Da Vinci Code Protests

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting bit on the CNN.com article on the movie (apparently it isn't that good):

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movi...nci/index.html

Protests were brewing in several countries.

In India, the government Tuesday put a temporary hold on the movie's release because of complaints, The Associated Press reported.

In South Korea, which has 13 million Protestants and 4.6 million Roman Catholics, a court ruled Tuesday that a Christian group's request for an injunction to block screenings lacked merit. The Christian Council of Korea, an umbrella group of 63 South Korean Protestant denominations, said it respected the ruling but would lead a boycott of the movie, which it said defiles the sanctity of Jesus Christ and distorts facts, AP reported.

In mostly Hindu India, which is also home to 18 million Roman Catholics, Joseph Dias, head of the Catholic Secular Forum, began a hunger strike in downtown Mumbai and said other people were joining him.

"We want the movie to be banned," he said.

The film had been set for release in India on Friday and had already been cleared by the national censor board. But Information and Broadcasting Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi said he put a temporary hold on the movie after receiving more than 200 complaints.

In Thailand, Columbia Pictures has appealed a ruling by government censors to cut the final 10 minutes of "The Da Vinci Code," police said, after Thai church leaders complained the film's content was insulting.

Philippine censors approved an adult rating for the movie but stopped short of rating it "X" because "it does not constitute a clear, express or direct attack on the Catholic church or religion" and does not libel or defame any person.

The movie-review panel's chairwoman, Marissa Laguardia, told The Associated Press that the movie would be a "test of faith" for many people in the predominantly Roman Catholic Philippines.

The National Council of Churches in Singapore, which also had requested a ban, planned lectures to refute aspects of the film and the book on which it is based. The censorship board gave the movie an NC16 rating, barring viewers under 16, arguing that "only a mature audience will be able to discern and differentiate between fact and fiction."

Also, while not planning a protest or boycott, members of the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation expressed unhappiness with the film's heavy, a monk-assassin, being an albino, as described in the book.

Michael McGowan, an albino who heads the organization, said "The Da Vinci Code" will be the 68th movie since 1960 to feature an evil albino. He said the group aims to use the movie's popularity to raise awareness about the realities of albinism. People with albinism have little or no pigmentation in their skin, eyes and hair.

After making its print debut in 2003, "The DaVinci Code" has since sold more than 60.5 million copies and has been translated into 44 languages.

I mean this is a work of FICTION, which the author fully admits. Is there really any reason for such protests over it? Does the Church really want people who will change their beliefs based on what a Hollywood movie tells them?

IIRC, I don't think the Pope has even acknowledged the movie, which is probably the best thing to do. Otherwise, this type of publicity makes people even more interested in the subject matter.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I mean this is a work of FICTION, which the author fully admits. Is there really any reason for such protests over it?

On the opening pages, right before the fiction starts, Brown claims that the underlying research (i.e. that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children) is factual. For him to claim "its just a work of fiction" now is cowardly, IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

Does he say it is factual or based on fact?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Interesting bit on the CNN.com article on the movie (apparently it isn't that good).

Given the source material, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

On similar lines, this book has been around for years. It's been the best, or at least one of the best, selling books for years. How come there were never any protests before the movie? I never really heard any kind of complaints, protests, or anything about the book.

[Noop]

If your beliefs can not stand against a movie then I suggest you get a new system of belief.

[Crapshoot]

Religion gets a little too much sway in Indian affairs - but the problem of holding a country which is a genuine "melting pot" and with various constituiences means that the authorities resort to trying to please everyone.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Given the source material, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

On similar lines, this book has been around for years. It's been the best, or at least one of the best, selling books for years. How come there were never any protests before the movie? I never really heard any kind of complaints, protests, or anything about the book.

Various people and groups have been denouncing the book and its message for a few years now. There were protests about the book being for sale in different countries, but they weren't as big or as publicized as the recent protests.

The book does protray itself as being factual and it is a decent story even if the writing itself is fairly immature.

I think an interesting question from all of this is why the story became so popular. Are there that many people fed up with religion that this story speaks to them? Do people just like controversy? Is it the fact that people get to "learn" something while they read a fun story? Is this another case of people loving a good conspiracy?

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

On similar lines, this book has been around for years. It's been the best, or at least one of the best, selling books for years. How come there were never any protests before the movie? I never really heard any kind of complaints, protests, or anything about the book.

