Reading the reviews, it seems that a lot of the critics seem to be taking as many shots at the Catholic Church and devoutly religious people as they are taking swipes at the actual film. It's like they're saying "How can anyone believe in this movie?" and "How can anyone believe in traditional Christianity?" simultaneously. At least three of them say things that boil down to "I don't know anything about what Catholicism's (or Opus Dei's) really like and I don't care." None of the reviews I've read so far have treated the idea that someone might actually be offended by the views expressed in the film seriously. Of course, there have only been about 16 reviews posted at this writing. There's time for a lot of good critics to step forward... although I'm afraid that a bunch of reviewers who love the film and believe everything in it will step forward by Friday, when the Tomatometer rating becomes more or less fixed.
Chris Chan | 05.18.06 - 12:36 am | #

Your posts are ever so punny, Dawn.
BillyHW | 05.18.06 - 1:44 am | #

Did you notice there were only two who really liked it? I wonder if they saw a different movie.
getalifeagain | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 7:59 am | #

Ahhh, make that five who really liked it.
getalifeagain | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 8:01 am | #

In the line of doody?

Oh my. I must introduce you to my father-in-law.
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 8:20 am | #

Though it's relatively early in the morning for me, I can assure you "in the line of doody" has given me the biggest laugh of the day. Nothing else will even come close.
Dan Crawford | 05.18.06 - 8:26 am | #

Remember that Seinfeld episode where Kramer sells all his anecdotes to Mr. Peterman? I don't think Dawn can use her doody joke anymore.
Robert N G | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 9:23 am | #

... a lot of good critics to step forward? What good critics?
Richard J. Stuart | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 9:45 am | #

Gee.... bad theology makes for bad art....who would'a thunk it?
Chris | 05.18.06 - 9:48 am | #

At least three of them say things that boil down to "I don't know anything about what Catholicism's (or Opus Dei's) really like and I don't care."

This is pretty much my position on it. I figure it has about as much to do with the actual Catholic Church as The Skulls did with actual fraternities, and I won't be watching it without a healthy suspension of disbelief. Still, Paul Bettany looks genuinely creepy in his role, and I tend to enjoy performances like that.

bad theology makes for bad art

I think the two are largely orthogonal, unless one begs the question by defining "good art" as that which promotes good theology. What do we make of films like It's a Wonderful Life and The Seventh Seal that play fast and loose with theological concepts? What about art from other (esp. non-"Western") religious traditions?
Jeff | 05.18.06 - 10:22 am | #

What really gets me about the Da Vinci Code is that people will believe unquestioningly the conclusion behind it despite all the blatant errors, yet they can't be bothered to pick up a Bible and read the hundreds of messianic prophecies that point directly to Jesus Christ. "Well, the Bible is a book full of contradictions and errors," they'll say without even doing a whit of research. "And it was manipulated by the Church to exclude the truth about Jesus and Mary Magdalene."
Jason | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 12:19 pm | #

There seems to be a common assumption that anyone (or at least anyone who's not already a devout Catholic) who watches/reads Da Vinci code is going to "believe unquestioningly" that it's an accurate description of events.

That's like saying people who read Man in the High Castle are going to think that the Allies lost World War Two. Give us a little more credit than that.

(I have observed that many people seem to be more curious and more skeptical about the subject, but to me that's the exact opposite of unquestioning belief.)
Jeff | 05.18.06 - 12:40 pm | #

Father Huneycutt, I was referring to a headline I wrote for a New York Post story about a man suing the city after being mildly injured when a courthouse toilet broke underneath him.
Dawn Eden | 05.18.06 - 1:25 pm | #

4 stars in the NY Post
Tom | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 1:41 pm | #

Give us a little more credit than that.

You're not French, are you?

"Out of every 10 people, without distinctions of categories, questioned in France by IPSOS on Christ and the Church, three thought that Jesus certainly or probably never existed; one judged that he was an impostor; only two affirmed his divine nature. Seven said he changed nothing in their lives; eight thought the Church was an invention of men."

