The Da Vinci Code
Here’s an idea for a bestselling novel/film: The De Niro Code. A film student stumbles across a coded message in Taxi Driver, and uncovers a conspiracy that could shake the very foundations of cinema. He discovers Travis Bickle did not go on a bloody rampage at the end, but instead married Harvey Keitel’s character (who is in fact a woman), and their descendants are alive today.
OK, that’s silly. But its more probable than the nonsensical theory put forward by The Da Vinci Code (about to be well and truly spoilt here); namely, that the disciple that should be John in The Last Supper painting is in fact Mary Magdalene, and that Da Vinci was trying to tell the world through coded messages in his work that she had married Jesus, emigrated to France and that his descendants live today, protected by a secret society called the Priory of Sion.
I’m not going to bore you by systematically debunking the so-called evidence for this absurd theory, since it’s been done so brilliantly elsewhere, for example, here: www.mbts.edu/Resources/DaVinciCodeInaccuracies.pdf, and most amusingly by Tony Robinson on a Channel 4 documentary that showed how much of the “research” and “facts” listed on page one of Dan Brown’s bestselling novel were based on a practical joke perpetrated by a French prankster in an attempt to return the monarchy to France. A friend of mine also pointed out that if Christianity is so anti-women, then why did were the Catholics so desperate to elevate Mary the mother of Jesus into a divine figure? Surely a “Mrs Jesus Christ” would have been even better!
As you can see, I am very much in a huff about The Da Vinci Code. Why? Because Dan Brown is trying to put forward his theory as truth, and there are countless people out there unversed in the necessary Biblical and historical lore to realise it is rubbish. As Hitler said; the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
If Dan Brown’s book had simply been passed off as a work of fiction, I might have a somewhat more tolerant attitude towards it. After all, there is no shortage of anti-Christian literature, and in a fallen world, the best mankind can hope for is a free, democratic society where there is a level playing field for truth to be proclaimed alongside the ugliest of lies.
But when this kind of material gets passed off as fact, things get a little stickier. Remember the film U-571 a few years ago? It showed an American submarine crew heroically capture an enigma decoding machine from the Germans in World War II. With its bold tagline “Based on a true story”, millions of Americans lapped it up as historical fact. Yet in truth the Americans weren’t even in the war in 1940 and it was the British who captured the decoding machine. Again, perhaps this could be tolerated if it were marketed as fiction, but most people accept films they watch that are “based on a true story”, as being true. How much more seriously then, should Christians take a story that distorts the truth of the Gospel?
When the book came out, my father (who is a Christian) shocked me by saying it was a “rattling good yarn”. As I gawped incredulously, he pointed out that of course he didn’t take it seriously, as it was so obviously absurd. For one thing there is nothing new about the Mary Magdalene theory. It has been around for 2,000 years as anyone who has read the Gnostic Gospels will tell you. The real conspiracy has been against the Church, since it has had to deal with endless false gospels, false teachings and distortions of the Christian message following the resurrection of Jesus. Matthew chapter 27 tells how there was a conspiracy from the word go to distort the truth of the resurrection, and The Da Vinci Code is simply the latest in 2,000 years worth of attack on the truth.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as well educated as my father, and to paraphrase the Bible, in the last days people will believe anything other than the truth. I often joke about the endless talk amongst Christians of the “end times” and have made up my own apocryphal signs of the end (“In the last days there shall be remakes and rumours of remakes”). However, if we truly are in the “last days” as a lot of Christians seem to think, then The Da Vinci Code is definitely a sign of the times.
To be fair, there is a tiny concession made to Christians at the end of the film where Tom Hanks suggests Jesus could still have been divine and married Mary Magdalene (something that wasn’t in the book). But it’s too little too late. The damage to historically ignorant audience members has already been done, and judging by the comments I overheard from people coming out of the cinema, my worst fears have been realised. For every well informed person who knows the Da Vinci Code’s “facts” are anything but, there are several others who do not read books, listen to critics, historians or Christians, and instead feed on a diet of Eastenders, Big Brother and films based on books by Dan Brown. These are the people I am concerned for, as their eternal destinies are being placed in jeopardy by this insidious deception.
