Da Vinci - the secret is out!
OK lets get the less important stuff out of the way in a couple of sentences.. is the Da Vinci Code as bad as the critics said? – well no, I actually enjoyed it a bit more than the book. Is this Tom Hanks at his worst? – possibly, but it’s a great performance by Paul Bettany as Silas, Sir Ian McKellen is fun and the others make the best of the wooden script. Is the film too long? – yes, but the scenery of Scotland is stunning, the Rosslyn chapel is gorgeous and worth staying in your seat for even if the film is already running of gas and stuttering to it’s rather lame and slightly surprising conclusion. The main faults of the film already lay in the book – never let a dramatic action scene get in the way of another lecture - an approach which Ron Howard tries to get around with lots of grainy film, cut away shots of spinning letters and plenty of dramatic music, sadly without total success.
So is the film a threat to Christianity and should the church be worried? Should we be writing books, staging demonstrations and panicking? The answer is no—indeed the church militant can reduce its threat from Code Red to Orange, it can stand down from 'Defcon 3', 'shields down', deflectors down - for a new secret has emerged, one which isn’t in the book, and I predict that Ron Howard will be thanked by the Vatican, in the fullness of time, for his adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel. For behold, the certainty of the book is replaced by a questioning, more sceptical approach in the film, the 1st century family man Jesus of the book is restored at the end as (possibly) the divine, prayer answering, miracle working Jesus that we are more familiar with, and those who hold Dan Brown’s conspiracy theory views are shown up to be all as mad as a bag of snakes! Even Opus Dei comes out ok - we have the honest if misguided Opus Dei detective, Bezu Fashe, there's plenty of mention that the movement has lots of ordinary married followers, and it turns out that it’s just the maverick corrupted bishop, Aringarosa, and the Albino monk Silas who have taken the movement off course. Meanwhile Sir Leigh Teibing, representing Grail fanatics everywhere (inc Dan Brown?) , turns out to be cunning, deceitful, murderous and bonkers, his complex and contradictory arguments failing to convince the main protagonists, let alone the audience.
The thing is, it’s a film and we know how to watch films- we suspend our disbelief until we walk back out into the cold night air (or wet afternoon in Harrogate as I did). Even if the film had contended, like the book, that it was Fact with a capital ‘f’, which it doesn’t, we wouldn’t have necessarily been sucked in by it’s conspiracy theories. In the event Ron Howard has watered it down, nothing is fact, everything is up for grabs and it's up to the church to get involved in the debate. “The only thing that matters is what you believe” says Langdon. Audrey Tautou’s Sophie may or may not be the last of the bloodline of Jesus – its up to us. She may look divine, but she can’t walk on water. Hank's Robert Langdon, the sceptical expert, admits he prayed to Jesus at a moment of childhood trauma and felt he 'wasn't alone'. Could the Son of God have sired children? If he married Mary Magdalene did that make him just an ordinay bloke from first century Palestine? Or was this 135 minute treasure hunt a wild goose chase - and the church was right after all? The questions are left hanging, and in any case many in the audience will have lost the plot ages before thanks to its preposterous (and ponderous) twists and turns.
Dan Brown, post the book, pre the film, backtracking rapidly, should have the last word - "Controversy and dialogue are healthy for religion as a whole. Religion has only one true enemy - apathy- and passionate debate is a superb antidote". He's right, but this film probably won't do as much as he hoped to stimulate that debate.
posted by John Carter @ 8:17 am
4 Comments:
I saw the film too and like Mr Carter found it a bit like the curate’s egg, good in parts. It was also too long and the background music very Gregorian very chant-like, made me very sleepy. Was this supposed to, was it a way to hypnotise me into submission to Dan Brown’s views.let’s hatch another conspiracy theory and another ton of publicity - I don’t think so. It was quite a pleasant way to spend an afternoon though, and if it hadn’t been for the hype there would be no pressure to express any opinion at all. Just to say it was ok.
IT IS ONLY A BOOK, A NOVEL, AND A PIECE OF FICTION!!!!!
Otherwise Mr Brown would not have published it thus.
