Greg Kilday, writing for the Hollywood Reporter today, started his summation of the Da Vinci cast press conference stating "How many ways can you say, ‘It's only a movie’?
Of course, Kilday is referring to the controversy arising from the release of Ron Howard’s much anticipated film adaptation of Dan Brown’s hugely popular and successful fiction novel The Da Vinci Code. Christian organizations in the Philippines, India, Thailand, South Korea, France, Greece, Russia, and Romania have protested the film, calling for boycotts and planned blocks at screenings, and attempting to ban the film from their respective countries. Even the conservative group Opus Dei, who is depicted as a murderous cult in the film, has joined the fray, spending money and going on a media blitz to change what they believe will be egregious mis-perception about them.
The hubbub reminds me of Mel Gibson’s 2004 worldwide blockbuster The Passion of the Christ. My sentiments about that film, similarly, were that the film should be banned because of its brutally realistic representation of the crucifixion of Christ told in the ancient form of the passion play. One of the intents of the passion play was to focus on the Jews’ part in condemning Christ to be crucified. Pogroms against Jews were incited after such plays. So here we are. 2006. Turn the tables and the Christians are calling for boycotts of a film that calls into question Jesus’ divinity–that he married Mary and bore a son and thus was more human than divine.
In my opinion, the controversy is plain silly and let me explain why.
1) Dan Brown’s work is a work of fiction, even though the claim at the beginning of the book states otherwise.
2) The monstrous success of the book, according to my research, has not changed one wit how people feel about Opus Dei or the Catholic Church or Jesus Christ. (If you know of such scholarly research proving otherwise, please let me know.) In fact, you'll find more tainted feelings toward the church because of the widespread abuse's against boys and young men by Catholic priests than Dan Brown's book.
3) Speaking of the book, I don’t recall any such heated controversy when the book was released or enjoying such success. Why now?
So yes. I like Kilday’s opening question in his article. The Da Vinci Code is just a fictional movie that will prove, I’m predicting, to be a monstrous success because of its vast and faithful fanbase–people who fell in love with it because of it’s fascinating story through the archives of religious and art history.
By saying this, am I saying, like those proponents of The Passion, that The Da Vinci Code is a must-see film. Absolutely not. I am going to go see it for what I have heard is a riveting and intriguing story. (I'm a technical writer by trade and every single technical writer in my group of acquaintences has read and loved this book, not because of the writing style, per se, but on how it kept them spellbound.) I'm going to see it for pure entertainment reasons, unlike The Passion, which was marketed as a religious experience.
In the conference, director Ron Howard and Tom Hanks gave excellent comments regarding the controversy. Here is the excerpt:
[Howard]... addressed the religious controversy, saying: "My feeling about that is that given the nature of this story, the controversial nature of this story, there's no question the film is likely to be upsetting to some people. My advice is, since virtually no one has seen the movie yet, is to not go see the movie if you think you're going to be upset. Wait, talk to someone who has seen it, and then arrive at your own opinion about the movie itself. But again, this is supposed to be entertainment. It's not theology. Yes, it's provoked conversation, but that's what good fiction does."
Hanks, ever affable, parried one questioner who wondered whether given the background of his wife, Rita Wilson, the Greek Orthodox community had brought any pressure on him for starring in the film as symbologist Robert Langdon. "No, not at all," Hanks said. "My heritage and that of my wife communicates that our sins have been taken away -- not our brains. I view this film as a great opportunity to discuss and to perhaps clarify one's own individual feelings about one's place in the universe and in the cosmos as well as in the mind of God.
"I don't think a motion picture of any sort of stripe -- particularly one that is obviously an entertainment, a work of fiction, something that is quite a commercial enterprise -- is going to essentially alter how anyone feels about their place and their own heritage," he said. "This is not a documentary."
10:04:26 PM  | |
|
|
