Over at the movie theater in Manhattan at 42nd and 8th, I was fascinated to see pickets with people marching around, protesting “The DaVinci Code,” declaring it to be an insult to the Catholic church.
I wonder what would have happened if I’d walked up to them and asked them if they were out protesting with great ire over the way that Jews were portrayed in “Passion of the Christ.” After all, people who demand sensitivity to their religion would certainly want to be supportive of others who feel their religion is being ill used in cinema, right? So were they marching to protest what many felt to be a profound anti-Semitic message in “Passion?” Or were they too busy filling theaters with their church groups?
I wonder if such an observation from myself would have resulted in my being with Christian charity?
PAD
• 
They probably figured that if you -really- wanted the movie stopped you could have put down your roast rack of baby long enough to have the international banking cartels pull their funding.
Life is easier for me now that I have realized that most people are: stupid, petty, fearful, ignorant and hypocrites.
As a catholic and christian I can say that what I got out of Church and my days at a Catholic school is that any opinion or lifestyle outside of what the church teaches is dangerous and can destroy the foundations of the universe and send us all to hëll. So I try to ignore these people who picket out of fear and ignorance.
Now when are you going to write a Jem and the holograms comic book?
Why didn’t you ask them?
I left the Catholic Church because, as Pope John Paul II once said, “The Catholic Church cannot be an association of free-thinkers.” I believe that sentiment has led to many, many evils being committed in the name of serving the Almighty Collective, whether said Collective was a church, nation-state or some other entity. As a result, I realized there was no place for me in the Church.
I didn’t join another Christian denomination. In fact, I don’t subscribe to any religion. I am a Deist. I believe in God. I also believe He is non-denominational and unaffiliated with any political party.
This really isn’t any different than Isaac Hayes claiming he quit South Park to protest their insensitivity to religion, when in fact he was fine with them mocking religion until they turned their sights on Scientology. Or a southerner I knew who complained about political correctness until he saw a Grey Poupon commercial that made fun of southerners.
When it happens to someone else, that person just needs to suck it up. If it happens to you, it’s injustice.
That’s human nature for you.
PAD, I think the phrase “One side fits all” would be appropriate in describing their views.
As in, it’s ok as long as it fits with their side of things. But if they disagree with it? You’ll burn in hëll; there is no open discussion allowed.
What I find interesting is the fact that you not only have these morons picketing the movie, the film has been pretty much panned by the critics too (Ebert & Roeper gave it thumbs up though).
Yet it was a financial hit. It makes you wonder if any of the critics had an effect one way or the other with who went to see this film.
“Why didn’t you ask them?”
Because I was running incredibly late to the Broadway Bears auction right down the street.
PAD
Bill Myers, with regard to God’s political affiliation, perhaps you recall a _Doonesbury_ cartoon from the 1984 presidential election campaign when someone (I think it’s Mike Doonsebury) is watching TV and a Reagan campaign commercial comes on:
“Hi, this s God,” the commercial begins.
“uh, oh”, Mike thinks.
God goes on to plug the merits of the Republican Party, and the commercial ends with these words: “paid for by the Reagan/God Re-Election Committee.”
Regarding the Catholic Church, I was raised Catholic, but am no longer part of the church. The only time I go is Christmas and Easter and that’s mainly because the whole family goes. And I don’t have any problem disagreeing with the Pope (whether it be John Paul II (who really should have called himself George Ringo since we’d already had a John Paul) or Benedict) about anything. To my way of thinking, there’s a higher authority than the pope.
Me.
Likewise, for yourself, _you_ outrank the pope in terms of what you think is right or wrong about a particular church-related matter.
It’s too bad John Paul would think that the Catholic Church, “cannot be an association of free thinkers.” It’s also a bit ironic, given his anti-Communist stance. Still, there were a lot of positive things about the man, and it would’ve been fascinating to sit down with him and discuss and debate various aspects of theology. I often enjoy doing that with friends in the religious life.
PAD,
If you hadn’t been running late, _would_ you have asked those protesters, or would you have found yourself a brick wall to talk to, and gotten a better response from it?
I wonder how many of those people protesting the film actually saw it, or read the book. Myself, I’ve done neither, so I can’t comment on how good or bad either might be. I am reminded, however, of protesters, who, when _The Last Temptation of Christ_ came out, condemned the movie, but didn’t bother to see it. It’s one thing to say one doesn’t want to see a film because they disagree with the subject matter. It’s quite another to urge others not to see it without knowing what it’s about- beyond vague ideas.
