So, yesterday I watched The DaVinci Code movie, based on the book by that guy... I can't remember his name and I'm too tired to go look. Today, I watched its sequel. So, here's a bit of a review if you can call it that. Just of the movies, aside from the tiniest bit of curiosity, I have very little inclination to read the book.
A bit of premise: there's this group of people called the priory of zion (or is it scion?); they're kind of like an offshoot of the knights templar, and their job is to guard the secret that Mary Magdelene is actually Jesus Christ's wife and that, at the time of Jesus' death, she was pregnant. Furthermore, they're said to be guarding the location of her tomb and the whereabouts of her descendants--the descendants of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't want this information revealed because its assertion that Jesus is God is the source of its power, so through the centuries it has been hunting down the priory of zion and trying to destroy it so that the secret doesn't get out.
Here's my take. The movie was kind of boring. It was as if someone had tried to make a thrilling mystery drama from an historical debate. At the end of the movie, I felt kind of blah... and thinking, "What was all the fuss about?" because, aside from solving the murder of a museum curator who happened to also be the grand master of the priory of zion, the stakes were pretty humdrum. At least to me. The thing that kind of gets me, though, is that the historical debate was pretty much cut right out. There's one scene where Professor Robert Langdon meets an old colleague, who's obsessed with the priory of zion and the mythology surrounding it, and believes that Mary Magdalene's tomb is out there somewhere, as well as her descendants. At this point, Langdon plays the skeptic and kind of argues with the other guy for a bit, but never really brings up any valid or noticeable points. His colleague, whose name I forget, just repeats the mythology a couple of times and points out Mary Magdalene in DaVinci's painting of the Last Supper and that's enough to convince Langdon. And he's supposed to be a professor of history? There's no fact checking, there's no peer review, there's not even any research. He just wholeheartedly accepts it based on his colleague's say-so and the presence of a woman in a DaVinci painting. From that point on, Langdon wholeheartedly believes in all of it. So, the movie loses a bit of credibility, right there.
Aside from that, the movie was just another Indiana Jones style adventure. It was all about hunting for clues in painting and ancient rhyming riddles, trying to find a mythical artifact or location, all the while being pursued by a relentless assassin. Except, instead of the fate of the world, or even a whole lot of money being in the balance, it's the possibility that a myth might gain credibility and undermine the power of the Roman Church. Like I said, Ho-Hum.
As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic Church's power has already been undermined. It no longer holds a political monopoly, it's been centuries since it has. At the end of the movie, its discovered that the tomb has been moved to an unknown location, so it's impossible to empirically prove the myth. But even if it had been possible to prove, it wouldn't shake the faith of the people who believe in the Church. Most people wouldn't change their minds. A few, here and there, yes but not enough to make a difference. So as a story telling movie, it was a total flop.
I got the impression that the makers of the story, both the film version and the book, really wanted to make a documentary but didn't have any facts to support their theories, just conjecture. So, they made it a fiction instead, and invented the facts.
At the end of the film, Langdon concludes that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe something. Or something like, it doesn't matter what you put your faith in, as long as you have faith. That's such a touchy-feely, let's all feel good about ourselves and not have any problems conclusion.
The second movie--Angels and Demons--was slightly more interesting and more thrilling. It was an Indiana Jones style adventure through Rome to find the perpetrators who kidnapped and threatened to murder the four leading Cardinals, one of whom is about to be elected to replace the Pope, who was murdered by the same people. Oh yeah, and if they don't solve the mystery before midnight, a bomb is going to obliterate all of Rome. There wasn't so much historical debate in this one, at least nothing significant. It was just an adventure movie, nothing more. The fake gunshots that kept going off, throughout the movie to make the audience jump really annoyed me though.
A bit of premise: there's this group of people called the priory of zion (or is it scion?); they're kind of like an offshoot of the knights templar, and their job is to guard the secret that Mary Magdelene is actually Jesus Christ's wife and that, at the time of Jesus' death, she was pregnant. Furthermore, they're said to be guarding the location of her tomb and the whereabouts of her descendants--the descendants of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't want this information revealed because its assertion that Jesus is God is the source of its power, so through the centuries it has been hunting down the priory of zion and trying to destroy it so that the secret doesn't get out.
