| Rating: | ★★★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Other |
I
Risks and Payoffs from Altering History
“The book is not well-researched,” bestselling author Anne Rice is quoted as saying, when reached for her opinion about Ron Howard’s upcoming film “Da Vinci Code,” a much anticipated film thriller largely based on Dan Brown’s 40 million copies-seller.
Famous for his Vampire Chronicles, Rice has to say that Da Vinci Code is “fiction”—yet, still, people the world over might have the dilemma of accepting anything they’re presented as truths even if it were largely fictitious.
In fact, Da Vinci Code has so far sold 40 million copies worldwide and Dan Brown is said to get some 6 million US dollars for the book’s rights alone. Meanwhile, film director Ron Howard, endorsed by Brian Grazer and backed up by sensible screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, will have his own paycheck this next weekend when the much anticipated movie opens worldwide.
Like any other fad, perhaps, it is useless that this Da Vinci Code mania might just fizzle out misconstrued and misunderstood—or becoming either—famous or infamous.
Like William Shakespeare, Dan Brown must have sought his own fame by writing and rewriting history through hodgepodge literary work.
As is obvious, Brown borders sensationalism just—such desire to only sell, or obtain fifteen minute of fame—by disproving and discrediting Christianity his vital material to thrill his readers.
The use of real-life characters to be immersed in otherwise imagined realities borders sensationalism—not much different from such attitude that wants to sell at the expense of the lives of people who have established truths for themselves for a long time.
For example, the Opus Dei sensibility shall always be marred when they are portrayed as the clandestine hierarchy that intentionally concealed Jesus Christ’s marital relationship with Mary Magdalene and their eventual children.
As a sensible tool of history, literature is a vital instrument to influence people about what really happened in the past, especially when the matters involved is one of their faith—which, for a significant number of people, has been the essence of their existence.
Now with their faith being debunked, disproved or discredited because of one imaginative work of the mind, what is there to live for? After all, genuine faith is one that needs no questions—because they are never needed—faith is simply faith, and it alone can suffice.
With her own new book Christ the Lord out in the bookstands Anne Rice recognizes Brown’s talent as an author, saying the book is a page-turner, one that thrills anyone to no end because of its riveting suspense elements.
Furthermore, according to Rice, the Church is not one entity to be alarmed—since, for years, the motion picture industry has been one of its most useful media—insofar as their worldwide evangelization is concerned. This is where Rice takes on to say that the most interesting thing in the Da Vinci phenomenon is the overwhelming response by readers to the matter of their faith—which reflects their keenness in knowing better about the relationship with Christ.
If there’s one thing that meritorious about this work, it is its ability to awaken a lot of audiences about their relationship with the Savior, Jesus Christ.
Aside from audience’s mere curiosity, what is apparent is that most people, probably, mostly Christians at that, would want to really know much about the real Christ.
The mere fact that 40 million copies were sold worldwide attests that Christian believers the world over might need to reaffirm their faiths about the real, or the otherwise unfounded humanity of Christ.
Having existed for some 2,000 years, Christianity seems to face a question it might not have to truly answer categorically.
Too inane that in this age of modernity, man always has to [read: needs to] look at and even swim to [extremely] the other side [where they are] to only see how he himself is.
II
BrownMan Revival
In the midst of this brouhaha and crazy and varied reactions to Ron Howard’s adaptation of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, talking about it seriously still merits our full attention. With his controversial opus, Brown has posed a number of issues.
It throws open the issue whether Jesus Christ is ultimately divine—read: He had had no marital relations with a fellow human being, or had sired children.
This is nothing new—but to most people, offensive. Such perceived reality of course, is a far cry from their perennial knowledge of Jesus’ divinity,
Yet, in fiction, we are said to be bound to believe in any truths—as per the term, suspension of disbelief.
In reading a book as Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code or watching Ron Howard’s pathetic haphazard adaptation, we readers and audience, are thrown into the realities of the work itself.
Our disbelief—call them traces or hints of doubt about life in general—is literally “suspended” the moment we become passive audience, because we are predisposed to lounge into the realities, truths and fictions combined—being thrown to us by the author or director.
This is where and why and how so many people raise hell about showing the film to the public. This is because the literary work—either the book or the film—gradually becomes a powerful medium that works in the audience subliminally, creating mental associations in the individual mind, altogether forming truths in our consciousness.
Grading the movie R-18, MTRCB’s La Guardia, et. al., at least, have this to say: “The thematic, verbal and visual content of this fictionalized drama thriller requires mature discernment…”
Why so? Certainly because the film addresses the dilemma on one’s faith—by making the audience choose whether such Priory of Zion—which concealed shocking truths about Jesus Christ—ever existed. Minors are assumed to be less than age of reason, thus they are still being molded to become worthy and faithful, quote and unquote. Moral discernment is the job of a mature person—although most grownups—if at all—have hardly discerned any good thing in the society.
“Sub-themes involving corporal mortification and self-flagellation, as well as clerical assassinations, violent images and a fleeting sexual ritual—as well as thematic elements questioning the basic [Catholic] beliefs…need adult maturity to distinguish fact from fiction—to discern good from evil.” Minors, highly impressionable as they are supposed to be—should not be allowed [to watch].
Such tall order only poses more curiosity, isolating matters of faith into the realm of the mysterious, or extremely otherwise something which the young faithful have yet to work for all their lives.
Pathetically, it also discredits the image of the long-standing prelatures of Vatican, tactlessly [though indirectly] depicting Opus Dei as one sinister organization that for so long a time having to with concealing truths about the Holy Grail—er, the truths of Mary Magdalene’s [participation and even] primacy in the Church.
From such perceived truth in fiction, people will easily be made to believe that Mary of Magdala was indeed one person to reckon with as far as Christianity is concerned.
Here, Dan Brown preaches like a stanch feminist when he highlights Mary Magdalene’s vital role in the life of the Savior Jesus Christ. From here, then, Code somehow reads like Church herstory—still highlighting how the patriarchal male-dominated Vatican used its power to stifle the women’s role in the propagation of the faith, never at all allowed to take center stage. Dan Brown’s way of altering history—through fiction—is not at all pleasant, because it seeks to debunk established dogmas of the Church.
But the MTRCB at least, further recognizes the film’s poor elements, as follows: “It [the film] does not constitute a clear, express, or direct attack on the Catholic Church though some critical issues on generally accepted dogmas are raised.”
Arguments on Christ’s divinity and celibacy are tackled within academic discourse or theoretical contexts by the characters. De-mythologizing the very nature of an ascetic Christ has never been controversial as this one.
This, however, only seems to say how we human beings are limited—we constantly question and doubt—not being able to fathom the divine mystery. Why so? Again, because maybe the Church for all these time have been so doctrinaire, dogmatic and not so practical and attuned to the ways of the world—despite the desperate attempts of the religious to prove otherwise.
With Howard’s The Da Vinci Code, perhaps understood by more people than those who bought or read the sensational opus, Brown must have provided some of us to these questions, which we ourselves, only ourselves can hope to answer, if at all.
Therefore, as it is thus stated in the film’s rating sheet: “The owner is responsible to MTRCB for the publication of the film’s rating in all publicity ads,” we the audience are equally liable to what beliefs our hearts [will] suspend or, retain.
2 comments: