| "Conservative" Faithful Fall into Da Vinci Code Trap |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2009 May 2007 July 2007 May 2007 April 2007 January 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 June 2006 May 2006 February 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January My Links EWTN Dayton Right to Life Org. Just the Facts.Org My Yahoo Group Toys for Tots 2004 tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog
|
posted by: PastorDave (reply) post date: 05.21.06 (9:59 am) I appreciate your thoughtful post. I'm not calling for any boycotts. I just personally do not want to see the movie, and I do believe there is an anti-Christian theme intentionally within the film. I'm looking for good and decent people, many of whom happen to be Christians, to vote with their wallets and therefore force hollywood to give us something better to watch. posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 05.23.06 (8:32 am) Reply to: PastorDave It's beneath you to suggest an anti-Christian bias about something you refuse to see or read. I maintain there isn't one. Only an exploration of stuff that either way takes nothing from what Jesus did or said. posted by: PastorDave (reply) post date: 05.23.06 (4:53 pm) Reply to: surrogate I just think it is a false premise to imply that I cannot make a judgment about a movie or a book unless I first see the movie or read the book. We do it all the time. You do it. I walk into a video store, and I intentionally avoid the movies in the back room, behind the door that says "18 Or Over". I make the judgment that XXX movies are not healthy for me, even though I have not see these movies. I see a video entitled "I Drink Your Blood"- I will not rent it. I look at the title and judge it as being a sorry movie. My time is limited, so I have to be discerning with what I watch. I do not know all the nuances of this movie, but I know enough. It is not something that I want to see. I think that is fair. posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 05.24.06 (8:23 am) Reply to: PastorDave There's a big difference between choosing not to watch porn and claiming you don't have time to watch or read something topical, relavent, and at lest somewhat intellectually stimulating, especially when you have time to write about all the whys of why you won't open yourself to it. Of course, you also claimed you wouldn't see Brokeback Mountain for a while, then you saw it and came away with some different ideas about what you'd seen than what you were sure you were GOING to see. My point is that I don't think you WILL be offended once you've seen it or read it. You may disagree with the premise, but it's not a slam on anyone, or anyone's faith. |
|
||||||||||||||
Just as I predicted, "conservative" faithful have played right into the Da Vinci Code Trap.
They have become victims of the "Passion Effect." The reviews are in: if they had just left it alone, the movie would have been only a modest success. As it is, what Abraham Foxman did to raise Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ from modest status to a mega-blockbuster, the "conservative" faithful, with 200 SSPXers in Paris throwing themselves in for good measure, have now done for the Da Vinci Code: giving it 24/7 publicity that it never would have gotten otherwise.
At its premiere on May 17, opening the annual Cannes Film Festival, the movie was described variously as "grim", "unwieldy," and "plodding." As I had described the source book by Dan Brown, the intricacies of the plot would not transfer well to the screen, and the end lacks punch.
Frankly, I look at Dan Brown's book, and the movie based on it, as an allegory, a literary technique. I don't think that Dan Brown ever intended to focus on the "theological" theme that so many literalists have fixated upon. No, I believe that he is using the movie primarily as a critical reflection upon the Vatican of the present day, and the extent to which the servants of the New Order, represented by Opus Dei, might (and perhaps have) gone to protect their self-interest. In any case, books are often capable of bearing several interpretations. They are, after all, intended to make us think.
Several Vatican cardinals (associated with the1 Opus Deistas) even called for a boycott of the movie. Apparently, these cardinals were disturbed by the fact that the film co-stars Alfred Molina as a Machiavellian bishop. And we all know that Church bishops are honest, virtuous, and straight as a horseshoe! These cardinals expect us to forget that it was their breed who maintained a stony silence when a literal depiction of Christ's Passion was portrayed in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was attacked by radical Jewish elements, led by Abraham Foxman, affiliated with the B'nai B'rith.