MERGED --> Da Vinci Code - What's up??? + 'The Da Vinci Code' Fizzles at Cannes

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
So this is all about if Jesus
took Mary Magdalen to be his wife?


I have been told "The Passion" movie is what I should look to for a realistic depiction of those times and people, the Aramic language and production values, etc.


So this is what she looked like


monica-bellucci.jpg



Why would he want to deny himself the blessings of holy matrimony?
 
:combust:


oh, and the movie will probably not live up to the (over)hype, but I still am looking forward to seeing it - for entertainment purposes. I'm not religious at all :shifty:

oh, and finished re-reading the book yesterday...
 
Hey Deep, if Our Lord really had a wife, He wouldn't go for the typical servant girl. That would be like hooking up with the Rohan village mother with the 2 little kids, as opposed to Arwen....LMAO! (j/k)

Geez, at least some people can JOKE about it!

Maybe I should apologize for the long posts? I don't have a lot of time online so when I do post, I like to write essays:wink: . Then again, I AM half-Irish....

A couple more reviews up. One at the the NY Post site and one at aint-it-cool-news.com. The Post one is an out and out rave. ?!?!?! The aint-it-cool one comes from a Brit who was at Cannes and DOESN'T do a hatchet job. His review is similar to Tom Friedman's: a good, solid entertainment with some flashes of almost-brilliance, gorgeous cinematography, and a really great score. With some major acting and script flaws. They think it will do very well. I'm noticing a pattern here: those who have an obvious political agenda do very little in the way of discussing specific scenes or lines. Those who give honest reviews like the film a whole lot and say it'll be a big success, it has all the ingredients, are supportive but not enthusiastic, citing quirks in specific scenes, which they describe in detail. The aint-it-cpol-reviewer goes into the most detail. Beware of spoilers! He cites some shocking book omissions/changes....I won't give one away but all I can say is: (for those of you who have read it): GOOGLE!?!?!?

BTW..the conspiracy theorist in me says that the universal acclaim for McKellan in thia film comes perhaps not just b/c of the film's strongest performance but knee-jerk respect for Gandalf, Magneto and the Boomer Demographic that might in the future be alienated by the "diminsihing star" of a man who is a big box-office draw for the those target groups. Once a nominee, always a nominee...

PS. Rolling Stone review is up. Again, the comon complaint of the average Panner: too much TALKING, too little ACTION. He says, "A lot of the film is Teabing saying some blabfest about the Grail and Sophie saying, 'I don't follow." Well, what the heck was the book all about? By the time you were even halfway through it you cared little about where they were going next and more aobut the next revelation, which streched several pages long. There was no way to cut chunks out of that and trim it down for a film....it HAS to be included. It seems to me that these critics are the exact opposite of the public: they like the book for being a fast-paced entertainment; the public likes it for its ideas. Geez, these panners are starting to sound hysterical...hysterical to keep the public fat, stupid and stuffing the latest mind-numbing trash in their brains. It rpboably DOES drag on, and fans will expect all the long college lectures.

Geez, after reading this crap, I'm hoping the film WILL be a blockbuster, and prove them wrong. One plus: with no reviews, either in print or online, until the day before the film (and in some cases, the day of, and with great advance ticket sales, if the film IS good, there won't be any way to stop word-of-mouth countering critical attack. Usually the reviews come in a week ahead of time these days and the public has had time to lower expectations or say, "I'll wait for the DVD." Not this time. People will be calling their friends and asking, "was it really as bad as they say?" That remains to be seen. As someone who has read the book several times, I suppose my review may count?:)
 
Last edited:
Originally writen by LivLuvAnd BootlegMusic
Key word there being "overloads" and "there have been reports". There are common foods that contain more aspartame than the supposedly dangerous foods.

But the things is the public have not been told about this. The labels for saccharine in America during the 80's warned Americans about the risk of consuming too much saccharine, this label was removed when it was found out that you had to consume a lot for prolonged periods in order for it to be toxic. Westerners consume much more aspartame than saccharine because it's in so many foods.

There is no evidence that it actually helps you to lose wieght either. Aspartame is an artificial sweetener that the body cannot recognise as real food. When you consume regular Coke with sugar the body gets full due to the carbohydrates. Consuming Diet Coke makes the body crave real food in the form of carbohydrates. How comes obesity is at it's record levels in America and the UK? Ordering a Diet Coke, with large fries and a BigMac does not help you to lose weight.

Janet Starr Hill explains her illness that nearly killed her caused by aspartmame in her diet.
 
