogged. I will read it tonight after the Sunday blitz.
I'm finishing up the book now and will see the movie later tonight. More then.
Joey,
I couldn't have said it better myself. Fear is so crippling and stunts our growth as people. I would rather be faced with all the evils in the world than sheltered. How can someone make educated decisions about thier own beliefs if they don't know what else is out there?
I do think our families sound similar. I also noticed from your blog, that you went to IU for a while. Did you graduate from there? I went there for my BM and MM in voice performance. What years were you there?
Lindsey,
I responded to you on your blog so as not to bore Seth's readers with my tidbits.
was that... was that a serious post? I think it might have been. Wait, judges ruling... yes, it was.
You guys were great at Quest (HBU) I know that was a while ago, but... thought I'd check out the blog.
Peace.
Kat, not a stupid question at all.
The Da Vinci code refers to the art work of Leonardo Da Vinci, which conspiracy theorists believe holds several layers of meaning. For instance his painting of the last supper holds clues to how Da Vinci believed that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that SHE is indeed the Holy Grail. The whole premise is that Leonardo was part of a secret society called the Priori and that they have kept this secret about the grail since the time of Christ.
I would like to say something extremely controversial, and make everyone hate me, but oh well. what can I say, I am passive aggressive and I get a kick out of saying really direct things to a white computer screen.
if you are a christian, think twice about going to see a movie that tries to de-fame our Lord and Savior in any way. Why? Why would you do that? I believe that White Boy said it best on the Shlog. If someone wrote a book about your sweet mom being a slut, would you go see it?
Thanks for letting me share.
Though admittedly there are differences between this and Gladiator, I didn't feel the need to defend history when Gladiator made mincemeat of it. I felt that history stood well enough on its own. Brown's scholarship is so shoddy that history and theology will stand on their own.
People have been cursing and defaming the name of Christ since he walked this earth. Avoiding them is no way to impact them. Now, I'm not suggesting that a movie is the same thing as a person, but for whatever reason, this book and film have resonated with people. As a Christian, I must know why. As a minister, I feel I've got to know where people are hurting in order to help them heal.
That's not an endorsement of the movie or book. I would never tell someone it is their 'Christian duty' or something to see or read it. I just feel that it is an acceptable choice to see and read it without needing to defend myself as a faithful follower of Christ.
I did not read the book. I did see the movie.
I saw the movie because I was curious. I have read blogs, heard sermons, read newspaper articles on this subject for a month straight now. I wanted to see what the argument was all about.
The movie was mediocre. It was long. I should have read the book instead.
Cach, I do believe that history and theology will stand on its own. And for that I am thankful. However, these facts of Christian history that Dan Brown uses flippantly, for whatever reason he does, seem more valuable than some missed historical issues in Braveheart. I don't know anything about the history that surrounds William Wallace so for all I know the movie was all correct. So what happens when a believer or a non-believer, either one, hears these things about our canon, Constantine, Mary Magdalene, that are not true. But are mixed in somehow with true facts so an unlearned person might have a hard time distinguishing. And they are misled, and their faith is weakened. What if they don't know which asserted fact to question? History will stand well enough on its own, but will the apologetics of our faith....unless facts are made clear?
I have heard so many athiests make arguments based upon false assumptions based on false fact. Because of some lame book they read that holds false theology. (Not referring to DaVinci here necessarily. Rather, a non-fiction book.)
I do agree that avoiding the defaming and cursing is not necessarily the answer. And I surely don't think that one would need to defend their spirituality because they enjoyed DaVinci. You know, I really didn't get the feeling from this movie that Jesus was being defamed or even disrespected. Just severely questioned with poor research leading to poor facts.
fancy pants:
check out on the history channel "uncoding da vinci". they've been playing reruns and reruns until my ears have turned blue but i found it quite interesting. Most of the Christian themed things that the History Channel has done has upset me a bit because I believe that they twist the facts just a bit. but i was pleasently surprised when i watched this documentary.
Opermama,
I think I would go and see a movie or read a book trying to make my mom a slut. Not b/c I believe it, but b/c I would have to see how someone who didn't know my mom would prove the lie. It just makes me ready to prove them wrong. I can't argue or prove my point as well if I don't know what lies they are saying. I don't think anyone's personal relation with their mom or Christ is questioned b/c they hear lies about them. It just gives them the opportunity to spread the truth.
By the way, I saw the movie (read the book about a year ago) and I was pleased with the film adaption. I thought Ron Howard stuck to the book and I loved the flash backs. However, if I hadn't read the book, I would have been bored and really confused at times. Honestly, this book wouldn't have been my first choice for a movie. If y'all haven't read "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown, do it. I thought is was more suspenseful and would make an awesome movie.
well-said cach, lindsey, and fancy pants. you made me think. I guess I just have a hard time not getting too emotional about it all. (as in other areas of my life as well)
Also, everyone should be free to have their own personal convictions. I feel that i don't need to see it, but I shouldn't push that on anyone else.
Well, OpMom, the good thing is that you have convictions.
And cach, I just reread my comment, which was written in the wee hours of the morning, and realized that you were talking about Gladiator and I was thinking Braveheart. Sorry bout that. You get my drift. I guess at 4 AM, Mel and Russell bare a striking resemblance.
Hey thats what my wife says about me at 4 in the morning!!
That's only after a couple rounds of appletinis
Nice, Amber...spicy, I like that!
Schizophrenia is awesome.
