DVC: The Review

Which will be difficult because I am past caring...even as I am torqued. I guess I'm wishing I didn't have to care.

I'm not going to attempt to imitate the many delightful reviews that have been written so far - I agee with them, although it is really challenging to judge a movie like this objectively because, of course, I'm not objective, I'm depressingly familiar with the source material, and again...I'm not objective.

So, in terms of quality - the reviews are correct. It's a slow, plodding, faithful, paint-by-numbers adaptation, with a hollowness at the center which I blame mostly, aside from various directing choices on Tom Hanks. The more I think about it, the more cautious his performance is - it's as if the only way he knew to communicate "serious scholar" was to just not have any emotional life.

But anyway, that's really not what I'm looking at. What about the way that the Mess Which Is "History" is presented? And is it anti-Catholic?

The "history" is, of course, dreadful, just as in the book. What bothers me most is the total hash that's made of history. It strikes me that if you really, really, wanted to, you could do some sort of Priory of Sion nonsense story without just lying about everything around it. I don't get why you would want to do that, but in case you did, you probably could.

But..the list of lies told about history in this film echoes, naturally enough, the novel, and because it covers less, they stand out more. The lie that "the Vatican" was the power behind the suppression of the Knights Templar - well, the characterization of the Knights Templar, period. The flashback in this involved guys in big pointy hats watching Templars burn.

The most outrageous lies involved early Christian history, of course. What stands out are Teabing's assertion that 300 years after Christianity had been founded by this nice guy Jesus, the Christians grew in power to the point that they were starting to get belligerant to the pagans. They instigated violence. Oh, the Langdon character steps in and says something like "some say it was the othe way around," but you are left with the distinct impression that any violence during the era happened because the Christians were getting power and stated going after pagans.

This is unconsciounable. We are talking about facts here. This is more than just silly movie-making. It's a serious lie, akin to maintaining that Africans strolled on to slave ships because they wanted to go west.  There may be ambiguity about certain aspects of Christian history, but this isn't one of them. Tell Perpetua and Felicity, Blandina...Paul, Peter..the martyrs of Lyons, the victims of Diocletian. Real people who died horrible deaths are having their story twisted, perverted and forgotten so a bunch of empty-headed losers who evidently lack both brains and conscience can get even richer than they already are.

Despicable.

And it goes on, of course. Langdon and Teabing get into a shouting match about the Council of Nicaea - to tell the truth, aside from Silas' self-scourging, this inspires the most energy in the whole film. But amid the shouting and (regrettably brief) pandemonium-in-vestments -what will stick with the viewer is Teabing's version - that this was a controversial battle to establish the divinity of Jesus.

(I wonde if anyone who reads these scripts even cares a little bit about logic. But...the "Christians" up to this point were good because they didn't believe in Jesus' divinity, I thought...so they got all full of themselves and powerful before Constantine gave them power? But...??)

Isaac Newton is presented as another victim of "the Church," implying that "the Church" in question is RC, of course. It wasn't, and the Anglican Church, as far as I can tell, didn't have a problem with Newton, even though he had unorthodox ideas (being anti-Trinitarian and more of an Arian in terms of his Christology. I guess the oppressors forgot him somehow). The Church even accomodated him, not requiring him to take Orders, as was the norm for all Fellows of Trinity College.

The Leonardo business is very dramatically shown as Teabing uses his computer to move Mary Magdalene this way and that and proclaims the lie that the Bible establishes the existence of the Holy Grail. As he reached the climax of his discourse, a woman behind me emitted a "Hmmmm" as if to say, "Now that's interesting." Did I stand up and offer a lecture? Nope. Did I want to? Yup.

The Opus Dei material is appalling and almost seems like a "F-You" to the group. I'm serious. These people are not stupid. They've had communications from Opus Dei, they know the truth. They know that Opus Dei is not as it is presented in their movie. But they went ahead anyway. They just did not care. It's pretty stunning when you think about it.

And Mary Magdalene? As I pointed out in my first post, and as Fr. John Wauck has mentioned several times, the massive weirdness of the frantic search to find the super-secret whereabouts of the relics of MM is magnified by the fact that every year, crowds of people gather in a spot in Southern France on July 22 to do just that.

I only hope against hope that a healthy percentage of moviegoers leave this marveling at the illogic of it, discerning that if Mary Magdalene is a saint in the Catholic Church they must not have been trying too hard to "hide" her. That it makes no sense to mutter endlessly about the Jesus' mortal nature but then ascribe a sort of divinity to his wife just 'cause she's his wife. Who knows.