I don't know anything about it because I don't drink diet pop, but I've read several posts of anitram's and she knows a great deal about it, since she works in medical research or something like that. I'm more inclined to believe someone that works in the field and has reviewed the research and experiments than a few conspiracy theories.
 
The problem is the phenylalanine in aspartame which has been shown to have a correlation to brain tumors in rats. However, the levels they administered to the rats is what killed them - it is not humanly possible to consume that much phenylalanine.

Two eggs have more of it than a can of Diet Coke. Fruit juice has more than a can of Diet Coke.

The aspartame=cancer is one of the greatest inaccuracies in current medical myth. And the problem is that the general populace is unable to read primary scientific journals because they can't understand them. That is not a slight, in the same way that the general public can't make sense of legal jargon, they just lack the vocabulary and background information to sort through experimental data and to recognize when a study is good and when it is bad.

So that you have people who know absolutely nothing about the science of it essentially repeating the same thing they've heard on TV ad nauseum and it becomes imprinted.

More and more diet drinks and products are moving to sucralose anyway, because it tastes more like sugar. Sucralose is basically sucrose in a 3D form that the body doesn't recognize so that you are excreting it in urine rather than absorbing it. We will see how long it will take before there's a study out there that will claim this too will kill us.
 
Teta040 said:
I'm noticing a pattern here: those who have an obvious political agenda do very little in the way of discussing specific scenes or lines. Those who give honest reviews like the film a whole lot and say it'll be a big success, it has all the ingredients, are supportive but not enthusiastic, citing quirks in specific scenes, which they describe in detail.

Doesn't everyone have an agenda to a certain extent? A certain worldview that they want to advance? I find I distrust most those who claim to have no agenda at all. Like say Fox News with their "fair and balanced" tagline.

Having said that, am I correct in understanding that you're suggesting that most movie critics are collaborating with the religio-political Right Wing to destroy this film? Because I'm not seeing that at all.
 
anitram said:
The problem is the phenylalanine in aspartame which has been shown to have a correlation to brain tumors in rats. However, the levels they administered to the rats is what killed them - it is not humanly possible to consume that much phenylalanine.

It should also be noted that phenylalanine is an essential amino acid, so you're getting it somewhere. Otherwise, you're dead.

Melon
 
I have not read the book, but I do not know what the big fuss is all about. My views on Christianity and Religon has changed. I had an argument with my aunt yesterday. She wanted me to go to her church, where they would discuss the evils of The Da Vinci Code.

I told her flat out I am not going to your church. I told her non of us were around when Jesus was alive, so how do we know that Jesus did not marry, Mary Magdaline? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the bible, written well after the disciples were dead? If so then they received all the info from scriptures that were found.

Now mabey there is a scripture out there (kind of like the now found Judas passage) that Jesus did marry and have a kid, we will never know, until we die and if you believe in the afterlife.
 
Hey Justin...is tour aunt Catholic? Has she read the book? Does she belong to one of the happy bunch who are content to let a celibate man sitting 6000 miles away tel them what to read, hear, watch and think? I don't agree with the specifics of the book, (and I know the bok forward and back), but "evil" is a pretty strong word. "Wrong" may be appropriate, but "evil"? Wow. "Fear" is more like it...

Sorry if I offend any Catholics. I'm just remembering the time when I was a teen and people from my Shalom-like group (the ones who baptized me), incuding several self=professed U2 fans who called the band "Christian", stood outside a local theater burning Martin Scorcese posters...Last Tempation mania. If they had read the book and were outraged, fine. But by his own admission, the group leader had never read the book, and wouldn't even when I offered him a copy. Right then and there I resolved never to let a priest or friend or media figure or even parent think for me. I'd make up my own mind, thank you. Having ajob in the collge library, I just happened to have found it in the stacks and picked it up. Kazantsakis was in a "Wake Up Dead Man" mode at the time he wrote that book, and it is so beautifully written it is almost Tolkienian. I did not agree with his rendition of Christ having a vision on the cross of the life He coud have had had He rejected His Ministry (if you had read the book you would have known that the whole thing is a thought in Jesus's mind, not a literal truth!) However much I was shocked, I could not help but be moved to tears at the personal testimony of a man struggling to regain his faith. It is only blasphemy is not undertaken in that spirit. Brown wrote his little bit of "um, prose" (A. O. Scott, your NY Times review is priceless) in anger, not humilaty, and it has the literary pedigree of a comic book, but it;s the questions that count.