Actually, the book generated a great deal of controversy.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Does he say it is factual or based on fact?

I'll have to look at the exact wording, but before all of the three books I have read, he has a page saying that the characters and events in the book are fiction, but he certainly implies that the discoveries they make are completely factual. Lets put it this way - he wants you to believe while reading the book that Jesus having married and had children is factual, not fiction, and IIRC, not even simply a possible alternative history.

Luckily, I had read the other two books first, and knew his claims of underlying science and history being completely true were complete crap.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Actually, the book generated a great deal of controversy.

Must've missed that. Good on me.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think an interesting question from all of this is why the story became so popular. Are there that many people fed up with religion that this story speaks to them? Do people just like controversy? Is it the fact that people get to "learn" something while they read a fun story? Is this another case of people loving a good conspiracy?

I think it is part that people love conspiracies, or at least novels on conspiracies. They like to unravel the mystery. They like to read about the Illuminati or Freemasons.

Secondly, this is a very intriguing conspiracy. And I do think that people have such a low opinion of the Catholic Church these days that something like this can be contemplated as somewhat plausible that the Church would try to hide something like this.

Also the basic premise (Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a kid) is somewhat plausible in itself. But the results of such events would be incredibly powerful and intriguing (ie, does the daugher of God's son get powers?).

[Anthony]

the book. religion. the funny thing is it's all fiction.

[lcjjdnh]

Interesting story in this week's New Yorker about Sony trying to deal with the controversey and even co-opting some of it for a website it created:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060522fa_fact

[moriarty]

One thing that's tried and true in Hollywood: Controversy = Sales.

If the church and everyone else really wanted this to make as little splash as possible, they would just laugh it off as harmless fiction and use it as an opportunity to present their own version of the 'facts'. Creating a big storm about it does nothing more but increase awareness and ensure more folks see the film.

Or if they were really ingenious, they would just buy off the top movie reviewers to make sure it received really lousy ratings and helped keep people away.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

the book. religion. the funny thing is it's all fiction.

based on fact.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Or if they were really ingenious, they would just buy off the top movie reviewers to make sure it received really lousy ratings and helped keep people away.

Maybe they already did this.

Edit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12822855/

CANNES, France - “The Da Vinci Code” drew lukewarm praise, shrugs of indifference, some jeering laughter and a few derisive jabs Tuesday from arguably the world’s toughest movie crowd: critics at the Cannes Film Festival.

The year’s most anticipated movie, “The Da Vinci Code” was a generally faithful adaptation of Dan Brown’s monster best seller, spinning a murder thriller that stems from a cover-up of secrets about Christianity’s roots.

While readers worldwide devoured the novel, reaction from Cannes critics ranged from mild endorsement of its potboiler suspense to groans of ridicule over its heavy melodrama.

“It’s a movie about whether the greatest story ever told is true or not, and it’s not the greatest movie ever screened, is it?” said Baz Bamigboye, a film columnist for London’s Daily Mail. “As a thriller, well,” he continued, shrugging.

“Maybe the next day I’ll forget about it,” said Igor Soukmanov of Unistar Radio in Belarus. “But today for two hours it was good entertainment. ... As a Hollywood movie, it’s a very nice picture.”

Critics got their first look at “The Da Vinci Code” a day before its world premiere at Cannes on Wednesday, when it also debuts at theaters in France and some other countries. The film opens worldwide over the following two days, including the United States on Friday.

Directed by Ron Howard, the movie stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as strangers hurled together on a frantic quest for the Holy Grail after a series of murders is committed.

The filmmakers add some twists and variations here and there, but the general thrust of the novel remains intact, including its theory that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child, which has prompted denouncements from many Christians.

The Cannes audience clearly grew restless as the movie dragged on to two and a half hours and spun a long sequence of anticlimactic revelations.

“I kept thinking of the Energizer Bunny, because it kept going and going and going, and not in a good way,” said James Rocchi, a film critic for CBS 5 television in San Francisco and the online outlet Cinematical. “Ron Howard makes handsome films. He doesn’t make bad ones, but he doesn’t make great ones.”

One especially melodramatic line uttered by Hanks drew prolonged laughter and some catcalls, and the audience continued to titter for much of the film’s remainder.

Some people walked out during the movie’s closing minutes, though there were fewer departures than many Cannes movies provoke among harsh critics. When the credits rolled, there were a few whistles and hisses, and there was none of the scattered applause even bad movies sometimes receive at Cannes.