And in the case of _The Last Temptation of Christ_, that temptation was to renounce God and live a normal human life with a wife and family. In the end, Jesus _rejected_ that temptation and died on the cross. Now, had he given in to that temptation, I can see why people would be angry. But he _didn’t_ give in to it. He resisted it. And yet these ignorant people protested the film, as if there was no _possible_ way Jesus could have been tempted to recant. After all, he didn’t have the slightest bit of doubt in the Garden of Gethsemane, right? Right?
Somewhat related, could someone explain why Jesus (or anyone) would say, “get behind me, Satan”? Would you really want Satan _behind_ you, where you’d be vulnerable to a stab in the back? Not me. I’d want him in front of me, so I could keep an eye on him.
Rick
Gee I don’t know Peter. By the same token, I wonder if Jews will be supporting Christians, by picketing the DaVinci code. Good or bad, it’s human nature to take up causes than concern one’s self/interest.
It’s possible that they, like myself, didn’t consider THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST to actually be anti-Semitic. One assumes that this would hamper one’s desire to protest.
I tried to read The DaVinci Code and gave up. I have too much good stuff to get through and it was just too poorly written for my taste. It made me nostalgic for the subtle poetic prose of Jacqueline Susann. But to each its own, obviously a lot of folks enjoyed it and I love Mario Puzu’s The Godfather novel so who am I to judge.
If there is anything to be offended by it’s the insistence from the author and some of his more brain damaged readers that this claptrap is based in reality. the central premise is taken from a well exposed hoax but Dan Brown (wisely)treats it all as though it were the product of deep research. Well, God bless him, a man needs to make a buck. You can’t blame Erich Van Daaniken if people continue to buy his nonsense.
Would a movie that used, as a premise, the idea that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was anything other than a blood libel have even been made? Never mind, actually it did get made, but it’s only being shown in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other places where the locals have a well demonstrated low tolerance for people casting aspersions on their religion.
>>>
Somewhat related, could someone explain why Jesus (or anyone) would say, “get behind me, Satan”? Would you really want Satan _behind_ you, where you’d be vulnerable to a stab in the back? Not me. I’d want him in front of me, so I could keep an eye on him.
Reminds me of the old George Carlin bit. He wonders why people who put little statues of Jesus on their dashboards always have him turned around to face them…when Jesus should be keeping his eyes on the road!!!
re: the line — IIRC, Jesus isn’t talking to Satan, but to Peter. The apostles are urging him to lie low and avoid being captured by the Romans. In so many words, Jesus replies that to avoid the Crucifixion would miss the whole point of this Son Of God exercise, and that Peter should led him lead.
PAD,
Talk about comparing apples to oranges. If The Passion of the Christ rewrote history about Moses or King David, you might have a point.
For the record, yes, I have read the book (as well as Angels & Demons). It is not worth even debating. Scholars who are not “conservative Christians” have done a far better job than I could pointing out the inaccuracies.
Have a nice day enjoying the protesters.
Iowa Jim
The DaVinci Code rewrites history
as much as
The New Testament and therefore The Passion of the Christ rewrote history
Now, certainly, there are people who believe the NT.
And there are people who believe The Davinci Code.
You may say that those who believe The Davinci Code are being misled by a work of fiction. Or by a hoax.
Yes, I agree.
You might even point out that it is a biblical crime to lead people astray from the truth.
I would agree with that too.
Of course, it goes without saying, that all of the above is my own opinion, and not necessarily anyone else’s.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at May 23, 2006 04:54 PM
PAD,
Talk about comparing apples to oranges. If The Passion of the Christ rewrote history about Moses or King David, you might have a point.
I didn’t see The Passion of the Christ, but I have read that it deviated from the New Testament of the Bible in many significant respects. Which is ironic, because the Bible ends with a warning of dire consequences for anyone who adds to or subtracts from its words.
And I’m getting a little weary of people bìŧçhìņg about “rewriting history.” Such bìŧçhìņg assumes that the history one originally learned is absolute truth incarnate. That’s a fallacy borne of the human tendency to believe that what you grew up believing must be true, because it is true and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong because, well, what you were taught as a young’un is true.
See the flaw in the logic there?
“Rewriting history” should not be a dirty word, and one should not be lumping things that are ostensibly hoaxes, like the Davinci Code, together with, say, efforts to bring to light new historical evidence that may alter our perception of what has gone before.
By the way, most people who bìŧçh about “rewriting history” are angry because it’s liberals who are doing it. As though it was OK when conservatives left šhìŧ out or glossed stuff over to support their agenda. Liberals and conservatives have both run roughshod over history to support their own worldview. Anyone who thinks their “side” is the one with the clean hands in that respect is blinder than blind.
And if you’re relying on the history you learned in grammar school to help shape your world view, I suggest you make an effort to educate yourself a little further. Whether you were taught the conservative distortions like my parents were, or the liberal distortions like I was, you’ve still been presented with a distorted view.
