Cinematical

The problem is that the Catholic church and related institutions all know that the average consumer who will watch this film is way too stupid to realize that this is a film for entertainment and is therefore fiction and is not for educational purposes.
How many times have you heard people try to pass off things that they have seen in a film as something that truly exists or as fact?

Reply

I think it should have this disclaimer outside the theater: "Movies are entertainment first. If a movie piques your curiosity, please spend a bit of time on Wikipedia before forming opinions regarding things you've 'learned' from movies and television."

However, I think this disclaimer should be outside every theater, regardless of what they're showing. "The Da Vinci Code" is in no way more deserving of it than, for instance, "Deep Blue Sea".

However, I'm sure that it will have the standard fine-print at the end about "Resemblance to any person, living or dead, is entirely coincidental" boilerplate and really, that should be sufficient.

Reply

Well, they're lucky they're just producing unflattering portrayals of a Catholic organization and not a Muslim one, or they'd have been threatened with death and have capitulated months ago by now.

And I think for as "sensitive" as Hollywood likes to pretend to be, it would be only polite to note that the organization in the movie, based on the organization of the same name in real life, is not in fact the same. In the movie, they are zealots willing to kill innocent people to hide the truth. In reality, they provide classes for continuing Catholic education. I don't think that's a particularly subtle distinction.

Not being a Catholic, I'll probably see the movie, but it is irritating how little consideration is given when the offended group is Christian. "24" had to run a mid-season apology for portraying terrorists as-- unbelievably-- Arab Muslims. All that it shows is that the way to get your point across is through violence or the willingness to resort to violence, and the more people capitulate, the more we will likely see.

Reply

I'm not Catholic, but I WAS offended by just how much bad history is in the book. I mean, regardless of one's theological beliefs, all the stuff about the Priory of Sion and the cult of Mithras is just pure, hastily-manufactured crap, easily debunked by ten minutes with a good history book. However, as Finished.Law.School points out, plenty idiots actually believe what they see in movies. I still get stupid "National Treasure" questions about American history all the time. I would have put a disclaimer at the front of the film, whether I was asked to or not. And besides, as Mark points out, all movies have disclaimers.

...of course, Ron Howard is smarter than me, because refusing to move on this issue is fantastic publicity on many levels.

Reply

Two things:

1. The film should not have a disclaimer. It's a movie. Movies are lies at 24 fps. It's not the responsibility of the producers of transformers to tell the audience their cars will not turn into big robots and fight for energy. Chris Nolan didn't paste a big warning that jumping off buildings in a city can get you killed even if Batman can survive it. Bryan Singer didn't assauge our fears of Keyser Soze.

2. That book sucked ass. Okay, I attended a Jesuit High School in the earl 90s, so we were taught all these conspiracy theories ages ago. Even barring how old the concepts are, the characters, dialogue, pacing - did I mention the dialogue? - seemed to be lifted from a Manuscript Cliches For Dummies book.

Reply

For #2, Mark Kawakami:
What makes you crazy enough to think that Wikipedia is any more accurate than a film? Maybe the ability for anyone to be able to edit a wiki?
I would like to think that you (and other idiots who use Wikipedia as a foolproof source for factual information) are joking but then again if I thought that then I should also think that cars will be using salt water instead of gas in a matter of months...
Idiots are everywhere...

Reply

There is a disclaimer, just like all films. At the end of the credits it says "This film is fiction. If you think this really happened, you are an idiot." Paraphrased, of course.

If people really believe what they see in movies, perhaps the disclaimer should be moved to the beginning of the film. Like in books.

Reply

Here is my disclaimer:
1. I didn't read the book
2. I am a Christian
3. I am going to see the movie
Now that the legal stuff is out of the way, I would like to say that the Da Vinci Code should not negatively affect any person who believes in some form of Christianity, Catholicism or any other religion. First, I did not see any atheists protest the Passion of the Christ. Why is it so common for people that believe in a particular religion to become fanatical about their belief? Recently, a newspaper drew an image of Allah with a bomb as his turban. The results were many killings and suicide bombers. Even though, protesting the movie by starving yourself and encouraging your parishioners not to see the movie is foolish, it is not as bad as killing a bunch of people and running into buildings with bombs strapped to your back. Additionally, God does not want everyone to be a martyr; some people have to live in order to testify that He is. However, the level of extremism does not matter. I believe the best way to get back at media or fiction, is to tell the truth or preach the truth. If your parishioners turn away from their beliefs because they saw a fictional movie, well they were not spiritually strong enough. Then the onus of failure turns to the Church. I believe that this movie and any other type of media that discredits Christ or any other religions messiah or God, is an opportunity to teach and preach instead of protesting and killing people. Matter of fact, this is a golden opportunity, if fiction challenges God or Christ, you (the Church) have the chance to really educate people of your strong beliefs. The thing that makes me angry the most is that their protest against the movie makes it seem as if Christ is not real. The fact that they defend him in this manner gives people the suspicion that, ?Hey, he must not be real because they want disclaimers and other nonsense attached to fiction?. I say fiction a lot because that is what a movie is, if you look for the Da Vinci Code in the book store, you should not find it under non-fiction, (unless someone was too lazy to put the book back where they got it from).

