fastcar
05-22-2006, 09:18 AM
There is a conspiracy afoot. One that will take everything you think you know and tell you you're wrong. It will try to change your thinking with propaganda. It will strike at the very heart of your beliefs. I am speaking not of the movie The Da Vinci code, but of the groups that say you shouldn't see it.
The Da Vinci Code, a faithful adaptation of the Dan Brown novel, in my opinion has generated as intrigue and criticism as The Passion of the Christ. The only difference is that Ron Howard's film has better marketing. I won't rehash the movie's plot, especially for those familiar with the book. What I will say is that 85% of what is in the book is in the movie. The only things missing are some additional scenes at the Louvre involving a standoff between a guard and our heroes using a Da Vinci as a shield, a scene at Teabing's estate giving the audience more insight to the climax, more dialogue at the end involving Sophie's family, and an additional cryptex puzzle that sets up the hook involving the true nature of the grail.
Also missing, this may be a sign of Howard lobbing a softball at the masses, most of the damaging elements of the conspiracy. From the get go the naysayer point of view out there will tell you that this movie attacks Opus Dei and the Vatican. They say that they are portrayed as killers and conspirators. If you believe that then you have to believe that all Islamic people are terrorists. See how crude that sounds? From the material presented to the viewer, Opus Dei is not presented as a group of killers. However, certain members of certain groups in certain high places are the ones are responsible for the despicable acts portrayed in the film.
The critics have said that Tom Hanks seems lost and is horrible at playing Robert Langdon. I'm here to tell you that he is far from it. I had an old high school friend who was extremely smart and could be quite charming, yet he did not get the nature of the opposite sex. He seemed aloof at best even clueless to the advances of several beautiful women. He was by no means gay; he was very much enamored by the archetypal object of men's desires which adorned his dorm room wall. He just didn't care or didn't get how to interact with the opposite sex. This is Robert Langdon. Ironically, Langdon's short comings in actual female contact rival with his expertise in goddess worship and pagan culture. Langdon has been called Indiana Jones in Harris Tweed. To think of Langdon as a hero and a man of action is to think that Russell Crowe should play Gandhi. He is simply a bookish professor in the wrong place at the wrong time, guilty by association.
Howard again, along with screenwriter, Akiva Goldsman, throws a softie with his portrayal of Landgon on film versus the book. Brown's Langdon is a believer in the Priory of Sion, the secret society who knows the true nature of the Holy Grail and Jesus’ divinity or mortality. Howard and Goldsman's Langdon is a skeptic, spouting that the Priory was debunked as it was in real life, perhaps an attempt to give the film credibility where Brown's novel perhaps unknowingly entered into James Frey territory regarding the facts as they were.
Another sore point for the critics is the use of flashbacks to explain historical events as a point of reference. Frankly, they could have been a lot worse. The melding of past and present as characters move among the transparent images is something not often used in film and actually cuts down on the need for exposition. After all, Brown's novel is nothing if not saturated with imagery of who, what, where, and mostly when.
How does it all come to an end? Most stories that involve historical conspiracy theories end up with a big letdown. Very rarely do the heroes find or even get the treasure. Usually, it's a tale of righting past wrongs or coming to appreciate those around you. Think about City Slickers 2, when Billy Crystal and company find the fake treasure. They're not especially ecstatic at the outcome but it does prove to be a cathartic experience. Here you get a sense, that along with Da Vinci's and Saunière's double coded, everything has two meanings, rhetoric, a wrong was put right. Maybe the quest for the grail wasn't a quest for a descendant of Jesus Christ; maybe it was a way for an estranged family member to fulfill a dying wish in giving his granddaughter her family back. Goldsman amends Brown's work even more, adding a pseudo epilogue and disclaimer to the nature of the conspiracy of Jesus Christ's life. I will paraphrase, "It's all in what you believe. Why does it have to be human or divine? Maybe human is divine. Why can't he be a miracle worker and a father? What matters is what you believe."
Is there any reason to have a crisis of faith? No. To paraphrase one Catholic Priest who was quoted in a local paper, “We’ve been around for almost 2000 years. I don’t think this movie will undo us.” The movie stands on its own as a fictional account of real events. To think otherwise would be blasphemous.