I don’t know exactly what THE PASSION did that deviated so much from the New Testament. Most of the complaints were that Gibson dwelled too much on the scourging but while the Bible doesn’t go into the gruesome details, I don’t see that as a major “rewriting”. But maybe someone out there can tell me what was changed.
Anyway, getting upset over as minor a bit of piffle as DAVINCI CODE seems a waste of energy. The only person I know who read the book and liked it and has seen the movie said they were let down. Since I didn’t even like the book I think I’ll wait until X3 comes out–I have enough to do this week anyway. It’ll be on DVD soon enough.
If anyone really wants to make a movie that will explore the origins of a major modern religion and ignite a firestorm of controversy, Cristianity isn’t the one to explore…but then again, filmmakers generally like their firestorms to be allegorical, not literal.
There’s a really great webcomic out there called Least I Could Do that just made a good point about this. 🙂
First of all, the church is against the movie because it makes them look bad, not Jesus, and those who are protesting the movie for being anti-Jesus are being misled by the church. Even if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that only makes his sacrifice on the cross more poignant. Instead of just giving up his life, he was giving up a life with a loving wife and a child on the way. But the church says that it is blasphemous to treat Jesus as man. To the church, Jesus was either God or man, he can’t be both, even though his being both was the whole point. Basically the church (like a certain administration that comes to mind, but that is a topic for another time) refuses to revise its position in light of new information.
This is the same state of mind that leads them to espouse intelligent design, in spite of all the evidence in favor of evolution, and say that anyone who believes otherwise is at best an atheist. Again, you are either religious or a scientist, you can’t be both. Is it because scientists are a bunch of Satan-worshipers out to discredit God? No, there are many religious scientists who think quite the opposite: by studying Creation they are better able to understand God.
Now don’t get me wrong: I’m NOT saying that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Is there evidence that he was you might ask? I ask you, is there evidence that he wasn’t? You’ll no doubt refer me to the Bible. Even allowing that it was indeed dictated by God, it was transcribed by man, and is man truly capable of truly understanding God’s message? Furthermore, it is a highly figurative document that has been copied and translated many times, again by man, over nearly two millennia. Now you say that in this document, there is no indication that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Maybe not explicitly, but I ask you this? To whom did he first go to after rising from the dead?
Now, in order to protect its source of power, the church feels it needs to defend what it said hundreds of years ago as absolute truth. But in doing so, they alienate anyone who embraces historical and scientific evidence. In the end, their you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us mentality is a double-edged sword that hurts them as much as it does those they wield it against.
Bill:
I’m guessing that John Paul II would have agreed with you on the point that you’re a higher authority on your own beliefs than the Pope. When he talked about Catholicism not becoming “an association of free-thinkers” he was referring strictly to Catholic doctrine. I’m going from memory here, but that’s the impression I got at the time from the context.
He wasn’t saying (for example) “Catholics of the world, never give the topic of abortion a single thought; this big hat means I get to tell YOU what you think on that subject.” He was saying “Look, if you _don’t_ believe that abortion is wrong, then you’re not Catholic. Because over here we regard that as a pretty big deal.” In effect, he was comparing a Catholic who uses birth control to a Vegan who eats Big Macs.
That line, incidentally, was one of the reasons why I left the Church after college. I was a “cafeteria Catholic,” enjoying the bits that I agreed with and cheerfully skipping over the things I didn’t agree with (like the Church’s stances against contraception and abortion). I don’t think the Pope was so much attacking the concept of Free Thought so much as he was the speaking against the concept of claiming to be a Catholic without taking the whole package.
In a way, it was good advice. One interpretation is “Catholicism: love it or leave it” but I prefer to see it as “be honest in your beliefs; if Catholicism isn’t doing it for you, seek out a faith that fits.”
Which is why, though I haven’t been back to church in more than ten years, and I object to many Catholic principles as strongly as I ever did, I still have a lot of respect for the Church.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 23, 2006 07:32 PM
I don’t know exactly what THE PASSION did that deviated so much from the New Testament. Most of the complaints were that Gibson dwelled too much on the scourging but while the Bible doesn’t go into the gruesome details, I don’t see that as a major “rewriting”. But maybe someone out there can tell me what was changed.
“Someone out there?” Aw, Bill, you cut me to the quick! I didn’t come to this party without a dish to pass.
I’ve read many articles about how Mel Gibson took liberties with the Gospels, but this Wikipedia article is the best I could do on short notice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_of_the_Christ
Gibson’s deviations from scripture may seem minor. But Gibson defended his movie against critics by asserting that “The Passion of the Christ” was an attempt to portray “the truth,” which implies that the choices he made were not based on his artistic inclinations but rather on some objective standard.
