Da Vinci Code

I saw it last night out of curiosity and find it a little disappointing (along with most of the reviews I've read). It was slow and clunky and won't be a piece of cinema that I think will stand the test of time, apart from the fact that it is the film version of such a big-selling book. The references to history are extremely one-sided and I think in largely in error. The idea that no one thought Jesus was divine until Nicaea in 325 AD shows a complete lack of knowledge of the theologians of the early church and I don't have much time for the 'gospel of Mary Magdalene' - it's interesting that apart from John's gospel, it is widely agreed that the identity of the synoptic gospel writers are not people who were eye-witnesses, but are in contact with eye-witnesses. The idea that Mary Magdalene sat down and wrote or dictated a gospel I think is pretty ludicrous.

What's good about the film and the book? As Cosmo Landesman in the Sunday Times said yesterday, 'a bestselling blockbuster that is rooted in European history and its high culture, a book that gets millions of people discussing everything from Christian theology to the art of Leonardo da Vinci, might deserve a little credit.' I agree with that. Books should spark discussion and debate. I'm not saying I think the book is well written or I agree with the ideas in it. It's a challenge to re-examine the Christian church's history. So many Christians are illiterate about the history of the church or we think we can bypass it and return to the 'new testament' church. The history of the church is part of God's story, for good and for ill. It's a challenge to say what does Christianity have to say about the place and role of women. Historically women in the church have been pushed to the margins. Protestants shy away from saying anything about Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary Magdalene has unfortunately, probably inaccurately, been branded as a prostitute. It's a challenge to the church to say what kind of gospel - good news - do we tell, share, demonstrate to the world?

People liked the book and film because they like a good conspiracy, we like secrets, we like the idea that everything is not as it appears - and sometimes it isn't. There is a lot within the political world that is kept from public square. The problem here is that fact and fiction become blurred. I don't know anything about Opus Dei,  presumably like a lot of people, so the presentation in the book finds more weight than it probably deserves in reality. (I hope that there are not those kinds of people presented in the Roman Catholic church.) Do author's have a responsibility to their readership to give a more balanced portrayal?  The book and film has no positive Christian character. The church has no voice to defend itself.

Comments

[ash]

Opus Dei's website might help.

Most films like this are drawing on the imagination, building a fake history that is more interesting than reality, or replaces secrets.

Stigmata was an interesting film, but concerned with fiction. National Treasure was a vaguely good film, but I doubt the freemasons are the modern Knights Templar, and a doubt they have hoarded the entire treasure of the ancient world beneath Trinity Church, Wall Street.

They also, to some extent, play on various prejudices, and I think that is the down side. It is somewhat cheap to play to people's dislike of Catholicism, for example. The vatican is often portrayed as the big bad wolf these days, especially on its views on contraception. Think, for example, how such films would be received in places like Northern Ireland.

Also, as Jonathan Ross pointed out on Friday, there have been 68 albino bad-guys in films in recent years. I wonder what the albino community make of this?

That aside, I will be going to see this film this week. I don't expect it to be fantastic. But with Ian McKellen and Tom Hanks, I do expect it will be watchable.

[hp]

Well, the nun was OK. But she didn't last very long.

[andy goodliff]

The nun was protecting the priory of sion, so I'm not sure again she was a model christian.

[Account Deleted]

I too thought that the film was slightly disappointing... it was a good summer blockbuster in that I was entertained for the full amount of time. But the main critique that i had of the film was that it was drastically Eurocentric. I thought it terribly convenient that Mary Magdalene went to France to give birth to her child, where her blood, in just a few generations, intermingled with the French Royal bloodline; Especially if you are trying to find divine legitimization to one's Royal authority. When they said that the "grail's true home is in France," that also made me frustrated. This seems to say the “truth” has always been in the hands of the privileged West, even since the time of Christ. But then again, it is just a story (but is anything ever just a story?)

[brodie]

Life is so busy at that I've not got to see the film yet, but I read the book and have posted some thought's on ways we should respond over at my blog. Steve Hollinghurst even comments on them which was very nice of him.

[graham]

As least it proves what we knew all along: Jesus' bloodline is European! 8-|