Liberally Conservative

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free....... ~Ronald Reagan~

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Da Vinci Code - The Book, The Movie

I've read the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and I've thoroughly criticized "The Church" and Opus Dei for their extraordinary defensiveness about the movie by the same name.
The book was a thriller, a detective story, fast-paced and thought provoking. In the end the book may have left more questions than answers, it certainly created a stir. Over 40-million copies sold and presumed read. Currently ranking 43 at Amazon. It was a good read.
I went to see the movie, Ron Howard is a terrific film director and extremely conscientious. Details are important to him and it consistently comes out in his work. Tom Hanks is one of my favorite actors. I was not disappointed. The movie followed the book very closely and the critics are either prejudice, arrogant, over-worked, intellectually inept or simply ignorant.
Roger Ebert started his review by ripping Dan Brown, his book and than the movie. Joe Morgenstern at The Wall Street Journal is obsessed with Ian McKellen. Critics didn't like Tom Hanks performance. I thought Hanks portrayed a Harvard professor in Religious Symbology quite well. What did they expect, James Bond? The character unexpectedly became caught up in a crime and was accused of murder. Actually set up. How would one react to finding themselve suddenly dropped into a crime scene and then accused of committing the crime, knowing they are totally innocent?
All the characters played their parts very similar to what I imagined while reading the book, a real page turner. Critiquing the movie or book simply to criticize the "religious" aspects is petty. I view the book as an exciting mystery with thrilling scenes. The movie mimicked the book quite well, the scenery, the on location filming and the casting served each theme well.
To go off on political questions is demeaning to the film critic and their supposedly objective critique of the book or film. To start a critique by blasting the author or actors is a disservice to the reader. It seems the critics didn't read the book or missed something and then felt obliged to be negative about the movie.
In the end, I felt compelled to read the book again and research other aspects within the story such as the Knight's Templar and indulge myself with more ancient history. One particularly good scene in the movie was Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen arguing points about myths and facts of religious history. This is what should happen in the real world, active discussion and forum participation.
When the Vatican attacks a book and movie with such vengeance, one should question the church and their sordid history and ask for answers. Separating truth from myth is an interesting intellectual exercise. Burning books and boycotting movies is censorship. Believing the critics, pundits, Opus Dei and the Vatican would be buying into their mythology and accepting blind faith.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frankly, it surprises me that someone who can write coherently would like that book. It was tne mos terribly writen piece of crap since Brown's last telling of basically the same story.
Anyway, since you've read the "code" don't bother reading any other of his books. Basically, you already have.

5/27/2006 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger Liberally Conservative said...

I never said the book should win an award for artistry, simply that it was a thriller and fiction at that.

The movie critics were upset with Brown and therefore criticized the movie and actors, who played their parts quite well.

The book was fun and so was the movie. Crap? Not really. My Amazon rating would be 3.5, the current average.

5/28/2006 08:08:00 AM  
Anonymous HoJo said...

The Da Vinci Code - The Book, The Movie, The Myths.

I find it very interesting that when Christians critisize the accuracy of the "facts" put forth in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (i.e., "All discriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in the novel are accuratre) secular humanists say we vengful, bookburning. defenciveness. But when secular humanists critisize Christians for pointing out the historical inaccuracies in the bookit is nothing more than an intellectual excersize of the free will.

The book is a work of "fiction" pure and simple. Although it is written as a noval, this conspiratorial murder mystery claims to be based on well researched histirical facts. So le's separate facts from fantacy.

Central to the conroversy is the book's alleged expos`e of the historical church and its Bible. Brown claims Jesus was not a God-man as described by the church. Instead, the noval's "experts describe him a a mere man who married Mary Magdalene and gave her the responsibility of leading His people after He was gone.

The source of these allegations is a collection of ancient Gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi, egypt in 1945. The Gnostic gospels promote a different view of Christ and the Di Vinci Code regards these gospels as the "lost books of the Bible" that represents the true picture of Jesus and his teachings. Secret knowledge, goddes worship, and self-ieification emerge as an alternative theory to the historical record of the Bible.

This is why today, we have secular humanists saying things like all values are relative and every system of belief is equally valid.

If Walrus had actually researched the the "facts" as portreyed by Dan Brown's researchers he wopuld never have been able to refer to those who critisize the book as being prejudiced, arrogant over-worked, intellectuals or simply ignorant. Christian authors such as Richard Abanes, "the Truth behind The Di Vinci Code", Darrel Bock, "Breaking The Di Vinci Code" F. F. Bruce, "Are the New Testament Reliable" just to name a few, are not a bunch of prejudiced intelectually inept writers. Rather it is Walrus who is ignorantly buying into the myths of the book and spouting secular humanist's mythology.

I think the book is wonderful in that it opens the door for Christians to talk openly about their faith and the truths that the Bible teaches (i.e., that Jusis lived, was crusified on the cross for the sins of the world to give us ever lasting life and rose from the dead to show the world that we do not have to die in our sins. [John 3:16]). Far from being defensive about the movie's premis the "Church" both Catholic and Protestant, are excited by the prospect of being able to talk openly about our faith.

5/29/2006 12:09:00 PM  
Blogger Liberally Conservative said...

What am I ignorant of?? I never pretend to do research on the book or be an expert.

I question movie critics who criticize Dan Brown and don't supply facts, only their opinions, presented quite bitterly, using terms as trash and garbage.

What I did defend is the right to freedoms and not censorship. I also depicted the book and movie as fun while providing a forum to read more and lure us into finding out information. Both the book and movie create interest.

In addition, I wrote in a manner of coherence, not lecturing with dozens of misspelled words.

As with the critics, we must clean our house before throughing stones.

5/29/2006 12:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home