It is hard to say how this film will impact people's understanding of Christian origins. I'm not naive to think that every single person who sees it will be unaffected by the consistent, vicious anti-Catholicism and the total mischaracterization of the Christian story. There are just enough dates and certainties sprinkled throughout to make some viewers go "hmmm." We might also mention that the one who screams loudest about the Church's oppression of "the poor, women, people of color!" is screaming this as he's being arrested fo his various dastardly deeds - Teabing, of course. But I don't know if the significance will hit anyone - the whole thing is simply so logically garbled and mysterious-for-its own sake, that my intuition is that the points that will stick will be the biggest lies, simply because they are most forcefully presented: About Opus Dei, the nature of early Christianity as either a sweet faux gnosticism or power-mad killers, about the hsitoy of Christianity as simply one of oppression, of Mary Magdalene as a maligned secret.

And note to reviewers who blow off these historical lies as just all in good fun or even not strong enough, and hence, a cause of the film's tepidness.  Consistency Watch is up and running.

Comments

[David B.]

Gabriel,

"Searched all over the internet and could not find her addy anywhere. That’s why my post in HER supposed blog."

I'm surprised that this was too difficult for you, what with all your expertise and advanced degrees, yada, yada, yada. I googled "contact Amy Welborn" and the first link offered had her e-mail address. Heck, without even searching the internet, one can just look at the left-hand column of the homepage of this blog to get Amy's e-mail. Perhaps, instead of all the others that you accused of not being able to read, it is really YOU with the reading comprehension difficulties.

[Christine]

Hmm. Attila the Nun was banned from Carrie Tomko's blog so now she's trolling here. Wilma Tyndale is so off base one doesn't even know where to start.

Gabriel had better check to see if someone slipped something into his cup of coffee.

[Christine]

Hmm. Attila the Nun was banned from Carrie Tomko's blog so now she's trolling here. Wilma Tyndale is so off base one doesn't even know where to start.

Gabriel had better check to see if someone slipped something into his cup of coffee.

[meg]

Yah, David - I think the link over there on the left even says "email Amy."

It was tough, but I eventually found it.

[Bender]

Regarding the box office for the movie, it's done pretty much what I figured it would

Here are the domestic weekend estimates --
Friday -- $29 million (revised downward slightly)
Saturday -- $27.5 million (a decline from the day before even though people had more of an opportunity to see it in the afternoon)
Sunday -- $20.5 million (fairly strong considering that Sunday night is not generally a movie night)

Total domestic estimate = $77 million on 3,735 screens
Unknown is how many pre-sales, church sales, and sales to opponents who "needed to see it in order to intelligently argue against it."

the question is - where does it go from here. I'm of the opinion that it will slide into the basement pretty quickly. Most movies today (especially the summer blockbuster variety) make most of their money on the opening weekend.

Boxofficemojo historical numbers indicate that bigtime movies will make between about 25 percent to 40 percent in their opening weekend. For example, Spiderman's opening weekend was 28.4 percent of its total domestic receipts, while the Harry Potter movies were in the mid-30 percent range. A dud like the Hulk did 47 percent the first weekend, but a good movie like the Village also did 44.4 percent the opening weekend.

I doubt there will be much repeat business for DVC, and would place it closer to the one-third group, meaning that domestically it will probably top out at $200 million, if it even gets that high.

[Gene Branaman]

"The Opus Dei material is appalling and almost seems like a 'F-You' to the group. I'm serious. These people are not stupid. They've had communications from Opus Dei, they know the truth. They know that Opus Dei is not as it is presented in their movie. But they went ahead anyway. They just did not care. It's pretty stunning when you think about it."

Exactly, the DVC producers did not care. John Calley, DVC co-producer & former Sony chairman was even quoted in the NYT in August 2005 as saying DVC is "conservatively anti-Catholic." They knew what they were making. They purposefully made a movie that insults over 1 billion Catholics & blasphemes the God of the billions of Christians in the world. And they sold it on "it's just fiction" spin. And they're laughing all the way to the bank. Despicable, indeed.

Veronica, check out reviews by Steven Greydanus on decentfilms.com & Peter Chattaway who writes for Christianity Today. Both excellent reveiws from a Christian perspective that detail the film. Well worth your time. I do not believe Jeffrey Overstreet has seen DVC or plans to review it. If he does, I'm sure his would be a great piece, too.

Wilma, please explain to me how bishops in the late 2nd century were writing about the primacy of the bishop of Rome (whom we call the pope today) & documenting complete lists of all bishops of Rome beginning with Peter to that day? We have the documents, Wilma. We have proof that the Catholic Church existed, with one bishop to whom all others gave their obedience as a successor to St Peter a scant 100 years after the death of St John the Evangelist. Constantine did not make the bishop of Rome pope & it's a historically inaccurate thing to ascert. But if you believe you can prove it, please show your documentation. (And actual, real ancient documents, not someone's opinion on Wikipedia.) I find it very interesting that someone who says history means nothing will use history (or the version of it she wants to believe, at any rate) to prove the Catholic Church is *wrong*.