Well, if you’re a Christian, as I used to be, the Bible is the gold standard for “the truth.” You can interpret it all sorts of ways — hence the many denominations of Christianity — but the Bible is the foundation of it all.
Gibson can’t have it both ways. If his work was meant to portray the “truth” as Christians see it, he should have stuck with the Bible. Since he didn’t, he would have been well served to stand up and take the heat for his artistic choices.
Posted by: Andy Ihnatko at May 23, 2006 08:01 PM
Bill:
I’m guessing that John Paul II would have agreed with you on the point that you’re a higher authority on your own beliefs than the Pope. When he talked about Catholicism not becoming “an association of free-thinkers” he was referring strictly to Catholic doctrine. I’m going from memory here, but that’s the impression I got at the time from the context.
He wasn’t saying (for example) “Catholics of the world, never give the topic of abortion a single thought; this big hat means I get to tell YOU what you think on that subject.” He was saying “Look, if you _don’t_ believe that abortion is wrong, then you’re not Catholic. Because over here we regard that as a pretty big deal.” In effect, he was comparing a Catholic who uses birth control to a Vegan who eats Big Macs.
Actually, that’s a good analogy and one that makes my point for me. Many vegans aren’t satisfied with simply eschewing meat themselves; they feel they must prevent the rest of us from doing so. Devout Catholics, like most religionists, believe that you will go to Hëll if you don’t believe as they do. Which is why the Catholic Church tries to put pressure on Catholic politicians in the executive and legistlative branches to enshrine Catholic doctrine in civil policy.
Catholics aren’t the only ones who do this. Which is one of the many reasons why I’m not religious.
That line, incidentally, was one of the reasons why I left the Church after college. I was a “cafeteria Catholic,” enjoying the bits that I agreed with and cheerfully skipping over the things I didn’t agree with (like the Church’s stances against contraception and abortion). I don’t think the Pope was so much attacking the concept of Free Thought so much as he was the speaking against the concept of claiming to be a Catholic without taking the whole package.
I’m not sure how that’s any different than what I’m saying. Devout Catholics (the ones who accept the “whole package”) believe their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation, and that those who don’t share their faith are misguided at best. By that logic, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll become a Catholic. And to be a good Catholic, you can’t question Catholic doctrine, but instead must accept all of it.
How is that not attacking the concept of free thought?
In a way, it was good advice. One interpretation is “Catholicism: love it or leave it” but I prefer to see it as “be honest in your beliefs; if Catholicism isn’t doing it for you, seek out a faith that fits.”
I believe that kind of thinking is what’s led the Catholic Church to commit grievous sins throughout the ages, like punishing Galileo for making scientific discoveries that contradicted Church doctrine, the oppression of non-Catholics through the Spanish Inquisition, and the cover-ups that let priests get away with molesting children (and while I acknowledge that the scope of the problem is open to debate, I don’t think the existence of the problem is equally open).
Any organization that advocates a belief system that is not open to question is, in my view, inevitably going to corrupt itself.
Which is why, though I haven’t been back to church in more than ten years, and I object to many Catholic principles as strongly as I ever did, I still have a lot of respect for the Church.
I don’t share that respect. Obviously, though, you’re entitled to have that respect whether I agree with it or not.
Honestly, the opposite of what they want to happen will happen. The controversy will cause more news about the movie, resulting in more people getting interested and going to see it. The controversy is probably responsible for at least half of the first couple of weeks of box office for The Last Temptation of Christ, as the movie itself is acknowledged to be horrid.
So, in a way, the movie’s producers and distributers should be thanking the protesters. Their actions result in one more sound byte for people to listen to.
Read book, didn’t see movie. Already suffered enough with Dan Browns atrocious writing, and loose (to put it gently) treatment of the truth.
Actually, truth be told, I was offended by the book. Not as a Christian (though I am a devout Christian, this was too obviously BS to get ticked off about) but as a historian. This guy just, like, made šhìŧ up!!! To give my favorite example: When the first go over to Leigh Teabing’s house he says something to the effect that “At the Council of Nicea, they voted on the divinity of Jesus.”
Acutally, no. What they voted on was the issue of homoousios versus heteroousios, Or whether Jesus was of the same substance (homoousios) or different substance (heteroousios) then God the father. Also, the Arian controversy. Basically, this guy, Arian, said that Jesus was LESS than God. Still Divine, simply Created (think Zeus and Apollo. Both Gods, but one was more powerful) At no point was his Divinity an issue. Only a few Gnostic groups claimed he was all man, and they were never even close to mainstream.
That, and dozens of other factual errors, really, really, really piss me off.
