Da Vinci Code Protests
 

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


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.

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.

Does he say it is factual or based on fact?

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.

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

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.

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?

Actually, the book generated a great deal of controversy.

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.

Must've missed that. Good on me.

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?).

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

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

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.

based on fact.

Maybe they already did this. :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.:rolleyes:

Vicious propaganda?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

touché

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.