Wilma? Wilma? You there, Wilma?

[Dale Price]

What's great about Catholic-hating obsessives like "Willllmmmmmmaaaaaaa!" is that she is so focused on the "dread Roman whore" that she completely ignores Gabe's Christian-hating new age syncretism.

Way to keep your eye on the ball, "WT"!

[JoeInPA]

I misspoke when I said that blockbusters make most of their money on their opening weekend (thanks for the numbers, Bender). Bender is correct in that. After reading what I wrote I realized that that's not what I meant to say. Blockbusters will generally receive their biggest draw on the opening weekend (as a percentage of their overall sales, they'll make more on the opening weekend than on any other). In years past, a movie could sit in the theaters for a while before catching on - the buzz for the movie would drive people to the theaters.

Today that's not the case. If a movie tanks on the opening weekend, chances are it'll get pulled pretty quickly from theaters. It won't have a chance to find an audience (which probably explains why some movies become cult classics after making it to dvd).

The Da Vinci Code was a financial success no matter what it does from here on out. What I was trying to get at is the fact that there are few movies today that have the staying power to hang out in theaters for any decent amount of time. In order to hit the REALLY big numbers, in terms of ticket sales, a movie needs to sit in the box office for a while, which requires repeat sales.

I just don't see this movie having that staying power. I agree with Bender - I think you'll see a slide in box office receipts from here on out.

[Bender]

I misspoke when I said that blockbusters make most of their money on their opening weekend (thanks for the numbers, Bender).

I don't know that you misspoke exactly. I knew what you meant and thought I was backing you up.

The updated numbers are in now --
Friday = $28.6 million
Saturday = $27.3 million
Sunday = $21.1 million
Total actual receipts = $77 million

Figure, what? $8 average per ticket? That works out to 9.6 million people saw it. (How many watch a typical TV show? A lot more than that, I'm sure).

[Bender]

By comparison, Narnia took in $65.6 million its first weekend on 3,616 screens, while DVC (at $77 million) opened on 3,735 screens. The Passion took in $83.8 million its first weekend (after opening on a Wednesday) on 3,043 screens.

[JoeInPA]

Bender, let me (hopefully) clarify this. You did back me up - and that's exactly how I took your response. I apologize if I gave a different impression. After reading your response, I reread what I wrote, and I realized that I wasn't technically accurate (even though you got the gist of what I was saying). I was sincere in thanking you for the box office data. I just wanted to clarify what I wrote so that it was accurate -- I'm an engineer by trade, so I get nit-picky about things like that :)

Plus there are folks who would pounce on my inaccuracy as an excuse to denounce everything I wrote. Sounds like we're both in agreement - the movie's gonna be on DVD by Summer. Unfortunately it was a financial success (even though it sounds like it was as dry as toast - as one review put it, it was like watching someone do a Sudoku puzzle) and will lead to additional movies denegrating the Church (as if Hollywood REALLY needs that incentive...).

It's never going to be "Passion of the Christ" big, or "Titanic" big, but it was still a big draw - but like I said in my first post, it was in line with what I expected. Interestingly enough, I don't hear people really talking about the movie beyond the normal "so, are you going to see The Da Vinci Code?" question. Beyond the reviews, that's the real reason I see the movie tanking. Outside of blogs like this one, and the media, I've heard no real buzz on the movie since it's come out.

Again, I apologize if I gave a mistaken impression on your response - and thanks again for the numbers and the support.

[Gsbriel]

I realize that any visitor to this blog [as most Christian/Catholic blogs] with a different opinion, asking questions, asking for proof, notwithstanding their experience, age, where they are from and their history is going to get the same kind of treatment as I have. This shows a lot about the kind of people that are supposedly Christians and the kind of preprogramming they received from their families, friends and Churches in their past.

It also represents the kind of attacks that Christian believers have against anyone that opposes them in public. Ergo, the kinds of attacks that this religion’s people have done in the past. It is what’s called fundamentalism. Maybe this is why many are leaving in droves and looking for other forms and where they will be treated much better.

For your information I’m a senior, born in Europe, grew up poor and in a Roman Catholic household, moved to North America in my early teens and decided to see what the beliefs are here. Studied with the Roman Catholic Church, Jesuit Fathers, Coptic Church, Jewish Rabbis, some Masons and Templars, Mormons, Sufis, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, even Jehovah witnesses, Pagans, Druids and others. My experience has taught me to keep an open mind and check everything that crosses my path. Yet not one person in this blog has provided valid answers to valid questions to my last post.