Stupid book, stupid formulaic plot, heck, half the reason its as big as it is is all the kerflufful made over it. Still, all this protesting at least keeps the Whack-jobs from trying to get mandatory prayer, the ten commandments and Intelligent Design in the school system.
Maybe we should write a book about a Charasmatic Christian leader who gets a TV show then gets little old ladys in Duluth to send him their welfare checks to “get prayer back in schools..” then laughs all the way to the bank. I even have a good title: “The 800 Club.”
Catchy, huh?
Hey Bill, no offence intended–I figured if you hadn’t seen it you might not be the one to have the details. Thanks for the wiki link (And really, I recommend the movie. Great filmmaking, one reason I’m so looking forward to Gibson’s Apocalypto.)
If the wikipedia entry is any indication, yeah, the “deviations” are definitely minor–if they are deviations at all.
Examples- Exactly how Judas died is not certain–the accounts differ–But Gibson can hardly be blamed for going with the traditional and most likely method of hanging.(Matt. 27 3-8 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.)
Gibson has several rabbis object to the trial of Jesus, which is not in the Bible but a reasonable addition given the irregularities of the trial from Jewish law. Odd that Gibson would be criticized for showing that the death of Jesus was NOT desired by all Jews.
Caiaphas is the one to answer Pilate’s questions (“What shall I do with this man?”, etc) while the Gospels only record “the chief priests,” “the crowd,” or “the Jews” as answering (never a specific character). Again, no big deal and ANOTHER case of Gibson avoiding a choice that could be construed as fomenting hatred of Jews.
Barabbas is called a “murderer” in the subtitles, Yeah, and in Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 it states that Barabbas is in jail for murder. I mean, c’mon.
Simon of Cyrene, who helps Jesus carry the cross and puts his arm around him, is debased, treated poorly by a Roman soldier, and called Jew with a sneer. Only Simon’s name, place of origin, and the fact that he helped Jesus carry the cross are in all three Synoptic Gospels.
Another reasonable choice and ANOTHER case of Gibson making a choice that portrayed the Jews sympathetically.
The same criminal was shown crucified on Jesus’s right. According to Luke 23.39, the criminal is crucified on Jesus’ left while the criminal who said to Him, “…remember me when You come into Your kingdom ” was crucified on Jesus’ right.
Ok. I’m convinced. Burn in hëll, Gibson!
Seriously, most of the “deviations” listed are pretty nit picky or not really deviations at all. I’m surprised, given the charges of anti-Semitism leveled at the film, to see that several were seemingly chosen to deflect criticism of Jews. Ðámņëd if you do, dámņëd if you don’t.
Y’know, my remarks may make it sound like I hate religious people. I don’t. I disagree with them is all.
My parents are devout Catholics and we still love each other and get along just fine. Some of my best friends are religious. 🙂
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 23, 2006 09:02 PM
Ok. I’m convinced. Burn in hëll, Gibson!
Now, Bill, I wasn’t calling for Gibson to burn in Hëll over this. Just a little extra time in Purgatory is all. 🙂
Seriously, I haven’t seen the movie, so I think I’ve gone as far out as I can on this limb. I won’t criticize a movie I haven’t seen. I just thought Gibson’s defense of the movie rang a little hollow is all. He made some artistic choices, and he should simply say, “Yeah, that was my artistic choice.”
The controversy is probably responsible for at least half of the first couple of weeks of box office for The Last Temptation of Christ, as the movie itself is acknowledged to be horrid.
By who? It may not be Scorcese’s best work but it’s a very good film.
If you meant The Passion…with $611,899,420 worldwide gross and many critics (like Ebert) giving it top ratings, I can’t see that being a valid judgement either.
Some of my best friends are religious. 🙂
yeah, but would you want your daughter to marry one?
My sister’s assessment of The DaVinci Code (the book) was “I want my time back.” Even as a Catholic, she seemed to be more offended by the writing than she ever was by the ideas.
I’ve avoided the book based on her review. When I was still in the bookstore business, it was a bit awkward when people asked about it. I couldn’t exactly say “Yeah, I couple of people I know read it and they said it sucked.” I settled for “Um, it’s really popular . . . “
I am so glad I got a new job before the paperback edition came out . . .
I agree with Bill Myers. The more I learn about history, the more I realize that you really can’t unconditionally believe anything, nor can you unconditionally dismiss anything. And the further back you go in time, the truer this becomes. When you get to biblical times, really, nobody knows anything. You kind of just have to examine all the evidence at hand and reach your own conclusions.
Is The Da Vinci Code accurate? Maybe. Probably not (it is, after all, a novel, something many people don’t seem to understand). Does it matter? Hëll, no. All I know is that the book is entertaining as hëll and, more than that, it made me think and see the world in new ways. It’s a fascinating read, whether you buy into it or not (and really, there’s no real reason not to buy into it for what it is… a speculative work of fiction… We don’t condemn The Lord of the Rings for rewriting history, do we?).