Anyway, onto the film. On a purely aesthetic level, Ron Howard’s adaptation is surprisingly boring, though not quite the turkey critics are making it out to be. Nevertheless, I thought The Da Vinci Code would make a better movie than it was book, especially as trashy novels sometimes translate into classic films (The Godfather for example). Instead it’s far too long and packed with lengthy exposition leaving little room for thrills. Like the Harry Potter films, it is too faithful to the source material. Where it does reinvent for the screen, the film comes across as patronising, for example in its use of flashbacks as sloppy cinematic shorthand for historically ignorant audience members.
On the performance front, Tom Hanks was bereft of his usual energy, and frankly miscast. Someone like Kevin Spacey might have been better in the role. Jean Reno, Audrey Tatou, Alfred Molina and Paul Bettany provide unremarkable support, and only Ian McKellen infuses an iota of drama into the tedious proceedings.
Although critics have sided with historians and the church in slating the film, it will still be a box office smash. Therefore, in response, I suggest Christians take every opportunity to debunk its theories by brushing up on their apologetics, since The Da Vinci Code is quite possibly one of the greatest deceptions I have seen unleashed in recent years. Its abhorrent message denies the divinity of Christ, and suggests that the only way to get near God is to have ritualistic sex whilst other cult members chant and watch!
The Da Vinci Code also tries to distract people from the wonderful news that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, rose from the dead, and that through him we can have eternal life if we choose to. Like all lies, the truth will outlast it, but I fear for those who are deceived by it (Christians included), and particularly for Dan Brown. To quote Mark chapter 9: “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”
I certainly don’t intend to hang a millstone around my neck by recommending The Da Vinci Code to anyone. Both the book and film remain a monumental slice of heresy.
Simon Dillon, May 2006.
Well, I don’t intend on reading the book or seeing the film, simply on the grounds of reviews of both that have said they’re badly-written and badly-made respectively. However, I will defend slightly the public at this point - though there are, as Simon points out, those among us ignorant of the truth and of the power of literature and cinema to serisouly distort the truth, I have read plenty of comments on websites recently revealing that far from blindly believing Mr Brown, many many people are sceptical of his ‘facts’ and recognise that this book (and film) are fiction, plain and simple. Yes, there will be people who can’t see it, but let’s not lose all faith in God’s greater power to speak to the masses, shall we? Dan Brown is just one man, and if the film is as bad as most critics say, then it’s likely that films such as, say, The Passion of the Christ will, over time, find a bigger audience and speak to more people about the truth of the gospel of love.
Comment by Sparky — 23 May, 2006 @ 9:44 am
Hi Mark,
I take your point, and obviously agree that God’s power is greater and that the truth will outlast this (as I believe I said in my review). I am not suggesting that everyone will be duped by this.
The problem with The Da Vinci Code (both film and book) is that it puts its argument across in an authoritative way, and at the risk of sounding like a loony, there is a spirit of deception at work both in the book and in the film that will could cause non-Christians to be taken in and Christians to doubt their faith. I am just as concerned if not more concerned for Christians being decieved too - and I don’t just mean nominal Christians but Christians who saved and Spirit filled yet unversed in history and apologetics.
Am I being paranoid? I don’t think so. I honestly believe there is a spirit of deception at loose in this work.
However, as you point out, it is important not to loose faith in God’s power to speak to people, and that more than anything is why I felt compelled to speak out in your hallowed columns on the subject.
Comment by Simon — 23 May, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Sorry, that last bit sounded like I was implying I was God! Not the case, obviously.
Comment by Simon — 23 May, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Ah, if only they were hallowed…
I have to say, I do think you sound a bit loony/paranoid/over the top on this one, in a surprising way for you! To suggest that the faith of Christians might be shaken by this but not admit that Harry Potter could have a damaging (or rather, softening) effect on the public’s perception of wizards and witches seems like a double standard to me - both are equally plausible as far as I can tell.
I agree that there is a spirit of deception in the whole idea behind the novel, but equally, there is the possibility that the film and book could generate healthy discussion and examination of beliefs with positive outcomes.
Also, I think you’re dangerously close to the ’stupid people shouldn’t watch this’ argument, which again, is so unlike you. More than that, your comments come across as ’stupid Christians shouldn’t watch this’ - frankly, if your spirit has responded to God, and you are firmly stuck to the Bible as your guide, it doesn’t matter how intelligent or versed in apologetics you are, you’ll be secure in the face of Dan Brown and his fictional ancient self-flagellating societies.