After all the critical brouhaha, I've decided to see it twice this weekend. I prob won't be online until Sunday. Which means my little review will be up after most people's on here. As someone who knows the book back and forth, I'll be brutally honest in my review...if there are flaws, I'll post spoilers in detail. I'll spare nothing. But that won't stop me from praising the film and urging people to see it. Becuase this film's success or failure will be about more than money..ther'es so much at stake. It;s about possibly making and marketing a new kind of film in Hollywood these days: one which makes you think....the Passion led ot Narnia, and F/911 led to March of the Pernguins. More religious films, more documentaries. This could be the best thing to happen to cinema in a while....

My attitude will be: "You who have not sinned, cast the first stone." Which means: how many bland, safe, mediocre, utterly forgettable peices of crap have these ctiics wriiten nice little reviews up about over the past few months, how much cinematic junk and waste of Hollywood's money have these bpttom feeders bolstered and legitimized, that should neve rhave been given the green light in the first place?? Whatever his artistic merits (and with Howard I was not expecting another Fellowship of the Ring) I admire him for even taking on this hotbed of controversy in the first place. I admir ehi for trying, and taking risks....

One last thing: In most reviews Hans Zimmer's score has been noted. as "overbearing", "too much", etc. That's a good sign. Which means it's an epic score. Can a movie possibly be bad that has a great musical score?
 
My aunt was Catholic, but now goes to a Christian ( I'm guessing baptist) churches. We even argued if Animals had souls. I believe they do, she doesn't.
 
Here's a great interview from the Sojourner's website on a Christian's view on The Da Vinci Code...

http://63.134.216.19/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060509

Brian McLaren on The Da Vinci Code
An interview by Lisa Ann Cockrel

With The Da Vinci Code poised to go from bestseller list to the big screen on May 19, pastor and writer (and Sojourners board member) Brian McLaren talks about why he thinks there's truth in the controversial book's fiction.

What do you think the popularity of The Da Vinci Code reveals about pop culture attitudes toward Christianity and the church?

Brian McLaren: I think a lot of people have read the book, not just as a popular page-turner but also as an experience in shared frustration with status-quo, male-dominated, power-oriented, cover-up-prone organized Christian religion. We need to ask ourselves why the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown's book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church. Why would so many people be disappointed to find that Brown's version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church's conventional version? Is it possible that, even though Brown's fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church's conventional version of Jesus may not do him justice?

So you think The Da Vinci Code taps into dissatisfaction with Jesus as we know him?

McLaren: For all the flaws of Brown's book, I think what he's doing is suggesting that the dominant religious institutions have created their own caricature of Jesus. And I think people have a sense that that's true. It's my honest feeling that anyone trying to share their faith in America today has to realize that the Religious Right has polluted the air. The name "Jesus" and the word "Christianity" are associated with something judgmental, hostile, hypocritical, angry, negative, defensive, anti-homosexual, etc. Many of our churches, even though they feel they represent the truth, actually are upholding something that's distorted and false.

I also think that the whole issue of male domination is huge and that Brown's suggestion that the real Jesus was not as misogynist or anti-woman as the Christian religion often has been is very attractive. Brown's book is about exposing hypocrisy and cover-up in organized religion, and it is exposing organized religion's grasping for power. Again, there's something in that that people resonate with in the age of pedophilia scandals, televangelists, and religious political alliances. As a follower of Jesus I resonate with their concerns as well.

Do you think the book contains any significantly detrimental distortions of the Christian faith?

McLaren: The book is fiction and it's filled with a lot of fiction about a lot of things that a lot of people have already debunked. But frankly, I don't think it has more harmful ideas in it than the Left Behind novels. And in a certain way, what the Left Behind novels do, the way they twist scripture toward a certain theological and political end, I think Brown is twisting scripture, just to other political ends. But at the end of the day, the difference is I don't think Brown really cares that much about theology. He just wanted to write a page-turner and he was very successful at that.

Many Christians are also reading this book and it's rocking their preconceived notions - or lack of preconceived notions - about Christ's life and the early years of the church. So many people don't know how we got the canon, for example. Should this book be a clarion call to the church to say, "Hey, we need to have a body of believers who are much more literate in church history." Is that something the church needs to be thinking about more strategically?

McLaren: Yes! You're exactly right. One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history - it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history. I think the disturbing would do them good. But a lot of times education is disturbing for people. And so if The Da Vinci Code causes people to ask questions and Christians have to dig deeper, that's a great thing, a great opportunity for growth. And it does show a weakness in the church giving either no understanding of church history or a very stilted, one-sided, sugarcoated version.