I also liked the movie, too, though not as much.
I’m not sure that Peter’s original point is valid, though. Why would they protest something based on the way other people feel about it? They most likely DON’T feel that the The Passion of the Christ has an anti-Semitic message (not that they would protest it even if they did, but still). Personally, I think both sets of protesters are nuts. I think they’re both good movies, and I found nothing insulting about either of them. But then, I’m an atheist, so I’m not in the best position to judge.
Okay, people don’t like the book, people don’t like the movie, WHATEVER. I don’t really care. Don’t REALLY have enough interest in either to try to carve out time for either.
One thing cracks me up, though. Pretty much every cable channel and a few of the broadcast ones have had their researchers going over everything with a fine tooth comb to find evidence for this claptrap one way or the other. Now, according to, well, the Bible, this stuff happened TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. Give or take a week or two. Now, people can’t find out what happened to Hoffa, Natalie Holloway, or this country’s sense of humor, and these are (fairly) recent incidents. People are basing their arguments on information that has passed through so many mouths before it was written down IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TIME AND LANGUAGE that who knows WHAT the heck really happened? Now, I was raised Catholic. Haven’t gone to church since my Dad’s funeral. (No real reason other than the fact that I work fifteen hours on Saturdays and another nine on Sundays.) But even still, a lot of the stuff just didn’t sit right with me. Blame the fact that I was born in the early ’70’s if you want, but I like things I believe in to make sense and be consistent. A lot of stuff in the Church ain’t either. I have a real problem with the whole “THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, THIS IS WHAT IS SO!” attitude. God, Gaia, The Great Green Arkleseizure, whatever, gave us free will. Gave us the need to question. And yet a lot of religions out there feel the need to drive that out of us.
Don’t EVEN get me started on James Dobson. Spongebob gay? How can an asexual creature be gay? Man’s got a little too much time on his hands, methinks.
Bill Mulligan,
Without spending too much time looking for reviews on a movie that I have no urge to see, I did find these two after very little time:
Scorsese applies his usual flair to the proceedings, but takes things over-the-top on a few occasions. Disorienting jump cuts are ever-present, particularly during the various dream sequences that play out. This makes the already-confusing film even more difficult to follow, while the lack of any kind of an introduction to the characters prevents bible newbies like myself from ever really getting into the movie.
– David Nusair, Reelfilm.com
“The Last Temptation of Christ” is a probing, unflinching film. And Scorsese’s motive here is to stimulate and provoke, not to sensationalize. The director’s failure, though, comes at the most basic level. In spite of all he accomplishes, he is unable to bring Jesus close to us, to realize his stated goal of creating a universal figure who symbolizes the spiritual anguish of all men. Somehow Christ’s suffering seems to have been fetishized, and there’s an almost creepy kind of glee in the filmmakers’ presentation of the corruptions here. The result is an inescapable sadomasochistic tone. Too often, you can feel them, perhaps in spite of themselves, taking pride in their own outrageousness.
– Hal Hinson, The Washington Post
So, no, not universally loved. And as an adult when it was a new film, I recall quite a few people panning it.
Peter, I know what would’ve happened if you had asked them your hypothetical question (which may be another legitimate answer to Tim Butler’s question): They would’ve told you that how the Jews were portrayed in The Passion was accurate, and based on fact (y’know, except for that nasty little business about how history recorded Pilate as being a bloodthirsty sociopath who had no problem killing people left and right, and the likelihood that it was instead blamed on the Jews because blaming the Pilate, a Roman, might’ve made it harder to lobby the Romans to adopt Christianity as their new official religion).
Me, what I found most interesting about the film is how, based on what I remember from the book from reading it last summer, is how certain elements of the movie cast Opus Dei in a more positive light, and Dan Brown’s ideas in a more negative one. In the book, for example, Langdon nods and accepts everything Teabing says about the Council of Nicea, and their hand in the status of Christ’s divinity, but in the movie, Langdon virulently disagree on this point, getting into a heated exchange that Sophie has to break up. This is pretty clever on the part of Ron Howard and crew, because it casts the main good guy in the role of Dan Brown’s critics, and Teabing, who critics of the novel may see as espousing Brown’s own theories, as the central bad guy, and a crackpot. In addition, Bezu Fache’s tie clip is a silver crucifix with 13 embedded black onyxes, but IIRC, in the movie, it’s the symbol of Opus Dei, and it’s established Fache himself is a member of that prelate. The book does not contain the plot point about Aringarosa lying to Fache about Langdon confessing a murder to him, a manipulation of Fache that Fache realizes and confronts Arignarosa about by the end of the film. And when Sophie questions Langdon about the murderer of her grandfather being Opus Dei on their way to Château Villette, Langdon says, “Not Opus Dei,” as a way to indicate that the murderer was not acting on behalf of the organization in any official capacity. (IIRC, the same point was made by the Vatican. And of course, the bit about the Pope removing Opus Dei’s status as an official prelature is not in the movie.