Critics singled out co-star Ian McKellen, playing a wry Grail enthusiast who joins the search, as the movie’s highlight, injecting hearty humor and delivering the most nuanced performance. Paul Bettany added a seething mix of tragic pathos and destructive zealousness as a monk assassin who carries out the slayings.

Bamigboye said all the actors were solid, but enthusiastically added, “I’ve got to tell you, Ian McKellen steals it. He slices all the crap away.”

[Coder]

I think the movie will do very well.. the book did amazingly well despite being shot down by critics.. I doubt the movie will be any different.

[st.cronin]

Dan Brown is an idiot, with a warped sense of why people are drawn to Jesus. His claims are, in fact, offensive. But you know what? You don't see anybody rioting and setting fire to Sony's studios.

[chinaski]

would be nice if these people actually used their time to help the needy, instead of protesting a fictional story.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by chinaski

would be nice if these people actually used their time to help the needy, instead of protesting a fictional story.

Sounds like they just need someone to lead them.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Samdari

On the opening pages, right before the fiction starts, Brown claims that the underlying research (i.e. that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children) is factual. For him to claim "its just a work of fiction" now is cowardly, IMO.

thats some twisted logic. hes setting up the story. Hes said time and time again this is a fictional story. long before it was a hit, and long after it sold a trillion copies. the book is sold as a fiction. what more do you need?

[Solecismic]

I would hope that those who are offended by the movie's premise would see it in their hearts to forgive those who caused offense.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by chinaski

would be nice if these people actually used their time to help the needy, instead of protesting a fictional story.

Sure, ok, they're totally out of line objecting to vicious propaganda being pushed all over the world slandering their belief system - they should just ignore it and go work in the soup kitchen. I totally agree.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Sure, ok, they're totally out of line objecting to vicious propaganda being pushed all over the world slandering their belief system - they should just ignore it and go work in the soup kitchen. I totally agree.

Vicious propaganda?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by chinaski

thats some twisted logic. hes setting up the story. Hes said time and time again this is a fictional story. long before it was a hit, and long after it sold a trillion copies. the book is sold as a fiction. what more do you need?

I disagree. It is positioned as a fictional story build around a bunch of research and back-story that is fact. Sort of like Titanic. Jack and Rose were fiction, but all the events surroundnig them were not.

[scooper]

Originally Posted by chinaski

would be nice if these people actually used their time to help the needy, instead of protesting a fictional story.

And you know they are not? Not every protester is some trust fund 20-something who can travel the country listening to Phish and do nothing to protest and eschew bathing.

I work for a church-based organization whose sole purpose is to help the needy. Some of the people I've been in contact with have voiced concerns about this book or other issues. It has never hurt their efforts.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Sure, ok, they're totally out of line objecting to vicious propaganda being pushed all over the world slandering their belief system - they should just ignore it and go work in the soup kitchen. I totally agree.

it cracks me up, people get so worked up over cartoons.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Coder

Vicious propaganda?

If you don't think the book is "vicious propaganda" you have either not read it or are not familiar with Christianity.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you don't think the book is "vicious propaganda" you have either not read it or are not familiar with Christianity.

I've read the book and I've studied christianity to a certain extent. I have a hard time seeing the book as vicious propaganda. For what it's worth, it's the word VICIOUS, I was surprised about.

I just don't see what's vicious about saying Jesus might have had a relationship with a woman who became pregnant with a child.... If I were a believing christian I wouldn't be very offended by this, nor would I call it a vicious attack on my beliefs.

To me, the books was a decent thriller with a fun "intellectual" twist rather than some stereotypical evil mastermind trying to blow up the world or whatever. Not a fantastic thriller, but entertaining none the less.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you don't think the book is "vicious propaganda" you have either not read it or are not familiar with Christianity.

Well, if you're a member of the Opeis Dei (or whatever) then I guess I could consider it viscious.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by scooper

And you know they are not? Not every protester is some trust fund 20-something who can travel the country listening to Phish and do nothing to protest and eschew bathing.

I work for a church-based organization whose sole purpose is to help the needy. Some of the people I've been in contact with have voiced concerns about this book or other issues. It has never hurt their efforts.

Anyone whos out protesting a MOVIE is certainly wasting their time. time that could be used to help people. why not organize nationwide volunteer drives, in name of protest of the movie? Where was the protests when a movie had priests molesting and beating kids? Sleepers anyone?