On the other hand, it's important for me to say I don't think anyone can learn good church history from Brown. There's been a lot of debunking of what he calls facts. But again, the guy's writing fiction so nobody should be surprised about that. The sad thing is there's an awful lot of us who claim to be telling objective truth and we actually have our own propaganda and our own versions of history as well.

Let me mention one other thing about Brown's book that I think is appealing to people. The church goes through a pendulum swing at times from overemphasizing the deity of Christ to overemphasizing the humanity of Christ. So a book like Brown's that overemphasizes the humanity of Christ can be a mirror to us saying that we might be underemphasizing the humanity of Christ.

In light of The Da Vinci Code movie that is soon to be released, how do you hope churches will engage this story?

McLaren: I would like to see churches teach their people how to have intelligent dialogue that doesn't degenerate into argument. We have to teach people that the Holy Spirit works in the middle of conversation. We see it time and time again - Jesus enters into dialogue with people; Paul and Peter and the apostles enter into dialogue with people. We tend to think that the Holy Spirit can only work in the middle of a monologue where we are doing the speaking.

So if our churches can encourage people to, if you see someone reading the book or you know someone who's gone to the movie, say, "What do you think about Jesus and what do you think about this or that," and to ask questions instead of getting into arguments, that would be wonderful. The more we can keep conversations open and going the more chances we give the Holy Spirit to work. But too often people want to get into an argument right away. And, you know, Jesus has handled 2,000 years of questions, skepticism, and attacks, and he's gonna come through just fine. So we don't have to be worried.

Ultimately, The Da Vinci Code is telling us important things about the image of Jesus that is being portrayed by the dominant Christian voices. [Readers] don't find that satisfactory, genuine, or authentic, so they're looking for something that seems more real and authentic.

Lisa Ann Cockrel is associate editor at Today's Christian Woman.
 
My local paper said it is too faithful to the book, way too much exposition, Ron Howard was the wrong choice, and so on. They gave it 2 out of 4 stars. A TV reviewer said Audrey Tautou basically just stands around and says very little, why on earth would they waste her like that?

All the church is doing with all the silly attention is getting people to go see a bad movie who haven't even read the book. After the book audience sees it I think the box office will dwindle. I will see it just out of curiosity, hopefully I won't burn in hell for that :wink:
 
I got a mailing from a conservative Catholic group that was solicitating money for a campaign against the movie. I threw the mailing into the nearest trash receptacle. All they're doing is giving it free publicity.
 
verte76 said:
I preferred to believe my catechism over a popular novel.

So do I, but I'm also not in any way "threatened" by the plot of the book/movie. Watching the movie last night I could see and understand how it can carry away your imagination. The ending is interesting in that it challenges you to consider what is ultimately more important-what Jesus stands for and what his message is vs the stories of the Bible and the history that we've been taught. I think perhaps the whole movie should make you ask yourself that. My feeling is that the church is diminishing Jesus and his power in a way by getting upset over this movie. And they are insulting the intelligence of Catholics.

The movie wasn't as bad as I expected, for me what made it bad was Tom Hanks and his performance. What the heck happened?:huh: One review I read called it constipated, I'd say that's being kind :wink: Also the historical flashbacks, just dreadful and unnecessary.

And Audrey Tautou looked absolutely gorgeous, wow

Welcome back verte, great to have you back :wave:
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


So do I, but I'm also not in any way "threatened" by the plot of the book/movie. Watching the movie last night I could see and understand how it can carry away your imagination. The ending is interesting in that it challenges you to consider what is ultimately more important-what Jesus stands for and what his message is vs the stories of the Bible and the history that we've been taught. I think perhaps the whole movie should make you ask yourself that. My feeling is that the church is diminishing Jesus and his power in a way by getting upset over this movie. And they are insulting the intelligence of Catholics.


Great post!:up:
 
Hey, I thought it was a great post because it was pretty close to my thinking:wink: (insert ego here)

Seriously, I think you get to the heart of it. No religion, secure in the strength of its doctrine, should be afraid of a challenge to it. It is then their challenge to answer it. Hey, if I were any church, I'd be delighted with any interest, any talk about it.

Nah, no need for confession. But I guess you have to go to confession just for seeing the movie.:wink:
 
The scenery in the movie is gorgeous, I will never get to France or to the Louvre so that was nice to see

I would LOVE to see the Mona Lisa in person

LiveScience.comWed May 17, 12:03 PM ET

Maybe she's smiling because she found the secret to immortality.

Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," widely considered the world's most recognizable work of art, turns 500 this year. Maybe.

The sitter's enigmatic smirk is just one of the mysteries that historians, scientists and conspiracy theorists have been debating since the artist touched his last brushstroke to the canvas.

Even the year it was painted is not known for sure. It is widely believed to have been finished in 1506, but experts say that's no more than a good guess. Toting it with him his entire life, da Vinci likely touched it up in subsequent years.

What's the fuss?

The painting currently hangs in the Louvre Museum in Paris. It is set behind a wall of bulletproof glass and watched over by armed guards.

So what's all the fuss about?

"There's no reason for it," said Frank Fehrenbach, Renaissance expert and professor of art history at Harvard University. "It is a beautiful portrait, but only historical coincidences have made it so famous."

The Romantic Movement in the 19th century had a lot to do with popularizing the work, Fehrenbach said.

"Romantic writers created the popular image of the 'Mona Lisa,'" Fehrenbach told LiveScience. Because of her bemused smile, "they said she must hold secrets, that she was the quintessential ‘femme fatale.' With all of these new ideas about the Renaissance being discussed, the 'Mona Lisa' became the symbol of that."

The decisive moment

A brief absence from the Louvre made her even more famous.

"The theft in 1911 was a decisive moment in her history," Fehrenbach explained. "After she was recovered and returned triumphantly to the museum in 1913, she became its temple icon."

Since then, the public has held an unwavering fascination with the "Mona Lisa," and her mystique has only snowballed with the emergence of various popular theories over the years. "The Da Vinci Code", Dan Brown's wildly successful novel, has helped out in no small part, with the painting figuring prominently in its riveting opening chapters.

Like Brown's protagonist, some are convinced that da Vinci filled the "Mona Lisa" with religious and scientific symbolism, including the golden ratio—a very precise measurement said to appear mysteriously throughout the natural world—in drawing the sitter's face. Experts are quick to dismiss this notion, and most other "theories" on the painting, as the products of overactive imaginations.

"There is no documented evidence that da Vinci had any kind of intention to use the golden ratio within the 'Mona Lisa,' even though he certainly had knowledge of it," said Mario Livio, astrophysicist and author of "The Golden Ratio: The Story of PHI, The World's Most Astonishing Number" (Broadway, 2003).

"Art historians will sometimes treat paintings with a meter stick to find some kind of hidden geometry," Fehrenbach agreed. "But you can always find something if you're looking."

Science and art

There is plenty of science going on in the painting, Fehrenbach noted, just not the hidden, mysterious kind that people would like to believe.

Most evident is da Vinci's fascination with the earth sciences.

"The sitter's background is a rough, primordial landscape with very little else. This technique was very new at the time," he said. "It demonstrates da Vinci's interest in erosive forces and hydrogeology, which we know he would investigate further."

And what about that half-smile? Fehrenbach has his own theory.

"It's quite possible that she became bored during the long sitting process and da Vinci wanted to reflect that in the painting," he said.
 
I agree with you Mrs. Springsteen. I don't feel threatened by the book or the movie. I think it's a sign of insecurity in your faith to feel that it can be threatened by a book or a movie. That's why I pitched that appeal for the campaign those conservative Catholics want to run against the movie.
 
I'm going to see it tonight because I have free passes and otherwise wouldn't pay for it. I thought the book was on par with your standard Sidney Sheldon fare - mindless and poorly written but passably entertaining.

And I'll be in France in...29 days now, so I'll get to spend time in the Louvre which I've wanted to do forever. :drool:
 
The male domination and the knee-jerk defense of the Institution and the rejection of new ideas in the Christian church does not need a Dan Brown expose (in book or film) to reveal it. It's been plain as day for centuries, and hardly "covered-up."

Sadly Christ has been poorly represented by the Christian Institution through much of history.

Here's a funny thing. I've been following this thread religiously (ha ha) for the past week or so. I've posted comments. And after all that I just have no interest in seeing the movie. I don't know why. . .I'm just don't have any real curiosity about it.

Finally, I've seen the Mona Lisa at the Louvre and the thing I really remember about it is that it's smaller than I expected it to be.
 
Last summer I was supposed to go to the Louvre the day Tom Hanks was there shooting for the movie, but because he was there I had to go the day before. :D You should have seen the crowd in front of the painting, my german teacher had to hold me up so I could see it :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom