TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
 Wikia  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through May 20, 2006

The TVClubHouse: Movies/Library ARCHIVES: Movies & Library 2006: DaVinci Code: Archive through May 20, 2006 users admin

Author Message
Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:15 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ocean_islands a private message Print Post    
"I don't have to see 'The Devil in Miss Jones' to know it's pornography, and I don't have to see 'The Da Vinci Code' to know that it's blasphemous," said Mr. Knight, who plans to join religious leaders from groups like Human Life International and Movieguide in Washington on May 17 to announce boycott plans.

.... the outrage is widespread, and the divisions on strategy do not run along denominational lines. Some evangelicals are calling for a boycott, while others are telling their flocks to see the film. Roman Catholic officials are not on the same page either.

The debate has been colored by the Muslim riots over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Most American media outlets refrained from showing the cartoons, and now some Christian leaders are asking why Christians should be expected to sit by while the media promotes a movie that insults their savior.

In Rome recently, Archbishop Angelo Amato, the No. 2 official in the Vatican's doctrinal office, told Catholic communications officials: "If such slanders, offenses and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust, they would have justly provoked a world uprising. Instead, directed at the Church and Christians, they remain unpunished.... link

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 4:31 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
Oh for heaven's sakes.

You know, I agree with some of you who think that Dan Brown is only a so-so writer. You could see his twists coming from a mile away. What I LOVED about this book is how it made me question my own concept of Christianity. I don't know, but somehow I found it very comforting to think a woman could have played such a bigger role than we have been led to believe. Divinities are always so masculine. Adding the touch of the feminine to Christianity somehow made "God" and "Jesus" more approachable.

It's ridiculous to me how so many Christians are up in arms about this.

Oh, and I like Tom Hanks for the role. :-)

Cablejockey
Member

12-27-2001

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 4:39 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cablejockey a private message Print Post    
I dont see what all the fuss is about either. This is an interesting slant on history as well as religion.
On one hand, I think we should question some of what's been handed down to us over the centuries. After all God nor Jesus wrote Bible text--men did. And we all know how even recent history can be spun and edited to suit whoever's needs.
If you are sure and solid in your religious beliefs, you should not be threatend by a book or a movie.

Cdbga
Member

10-04-2004

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 5:11 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cdbga a private message Print Post    
All the fuss just makes me sad. I agree with both Hermione & Cable. The book did stir up a lot of reflection on my own religious beliefs, but to me religion is about faith in God and nothing in a work of fiction could threaten that. While I don't disagree with the Archbishop Amato's statement that slanders against other religions cause more outrage than slanders against Christians, I do wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that anyone should be punished for expressing ideas about any religion. The outrage that this would cause if directed at another religion would not be called for. And, also, I'm not really seeing where this is blashphemy or slander. I don't see that it insults Jesus at all. If anything, it questions the actions of religious leaders. I didn't find that it ever attacked belief in God at all (in fact, doesn't Langdon defend the modern-day Catholics because they are motivated by their convictions and are true believers in their doctrine?). And, honestly, I know I said this before, but I think it bears repeating...this is a work of FICTION. I also think that protesting the book/movie only throws more attention at it. And lastly, have the people who are protesting this actually read the book? (We currently have a woman here in GA trying to get Harry Potter books banned from the local school library because they are so evil, who freely admits she's never read one.) Because I really think you should read a book or see a movie before you go out and protest it (and that porn argument is ridiculous...).

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 8:53 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ocean_islands a private message Print Post    
I don't think a fuss is needed; however, it's worth pointing out, IMO, that taking texts rejected by the church as fake hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago and acting like they were actually 'true' or something is what people are criticizing. [This is also my criticism of the recent hubbub about the 'Judas' document which surfaced recently. There is nothing 'new' about that document -- it was judged to be a fake nearly 2,000 years ago.]

Not to mention that Brown claimed evidence for his story that simply doesn't exist: Many non-discerning readers think it is true or something -- they seriously do.