My rating....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david2.jpg
The Da Vinci Code, a faithful adaptation of the Dan Brown novel, in my opinion has generated as intrigue and criticism as The Passion of the Christ. The only difference is that Ron Howard's film has better marketing. I won't rehash the movie's plot, especially for those familiar with the book. What I will say is that 85% of what is in the book is in the movie. The only things missing are some additional scenes at the Louvre involving a standoff between a guard and our heroes using a Da Vinci as a shield, a scene at Teabing's estate giving the audience more insight to the climax, more dialogue at the end involving Sophie's family, and an additional cryptex puzzle that sets up the hook involving the true nature of the grail.
Also missing, this may be a sign of Howard lobbing a softball at the masses, most of the damaging elements of the conspiracy. From the get go the naysayer point of view out there will tell you that this movie attacks Opus Dei and the Vatican. They say that they are portrayed as killers and conspirators. If you believe that then you have to believe that all Islamic people are terrorists. See how crude that sounds? From the material presented to the viewer, Opus Dei is not presented as a group of killers. However, certain members of certain groups in certain high places are the ones are responsible for the despicable acts portrayed in the film.
The critics have said that Tom Hanks seems lost and is horrible at playing Robert Langdon. I'm here to tell you that he is far from it. I had an old high school friend who was extremely smart and could be quite charming, yet he did not get the nature of the opposite sex. He seemed aloof at best even clueless to the advances of several beautiful women. He was by no means gay; he was very much enamored by the archetypal object of men's desires which adorned his dorm room wall. He just didn't care or didn't get how to interact with the opposite sex. This is Robert Langdon. Ironically, Langdon's short comings in actual female contact rival with his expertise in goddess worship and pagan culture. Langdon has been called Indiana Jones in Harris Tweed. To think of Langdon as a hero and a man of action is to think that Russell Crowe should play Gandhi. He is simply a bookish professor in the wrong place at the wrong time, guilty by association.
Howard again, along with screenwriter, Akiva Goldsman, throws a softie with his portrayal of Landgon on film versus the book. Brown's Langdon is a believer in the Priory of Sion, the secret society who knows the true nature of the Holy Grail and Jesus’ divinity or mortality. Howard and Goldsman's Langdon is a skeptic, spouting that the Priory was debunked as it was in real life, perhaps an attempt to give the film credibility where Brown's novel perhaps unknowingly entered into James Frey territory regarding the facts as they were.
Another sore point for the critics is the use of flashbacks to explain historical events as a point of reference. Frankly, they could have been a lot worse. The melding of past and present as characters move among the transparent images is something not often used in film and actually cuts down on the need for exposition. After all, Brown's novel is nothing if not saturated with imagery of who, what, where, and mostly when.
How does it all come to an end? Most stories that involve historical conspiracy theories end up with a big letdown. Very rarely do the heroes find or even get the treasure. Usually, it's a tale of righting past wrongs or coming to appreciate those around you. Think about City Slickers 2, when Billy Crystal and company find the fake treasure. They're not especially ecstatic at the outcome but it does prove to be a cathartic experience. Here you get a sense, that along with Da Vinci's and Saunière's double coded, everything has two meanings, rhetoric, a wrong was put right. Maybe the quest for the grail wasn't a quest for a descendant of Jesus Christ; maybe it was a way for an estranged family member to fulfill a dying wish in giving his granddaughter her family back. Goldsman amends Brown's work even more, adding a pseudo epilogue and disclaimer to the nature of the conspiracy of Jesus Christ's life. I will paraphrase, "It's all in what you believe. Why does it have to be human or divine? Maybe human is divine. Why can't he be a miracle worker and a father? What matters is what you believe."
Is there any reason to have a crisis of faith? No. To paraphrase one Catholic Priest who was quoted in a local paper, “We’ve been around for almost 2000 years. I don’t think this movie will undo us.” The movie stands on its own as a fictional account of real events. To think otherwise would be blasphemous.
My rating....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/fastcar151/star-of-david2.jpg