My other question is why is the fact that Jesus was an ordinary bloke so dangerous. He was born in a humble stable to a humble couple and brought up with other children until He was found to be a bit of a ‘special’ child. He started arguing with grown ups etc. As He grew up He was found to be not only charismatic but also revolutionary, He inspired, He made amazing things happen, He healed, He taught, He told amazing stories, He enlightened every common occurrence, He got angry with people and He forgave them too but He was still human formed to any onlooker. He wasn’t an alien sent from another planet. Would it have been odd at that moment in time for Jesus to have manly feelings for a woman, maybe He felt the need to escape from the crowds with the woman He loved like any other young man? I suppose there is still a feeling especially in Catholicism that men cannot be sexual and earthly creatures as well as priests. Does sexual love taint the religious mind? I am talking about sexual love here not just reproduction. If Jesus did fall for Mary Magdalene and they produced a child does this make Him less the Son of God, after all He was put on this earth in human form to win our trust, teach us how to live and gain our love, He wasn’t put on this earth to be a weirdo that no one would identify with. He died for our sins on a cross like every other misjudged man of the times He even cried out to his God when the pain became unbearable. Even the Resurrection does not preclude that whilst Jesus lived as an ordinary bloke He might have enjoyed earthly sexual love with the woman whom He loved as no other. It’s not a dirty thing to think, He wasn’t having it off with all of Jerusalem, and He wasn’t taking advantage like some of the leaders of religious sects have done since that time. He wasn’t expecting martyrdom and however many virgins to deflower when He arrived in heaven. He loved women as they loved Him a wonderful thing in those days I think. (And in these days of misogynist sects too)
So why the furore, why the premise that underlines the book that the knowledge that Jesus had a bloodline would bring down the church. It doesn’t change a thing in fact it puts Christianity back into the scriptures and less into the hands of the priests. Maybe it makes people read their Bibles more, can’t be bad, and question what is hurled at them from the pulpits, also not so bad.
When we say we believe in Jesus Christ, do we only believe in the mysticism, the entrance card to an exclusive club that makes us different from other folk, that makes us put signs on our cars to label us as better, different and the elect. Or do we actually take Him into our hearts, minds and bodies, quietly as a template for our everyday life. I’m sure everyone knows of those people in everyday life who make the difference to others, they are usually humble earthly creatures unencumbered by signs and machinations, and some probably have never seen the inside of a church. The thought of Jesus being an ordinary bloke, when on earth, with ordinary feelings and dilemmas like us does not worry them, what He taught, the tenets that we live by, do.
However I think someone wearing one of those stange, spikey garters in case they forget that Jesus died for our sins is definitely weird. Is it true that a Labour minister did that ….….eek that’s crazy, that’s extreme, that’s self harming. Get her to a nunnery.
Thank you anonymous. Its interesting to speculate that Jesus may have married -and no this wouldn't necessarily have meant that he wasn't the Son of God. There are a couple of problems though..not least that you really would get loads of crackpot groups down through history trying to trace this non-existent 'bloodline'. The Priory of Sion is a FICTION, thank goodness, as is the Code itself. And then what would these 'Jesus children' be - semi divine prophets, a race of supermen and women, miracle working saints? No one has ever claimed this of themselves which in 2000 years seems surprising.
But isn't the contention of Christianity that we are all sons and daughters of God, there are no 'special' people ('no Jew no Greek, no slavbe nor free, no male nor female') and by believing in Jesus we 'have the right to become Children of God'. That biblical idea would be shot apart if there was a family of super-saints.
Apart from the problems a special bloodline would have caused, maybe Jesus was aware too that he was going to be killed, that he was special, and that it wouldn't be very fair on a future wife! I guess more importantly is the issue of the the New Testament. There are more holes in the Da Vinci codes arguments about the Council of Nidea etc than I could mention here. But suffice it to say that if the NT IS a cover up we might as well pack up anyway - we only know about Jesus because of it, so if the NT is a work of fiction where do you draw the line? Why have any interest in any of this? This is the central contradition of the Da Vinci code viewpoint - a viewpoint which didn't spring fully formed in the novel, but is representative of long held conspiracy theories from the Gnostics onwards. The novel is just that--but the ideas have been around for centuries. That's why, I guess, the church gets upset when they are popularised.
But there are vast numbers of folk out there who don't have such a firm belief that the NT is a watertight holy book, but that it is a work of witness told by men who were around at that time or who passed on what others experienced, with the risk of editing the truth each time the story was retold. just a work of ancient history that they don't live their life by.
Most of them would love to believe in the cosy blanket of religion which lays down the rules to live and die by, and if they are followed a place in the paradise of their choice, but the freedom of having an enquiring mind means that they should be able to chew over the possibilities and probabilities. So it is very healthy that a book or a film can provide discussion and enable those who do possess that faith to try and enlighten the sceptics, or the sceptics to force the faithful to re examine their faith.
These days the cult of celebrity has blurred the edges of religion, film stars act as prophets for new sects, pop stars advocate devil worship, football managers extol religious practices to win games. Isn't it healthy that a book has made people delve back into the family bible gaining dust on the shelf, and discuss it with friends and family rather than just talking about who's going to leave the Big Brother house.
Yes I agree...as Dan Brown himself points out in that earlier quote. Debate can work both ways of course-- help agnostics towards faith, or weaken the faith of Christians on the margins!
Post a Comment
<< Home