Brown was very clever in his usage of the 'conspiracy theory'-type frame in which the novel is placed.

Cdbga
Member

10-04-2004

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:06 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cdbga a private message Print Post    
I can understand that criticism, Ocean. And I don't have a problem with criticism of something...I love a good debate. I think when I read the book, I read it more as Brown saying the Priory of Sion believed it true, not that it was actually true (well, that isn't exactly accurate...Brown was laying out as true, I just frankly, didn't believe it was, so I opted to focus on the fact that the Priory & others believed it, but not think of it as true). But, I will freely admit that I came to the story late, have no idea what assertions Dan Brown has made about his book, and was reading after having heard debate about it. You know, what actually pushed me to read the book was a documentary I saw on CNN called "The Two Mary's". I tuned in thinking it would be a fairly interesting religious documentary, but early on they got into all the DaVinci Code/Mary Magdalene stuff. I found it surprising that a documentary spent so much time focusing on a fictional book. And then, CNN broke in with "breaking news" and I never saw the rest of the show. But, it seemed everywhere I turned after that, I heard about DaVinci Code, so I finally broke down and read it.

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:29 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
I still want to believe that women are more important in the history of Christianity than we have been taught...

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:41 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ocean_islands a private message Print Post    
That reminds me I was going to address the 'divinities are always so masculine' comments.

The Catholic church imbues female saints with divine powers and to some Catholics, Mary is divine (maybe to all, I'm not sure as I'm not Catholic). Pope JPII emphasized Mary. Let's not forget, either, the role of Christian/Catholic nuns in the history of Christianity for over 1,000 years.

Many religions have female divinities including Hinduism and Buddhism, among others. Ancient Greek and Roman religions also had prominent roles for female divinities. In a quick analysis, it seems to be only Judaism that seems to lack an important presence of women in the religion's history (not sure).

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 10:06 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
I know what you are saying, OI. I was raised Methodist and still consider myself that, it is just, to me, the whole trinity--Father, Son and Holy Ghost-- upon which the Methodist church places an emphasis feels very masculine to me. It is a personal feeling brought about by my own upbringing.

We have classes that come to the library to research different religions and certainly there are many female divinities out there. I've learned a lot helping the students. But it's hard to shake the lessons you learned in childhood. I don't mean to sound like God and Christ are unapproachable to me, but I like the idea of being able to pray to a female. That is not something I was ever taught it is okay to do.

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 10:08 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ocean_islands a private message Print Post    
And now this:

"Oprah has emerged as a symbolic figurehead of spirituality." link

Cdbga
Member

10-04-2004

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:06 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cdbga a private message Print Post    
"She's a really hip and materialistic Mother Teresa," (a quote about Oprah from the Oprah article)...that is just too funny!

Native_texan
Member

08-24-2004

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:51 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Native_texan a private message Print Post    
My preacher did a sermon a few weeks ago about The DaVinci Code and the Gospel of Judas.

He said he read The DaVinci Code and found it to be a very entertaining work of fiction and he also plans on seeing the movie. He said what's important is to remember that it is a a work of fiction.

As for the Gospel of Judas, in short he said he found it amusing that people who doubt the credibility of the gospels in the Bible swear that this gospel has to be true.

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:00 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ocean_islands a private message Print Post    
Anger over "The Da Vinci Code," premiering Wednesday at the Cannes Film Festival, escalated Tuesday as Christian groups from South Korea, Thailand, Greece and India planned boycotts, a hunger strike and attempts to block or shorten screenings. The plot of the movie, adapted by Ron Howard from Dan Brown's worldwide best seller, makes the case that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children with her.

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

....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.



link

Ketchuplover
Member

08-30-2000

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 5:36 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ketchuplover a private message Print Post    
It got less than stellar reviews at Cannes.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 9:43 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
I heard at one point the audience burst out laughing at a serious scene.

