The DuhVinci Code
May 20, 2006
In nearly all cases, "the movie" is never as good as "the book." And this weekend's debut of The DaVinci Code is no exception. And for a movie by Ron Howard starting Tom Hanks, I certainly expected a much more captivating movie than what viewers encountered. In fact, several folks exiting the theatre where I saw the long-anticipated film were commenting about several sections that they "didn't get", that didn't make any sense to them. And so it seems that the DaVinci Code was more of a DuhVinci Code.
In the movie, the fictional material from Dan Brown's best selling novel took up as a primary concern, the calling into question of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus was extraordinary human being, but a human being nonetheless. And that Christianity's long defended claim to the divinity of Christ was nothing more than the politically expedient strategy of Rome's pagan emperor, Constantine. The Council of Nicea was depicted as a puppet-council, controlled completely by Constantine for his own purposes, and who stealthily quieted all contrary voices (by execution).
The quest around which the movie is based is the search for "the chalice" of Christ -- not a cup, but the body (and womb) of Mary Magdalene -- the wife of Jesus Christ and the bearer of his child (which began a sacred bloodline that continues through present day).
For many followers of Christ, consipuously absent from Dan Brown's (and Ron Howard's) presentation of the origins of Christianity, is the resurrection. For the reader (and the movie goer), the attention is placed instead on the long-dismissed myth that Jesus' descendants are still living among us in the 21st century, and clearly suggests that Mary Magadalene -- representing the pagan notion of "the divine feminine" -- is worthy of humanity's veneration and worship.
Dan Brown is a terrific writer, and I have long enjoyed reading his books. I number myself among the scores of believers who see the popularity of The DaVinci Code as 1) evidence that today's culture values spirituality, but is suspicious of institutionalized Christianity, and 2) a unique opportunity to dialog with people about the scriptures, Jesus, and the early church. However, I thought the movie was a little boring, and a little lacking in substance. For example, in the book, Dan Brown spends a good deal of time discussing the "other" gospels which never made it into the New Testament cannon -- the "sources" which the movie references and claims as historically accurate. The book deals with this a bit more straightforwardly whereas the movie seems to skirt some of these issues, thus creating "gaps" in the movie's plot. This makes it a little difficult for viewers to follow (something confirmed by people I talked to after they saw the movie). I hope that this doesn't end up hurting the "conversation" that we -- as followers of Jesus -- could potentially have with people around us who may be critical, curious, or confused about Jesus, the bible, or Christianity. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
My recommendation concerning the movie? Wait and rent the DVD.
I think you're absolutely right that "today's culture values spirituality, but is suspicious of institutionalized Christianity." I would venture so far to say that any institutionalized religion arouses suspicion...
At any rate, thanks for your mini review of The Da Vinci Code. I think I will wait for the DVD!
Posted by: panasianbiz | May 22, 2006 at 12:26 AM
Good review, DP. One of my colleagues here in Iceland has even started courses and discussion groups about the DVC, they've been running for almost two years now and are extremely popular.
Myself, not too fond of the book, it started well enough, then Dan Brown gave the plot away in the middle ... after that I found it boring.
Posted by: Carlos | May 22, 2006 at 01:54 AM
2 comments...
1- I don't think the book (haven't seen the film) says anything about spirituality, what it does say is that contemporary/popular culture does not only distrust institutions but actually positively believes that institutions are there to hide the truth from the populace - for reasons of power, money and control - pomo culture seems to believe that institutions are intrinsically weapons of oppresion and corrupt and (naturally) includes the Church in this. I think it is over optimistic to read spirituality into the DVC. I think if the book is of any use to the Church it as a wake up call... a tool for critical reflection of the state of Religion/Church.
2- I can't agree with you about the books quality... it is badly written, the plot obvious, the characters as thin as the paper they are written on, the so-called puzzles so easy it is frustrating (why can't professional cryptographers solve simple puzzles that are easier than Tabloid Newspaper quick-crosswords???). The book would have sold just as many copies as his 3 others did were it not for the controversy - The Church is as guilty of promoting this tripe as anyone!
He makes claims for accuracy at many levels - indicative of his inept research is that he says there are 666 panes of glass in the Louvre pyramid (remember he says ALL architectural details are accurate) when there are in fact 673! One could say that if he cannot even get that well documented fact wrong little faith can be put in all the more esoteric claims he makes!
Posted by: Mark Berry | May 22, 2006 at 03:59 AM
Better recommendation. Don't see it at all.
I love the Opus Dei, and the devotional writings of Fr. Josemaria Escriva sit on my desk as I type "Christ is passing by".
I understand being aware of things that are in the culture to be relevent, but don't understand Christians going to see a movie that attacks the church.
God's Peace
Seraphim
Posted by: Seraphim | May 22, 2006 at 07:25 AM
Carlos, I've been fairly open to doing some sort of class or seminar or the sorts, but I'm surprized by how little interest there is among the adults in our congregation (over the book, the movie, the subject matter). Our teens, on the otherhand, are VERY much wanting to explore the whole matter.
I meet with the core kids in our youth group each Monday night. Tonight will no doubt be interesting, being that the movie came out a few days ago.
Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Mark Berry -- thanks for posting! I've heard complaints about the book's writing style before. My wife -- who is an avid fiction reader -- couldn't stand the book's unrealistic timeline (i.e. sense of time) -- far too much was happening over such a short period of time (time from the narrator's perspective, that is).
Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy regarding the pyramid panes at the Louvre. That's interesing.
Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Great post Dad, I agree! Being one of the "intrested teens", I think that christians are getting too upset over it! Our culture is being over-analytical and its becoming a problem, we cant forget this is a fictional book!! Yes, there were some flaws in the book, but there were also many TRUE facts included, that I found fascinating. In my opinion, it was a great ficitonal book! I agree about the movie being a litle boring!!
Posted by: Julie | May 28, 2006 at 09:47 PM
Went to see the film yesterday with 'me missus'. I'd read the book, she hadn't. Her verdict: The plots in the Indiana Jones movies is more interesting. That said, there are a few questions the book and film raises, which I'll spare you except for one.
Could it be that 200 years of biblical and historical criticism in our universities has passed the general public by? Is it finally time to show our teens and young adults the wonders of biblical sleuth, and I mean JEPD, Q and Mark=>Matth. and Luke, the revisions of the Jesus Seminar (sorry Seraphim), and have fun with it? Why not do serious bible reading with all the latest scholarly tools, Reader Response Criticism and Psychoanalytical approaches included? I ask you: Why should liberal theologians have all the fun?
Posted by: Carlos | May 29, 2006 at 02:11 AM
Well, Carlos -- I'm not sure I'd use the same list that you've proposed, but I think I agree with your basic premise. Most Christians haven't a clue what's REALLY behind their nice English translations.
Source criticism and redaction criticism seem wearisome to me - I see much more promise in literary, narrative, reader-response, and social-scientific criticims. But that's another topic for another time. :D
Posted by: Chris | May 29, 2006 at 08:33 PM