Sunday, May 21, 2006

Film Review: "The Da Vinci Code" (2006)


Unless you've been living under a rock for the past couple of years, you've heard of the novel by Dan Brown, and have also heard that it's been made into a flick starring Tom Hanks. Not having read the book, I went to see it yesterday.

As a movie, it's definitely above average. If you like thrillers, this is right up your alley. It's very well shot and incorporates the use of light and shade to enhance the suspense factor. The soundtrack helps as well. I think the panning it's received from critics is more a response to its popularity than its merits as a film. Critics ... they, and not the great unwashed masses, will determine what's good, right?

Now theologically, the premise of the entire code is laughable. I'll pick out three examples to think about.

First of all, if Jesus was not the Son of God and just some charismatic nice guy who roamed around Galilee, who were the Disciples? Jesus asked each one of the Twelve to drop what they were doing, leave their families, and come follow Him because it would give them eternal salvation in Heaven. If He was just some coolio long-haired hippie, who were these other guys that travelled with Him? Are we to believe that they were nothing more than your average groupie? I don't think so.

Second, if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, who married them? It would have had to have been some person high up in the Jewish hierarchy of the day. You can bet that if they really were married, it would have been dragged out at some point in the last 2,000 years.

And finally, what of the Resurrection? Did He not rise from the dead two days after the Crucifixion or is that just a minor detail? The Code makes no mention of that at all, and that's the whole basis on which the Christian faith is founded.

As I say, as a thriller it's very, very good, but to those who don't have a solid grounding in Christian beliefs, it's going to be quite easy to get sucked into Code's theory that the entire notion of Christ's divinity was a hoax in order to keep women down and the Vatican at the top of the food chain. Catholic haters will no doubt find a lot of ammo in the Code, and moral relativists will love the "whatever works for you, buddy" conclusion that it leads to. (For a couple of other takes on it, see here and here.)

Whether you think the Code is plausible or if you think it's ridiculous, one thing is for sure: unlike another world religion which was recently questioned through popular media (the cartoon scandal), we haven't seen one drop of blood spilled over the Da Vinci Code. Secular or believing, that's something which we can all take note of.

Overall rating: 8.5/10

2 Comments:

At 5:21 PM, Blogger Skeelo said...

I agree with your point about the Catholic reaction of non-violence compared to the Danish cartoons. It's a compliment to Christians that even though many see it as an afront to their beliefs they are reacting through thoughtful argument not violence.

Not sure what you are getting at when you comment on the Disciples though. Because they gave up their lives to follow Jesus he was the son of God? How so? It's no different than Charles Manson, David Karesh or any other like figure over the past few centuries. I'm not comparing Christ to those guys, nor I'm I saying you're wrong, all I'm saying is that convincing people to hang on his every word or action doesn't prove he's the son of God, there needs to be more to that argument.

 
At 7:29 PM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

The Disciples had families and jobs. I think the advertising would have had to have been pretty good for them to drop their nets (they were predominantly fishermen), leave their wives and kids and go tour around with some guy who was just a cool cat and was seen as a heretic by the authorities back in the day and was basically on the run the whole time. Even after Jesus was murdered, they all stayed true to the faith (except for Thomas - who doubted - and obviously Judas) and I think the majority of them were crucified themselves.

No doubt all religion requires a leap of faith but I'd say that in the pre-liberal world of the year AD 33, it was a pretty big risk to join Jesus' merry band. There had to be more to it than just some sense-of-belonging kind of thing.

Then again, in the end, nothing will prove that Jesus was the son of God until we all find out for ourselves when we die. Big risk = big reward.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home