22 May, 2006

DVC: I was wrong

The Da Vinci Code is no trifle to be poo-poo'd away and moved beyond. It must be answered.

I went to it with the calming glow of the the Cannes Film Festival's rejection of it on a "quality" basis, and the knowledge of its errors. I hate to walk into a conflict prepared, it somehow seems like cheating to me, but against my better laziness prepared I was.

The movie was entertaining. It was thought provoking. It did not need to be bullet-proof, or constantly filled with new directions and false clues. It was adequately fascinating because it challenges every assumption you've ever made about our culture.

You will not notice that the Xth clue is telegraphed, because you are too busy thinking about how Jerusalem was sacked to win back the "something". The crusades were not evil enough in their own right; no, the evil of the crusades was a cover for something vastly more sinister. You do not notice the alleged bad acting in the crucial middle of the movie, because you are busy learning that the last supper forms a "V", and that everything upon which Western Civilization is founded is a facade to keep Cardinals under the pope in power.

If you ever want to ruin a movie for someone, tell them it's the best, most important thing they will ever see in their lives. If they get there and it is any less than that, they will be disappointed. Then, your poor friend automatically holds this great movie to a standard so high it can't help but fail. They will walk out of a great movie wondering why they hated it.

If, however, you tell the world that a movie stinks up the joint, any ol' signs of life will be a pleasant surprise. I bet I'm not the only one "pleasantly" surprised by this movie.

What a shock. You put a good director, good actors, and a popular book together, and out koms a movie that's passable good. We Christians are setting ourselves up for failure when we criticize the movie for its lamenesses.

Technically, Dan Brown uses lots of techniques to good effect. For example, he uses the obvious tactic of making the hero of the movie the spokes[straw]man for Christianity. When the crucial argument comes, in which the patriarchy is exposed for concealing the truth of Mary Magdalene, the hero is offering the defense for our faith. He throws up little gems like, "You're only guessing!" and "That's just a theory!" and "You are seeing what you want to see!" During the impassioned moments, our hero throws up softball after softball for Gandalf to knock out of the park.

If was good enough for Plato, I guess it's good enough for Dan Brown.

The point is that it is effective.

Will it work on Josh MacDowell? No. Will it work on Joe Sixpack (or Joe Sixverse)? You bet. So many and varied and profound are the lies are thrown out in such a short time that it's almost impossible to believe that all of them could actually be false. Of course, all of them are not false. It's only the facts that matter that are actually lies.

A special note of recognition has to go out to the Gandalf actor. When he insults His Lord and Judge, there is a repeated twinkle of heartfelt joy in his eye. Every actor there was performing in direct warfare against the Lamb of God, but Sir Ian McKellen really seemed to relish his role.

May the Lord send His Spirit to teach His children the truth.

And may they take the time to get up and find the truth at places like The Christian Cadre, Cadre Comments and their DVC page.

8 comments:

DugALug said...

Codepoke,

'Wrong' is such a harsh word.

How about 'adgusted course'... lol

God Bless
-Doug

Milly said...

I want to see it only because I usually disagree with the critics. I won’t rush because I seldom do for any movie. I prefer to go with friends or take a quiet moment on the sofa with my man to watch. My movie friends have seen it.

It’s just a movie and that was just a book. I’m having trouble understanding the hype It’s not like “Bat Boy Bites Toe In Shoe Store” or something. Now that’s hype worthy. ;-)

codepoke said...

You always get a little bit(e) more at Payless Shoe Stores!

I usually skip things like this movie. I would never have seen this one for amusement, either.

Oh well. I am glad I know.

japhy said...

I saw the movie with my fiancee (who has read the book). As a put-the-pieces-together thriller, it was pretty good.

The problem is that, since it's fiction but has fact in it, you don't necessarily know what is researched fact and what is fabrication. I'm a Catholic, and although I know about Opus Dei, I don't know much. Therefore, I had no idea how different they are from what is portrayed in the movie. (I'm wiser now.)

Plot Element Below: Spoiler Warning
The movie never actually contested Jesus's divinity, which is something I thought I'd heard it did: that Jesus merely fainted on the Cross, so he never died, so he was never raised, etc. One tricky plothole is that Jesus would have a lot of descendents today if he had any grandchildren. (In fact, my fiancee tells me that in the book, there are two descendents, not just one.)

Maeghan said...

...the Cannes Film Festival's rejection of it on a "quality" basis, and the knowledge of its errors.

I kinda feel that the subsequent reviews were trickling effect of Cannes' or is it just me?

I have not watched it yet. Surprisingly my husband decided not to watch it (for now). He felt it was not right to be seen "supporting" it in the presence of the many protests especially here in some parts of Asia.

If, however, you tell the world that a movie stinks up the joint, any ol' signs of life will be a pleasant surprise. I bet I'm not the only one "pleasantly" surprised by this movie.

Hmmm ... you've got a point there.

codepoke said...

Japhy,

Nice to hear from you again!

The movie never actually contested Jesus's divinity, which is something I thought I'd heard it did

I saw the whole attic scene between McKellan and Hanks as one long, very painful attack on the Truth of Jesus' divinity. When McKellen makes the assertion that no one thought that Jesus was divine until Constantine needed a way to unite his fracturing empire you have a direct attack.

The movie says that Jesus self-identified to his disciples that He was a mere mortal, and that the apostles never taught any thing different. This is ludicrous, but clearly asserted in the movie. It states that Jesus was elevated to divine status in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reasons that the Roman emperors were so elevated. It further states that this was done by and for Constantine's power consolidation.

So, the worship of Jesus Christ is a mere remnant of a side effect of one pagan emperor's ego.

I will not soon forget the twinkle in McKlellan's eye as he attempts to tweak the nose of the Lord of the universe.

DugALug said...

I will not soon forget the twinkle in McKlellan's eye as he attempts to tweak the nose of the Lord of the universe.

I am betting God won't either.

Codepoke, thanks for the summation, that's all I needed to know about this movie.

God Bless
Doug

japhy said...

Codepoke - oy, thanks for reminding me. I'd forgotten (not that I minded!) about that Constantine discussion. Good point.