Da Vinci Code on film

[Desdichado]

How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?

That's absurd. Nobody says that the X-files can't be talked about critically because they deliberately slander, defame and distort the role of the government in all kinds of conspiracies. I don't see how this is any different. The conspiracy Brown invented (or coopted from other nutcases who take it more seriously, actually) was essential to the plot, not an attempt to defame or slander.

 

[Hijinks]

I would also prefer that personal opinions about the subject matter behind the novel not be included in this thread, because then it will inevitably be locked. I'd prefer that didn't happen.

Some people prefer to think the novel/movie are based completely in fact. Some people believe it's all claptrap. Fine. If you saw the movie, please judge it based on the standards of movie criticism here. If you want to complain about religious ideals, it's well-known on this board that such things are not allowed, so please keep it on other forums.

 

[Darthjaye]

I agree. A previous thread on this topic devolved into this same arguement. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself people. If you can't babysit your own mouth, then a moderator will end up doing it for you and surely will close this. Try harder to be more respectful of the rest of us out here. We don't all share your "beliefs" and would appreciate your not sharing yours here.

If you can't do this, don't come here anymore please.

I tried to be polite in the last thread this happened in and it got me nowhere. Have your philosophical arguements elsewhere, but stop or leave, that's the only request I'm making now.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I was going to wait and read the book first, but I think I'll go see this on vacation next week. I'm a conspiracy buff so this is right up my alley.

 

[Mistwell]

Not quite, but she was portrayed as a (mostly) normal person. That driving was completely insane.

Han Solo was just an ordinary smuggler who could navigate a meteor shower.
Indiana Jones was just an archeologist who could crawl below a moving truck and survive.
The hobbits were just ordinary hobbits, who could do extraordinary things they never even dreamed about.

And yet this one single POLICE INVESTIGATOR (which is what she is - someone in a profession that generally includes emergency driving in the general instruction course) was a fantastic driver in an emergency situation, and you find it so unbelievable as to call it insane?

 

[Mistwell]

How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?

It's a fiction film. It doesn't deliberately slander, defame, or distort anything real, as it is not real. It's fiction.

Yes, I would be happy to see a film about the elders of zion. In fact, I think they should use the graphic novel "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by Will Eisner" as the basis to make such a film. It would be great. It would do well. I would see it. Most people I know would see it. A fine suggestion.

 

[Mistwell]

I actually disagree with that. Star Wars offers credentials for its characters. Han made the Kessel run in X many parsecs, Jedi are famed
warriors so on and so forth. Thus it does not strain credulity when Han is an expert pilot, or Luke becomes more powerful as he advances in his learnings about the Jedi.

Han pilots the Falcon through a meteor shower where the exact odds are mentioned just so everyone is clear exactly how incredible impossible what he is doing really is. There is no question left in the viewers mind - we are seeing essentially a miricle in piloting skills take place. A lot greater of a miricle than smashing into all sorts of stuff for literally 3 blocks in a tiny little car at relatively slow speeds as done by a police investigator.

Sophie is a code breaker, yet she breaks no codes, and drives in a fashion befitting a trained driver.

She is a trained driver. She is a police investigator who specializes in codes, but who had the same training as all police investigators which includes emergency driving.

Langdon is a Historical Symbologist, yet he seems to be able to break codes with the greatest of ease. Langdon seems to be a better code breaker than Sophie.

He is essentially one of the best on the planet. It's his gift. They even show you how he can see things others cannot by almost total recall of not just words but three dimensional images in a way nobody else can do it. That IS the point. He's special, and one of the aspects that makes him the hero.

It is the same as if C3P0 piloted the Milienum Falcon like Han, it does not fit the character.

c3po isn't the hero, and NOBODY can pilot the millenium falcon through a meteor shower and survive without a miricle....

 

[Mistwell]

But that isn't actual history.

Correct. It's fiction.

Dan Brown himself has said more than once that the core claims of his novel are all true, which is precisley not the case.

1) We are discussing the movie, not the book. Ron Howard made the movie. Ron Howard is the one who needs to make claims in this case.
2) Brown says what he says. That the art, architecture, documents, and rituals are based on historical things. That's all true. He doesn't say the core claims of his novel are all true. He says what I just repeated. It's a specific list.

So, in essence, Dan Brown has written a book which says many defamatory things,

No. He has written a fiction book which says nothing about anything real right now.

is so full of historical errors

Fictional history. Not real history. Cannot be an error if it's not supposed to be real.

that any scholar would laugh himself silly reading it,

It's not a scholarly historical work. It's a fiction novel.

and which the author himself claims is based on facts.

No, he does not. And, in this case, the "author" is Ron Howard.

IOW, it sounds a lot like the aforementioned Protocols.

Bring on the Protocols!

But the current discussion is about a "controversial" film. How can one discuss the film while ignoring the mountains of lies and distortions it is based upon? If Ron Howard's next film was about how Jewish bankers are subverting world governments, would you likewise suggest that people who find anti-Semitism offensive "change the channel"?

Yes. I would indeed say just that. Particularly if it was a fiction film.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

For those who have seen the movie and read the book, how close are they?

 

[Mark Chance]

1) We are discussing the movie, not the book. Ron Howard made the movie. Ron Howard is the one who needs to make claims in this case.

So am I.

2) Brown says what he says. That the art, architecture, documents, and rituals are based on historical things. That's all true. He doesn't say the core claims of his novel are all true. He says what I just repeated. It's a specific list.

False. Dan Brown in his own words:

“I wanted to write a book that while it entertained at the same time, you close that last page and go ‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’ That is really what I set out to do.”

“When I started researching Da Vinci Code, I really was skeptical and I expected on some level to disprove all this history that is unearthed in the book and after three trips to Paris and a lot of interviews, I became a believer…”

When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”

Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.”

In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married. He claimed: “The people who ask me how much is true need to realize that this theory about Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries. It’s not my theory. This has been presented, really over the last 2000 years, and it has persisted.”
​

So, while Ron Howard can be given props for distancing himself from Dan Brown's claims, the fact still remains that the author of the book upon which the movie is based says that his book is essentially factual except for its obviously fictitious characters.

Now, what does the movie claim? It claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers and that Opus Dei is an assassin-employing cult. These falsehoods are predicated upon a structure that deliberately distorts history.

So, then, we're dealing with a movie that at its core is a deliberate insult to slightly more than 1 billion in the world. Of course, those of you who see no problems in anti-Semitism as a form of entertain don't see this as a problem, while those of us who beg to differ are summarily dismissed by self-appointed moderators huffing with self-righteous indignation.

But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others). Second, it's just not a very good movie. In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.

To repeat my earlier review: By all means, boycott this movie. You'll sleep better at home.