All these elements serve to emphasize that Opus Dei is not the villain in the film (much as the Illuminati [Spoiler Warning] were not really behind the kidnappings/murders in Angels and Demons), and that Aringarosa and Silas were rogue agents, and being manipulated by Teabing, making the true villain of the story a fanatic English knight and critic of the Church. While Teabing’s role in this regard is also in the book, all these alterations emphasize that Opus Dei is not complicit in the crimes committed in the movie. I
I haven’t noticed anyone pointing this out, and somehow, I’m not holding my breath that anyone will.
And as far as Brown’s writing, I agree that his character’s lack depth, and that his constant digressions for purposes of impressing the reader with various bits of extraneous trivia not related to the plot are beyond annoying; The book was entertaining to me, however, because of the experience of watching the treasure hunt and the series of codes unfold. It was also fascinating because I love learning about all those little bits of religious history. It’s unfortunate, of course, that I later learned that so much of that latter element were false.
Bill Myers: This really isn’t any different than Isaac Hayes claiming he quit South Park to protest their insensitivity to religion, when in fact he was fine with them mocking religion until they turned their sights on Scientology.
Luigi Novi: Actually, Bill, he didn’t quite SP over their Scientology riffs. The real story is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html.
Iowa Jim: Talk about comparing apples to oranges. If The Passion of the Christ rewrote history about Moses or King David, you might have a point.
Luigi Novi: So you’re saying that the portrayal of the Jews in that movie was not merely accurate with respect to the Bible, but to history as well? Sorry, but it wasn’t really accurate to either. (See above.)
And Bill Myers is correct, in that historical revisionism is not an immoral or odious practice; it’s a legitimate part of modern historiography. (Read James W. Loewens’ Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America.)
Robert Fuller: When you get to biblical times, really, nobody knows anything.
Luigi Novi: Well, I wouldn’t go that far. A bit too nihilistic for my taste, and not in keeping with the evidence we have for much of history.
Umm, isn’t THE DA VINCE CODE something called… FICTION??? Dan Brown isn’t using this as a springboard to launch a new religion (hello, DIANETICS!) or as a scholarly assault on the divinity of Christ. It’s an action/investigation book.
As for the discussions of Christianity, I consider myself a Funtamentalist Agnostic: I’m sure I don’t have all the answers. And to quote Graham Chapman, “There’s nothing an Agnostic can’t do if he’s really not sure if he believes in anything or not.”
James, I think the reason for this controversey is that the note in the beginning of the book claims that all descriptions of art, architecture, documents and secret rituals is factually accurate. Granted, this note does not include “history” in it, but I think the possible effect it may have on readers is that it may cause them to assuem that even descriptions of historical events are accurate as well. It also contains some malignant descriptions of Opus Dei and the Vatican, and there may be the fear that readers will assume that these assertions as also factual, or based on some fact.
Rose, I never meant to sugget that last temptation was universally beloved, just that saying that “the movie itself is acknowledged to be horrid.” was far too great an overstatement. I’ suspect that one could easily find negative reviews of EVERY movie, even classics like Casablanca or Gigli.
regarding the accuracy of the Davinci Code…obviously we can never know for sure what happened 2000 years ago, but it’s safe to say that we CAN be sure that the Priory of Sion–apparently a major plot point–is a silly piece of 20th century humbug and even at that it had nothing to do with the Goddess worship that Brown uses.
Maybe for his next book Brown will use the Paluxy Footprints to reveal how scientists are suppressing the truth of Intelligent Design. (It’s well known that Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed).
(Note to the literal minded; the paragraph above is actually bûllšhìŧ).
And now for something completely silly…
If you thought there weren’t enough tie-in works to THE DA VINCI CODE — books, DVDs, tapes, etc. going over the truth or falsehood of it — you’re in luck with another genre entering the fray: pørņ! Yes, Hustler has released THE DA VINCI LOAD. I’d love to post the description here (it’s ridiculous, what you’d expect from an adult film, and a truly unique twist on the original’s plot) but I suspect that could get nme booted from here. I bet anyone reading this can Google this description. Enjoy!
Heh. I wonder what the critic who thought Last Temptation of Christ was “sadomasochistic” thought of The Passion?
