The book and film, however, raise important issues.

I find myself wondering if Opus Dei is responsible for the high oil prices.

Any thoughts?
D------ | 05.16.06 - 11:14 pm | #

Heh, the Da Vinci Code gets made. If anyone came in a Hollywood producer's office with scripts for Going My Way or Lilies of the Field in 2006, they'd leave with the producer's shoe print firmly outlined in their rear end.

It's just a coarser world.

www.forgotten-ny.com
Kevin Walsh | Homepage | 05.16.06 - 11:36 pm | #

Some of the best Christian films in recent years have been foreign ones.

The Ninth Day (2004, Der Neunte Tage, Germany)

Sophie Scholl (2005, Germany)

Joyeux Noel (2005, France)

Look them at IMDB.com and the Internet. All extraordinary.

Ninth Day is out on DVD. Sophie Scholl might still be in some theaters. (It just opened in Hartford, CT.)

Joyeux Noel should be out on DVD in a few months.
D------ | 05.16.06 - 11:52 pm | #

The DaVinci Code was doomed because it was two mockery's of a sham not to mention irreverant and blasphemous.
getalifeagain | Homepage | 05.17.06 - 3:00 am | #

Ha! Ha! Ha!
The book was crap so what do you expect?
lar | 05.17.06 - 3:20 am | #

Great news indeed! But I'm still not buying anything made by SONY!

"If you love Jesus, don't buy SONY!"
Georgette | Homepage | 05.17.06 - 7:35 am | #

A few reactions:

* As a "heathen" observing the phenomenon, it seems to me that the church's response to the book (local bookstores have shelves full of debunkings, both "official" and non, of the book) is what catapulted it from a "mere best-seller" (like, say, The Name of the Rose) to the phenomenon it is today.

* The idea that a movie about an esoteric conspiracy theory wouldn't get made without the hype around the book seems silly, when such a movie (National Treasure) was recently made, and did fairly well (IMDB pegs it as the 10th highest grossing film of 2004).

* Like Passion of the Christ, Last Temptation of Christ, What the Bleep do We Know?, and other religion-themed movies, reviews of this film aren't going to be very helpful because you're left wondering how much of the review is of the film itself and how much is the reviewer pushing his or her own agenda. Are the reviewers who pan the movie just trying to keep people out of the theaters? Are the ones who praise it trying to inflate the box office numbers? It's hard to tell sometimes.
Jeff | 05.17.06 - 10:25 am | #

I agree with Jeff. It was the plethora of debunkings that really made the book -- and in turn the movie -- an item of interest.

The mass of debunk-ness is substantial enough to make people think the story is legit; why else would they protest so vehemently? Must be true!

"National Treasure" was obviously bunk, but I found it to be wonderfully mindless, escapist, entertaining bunk. It appears that "The Da Vinci Code" is simply bunk.
C.J. | 05.17.06 - 12:02 pm | #

"I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction." —Da Vinci Code actor Ian McKellen

So an actor thinks this - it must be true...........
--------

Why does this book and film remind me of the JFK conspiracy? Who wanted to believe that a Communist Leftist pulled the trigger all on his own? That's why the masse are still willing to fall for movie's like Oliver Stone's.
formerbondgirl | 05.17.06 - 1:28 pm | #

With respect, I'm not sure if the debunkings really added fuel to the fire. The first major debunkings didn't come out until after the book was on the best-seller lists for a year.

Also, is the lesson to be learned from the theory that "debunking-only-draws- attention-to-your-detractor" to just sit back and hope the slander passes by eventually? If no one objected, the people Mark Shea calls "True Believers" in TDVC would just say "Of course it's true! The Church isn't even trying to refute it."

When you watch "Law & Order," or something like that, and the defendant invokes his or her right to silence, even though under our system of justice silence must not be inferred as evidence of guilt, the jurors often say that by not taking the stand, the defendant must have had something to hide.

I believe that the cure for a lie is not to ignore it, but to counteract it with truth.
Chris Chan | 05.17.06 - 1:36 pm | #

I just think people are looking for something to be offended by. Don't agree with the movie, vote with your wallet and don't see it! Will the DaVinci Code change your beliefs or your family's? If not, then it just becomes thought police. As a Jew, I'm offended by anti-Semitism in passion plays and by The Passion of the Christ. Did I protest they should be closed? No, but they're just not getting any of my money. I've never put up a Christmas tree, but would not have a problem with the city putting one up, since there are enough believers. I don't believe myself, but won't deny anyone who does.
NeilC | 05.17.06 - 3:51 pm | #

I think Chris is right about the timing. I had noticed that every other person on the subway seemed to be reading this book months before I even knew about the controversy.