Good job twisting what i said "It never hurt their efforts" - ? wtf, over.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Coder

I just don't see what's vicious about saying Jesus might have had a relationship with a woman who became pregnant with a child.... If I were a believing christian I wouldn't be very offended by this, nor would I call it a vicious attack on my beliefs.

To me, the books was a decent thriller with a fun "intellectual" twist rather than some stereotypical evil mastermind trying to blow up the world or whatever. Not a fantastic thriller, but entertaining none the less.

Nobody I know really cares about the woman/child thing. It's the assertion that the Church never believed in Christ's divinity, but asserted it years after the fact for political/power reasons that is offensive. That is vicious propaganda, and untrue as well - that the entire belief system is predicated on a lie.

[condors]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you don't think the book is "vicious propaganda" you have either not read it or are not familiar with Christianity.

I have read the book and i am Catholic. I don't consider it "vicious propaganda". Its a story of fiction. Do you consider books of different beliefs "vicious propaganda" espcially if they claim to be fact?

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Samdari

On the opening pages, right before the fiction starts, Brown claims that the underlying research (i.e. that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children) is factual. For him to claim "its just a work of fiction" now is cowardly, IMO.

This is actually what the book says in the opening:

Fact:

The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Le Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous memebers of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I would hope that those who are offended by the movie's premise would see it in their hearts to forgive those who caused offense.

touché

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by condors

I have read the book and i am Catholic. I don't consider it "vicious propaganda". Its a story of fiction. Do you consider books of different beliefs "vicious propaganda" espcially if they claim to be fact?

The vicious propaganda comes in where the author asserts the historical framework as factual - if you see that as a transparent marketing ploy, fine. I suspect most people don't see it that way. Despite the language I'm using, I really could care less about this book/movie. In the end, it is just a book/movie. There are definitely more important things to get riled up about. See my first post in the thread.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by scooter

This is actually what the book says in the opening:

Fact:

The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Le Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous memebers of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

Interesting statement to open the book with - especially when so much of it is very easily proven that all descriptions of artwork, architecture etc are not accurate. Brown gets all kinds of things wrong such as sizes, dates, materials for artwork and architecture not to mention the religious history. Also kind of hard for him to claim the book as fiction when the very first thing onto the page is the above.

[QuikSand]

I thought the book was indeed pretty vicious, personally. And I also understand that "fiction" can indeed be a way to make a political point about a real world issue or government.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The vicious propaganda comes in where the author asserts the historical framework as factual - if you see that as a transparent marketing ploy, fine. I suspect most people don't see it that way. Despite the language I'm using, I really could care less about this book/movie. In the end, it is just a book/movie. There are definitely more important things to get riled up about. See my first post in the thread.

Um, read two posts above your post, and tell me where the author asserts the historical framework (particularly the parts you mentioned previously) are fact.

Is it possibly misleading ... perhaps.

[scooper]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Anyone whos out protesting a MOVIE is certainly wasting their time. time that could be used to help people. why not organize nationwide volunteer drives, in name of protest of the movie? Where was the protests when a movie had priests molesting and beating kids? Sleepers anyone?

Good job twisting what i said "It never hurt their efforts" - ? wtf, over.

No, it didn't hurt their efforts. My point is, that some of the people protesting this movie DO help the needy at other times. Are they expected to do it 24/7 365 days of the year? Maybe instead of complaining about the protesters, you should go out help the needy in support of DVC. What a stupid idea-in order to get a message out, you have to do something positive for someone else.

Charity should be charity for the sake of charity, not for the sake of getting attention.

As for the sleepers reference. There have been a lot of Catholics upset about the molestation/abuse scandals. And many of them have protested. Not the movie, but the leadership and accused themselves. The protests (as they should be) have been large and heated. I'm not sure what that has to do with your point.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Interesting statement to open the book with - especially when so much of it is very easily proven that all descriptions of artwork, architecture etc are not accurate. Brown gets all kinds of things wrong such as sizes, dates, materials for artwork and architecture. Also kind of hard for him to claim the book as fiction when the very first thing onto the page is the above.

From the news reports I've seen, I get the impression that he claims that the book is fiction when criticized by the authors he is sourcing his research from, but claims that it is based on fact when criticized by the religious authorities.