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 3:35 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ocean_islands a private message Print Post    
Da Vinci Code" secret is out: most critics hate it

CANNES, France (Reuters) - Most critics panned "The Da Vinci Code" on Wednesday ahead of the world premiere of the year's most eagerly awaited movie.

Kicking off the annual Cannes film festival, Ron Howard's adaptation of the Dan Brown bestseller was described variously as "grim", "unwieldy" and "plodding", though one reviewer bucked the trend and said "You'll Louvre It!"... link

Mameblanche
Member

08-24-2002

Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 3:13 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mameblanche a private message Print Post    
Well I bought the book, its FINALLY out in paperback. And planned to read it before Sunday when we may go see it. But now its looks like I may read it after the film. Not sure.

Mamie316
Member

07-08-2003

Friday, May 19, 2006 - 7:46 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mamie316 a private message Print Post    
My daughter and I are going to see it tomorrow, despite the less than stellar reviews.

Vee
Member

02-23-2004

Friday, May 19, 2006 - 7:56 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Vee a private message Print Post    
Oh good, Mamie. I am going to base my going directly on whatever you and Elizabeth have to say about this movie. Oh the power you have! LOL!!

I thought you might be interested in *this*...apparently, some of the reports about this movie have been incorrect.

ETA: Oopsie, that was pretty much a trashing of the movie as well, even if it wasn't actually booed.

Mocha
Member

08-12-2001

Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:12 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mocha a private message Print Post    
The ex saw a sneak preview last night and said it was just like an episode of CSI. Not that spectacular. He also said if you read the book then you'll be disappointed. And he did read it.

Vee
Member

02-23-2004

Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:14 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Vee a private message Print Post    
Oh-oh. I read the book and I hate CSI. Looks like I may have troubles.

Mocha
Member

08-12-2001

Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:41 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mocha a private message Print Post    
Go see MI3 instead.

Sheilaree
Member

07-19-2002

Friday, May 19, 2006 - 3:02 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Sheilaree a private message Print Post    
I saw the movie, andI thought it was a good suspensively movie and it is just a movie, I heard MI3 isn't that good either and people aren't going to see it because of Tom Cruse's personal life

Goddessatlaw
Member

07-19-2002

Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:02 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Goddessatlaw a private message Print Post    
Saw the movie - it was fine, nothing spectacular but certainly not worthy of the craptastic reviews its gotten. It would be hard to follow if I hadn't read the book, though.

Goddessatlaw
Member

07-19-2002

Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 8:32 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Goddessatlaw a private message Print Post    
More points - it is a bit of a distraction that the movie veers away from the book at points. Everyone seems to be so familiar with the book, it's hard not to sit there and think "hey, that's not right." So your involvement in the actual film may be diluted.

Ron Howard had a ton of material to cram into a 2 and 1/2 hour movie. And mostly it's a rug show, although the scenes in the Louvre and the churches are just sumptuous. Almost makes me want to go to France to see the grand hall, but not quite. I'd sign up for an IMAX tour of the Louvre. Anyway, outside of slicing the story to bits and relying on the book memory of the audience to fill in the gaps, I'm not sure what Howard could have done to execute the movie more effectively.

I didn't mind Tom Hanks in the lead, but Clive Owen or even Paul Bettany (who plays the Opus Dei killer monk) would have been great in the role. I'm worried Tom Hanks saw how he filmed in this movie and is out planning his first round of plastic surgery. That would be awful, his pliable face is a national treasure IMHO.

Ian McKellan and Audrey Tatou are great, Ian is in rare form and relishing every minute of the role. Audrey didn't have much to do but look bewildered, but she certainly fit my mental image of the character. I was worried for Paul Bettany - that he may have needed months of counseling to get over the depressing nature (and his very effective rendering) of this role. I love Paul best when he's bringing the funny, but as always he's wonderful.

My parents also saw it yesterday and they both read the book. My mother slept through most of it and my Dad seemed to be more irritated than anything else with the film. The theater was packed where we saw it - the reviews didn't seem to put anyone off.