My additional point is that, if anyone became a believer in Jesus Christ after seeing the Passion of the Christ, that person is an idiot. The problem with most people in this world is that they are influenced by what they see and what they hear. These people have no ability to read in between the lines or think outside of the box. For me, belief in Jesus did not come from watching the Passion or reading the Bible. It came from prayer and that distinct feeling inside of me that told me that the sins that I was committing were wrong. After I felt that way I sought assistance and reasoning for the way that I felt. I then started to listen and pay attention when my mother dragged me into church. Afterwards, I went through the process of becoming saved, confessing my sins and being baptized. As human as I may be, I know that I will be influenced to believe what I see and hear, but I turn to God and my limited knowledge of Him to rationalize what I see and hear. In summation, if anyone that believes in God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, or whatever omnipotent being they choose to believe in, watches the Da Vinci Code and changes their beliefs because of that: they lack intelligence and common sense. I hope and pray that people are not so dumb as to turn away from their beliefs just because they saw some movie!!!

Reply

Unless a film is non-fiction and attempting to accurately portray real events with real people, I see NO reason for a disclaimer beyond the usual one near the end of a film.

I am a Catholic and a filmmaker. I have read the book and found it a bit boring actually. There was too much hype prior to my reading it and it disappointed. I will absolutely see the film as it stars Hanks, Bettany and Reno- three truly good (and great in some cases) actors working with Ron Howard who is a master story-teller of the epic.

Did Mr. Howard need a disclaimer prior to "Cinderella Man" which was based in part on real lives and events. Apart from the cursory, "based on a true story" that is de riguer, I think not. "The DaVinci Code" is no different, but hopefully a better film.

Reply

I think it's interesting that the Catholic Church is getting sneakier about its centuries-old subjugation of the older faiths - the opus Dei thing is a smokescreen for their real issue with this story. anyone who has taken an objective view at ancient religious history can see that the Church, in its endeavors to supplant existing belief systems, changed the names of the deities and the holidays to suit their own mythos. This made it easier for the 'heathens' to adopt the new faith. In reality, many did so in name only in order to avoid persecution. Many of those old religions held balance by including both gods and goddesses. There are many today who follow the Old Faith, and are enjoying every minute of watching the Vatican squirm over this purely fictional book/movie. I can't wait for it to come out. Perhaps Mr. Howard could pay a modest sum to borrow the disclaimer from the Law & Order series - you know, the one that when they show it before the program starts makes you KNOW it was taken from a real event!

Reply

Christians are so obsessed over the existence of The Da Vinci Code that they seem to have put some of their favorite hobbies on the backburner. Just the other day a lady got an abortion and no one protested! Don't they realize that while they're distracted by this movie gays are getting married in Massachusetts? If only a movie as wonderful as this one could be released every summer, without disclaimers of course.

Because everyone knows, Christian extremists are easily appeased and a simple disclaimer would definately make a difference.

Reply

Strange, I would have expected you to make fun of me if I HAD read the book. Though it often reads like a Fodor's travel guide and in terms of style is pure Velveeta from cover to cover, I'll give it credit for bringing attention to the biggest reason all intelligent people should be against religion: It has no sense of humor. There is not a single religion you can poke fun at whose members won't react by wanting to kill you.

If Da Vinci Code causes even a single person to abandon religion and regain their humanity, Dan Brown may have a place in heaven.

Reply

Here's the problem. I've have MANY discussions on forums about the book, and people *believing* the Da Vinci code. Even when I posted pictures and quotes disproving Brown's statements, some *still* believed his "history."

People see this, believe it, and don't even think of questioning it -- and it sounds plausible when you read it. That's the way it is.

Still, I'm not sure about a disclaimer. Kevin Smith did one at the beginning of Dogma -- and it was funny -- but I found it kinda unnecessary. That, of course, is a different beast all together.