And Fancy, you make excellent points. I want to highlight something you said, because I think it is what I'm getting at:
"I have heard so many athiests make arguments based upon false assumptions based on false fact. Because of some lame book they read that holds false theology. (Not referring to DaVinci here necessarily. Rather, a non-fiction book.)"
My feeling is that history and theology will stand on their own if investigated. Obviously, if you don't bother looking into it, you may well think that a Roman Emperor got in the gladiatorial ring, lost, and the Republic was restored. Same with Da Vinci. I think people who are being led astray by erronious arguments are catching it from a variety of sources.
Why did Christians get their panties in a twist over this one? Because of the size of the platform this one preached from? Or because most Christians are so disengaged from history, theology, and the culture around them that it takes something this big to rouse them from their slumber?
This book and movie should have come and gone with little more than a yawn from Christians. But by and large Christians live such chicken-coop existences that it takes something this big to engage us! And then we become an army of Chicken Littles and look like idiots.
What if Christians actually treated their faith like it was the most important part of their lives? What if we gave it as much attention as we do American Idol? (Enjoy the verbal irony.) What if we knew what we believed and why? Just might change the world.
cach--I agree with most of what you said. we don't know what we believe and we definitely don't know our history. (that's a very, very, loose para-phrase of what you said, and I did it very poorly.)
But, I must disagree, though it is difficult to do that with you because you are much, much better at this then I am; I don't think that we can let this movie go by with a yawn, and I must claim to be a chicken little. It does make me angry and i do want to go screaming "the sky is falling," when movies like this are made about Jesus.
Sorry, yet again, re-acting with lots of emotion.
oh, and fancy pants...Russell crowe is much hotter than Mel Gibson.
Amber, Do you ever mistake Seth for Tom Cruise however?
Only when I dress up like super-man and jump around on the couches.
Cach, that's it. You're exactly right! And I'm talking to myself just as much as any other Christian. You said this:
"Why did Christians get their panties in a twist over this one? Because of the size of the platform this one preached from? Or because most Christians are so disengaged from history, theology, and the culture around them that it takes something this big to rouse them from their slumber?"
We ARE disengaged from our history. I am disengaged. I don't want to be, though. The problem does not lie with Dan Brown or his book. The problem lies with our American Christian culture. With my easy, unchallenged faith. We should have been built up, secure, and ready to give an answer to our faith, before this movie ever freaked us out.
OpMom, Russell Crowe hotter than Mel Gibson...hmmm...I don't know...no...no, that's just not true.
Opramom and Kat, I didn't say we should let this movie go by with a yawn, I said, "This book and movie should have come and gone with little more than a yawn from Christians." But it couldn't because we don't know our history or theology. And the problem with being Chicken Little is that the sky isn't falling! The church is not unravelling. Are some people having faith crises? Yes, just like every other day, but now they have something big to point at and credit for their doubt.
It shouldn't surprise us that people are out to defame and discredit Christ - they've been doing it ever since he walked the earth! He told us people would persecute us because of him! And reacting with anger or hitting back has never been the church's strategy for responding to persecution. Note Paul and his knowledge of Greek philosophy as he responded in gentleness. Note the early fathers and their knowledge of the heresies against which they argued. We respond when called upon with knowledge in measure. That's not to say that we don't become angry, but we don't lash out in that anger. We don't put it on display. It doesn't serve us well.
And yes, Kat, I've talked with non-Christians about Da Vinci. They appreciate my knowledge and the fact that I don't fall into hyperbole. It gets you everywhere to be able to discuss something with confidence and competence without demonizing your opposition.
Great discussion people! I have learned alot. Honestly I don't worry about a soul posting on this blog.
Bottom line: Christians should never lash out in anger. Christians should never be caught with there pants down. We can't live on our VBS knowledge of our faith anymore.
So many non-believers know more about our faith and origins than we do. What would you say if someone said "well, did you know that Christianity is a copycat religion and that they copied everything off of the Roman God Mithra? I mean Mithra had twelve disciples and died on a cross" (I have had those very words thrown at me.)
I am not suggesting that we know every heresy that has ever come and gone but knowing even a little about our history can helpus in understanding where we come from. Look at the witness of Stephen if you want an example someone who could give an account using History and prophesy to build an argument.
An amazing thing happens when Jesus is persecuted in violence or theory, the faith of His church increases. When we turn the other cheek and see beyond the criticism and see the injured, angry or disillusioned person lashing out, the person who must come to terms with the person of Jesus, then we see that the real battle is not with flesh and blood.
Throughout all of this rigamarore, strangely enough, the American Protestant Church received higher marks in my book than I thought that they would. If you want to remember some craziness remember what happened in "The Last Temptation of Christ" For the most part the protest has been pretty civil. Another sign that our Leaders and Representatives to the free world, Pat Robertson and TBN are loosing their control and will some day be overthrown.
Well said, Seth.
At least two very good things have come out of this whole thing for me.
First, it caused me to dig in and really study some church history that I had never studied before. So when someone asks me for an answer for the reason I trust Jesus, I now have some new knowledge at my disposal.
(See 1 Peter 3:15)
And second, it has actually deepened my personal faith, by giving my mind sound historical knowledge, so that when I am spiritually attacked in ways that make me doubt, I have a better defense. Anyone who has ever struggled with doubts (which we all have at times) knows what I'm talking about.
So now those of us who have been strengthened by all this need to be ready to kindly and gently lend a helping hand to anyone who has been hurt or weakened by it.
Post a Comment