Ask Micheal Medved about how anti-Semitic messages in Passion you might learn something. other than talking out of your Úš. but I guess thats what you do most days. I now return you to your liberal choir
…even classics like Casablanca or Gigli.
Bill…
Never. Ever. EVER!!! compare those two movies again.
I know you are joking, but so help me, I will ressurect the rotting, large carcase of Alfred Hitchcock and have him come after you. With a bunch of birds.
Just staring at you.
(PS: Yes, I know Hitchcock didn’t direct Casablanca. I dont care. He’s a lot scarier than Michael Curtiz)
“Ask Micheal Medved about how anti-Semitic messages in Passion you might learn something.”
I don’t understand this sentance. What do you mean by “how messages” in the movie?
Such hubbub and turmoil over the cinema always makes me think about the political atmosphere surrounding Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. The merits, accuracy, and message of the film are for this example irrelevent, but it’s release cultivated a class of people decrying a movie they had never seen based solely on information that might as well have come from AOL’s Moviefone (a more prestigous source of information there may never be).
I don’t have a point, it’s just what I always think of.
“Ask Micheal Medved about how anti-Semitic messages in Passion you might learn something.”
Ask your English teacher how to construct a sentence, you might do the same.
Boy, I missed this site.
Micheal Medved is just someone who was given a soapbox and made the mistake that many do, he took it seriously. Generally I find his opinions to be less this-is-what-I-think than I-am-the-Archcritic-Micheal-you-must-listen-am-I-doing-a-good-job-Conservatives? Just because he SAYS there are anti-Semitic messages there, don’t make it so. Wonder what he says when he hears Snowblind?
In terms of parody novels
The Da Vinchi Cod has been around for a while.
I had to walk through a picket-line to watch the Last Temptation of Christ and afterwards I asked if anyone there had seen the film. No but they knew it was bad and bad for Christians even though it was based on a work of fiction.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 23, 2006 09:20 PM
yeah, but would you want your daughter to marry one?
Sweet Jesus, I have a daughter???? Why the hëll am I always the last one to find out about these things????
Posted by Luigi Novi at May 23, 2006 11:15 PM
Luigi Novi: Actually, Bill, he didn’t quite SP over their Scientology riffs. The real story is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html.
I tried the link but a got a “page can’t be found” error. Besides, I’m a little skeptical about the veracity of anything I see on Fox News. After all, they’re the folks that aired the “documentary” (and I use the term loosely here) Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, a program that was nothing but a collection of grossly inaccurate statements made by pundits who wouldn’t know critical thinking or reporting if either bit them in the ášš.
I’ve seen statements from Isaac Hayes that make it explicitly clear that he quit South Park because of their “religious intolerance.” Moreover, his threshold for their “religious intolerance” wasn’t exceeded until the Scientology episode. I’m open to evidence that the real story is something else — but you’ll have to forgive me for being skeptical of Fox News as a source.
Luigi Novi: Actually, Bill, he didn’t quite SP over their Scientology riffs. The real story is at: “>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html.
Wow, Luigi, talk about your credibility-killer.
You quote an article from FoxNews? I think you better find a more legitimate outlet to back this up, as I currently cannot find anything that outright says this story is true.
I’m finding plenty of articles saying that the FoxNews article is bs, or that it’s merely bad rumors, including one article with a comment from Hayes’s spokeswoman saying that his having a stroke was a false report.
I’ve even found one article, from People magazine, that considers the two issues, a rumored stroke and his leaving South Park, as separate issues unrelated to one another. This while discussing the fact that Hayes and his wife just had a child 10 days ago.
I tried the link but a got a “page can’t be found” error.
The link picked up the period at the end of the sentence is why.
Andy Ihnatko,
I know Jesus was talking to Peter, calling him Satan (metaphorically); but whether being metaphorical or literal, you still have to wonder about the phrasing of that statement.
By the way, it was me who said there’s a higher authority than the pope- myself. Though, I think Bill Myers implied as much with regard to himself, in his initial post.
Rick
Isnt the whole thing about Christianity is the right to chose what you believe? God gives you the choice whether you want to believe if Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of Man. He’s not going to beg you to come… You’ve got to go to Him…and a movie isn’t going to change that.
Anyway, if someone is going to base their entire moral and theological belief on a two hour movie, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed out in the first place.
Bob Ahrens
I’m equally confused about why, now that’s it’s a “movie”, we keep hearing about this. One can logically conclude that, since this book has been a best seller for years now, and the protests were nowhere nearly to this magnitude, most people who are out there protesting probably don’t read very much. This, in turn can lend one to form an opinion of the calibur of education said protestors have had in their lives.
Furthermore, it’s a FICTIONAL MOVIE. Anyone who interprets the book or the movie as anything but has more than a few screws loose.