I am absolutely disgusted at the kind of remarks that come from most of you and the close-mindedness you show. And you wonder why the Church and its followers are hated so much and why people are making movies to dispute it and discredit it in any way possible. Go figure.

So let me remind you of some facts [in very basic language so everyone can understand].

First it was the Romans who started all this by killing a rightful king of Jewish Tribes. True Christians are ones that are from original bloodlines of the time and from families of Israel supporting Jesus. Another words Christian Jews.
The Roman Catholic Church is not Jewish based. It is actually only a copy. Roman Catholic Church has, ever since it started, been a pain in the ass to all religions and faiths. After all they are Romans. What they have done is created a lie. A lie that has been very profitable and put most of this planet under their control.
What happened during the life of Jesus and whole area is well documented by Christian Jews and related countries. There is literally 1000’s of scriptures that are in good hands where the Roman Church can’t get at them.
Over time Roman Church has stolen a fraction of them and are keeping them away from everyone. Nicaeans and many others related to Romans have no business creating a book to control the people and now a large part of the planet.
For 2000 years true Christian Jews and their supporters have been watching such heresy and abuse of the people of Earth. Information has been slowly leaked to certain people and organizations to correct this heresy. This is why there are books like Holy Blood & Holy Grail, Illuminating Angels & Demons, The Da Vinci Code and many more. these are made to question the kind of leadership Roman Catholic Church is up to and has been for 2000 years.
Another words the Romans have been using you, taking your money, making you do their work, taking your and other peoples land while they are sitting in their lavish parishes and Vatican.

Whether you like it or not these are the basic facts. It’s up to you to make up your own minds.

[Christine]

"For your information I’m a senior, born in Europe, grew up poor and in a Roman Catholic household, moved to North America in my early teens and decided to see what the beliefs are here. Studied with the Roman Catholic Church, Jesuit Fathers, Coptic Church, Jewish Rabbis, some Masons and Templars, Mormons, Sufis, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, even Jehovah witnesses, Pagans, Druids and others."

Ouch! Who was the magistrate in the New Testament who told Paul "Your great learning has made you mad! ??"

Sorry, couldn't resist. Gosh, Gabriel, your life history almost mirrors mine. I'm European born, not quite "senior" yet but close, moved to the U.S., raised in a household of Protestants and Catholics, fell completely away from any kind of "organized" religion in my late teens, early adult years. Went back to Europe a few times and experienced a thirst to rediscover my roots. Came back to U.S., in 1997 received into Roman Catholic Church. I was not "brainwashed", Gabriel, I came in of my own free will after much, much personal reading and research.

Folks like you who come to these sites which are populated mainly by Catholic (and sometimes other) Christians who really do find meaning in their faith are always disappointed when you can't sway us to your way of thinking.

I'll pray for you.

[class-factotum]

Gabriel:

"Why do all the males in painting have protruding chins accept for person on right of Jesus?"

"accept:" -- to receive something

"except:" -- with the exclusion of

"Bible even states that the average dolt will understand it's writings."

Possessive "its" doesn't take an apostrophe. I know this can be confusing to those who have not mastered the basic rules of grammar.

Your argument might be stronger if you polish that writing! Maybe you should get a copy of Strunk and White and use spellcheck and grammar check.

Course, that still won't help the content.

(Yes, I know this is very un-Christian of me. I'll ask for forgiveness. Some day.)

[Gabriel]

at my age, don't care about grammer, spelling ,, but u figured it out :)
point still stands, thanx

[JohnHarold]

Gabriel wrote:

"Some of earlier years questions in Europe;
What is God? General answer; you are just a boy you will understand later. No real answer, to date.
Who is God? No real answer to date.
Where is God? I don’t see him/her/it. No real answer to date."

Gabriel, I can give you some very succinct answers to these questions (and will in a moment), but a fuller understanding requires more explanation than can conveniently be provided on a weblog.

I would highly recommend that you take a look at two books which are readily available at Amazon:

Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed

Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed

You can also find in-depth, albeit rather dry commentary on the topic of, for example, "God," in the Catholic Encylopedia, which is available online at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen

But to return to your original questions, here are some short-form answers as set forth in the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. What is God?
A. God is a spirit infinitely perfect.

Q. Who is God?
A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.

Q. Where is God?
A. God is everywhere.

Q. If God is everywhere, why do we not see Him?
A. We do not see God, because He is a pure spirit and cannot be seen with bodily eyes.

Now, these answers are so simple that they might seem simplistic, but they are not. Undergirding them is a carefully worked out theological system grounded in a sound, Aristotelian philosophy.

Where Frank Sheed's books are particularly helpful is in unpacking the meaning of such words as "spirit".

Pray and read. Ask God to illuminate your mind to understand the fullness of His truth.

Best,

JohnHarold