Ignoring this silly book would not have made it go away. Besides, think of how many people (like me) have taken the opportunity to bone up on church history to better refute the Da Vinci dolts.
nola | 05.17.06 - 3:52 pm | #

Dan Brown didn't invent anti-catholic ravings. He only exploited feelings that were already there in order to make tons of money. His other books are just as much far fetched conspiracy yarns as this one, but this is the only one to receive this much attention. Books only reach this much popularity with big-buck industry backing. So the real questions are: Which companies decided that attacking Catholics is a good idea? and What should we do about it?

It's funny that no one is asking Tom Hanks or Ron Howard if they're anti-catholic just as all Mel Gibson's interviewers asked him if he hated Jews. I guess you're allowed to talk about the bible as long as you say it's a load of bunk perpetrated by a conspiracy of white people.
bookstopper | Homepage | 05.17.06 - 3:53 pm | #

Chris Chan: It depends on what constitutes the fire. I suspect (though of course we have no way of knowing) that if there was a small, discreet disavowal of the accusations in the book rather than a flurry of denials, the book would have still been a best-seller, but would have left the spotlight a long time ago.

On the other hand, as nola pointed out, the publicity can be used as a method of proselytization or as a way to "shore up the ranks".

Bookstopper: The difference is that Passion evoked a long tradition of "blood libel" that excused mistreatment of a relatively powerless group. In that context, the distinction between being "anti" the religious institution and "anti" the individual practitioner is blurred.

Not so in this case - while The DaVinci Code may be "anti-Catholic" in the sense that it attributes bad faith (so to speak) to the Church as an institution, it is not "anti-Catholic" in the sense that it is being used to justify discrimination against individual practitioners.
Jeff | 05.17.06 - 4:20 pm | #

The Da Vinci Code is nothing but blasphemy hiding behind anagrams. Albert Mohler, in Deciphering the Da Vinci Code, summed it up with this reference:

G. K. Chesterton reminded us that orthodoxy is not only true; it is infinitely more interesting than heresy. It is alive and compelling and life-changing. Heresies come and go by fashion. The truth is unchanged and unchangeable.
Henrietta G. Tavish | Homepage | 05.17.06 - 4:53 pm | #

Poor anagramatic Ms. Tavish probably doesn't realize that the "G" in her name is symbolic of God being in the middle of her life.
Robert N G | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 9:26 am | #

So what's it stand for at the end of your name?
Kate B. | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 10:45 am | #

Some would say "No Good", with the rest implied.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 12:29 pm | #

But then again, I'm not a blasphemous atheist hiding behind a cute anagram.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 12:33 pm | #

Just curious.
Kate B. | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 2:02 pm | #

Robert, don't call the Raving Atheist blasphemous. He may blaspheme some people's ideas of God, but I've yet to see him blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Dawn Eden | 05.18.06 - 2:05 pm | #

No offense intended to RA-- I was merely repeating his own tongue-in-cheek joke, while at the same time letting him know I appreciated the exceptional cleverness of his post.

Perhaps for those who haven't stopped to figure it out, "Henrietta G. Tavish" is an anagram for "The Raving Atheist".
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 3:31 pm | #

Uh, exactly who is "calling for a ban?" Or is our hostess falling for those who equate "this movie is no good, don't see it" with "censorship"?
Will | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 4:07 pm | #

I think some people take DVC way tooooo seriously. Were they equally offended by Focault's Pendulum?

And the reason there are so many books about DVC is that DVC was wildly popular from its release. It's not the anti-DVC books that made it popular.

The fact is that the book is a ripping yarn written by a hack writer. It's fast, silly, and fun to read. As one critic said, this is the fist movie that takes longer to watch than to read the book it's based on!
Tom | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 7:43 am | #

And I'm not sure if Kevin is correct. They made Field of Dreams.
Tom | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 7:44 am | #

FOCAULT'S PENDULUM was based on at least some real research (remember his funny analysis of changes in the Templar rule?). And Eco knows what he is talking about when it comes to to church history.... this shows up prominently in THE NAME OF THE ROSE (and not the execrable butchered movie version).
And it was the conspiracists who ended up being dupes of their own hype. "Ma gavte la nata!"
Will | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 10:29 am | #