After watching the DaVinci Code...

[NateBlack]

What are your thoughts on the movie after seeing it?

Was it a good movie? acting, directing, filming...

Did you like the story?

Did you feel there might be truth to some of it?

Did you talk with people about it afterwards? What about?

Did it get you thinking about your own faith?

(If you haven't seen it, please discuss your reasons in a different thread.)

 

[NateBlack]

These are things I found interesting in the movie/book:

Christian history
Evolution of creeds & doctrines
Church/State power incest (historical and current)
The absence of women in the church leadership
The sex positive beliefs & rituals of the Priory of Scion (mythical or not)
Opus Dei & the self mutiliation rituals
Thinking about what Christianity might look like if Christ had married, etc...

 

[OdwinOddball]

Currently still reading the book. Had originally had no interest in either, but on a whim picked it up last week. Hadn't planned on seeingt he movie yet if at all, but needed something to do yesterday while waitng on my car to be finished(stereo install).

Was it a good movie? acting, directing, filming...
Overall, I'd give 3.5 out of 5 stars.I enjoyed it, but doubt I will see it again.
Acting was decent. Hanks was passable, but I didnt' really get much of a sense of interest from him. He just seemed rather apathetic the whole time.
Audrey Tautou was well cast, and I think did wonderfully. Of course I am biased, as I find her intriguing in everything she does. That quirky semi smile gets me everytime.
Jean Reno,was good as usual. Of course it was usual, which is not unccomon with him. I really do enjoy him in movies, but he plays essentially the same person in all of them.
Ian McKellan was probably the best of the 4 though. I think he really enjoyed the role, and it showed in his acting. Having not read the book, I did not pick up on his being the actual Teacher untill right up to the reveal.

Directing is where the real problem was. Though I have enjoyed some of Ron's work, this was just not a good genre for him. Despite its religious overtones, DaVinci Code is really a suspense thriller. And frankly Ron howard just has too much of a good boy nature for this type of work. The pacing was to slow, the build up for characters did not give me much interst in them, especially Hanks and Reno's characters. I didn't feel like there were any puzzle peices dropped along the way to tease you. All in all, for a book that has become so popular, it was quite a let down. Of course being as I am still reading the book, perhaps it will be too.


Did you like the story?
Sorta covered above. But to expand, I think the story itself is quite fascinating. I intend to do my own research into the historical accuracy of its claims.

Did you feel there might be truth to some of it?
It wouldn't surprise me at all. As far as the variant history of Christainity in it, I actually find DaVinci's version to be far more probable than the version tauted by Christians. But I doubt very much there exist secret societies and such that are presnted in the movie, I would not be surprised to find such did exist early in Christianities history.

Did you talk with people about it afterwards? What about?
Nah, not really. Liek I said, was just killing time on a Sunday, went by myself.

Did it get you thinking about your own faith?
Nope. Of course I have no faith to think about, so no surprise there.

 

[Sokratikos]

Another thing that I can add is the fact that the canon of the New Testament was set at a council organized and presided by the pagan emperor Constantinus (Constantine), and not "faxed from heaven" to use the words from the character Teabing.

The other thing that was true was the part about the pope turning against the Knights Templars and persecuting them after they had served in the Crusades and risked life an limb. (The details on why I don't recall right now, but I wouldn't bet on that movie to be historically accurate on that point - but for all I know, they could surprise me).

I never read the novel (reading fiction doesn't excite me) and all the papal turmoil around the movie is what made me go (and boredom!). Also, the opportunity to go against a papal call for boicot on literature was to savory to let pass. But I wondered why it inspired the pope's fears.

Now I know, the parts that are true really hit home.

On th other hand, the parts that are pure fantasy and rosecrucian myth, which is like 80% of it makes me think Ratzinger is naive -he's making a lot of people go...

The rest is Hollywoodian Mission Impossible stunts and Rosecrucian bull.

 

[Dracil]

As I said elsewhere, the quote about the mind seeing what it wants to see really stands out. The Da Vinci Code (for those who believe the stuff in it) is the equivalent of the Bible Code, but for skeptics.

It followed the book pretty well though.

I still don't see why people are treating it like it's so real though. If you've read other Dan Brown books, he basically takes conspiracy theories, pretends they're real, adds some hey-isn't-this-neat? puzzles and makes a story out of it.