Here's my take. The movie was kind of boring. It was as if someone had tried to make a thrilling mystery drama from an historical debate. At the end of the movie, I felt kind of blah... and thinking, "What was all the fuss about?" because, aside from solving the murder of a museum curator who happened to also be the grand master of the priory of zion, the stakes were pretty humdrum. At least to me. The thing that kind of gets me, though, is that the historical debate was pretty much cut right out. There's one scene where Professor Robert Langdon meets an old colleague, who's obsessed with the priory of zion and the mythology surrounding it, and believes that Mary Magdalene's tomb is out there somewhere, as well as her descendants. At this point, Langdon plays the skeptic and kind of argues with the other guy for a bit, but never really brings up any valid or noticeable points. His colleague, whose name I forget, just repeats the mythology a couple of times and points out Mary Magdalene in DaVinci's painting of the Last Supper and that's enough to convince Langdon. And he's supposed to be a professor of history? There's no fact checking, there's no peer review, there's not even any research. He just wholeheartedly accepts it based on his colleague's say-so and the presence of a woman in a DaVinci painting. From that point on, Langdon wholeheartedly believes in all of it. So, the movie loses a bit of credibility, right there.
Aside from that, the movie was just another Indiana Jones style adventure. It was all about hunting for clues in painting and ancient rhyming riddles, trying to find a mythical artifact or location, all the while being pursued by a relentless assassin. Except, instead of the fate of the world, or even a whole lot of money being in the balance, it's the possibility that a myth might gain credibility and undermine the power of the Roman Church. Like I said, Ho-Hum.
As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic Church's power has already been undermined. It no longer holds a political monopoly, it's been centuries since it has. At the end of the movie, its discovered that the tomb has been moved to an unknown location, so it's impossible to empirically prove the myth. But even if it had been possible to prove, it wouldn't shake the faith of the people who believe in the Church. Most people wouldn't change their minds. A few, here and there, yes but not enough to make a difference. So as a story telling movie, it was a total flop.
I got the impression that the makers of the story, both the film version and the book, really wanted to make a documentary but didn't have any facts to support their theories, just conjecture. So, they made it a fiction instead, and invented the facts.
At the end of the film, Langdon concludes that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe something. Or something like, it doesn't matter what you put your faith in, as long as you have faith. That's such a touchy-feely, let's all feel good about ourselves and not have any problems conclusion.
The second movie--Angels and Demons--was slightly more interesting and more thrilling. It was an Indiana Jones style adventure through Rome to find the perpetrators who kidnapped and threatened to murder the four leading Cardinals, one of whom is about to be elected to replace the Pope, who was murdered by the same people. Oh yeah, and if they don't solve the mystery before midnight, a bomb is going to obliterate all of Rome. There wasn't so much historical debate in this one, at least nothing significant. It was just an adventure movie, nothing more. The fake gunshots that kept going off, throughout the movie to make the audience jump really annoyed me though.
Faith is only as good as what its in. If you put your faith in something false, you've got nothing. It's like sitting in a chair. Your belief that the chair is sturdy won't hold you up when you plop yourself down on it, no matter how hard or how much you believe it--how much faith you put in it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusions. I don't think it would really shake a person's genuine faith, and especially not if that person did any research at all.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone involved in either side of the debate, Christian or non-Christian alike, this book probably produces a sigh, at most.
It has, from my perspective anyway, had a fairly large impact. Mostly on people who have not spent much, if any, time studying the subject. For someone who is sort of ambivalent on the question ("I think Jesus was a good person..") or has a bias against the gospel (but, so far, no real backup for it) this book just permits them to rationalize their own preferences. It's sort of like hearing "the Bible is full of contradictions!" second-hand and then using that as an excuse to dismiss it altogether.
The books are better than the movies. And hands down Angels & Demons was the better of the two books. AS to the movies? I knew going in that the subject is rather controversial for the "Code" and expected nothing from it, but I did like it in it's general "Indiana Jones" comparable content. And "Angels" the movie was also very entertaining again based on the adventure theme. - As to religion? I don't practice, so it doesn't really bother me one way or the other. - I like your writing.
ReplyDelete