[condors]

well i guess i don't take the author serious enough to find it offensive, i thought it was a good story though

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Also kind of hard for him to claim the book as fiction when the very first thing onto the page is the above.

I don't necessarily think so. Tom Clancy's novels are filled with military hardware that actually exist, but they are definitely fictional works. Dan Brown is just saying that certain elements of the book are factual - he then weaves the story around those facts. That doesn't make it any less a work of fiction though.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Interesting statement to open the book with - especially when so much of it is very easily proven that all descriptions of artwork, architecture etc are not accurate. Brown gets all kinds of things wrong such as sizes, dates, materials for artwork and architecture not to mention the religious history. Also kind of hard for him to claim the book as fiction when the very first thing onto the page is the above.

Well the book is fiction... the story that occurs within it is a fictional story. There are supposed facts in it of course, but that occurs in the majority of fictional novels.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

From the news reports I've seen, I get the impression that he claims that the book is fiction when criticized by the authors he is sourcing his research from, but claims that it is based on fact when criticized by the religious authorities.

I've actually never heard him claim the history part is fact, but I retract my earlier comments if he did make this claim.

Most of the religious stuff in his book comes straight out of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which I believe was released as a non-fiction book. However, that book HBHG hardly goes down as a in depth piece of detective journalism.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Well the book is fiction... the story that occurs within it is a fictional story. There are supposed facts in it of course, but that occurs in the majority of fictional novels.

Brown doesn't say there are supposed facts within the framework of a fictional story. His words are right there on the page

Fact: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

He's claiming that everything in his book in regards to descriptions of artwork - eg that it is Mary seated at Jesus' right hand in the painting of the Last Supper and that nuns commissioned Leonardo to paint the Virgin on the Rocks yet the painting had to be redone because it contained depictions the church wanted covered up - is FACT. How can you say that ALL descriptions are accurate and have anything fictional regarding those things? Brown can't even get the sizes of the paintings of the Virgin on the Rocks correct and yet he claims that all descriptions of artwork are accurate.

[Gary Gorski]

BTW, just for the record I think its pointless to protest the movie. All it does is call more attention to it and if people are having their faith swayed by the movie then they already have that seed of doubt planted by reading the book. Movies and books can be powerful in persuading people or at least creating that shadow of doubt and that's why this is a big deal especially to Catholics but protesting it isn't the answer. If you want to protest, do it with your wallet. Don't see the movie or go see something else the weekend it opens so that another movie can open higher than it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Brown doesn't say there are supposed facts within the framework of a fictional story. His words are right there on the page

Fact: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

He's claiming that everything in his book in regards to descriptions of artwork - eg that it is Mary seated at Jesus' right hand in the painting of the Last Supper and that nuns commissioned Leonardo to paint the Virgin on the Rocks yet the painting had to be redone because it contained depictions the church wanted covered up - is FACT. How can you say that ALL descriptions are accurate and have anything fictional regarding those things? Brown can't even get the sizes of the paintings of the Virgin on the Rocks correct and yet he claims that all descriptions of artwork are accurate.

I think that's a bit of streach. He said as DESCRIPTIONS of artwork, not interpretations of artwork. He's trying to say "The Last Supper" is a real work of art.

[molson]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Dan Brown is an idiot, with a warped sense of why people are drawn to Jesus. His claims are, in fact, offensive. But you know what? You don't see anybody rioting and setting fire to Sony's studios.

He didn't come up with any of of the ideas in this book - all of them have been around forever. He simply made these theories accessible to the general public, and threw in a few fictionalized characters. It was brilliant - he made millions doing something anyone could have done.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

He didn't come up with any of of the ideas in this book - all of them have been around forever. He simply make these theories accessible to the general public, and threw in a few fictionalized characters. It was brilliant - he made millions doing something anyone could have done.

He wrote a page-turner. Ultimately, nothing in the book (unless it causes great offense) is all that memorable. It's not outstanding from a literary perspective. It's not even fun from a research what-if perspective, like Michael Crichton's work. The romance is stale and hackneyed and the action-adventure is improbable.

But page-turners sell, and the "naughty" aspect of the theme has won him considerable notoriety. I thought the book was okay, in that it kept me entertained while I was reading it. It was a bit short in the book-club department, in that it provided very little interesting discussion between my wife and I. We have more fun arguing about Taylor on American Idol, in comparison.

I won't see the movie. Then again, I haven't been to a movie since 1992.