Now, did the DVC merely confirm belief, or did it change minds? Hard to say for sure, but:

"...close to half -- 48% -- of readers of the book do not see in Jesus anything other than a man, as opposed to less than a third -- 29% -- of those who have not read it.

"The readers of the book were induced to think that Jesus did not resurrect; among them, the ratio of those who deny the resurrection is 10.7% higher in relation to those who did not know the novel.

"They also no longer think that the Church has a positive role -- 14% more than those who do not know the book.

"More than one-fourth -- 26.4% -- of those who have not read the book think that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife or mistress; this figure is already impressive. But of those who have read the book, close to half -- 48.3% -- came to this conclusion!"

No guarantees on the statistical soundness of this poll, but this (and another poll with similar results in England) suggests a correlation between reading the DVC and rejecting traditional Christianity.
Tom | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 2:53 pm | #

Tom,
Doesn't plain common sense prompt you to ask what frail sort of faith is it that can possibly be troubled/abandoned as a result of one fat, trashy, luridly-plotted, cartoonish airport thriller in the first place?

You can, I think, safely accuse Dan Brown of any number of crimes against literature (even thriller writing) but not the rising agnosticism in Europe.
jody tresidder | 05.18.06 - 3:31 pm | #

No guarantees on the statistical soundness of this poll, but this (and another poll with similar results in England) suggests a correlation between reading the DVC and rejecting traditional Christianity.

Tom - I think you're confusing cause and effect here. What is most likely happening is not that DVC is changing people's faith, but that people's faith is influencing whether they read the book.

I'm not sure that what holds true in France and England holds true in the States, though. Not that I'm an expert on European cultures, but there seem to be some fundamental differences in the attitude between religion and society. To put it cynically, it's the difference between a state religion nobody pays attention to and a commitment to plurality nobody pays attention to.
Jeff | 05.18.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Jeff:

There seems to be a common assumption that anyone (or at least anyone who's not already a devout Catholic) who watches/reads Da Vinci code is going to "believe unquestioningly" that it's an accurate description of events.

There seems to be an assumption on your part that any and every religious person who posts here is Catholic. I can assure you that I am not.

There is also the assumption that I meant everyone who reads the book or watches the movie.

That's like saying people who read Man in the High Castle are going to think that the Allies lost World War Two. Give us a little more credit than that.

I don't give much credit to the willfully ignorant masses (and that includes a lot of people who claim to be Christians). They are susceptable to one heresy or another.
Jason | Homepage | 05.18.06 - 5:54 pm | #

Speaking of Opie;

http://www.thenormanrockwellcode.com/
TonyR | 05.18.06 - 6:03 pm | #

Okay, Jason, I'll bite. I have done the research (along with many others) and I still say that not only is the Bible full of contradictions and errors but atrocious immorality. Reading the Bible - the whole Bible, mind you - is one of the shortest routes to atheism I know.

[Oz, I've deleted your links as per the Harris Protocol, which states that commenters' arguments should rely upon their own words and not upon the reading of lengthy outside material. - Ed.]

Edited By Siteowner
Oz | 05.18.06 - 9:14 pm | #

Thanks, Dawn.

I had to can the cartoon for a day or so, but I finally got off the pot and finished it. I'm grateful for the, um, additional exposure.

God bless.
Dan Lacey | 05.18.06 - 9:16 pm | #

Why would bad theology make for bad art?

Well, God is the ultimate artist. The world is the ultimate work of art. To not understand the relation ship between the artist and His work (from which all other little minor artists, like ourselves, flow) is to not understand what art really is for.
Chris | 05.19.06 - 6:00 am | #

I don't think you can make the claim that DVC is stealing people's faith based on the study. It is much more likely that some people know the book will offend them so they aren't reading it. So already the self-selected group of DVC readers does not reflect the overall society. It's like finding the male to female ratio of the general population and comparing that to the male to female ratio in the parking lot of Giant stadium after a football game. And then deciding that football turns women into men.
Tom | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 7:16 am | #

Certainly it's a frail faith that can be weakened by reading DVC, but Brown's insistence that the underlying history of the novel was basically true, which greatly contributed to the negative effect of the novel on those with frail faith, was culpably immoral.

