Is the Da Vinci code any good?
"Critics" are saying it is terrible. But they are never right. So has anyone here seen it? I am most interested in hearing opinions of people who both read and liked the book. I loved the book, except the stupid ending...and it sounds like a fun movie? So what do ya'll think?
Comments
My hypothesis (knowing what the main outcome is about)was that Dan had stumbled upon some 'truth' but had made the fundamental mistake of thinking that Jesus, Mary etc were "real" people and had not realised that Jesus' marriage was symbolic.
But having read the first 100 or so pages, clearly he understands more than I've imagined him to, so it might well be that by the time I've finished it, although the majority of people seem to take his book 'literally', he might have actually been concluding the story 'symbolically' aswell. That the cryptologist is called "Sophie" is a major clue to this.
Oh, havn't seen the film yet - I've been told the reason the critics were scathing/pissed is because they were not allowed any pre-screening time - and we all know what a bunch of jumped-up twats journalists are!
IMHO, the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child or more isn't as preposterous as some would make out. The custom 2000 years back was for Jewish males to marry at a young age and to father children. It was also custom for Rabbis to be married and raise a family, and it is not impossible that Jesus undertook rabbinical studies, borne out by his ability to converse with learned spiritual figures at a very young age. Furthermore, there is no biblical record as to where Jesus was located for some 18 years between the age of 12 and when he started his ministry around 30 years old; there are accounts in Nepalese and Tibetan monasteries that a traveling spiritual master "Issa" from "parts west" at the appropriate time in history, who fiited Jesus' description.
Jesus was a historical figure, a human being, and we have but a patchy history of the smaller part of his life. Even for those of faith who attach divinity to him, how does the likelihood of his fathering children take away from that divinity? Just because there is no record in the canon (as established by a vote in the 4th century) of Jesus having no children, this cannot realistically be taken as proof that he remained single and/or childless.
As an adventure/thriller, I consider the movie (not the story itself) mediocre. (I'll leave a discussion of the religious aspects alone, for now.) It *really* needed a better editor. After the first 30 minutes, I seriously considered walking out simply because I wasn't being entertained.
The story as-written doesn't lend itself to a screenplay: there are too many details to communicate, which makes it as much a lecture as a thriller. The characters aren't generally interesting or sympathetic. The overall tone of the movie is "dark," but not in a film noire sense - more like a "can we open the lens another f-stop or two?" sense. The few action scenes (with the exception of one stunning car crash) are edited so poorly it's hard to understand what's going on, and by the time you figure it out, the scene's over.
With a different screenwriter, editor, and cinematographer, this movie might have been much better. On the other hand, it was true to the book, so perhaps the weaknesses of Brown's storytelling are simply magnified on the big screen.
In contrast, consider the "Harry Potter" movies (comparing the movie-making, not the plots): huge amounts of detail to communicate, yet the characters are interesting, the stories move along with action and humor, the cinematography is entertaining, and significant editing was done without compromising the basic story line.
Originally posted by sammi jo
IMHO, the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child or more isn't as preposterous as some would make out.
It isn't preposterous at all, Jesus' marriage is in the frigging Bible if you read past the literal black and white. The only reason this is a controversy is because as usual we have been completely lied too about the meaning and symbolism of the story, and have long forgotten the spiritual 'wisdoms' of the ancient world.
LiveScience.com has a good, brief, piece on this.
Alas, the whole basis of The Da Vinci Code?the "discovered" parchments of Rennes-le-Château, relating to the alleged Priory of Sion?were part of a hoax perpetrated by a man named Pierre Plantard. Plantard commissioned a friend to create fake parchments which he then used to concoct the bogus priory story in 1956. (See Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, 2004.)
Of course, Dan Brown?with the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation?was also duped by the Priory of Sion hoax, which he in turn foisted onto his readers. But he is apparently unrepentant, and his apologists point out that The Da Vinci Code is, after all, fiction, although at the beginning of the novel, Brown claimed it was based on fact. Meanwhile, despite the devastatingly negative evidence, The Da Vinci Code mania continues. Perhaps Brown should go on his own quest?for the truth.