 

[elman]

Another thing that I can add is the fact that the canon of the New Testament was set at a council organized and presided by the pagan emperor Constantinus (Constantine), and not "faxed from heaven" to use the words from the character Teabing.

The other thing that was true was the part about the pope turning against the Knights Templars and persecuting them after they had served in the Crusades and risked life an limb. (The details on why I don't recall right now, but I wouldn't bet on that movie to be historically accurate on that point - but for all I know, they could surprise me).

I never read the novel (reading fiction doesn't excite me) and all the papal turmoil around the movie is what made me go (and boredom!). Also, the opportunity to go against a papal call for boicot on literature was to savory to let pass. But I wondered why it inspired the pope's fears.

Now I know, the parts that are true really hit home.

On th other hand, the parts that are pure fantasy and rosecrucian myth, which is like 80% of it makes me think Ratzinger is naive -he's making a lot of people go...

The rest is Hollywoodian Mission Impossible stunts and Rosecrucian bull.

Actually I don't think the Christian cannon was finalized by Constantine at the council of Nicea in 325. It was much later I think. It is my understanding on the killing of the Templars, King Phillip owed them a lot of money and had the Pope in France under his control, so the estimate is that they were killed so Phillip would not have to pay his debts and he hoped to take their wealth in the process but apparently the survivors got away with their wealth. I have not read the book or seen the movie yet.

 

[Sokratikos]

As I said elsewhere, the quote about the mind seeing what it wants to see really stands out. The Da Vinci Code (for those who believe the stuff in it) is the equivalent of the Bible Code, but for skeptics.

It followed the book pretty well though.

I still don't see why people are treating it like it's so real though. If you've read other Dan Brown books, he basically takes conspiracy theories, pretends they're real, adds some hey-isn't-this-neat? puzzles and makes a story out of it.

Yes, Brown takes some Rosecrucian myths and makes a novel out of it. But some parts are true, as I pointed out on my previous post.

It's like Sir A.C.Doyle's Sherlock Holmes novels. Sure, they're invented stories, but there is a city called London, etc. That much is true.

I'm happy that this work of fiction is poking into certain holes in the fabric of supposed truths in Catholicism. Those holes do exist and they do explain the pope's clear lack of comfort.

- The canon of the New Testament was established at a council summoned and presided over by a pagan, in which the divinity of Christ (an idea alien and incompatible to the jewish religion) was fixed.

- The Knights Templars who served at in the crusades were persecuted and murdered under the accusation of heresy.

These were the only elements I found that were historically accurate. The rest is, well, fiction.

 

[Sokratikos]

And the suspense was intense, and I liked that. It was a ride, and it keeps you at the edge of your seat most of the time.

It's not a movie for the faint of heart.

 

[Sokratikos]

Actually I don't think the Christian cannon was finalized by Constantine at the council of Nicea in 325. It was much later I think. It is my understanding on the killing of the Templars, King Phillip owed them a lot of money and had the Pope in France under his control, so the estimate is that they were killed so Phillip would not have to pay his debts and he hoped to take their wealth in the process but apparently the survivors got away with their wealth. I have not read the book or seen the movie yet.

I always thought the charge of heresy was fishy anyway. Your information does make sense, although I have no deep understanding of the Knights Templars' history.

And sorry for the spoilers if you want to see the movie.

Oh, and the boy gets the girl in the end - KIDDING!



(Actually the girl becomes a nun and the boy converts to buddhism under the auspices of his transexual lover from Venus).

 

[elman]

I always thought the charge of heresy was fishy anyway. Your information does make sense, although I have no deep understanding of the Knights Templars' history.

And sorry for the spoilers if you want to see the movie.

Oh, and the boy gets the girl in the end - KIDDING!



(Actually the girl becomes a nun and the boy converts to buddhism under the auspices of his transexual lover from Venus).

No problem. I may see it but it is not real important to me. I think the Knights Templar originated as a group to protect the people on the roads to the crusades and it is believed they took relics etc back from Jerusalem. They became a stong financial force lending money to people and I think that is how they got in trouble with King phillip--it is dangerous to lend too much money to the King if he can get the pope to brand you a heritic.