It is an empirical fact that reading DVC has caused some Christians to doubt their faith. That may not be "likely," but it is true, and even common in an anecdotal if not a statistical sense. This is sufficient cause for concern by the Church, which is charged with the care of smouldering wicks as well as bright flames.

As I wrote when I referred to it, the French poll is evidence of a significant correlation between DVC and rejection (or doubt) of traditional Christianity. Without even getting into the question of likely causes, this suggests that conversation related to DVC will be disproportionately conducted with those who reject traditional Christianity, which again justifies the Church's concern.
Tom | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 10:36 am | #

Tom,
You write: "Certainly it's a frail faith that can be weakened by reading DVC, but Brown's insistence that the underlying history of the novel was basically true, which greatly contributed to the negative effect of the novel on those with frail faith, was culpably immoral."

You are playing fast and loose here with the responsibility of a fictional work based on truth. Take the derring-do 2000 movie "U-571", which shows us USA submarine heroes on a mission to grab the crucial Nazi Enigma code machine. The discrete elements of the story are all based on historical truths - except, of course, they are combined into a story that isn't true at all.

Were the "U-571" movie makers thus culpably immoral too?
jody tresidder | 05.19.06 - 11:21 am | #

Jody:

Whatever I am doing, it is not "playing fast and loose ... with the responsibility of a fictional work based on truth," because DVC is not based on truth.
Tom | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 11:50 am | #

I changed my name since there is a different "Tom" here. I'm the one with the football analogy. Anyway, I think blaming DVC for people losing their faith is absurd. I don't know anyone who lost their faith because of this silly book and I doubt you do either.
Tom P | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 11:58 am | #

Tom,
So what then IS your thesis?
"Church worried by effect of dreary film of baloney book on those of little faith"? Is that it?

I thought the whole DVC row sprung from the way it mixed some historical facts with fantastic fiction - exemplfied (to use strictly non controversial details) by the Harvard Department of Symbology or the 666 panes of glass in the Louvre pyramid?
jody tresidder | 05.19.06 - 12:25 pm | #

Tom P,

Very glad you came forward with an initial! I was getting extremely confused. My last at 12.25 is, of course, to the non-football Tom.
jody tresidder | 05.19.06 - 12:29 pm | #

Why would bad theology make for bad art?

Well, God is the ultimate artist. The world is the ultimate work of art. To not understand the relation ship between the artist and His work (from which all other little minor artists, like ourselves, flow) is to not understand what art really is for.

Chris: I believe that introduces an awful lot of assumptions that there is no consensus on (not even to the extent that there's a consensus on what constitutes "good art"). Basically, it's a tautology - bad theology makes for bad art because good theology is required for good art. But I suspect the corpus of "good art" that meets such a criterion wouldn't be much in line with what is commonly understood to be "good art."
Jeff | 05.19.06 - 1:18 pm | #

Jody:

My thesis is that saying, "Give us a little more credit than that," "What frail sort of faith can possibly be troubled?," or, "Blaming DVC for people losing their faith is absurd," doesn't change the fact that there are many people who believe DVC's premise is true because they have read DVC.

To the question, What was it about reading DVC that caused them to believe the premise?, I have no answer. I suspect it was different things for different people, although profound historical ignorance seems to me to be a necessary component in every case. And it certainly doesn't reflect well on the Church that a book like this would have the effect it has had.
Tom K | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 1:34 pm | #

Tom K,
NOW the problem becomes - why would your putative folk, i.e. the ones with "profound historical ignorance" be the least bit interested in buying a novel which proudly trumpets itself as being about art and church history, academic shenanigans, arcane ecclesiastical lore and the like?

Wouldn't they just stick with "TV Guide"?

I suppose I'm mulishly with Tom P.["I think blaming DVC for people losing their faith is absurd"].

Honestly, if your faith is indeed feeble enough to be blown off course by Dan Brown, the fall of a sparrow should be more than enough to waft it back on track the next day.
jody tresidder | 05.19.06 - 2:31 pm | #

"It is an empirical fact that reading DVC has caused some Christians to doubt their faith. That may not be "likely," but it is true, and even common in an anecdotal if not a statistical sense. This is sufficient cause for concern by the Church, which is charged with the care of smouldering wicks as well as bright flames."