Originally posted by MarcUK
That the cryptologist is called "Sophie" is a major clue to this.
Hagia Sophia? Queen Sophie Magdalene?
Originally posted by trailmaster308
Hagia Sophia? Queen Sophie Magdalene?
sophia is the greek for 'wisdom'. mary magdelena=sophia, thus jesus marries wisdom.
Mary is a personification of self, there are 3 mary's in the story, but the point is they are all aspects of the same person.
The origin of this is lunar, waxing (new moon = virgin, full moon = mother), waning (old moon = old parallels wisdom).
Magdelena is the old, wise moon, a metaphor of 'state of mind', as are the other mary's, not a real person.
Therefore Jesus marries the wisdom as you would expect. The crucifixion is a similar story of 'self', consumating the 'marriage' if you like, taking the path of wisdom rather than foolishness, Jesus dies (stupid aspect of 'self') but resurrects as the wise self, reborn.
Probably better to ask someone else who understands it better than me though.
Originally posted by segovius
No it doesn't...The parchments were forged but that's not the point.
The point is that this is a fact: Sauniere was exiled to the Rennes area as a poor priest on a pittance of a salary with a handful of parishioners.
A decade later his expenditure had reached millions of dollars in today's money. Question is: how?
segovius, conspiracy theories aren't my thing, I find garden-variety history exotic enough --- at any rate, here is one explanation from wikipedia: Link
Originally posted by sammi jo
IMHO, the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child or more isn't as preposterous as some would make out.
It's not presposterous, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that it's true. None of the stories about Jesus mention him being married (let alone to any specific individual), and many religious Jews like Jesus (i.e., apocalyptic preachers) were celibate. Contrary to what this Dan Brown says, it would not have been unusual at all for someone like him to be unmarried.
Originally posted by segovius
Ok, once again (sigh - I MUST remember Jesus's teachings of compassion, I MUST remember Jesus's teachings of compassion......):
The mystery of where Sauniere got his paws on French Francs amounting to millions of dollars in today's money.
I thought it was pretty clear that he was involved in "trafficking in masses" -- and that the evidence for the wealth itself is in question. Seriously, you are more than welcome to believe the RC's are involved in a coverup; I just wanted to point out that explanation, and that I've heard that from more than one source, none of which were Canadian.
I actually thought you meant 'mystery' in that there is "evidence" that Christ was married.
Originally posted by dmz
none of which were Canadian.
Originally posted by dmz
I actually thought you meant 'mystery' in that there is "evidence" that Christ was married.
do we really expect to find 'evidence' of a spiritual metaphor?
The Bible is the evidence. It is a spiritual metaphor - of life. The trick is to read it 'spiritually' and not in black and white.
Originally posted by MarcUK
do we really expect to find 'evidence' of a spiritual metaphor?
The Bible is the evidence. It is a spiritual metaphor - of life. The trick is to read it 'spiritually' and not in black and white.
I know, I know... but that gets into interpretation -- I meant more of the whole gnostic gosple thing --- 'Jesus used to kiss MM on the [hole in manuscript]... .
Originally posted by dmz
I know, I know... but that get's into interpretation -- I meant more of the whole gnostic gosple thing --- 'Jesus used to kiss MM on the [hole in manuscript]... .
symbolizing Jesus's deepest love for Wisdom.
Originally posted by segovius
I was kissed on the hole in the manuscript once but I was drunk at the time......
you should stay away from Swindon
Originally posted by segovius
Yes, usually that is a golden rule....
you're diabolical, I'll get Anna in here to kick it...
Originally posted by segovius
Actually - and I know you will find this difficult to believe - the Holy Grail legend has nothing to do with Christ but is a corruption of an Islamic motif which reached France via the Troubadours from Islamic Spain.
show me more...
FYI