-Pie

Reply

"...anyone who has taken an objective view at ancient religious history can see that the Church, in its endeavors to supplant existing belief systems, changed the names of the deities and the holidays to suit their own mythos."

Here's the difference. What you're saying here is TRUE. What Brown says -- about documents, about cover-up, about Gnostic Gospels, about sources for the deity of Christ -- are NOT TRUE. He even gets the 666 panes of glass wrong (neither here nor there, but just an example.)

I've never seen -- and I doubt you have either -- a Christian complain about the "Christianization" of holidays, because a bit of research reveals its truth. Here, Christians are upset because the claims are false and the history bad (inaccurate), and people BELIEVE it.

Rejecting Christianity when faced with the truth is totally fair and valid. Rejecting (or accepting!) it because you believed lies is a terrible thing indeed.

-Pie

Reply

"And he's right. I think. However, seeing as the book and film's themes are so controversial, do you think it would be wise to throw up a disclaimer to keep the peace? I mean, I chose not to watch The Passion of the Christ for my own personal reasons -- I'm curious, did it open with a disclaimer? One that said something like, "We're not sure if this whole thing actually happened this way because we weren't there ... but you never know?"

Three comments in a row? Don't BAN ME... pleeasseee.... :)

Okay, after thinking about this bit and posts above, I don't think a disclaimer is necessary. I realized what I didn't like about Kevin Smith's disclaimer. Though funny, to me, it made him sound like a sell out.

Now on the Passion, no it didn't come with any disclaimer. It is based on good historical accounts (ironic that I'm posting this here). But there were embellishments: the table scene, Mary being the woman almost stoned, the other Mary rubbing the ground to mystically "feel" Jesus chained below.

I don't think The Ten Commandments did either. But Prince of Egypt did! Both deviated pretty noticeably from the story (PoE's disclaimer is really fitting to the mood of the film).

Did Eight Men Out come with a disclaimer? (I don't remember.) Pretty sure Matewan didn't. Pretty sure Battle of the Bulge did. Pearl Harbor? (ugh.)

Okay, the difference is that I'm citing movies that didn't offend people, regardless of their accuracy. (Well, I was upset by things in Pearl Harbor -- like the doggie surviving while *people* died in droves.)

After all, it's still pretty hard to find to find pictures of those Dutch Cartoons on the net (not impossible, but hard).

I think this raises more questions than answers. I'm fine with no disclaimer, and even prefer it that way.

What's nice is, this movie has raised discussion points regardless of *its* accuracy, and I think that's very worthwhile.

-Pie

Reply

The Catholic Church can have a disclaimer on "The Da Vinci Code" right after they release an explanation about that whole Easter Bunny and eggs thing.

Oh... and while they are at it, Mrs. Cain too.

Reply

Given the entire basis for Christianity is myth and legend, why the uproar over a film also based on fiction? Sounds like a silly "My fairy tale is better than yours" argument.

Reply

Of course it's fiction, but what movie needs to tell you that? Fiction wrapped in religion -- talk about redundant! I would like a disclaimer that reads: taken wholesale from the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

And the tsimmus over Opus Dei is, as usual, focused on the wrong issue. The real problem with Opus Dei is that it is a fascist organization that has been responsible for eliminating the liberation theology movement within the church and for supporting the most violent dictatorships in Central and South America. It's sort of like the anti-Jesuits, like Robert Anton Wilson's modern day Domini Canis. But any light thrown on its activities, however flawed or fanciful, remains a threat.

Reply

For #8, Bobby Mitchell:
You are a Christian but say that people who have become Christians after seeing Passion of the Christ are idiots? Nice example that you are setting there.
If someone finds Christian faith through watching paint dry then it is a good thing. It does not matter how faith in Christianity is found as long as that faith is real and genuine.
You are an unfortunate example of why so many people are against Christian beliefs and Christians overall.

Reply

#17 > "Given the entire basis for Christianity is myth and legend, why the uproar over a film also based on fiction? Sounds like a silly "My fairy tale is better than yours" argument."

I'm not sure where you get this from. Christ is very well documented historically. That's certainly one of the things The Da Vinci Code is "challenging" (by making up a false story of the Gospels).

But certainly if it *were* myth/legend, you would be correct in your silliness assertion.

Once again, Christians see the Da Vinci Code as saying what you're saying: that Christianity was fabricated. It's just that Brown fabricated the fabrication ( :p ), and people are swallowing it like it's true.

Still not for a disclaimer here!

-Pie

Reply