Even if we assume that it is true that reading the Da Vinci Code makes some Christians doubt their faith, is the answer to target the book? If a work of fiction can have that effect, then perhaps Christianity has bigger problems to reckon with.
Jill | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 3:13 pm | #

And to get back to the original topic, it looks like the NY Post 4 star review was an aberration. The 2 and 2-1/2 star reviews seem to be the norm. Too bad. I would have liked a fun, mindless summer movie to go to.
Tom P | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 3:27 pm | #

Does anybody have any good summer movie recs?
Kate B. | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 3:29 pm | #

Sorry this took so long:

If you say "awful" and I say "offal",
We'd both say, "That offal's awful!"
Opie, Hanksy, they deserve our thanksy:
They made the whole thing worse.

You say "Dull-Vinci", I'll say, "Duh Vinci"
That means DaVinci is no oscar cinchy.
Opus Dei need not worry, maybe
They cast da "Vinci curse."

And oh, when the music swells the critics frown.
And oh, if the movie smells, why we'll just blame Dan Brown.

So don't be moan-y, just save your money.
Magdy wasn't the Saviour's honey,
And we know he didn't have pro-geny,
Or inspire an albino monk---
Let's say the whole thing stunk.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 4:10 pm | #

Fair enough, Dawn. I just figured there was no reasonable way to present the information here in a comment string. I wasn't trying to hijack the thread with unrelated Biblical commentary; I just wanted to respond to Jason's thinly veiled insult.
Oz | 05.19.06 - 4:33 pm | #

What the heck I'll add my two denarii to the discussion by asking a question. Why the fuss over a badly written book and a film done by a very safe director/producer from inside Hollywood? No one really got upset when Ross Hunter, or Alan Carr or even David O. Selznick made films because they like the Da vinci Code are entertainments. There is no philisophical or religious thought animating this film other than keeping Audrey Tautou in a good light, that craft services provided vegetarian platters and that the film come in ontime and on budget.
Pat Patterson | 05.19.06 - 7:38 pm | #

Just checked the reviews today. Everyone seems to think it's not that good or doesn't do the book, which is regarded as thrilling and well-written (but also factually crap) justice.

The only enthusiatic quote the newspaper ads have from a critic is from the New York Post. (Does that surprise you, Dawn?)
D------ | 05.19.06 - 7:55 pm | #

Nope, D------, doesn't surprise me one bit.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 8:10 pm | #

"Does anybody have any good summer movie recs?"

Kate B. Altman's "Prairie Home Companion" is getting some surprisingly strong early notices. Could be a contender in an otherwise damp da Vinci squib of a summer?
jody tresidder | 05.20.06 - 9:39 am | #

Personally, I find the latest Tarantino film far more offensive.
Most of the "controversy" about DVC is media hype anyway. Like the mentally challenged radio interviewer who, when told by Cardinal Rodriquez that children in Africa were being poisoned by cyanide from the goldmines, asked if he was going to see the Da Vinci Code.
Duh?
Michael | 05.20.06 - 4:16 pm | #

The radio interviewer wasn't mentally challenged. He was mentally astute.

People don't care about Africa and cyanide. They like controversy, preferably over some stupid conspiracy theory. Or Natalie wahts-her-face. Which is a much more revealing thing about our culture than the DVC.
Tony | 05.21.06 - 4:35 pm | #

I saw the movie over the weekend. It was fun, but not great. (Disclaimer: I haven't read the book.)

The grand conspiracy is, for the movie version at least, largely backdrop. There's a longish bit of exposition in the middle where Ian McKellen's character explains (rather unconvincingly) what's going on, but for the most part the premise of the movie is taken for granted.

Which, I think, is as it should be. Honestly, if the big secret were that Jesus's mother had been abducted by aliens, it wouldn't make much difference to the rest of the film. The movie is fundamentally an extended chase scene/treasure hunt, with the religious aspect just a bit of added color.
Jeff | 05.22.06 - 10:07 am | #