The DaVinci Code
I saw The Davinci Code last Monday night, and I can’t say that I thought that it was good. If anything, it’s a so-so movie for me. I haven’t read the book myself, but it seemed like it didn’t belong in movie format. There was maybe a bit too much to digest too quickly, and that made the plot seemed to be very mechanical and rocky. It wasn’t a bad movie either, and I was mildly entertained throughout.
However, the gem of the movie was the scenes that showed “history” such as how the Bible was written, and all the little conspiracy theories surrounding the church through the ages.
Yesterday I chatted with a friend back home about the movie, as she’s a devout Catholic. Interestingly enough, the movie really challenged her beliefs. She mentioned that before she used to take in whatever her church told her, and that the Bible was unshakably the “truth”. That was that. But after seeing the movie it provoked her to question the validity of the Bible, if there were many parts missing, or if some parts were simply added. It serves as a good reminder that the Bible, like any book, is written by man.
That in itself is enough to go see the movie. I’m glad that the movie did come out, and I find it predictable that many churches would denounce it. I’ve heard that many churches have warned their goers about the movie, and to avoid it if necessary. How can we search for the truth if we only look for it in one direction?
In my mind there’s a clear separation between religion and spirituality. Religion to me is an attempt to formally organize spirituality, and in doing so it often misses its mark. It ends up being a method to control the masses and become too political, and too strung up on its own power. The “truth” stops being something one discovers for oneself, and becomes a string of dry words, pre-packaged in a book for mass consumption. Spirituality on the other hand is the search for the truth, and discovering how we belong to our “reality”. I think it’s something we have to pursue and find for ourselves, and that there’s no quick and easy answer. We can’t hit up the church/temple/synagogue/Quickie Mart for easily digestible goodies. If conscience cleaner was cheap they’d be selling like hotcakes at the supermarket.
So basically all I’m getting at is that The DaVinci Code is a good thing for many of us, as a lot of us are too lost in the blindness that is “faith”. Whatever happened to some good introspective critical thinking?
4 Responses to “The DaVinci Code”
Leave a Reply
Calendar
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | Jun » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Categories
- Fighting (2)
- G33k (5)
- The Mundane (3)
- Uncategorized (120)
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
May 28th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
I’ve read a bit more than halfway through the book, and I understand what you mean when you say the movie felt a bit too rigid/mechanical. Even the book comes off in that way. I find that there’s a lack of imagery for much of story in the book, with the obvious exceptions of the islets of historical “Did you know?”s.
The Church is certainly attacking it with passion: When I last went to mass, the priest spent a good 30 mins railing against it. The homily is only supposed to be around 20 mins!
I don’t know how many of those historical tidbits are true or not, since the book does a fantastic job of blurring truth and fiction in that respect. But they do compel you think for yourself and do a little research.
As a Catholic, I often find myself if disagreement with many of the church teachings, and dogma, so I certainly do understand the critical thinking aspect
But really, even Dan Brown points out through Langdon in the story that in this day and age, no one can deny that the church does do wonderful things overall throughout the world. Many people also find personal solace in the faith that they get through Catholicism. So overall, it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not the teachings of the church are true or not. I still respect it overall for what it does today.
May 29th, 2006 at 9:17 am
All contraversy aside, the bottom line is that Dan Brown can’t write for shit. Don’t bother reading the book, Lee. It’s a relatively entertaining story (if you can turn off the part of your brain that controls critical thought), but the writing is horrible. I thought the whole time I was reading it that it would have made a better movie than a book. If the movie isn’t any good (haven’t seen it myself), then either I was wrong (that’s unpossible!), or the book was even worse than I gave it credit for.
Seriously Mr. Brown… An albino? Can’t you create a memorable bad guy without leaching all the pigment from the poor bastard’s skin? WTF!
Just my opinion; I could be wrong… (But I’ll never admit to it. Heheh.)
May 30th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Personally, I beg to differ — and I wonder if Jay is referring to the CONTENT rather than the actual QUALITY or style of the author’s work. His own comment suggests he has more of a beef with the author’s choice of character traits!
While not particularly innovative or experimental in style, Dan Brown’s writing is fast-paced and stylistic simple, using many common writing techniques to develop suspense and tension in a store of this genre. He uses relatively basic sentence structure, likely in order to appeal to the elementary reading level of the masses. He doesn’t purport to have written the next Great American novel but he does contend to tell a story of intricate puzzles, history and adventure.
And I liked it specifically because it was a quick and engaging read.
But that’s probably an “unpossible” and “contraversial” claim on my part :-p
May 31st, 2006 at 7:43 am
Although Ash, I think your point about Jay commenting on his content than style is kind of moot. An author’s work should be judged on CONTENT as well as QUALITY or style of work. You can be as fancy with your words all you want, but if the content of fiction is garbage then it reflects a poor author.
Writing is not just style but substance too. It’d be like saying Britney Spears is a good musician because her music videos have a lot of style.
Though I haven’t read the book, I can still argue on the semantics of your point :-p