Comment by Sparky — 23 May, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
For the record, I do not believe Harry Potter is entirely without danger, as I believe I have explained elsewhere on this website. Dan Brown is in a different league entirely and comparing the two is like comparing a shoplifter to a serial killer.
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Timothy 4:3 (NIV)
This verse applies to the Da Vinci Code phenomena. George Orwell said, when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in everything, and he was right.
As for Christians, there are a plethora well-meaning believers who honestly think the Da Vinci Code in itself can be used as an evangelistic tool. This is wrong in my opinion. Its all very well saying the truth will come out in the end, and that God is greater (which is true), but in the meantime people will be lost! Saying Christians should watch or read the Da Vinci Code to my mind is as bad as saying they should watch pornography to understand the sex industry in order to witness to people in it!
Re: your comments about “stupid people”. I defend the right of any “stupid person” to watch/read whatever they chose, but that does not mean they won’t be deceived by it. I don’t care how un-PC that sounds, the simple fact is some non-Christians are less well educated than others in this matter, and as such are more prone to deception. I am simply stating a fact, not expressing a prejudice against “stupid” people, with whom I have just as much respect for as anyone well versed in history.
On the subject of potential deception amongst Christians, I know of a number of cases, but take my wife as an example. She doesn’t know a great deal about history (Biblical or otherwise), but she is a Spirit filled born again Christian, and I’m sure you will agree, not stupid. She read Dan Brown’s novel, and told me afterwards that she began to feel doubts as she read it! Not that she lost her faith, because she knew by the Holy Spirit these doubts were Satanic in origin, but I then had to explain to her from a historical/apologetics perspective the fabrications of the novel. I don’t think there was ever any real danger of her losing her faith, because she is such a strong Christian, but there are Christians who are not as strong who I believe would make easy targets.
If that makes me loony/paranoid then so be it. As you say, I don’t normally respond this way to controversy, but I am sure that if you had read the book or seen the film as I have (and I’m not for one second suggesting you should) then you would agree with me.
Of course, I would love to be wrong! Time will tell.
Comment by Simon — 24 May, 2006 @ 9:07 am
Also, a further addition re: potential deception of Christians. I think it is extremely dangerous to think anyone is above deception, regardless of how strong in the faith they are. We all have the ability to stumble and recent examples of great Christians - Paul Cain, Ray McCauley, Carlton Pearson, Eastman Curtis, and Roberts Liardon among others - who have fallen away for one reason or another prove my point.
Comment by Simon — 24 May, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
I would never deny the potential for Christians to stumble, and as you pointed out in your original review, woe betide the man or woman who causes them to do so. Also I agree that using it evangelistically would be stupid and wrong. There are a great number of fantastic films which don’t deal explicitly with Jesus but which do put forward Christian values in a brilliant way, and they can be used to generate discussion much more effectively I am sure (e.g. Matrix, Shawshank, Signs) - I’m actually reading ‘Passion for the Movies’ at the moment, by J John and Mark Stibbe, which looks at twenty such films and considers them in a small-group friendly way (some odd choices in there though, in a way). I recommend it, if you haven’t read it already.
And at this point I think I shall comment no further on TDVC (as nobody is calling it), as I haven’t read said book or seen said film.
Comment by Sparky — 24 May, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
I’m curious - which are “the twenty”?
Comment by Simon — 25 May, 2006 @ 8:50 am
I’ll give you the films and an idea of the theme discussed: The Passion of the Christ (obviously), The Godfather trilogy (on ties that bind and freedom thereof), Titanic (on human arrogance and related issues), Fargo (on different responses to temptation and the consequences of sin), Cast Away (time and eternity), Saving Private Ryan (the value of a life), The Matrix (again, obviously!), LOTR: FOTR (overcoming darkness, working as a fellowship), The Green Mile (miracles etc.), Bridget Jones (the search for love), Unfaithful (a film I don’t plan on watching due to the sexual subject matter, but discussed here very sensibly in the light of choices and consequences), Shrek (about inner qualities), Phone Booth (confessions and redemption from sin), Bruce Almighty (another obvious choice), My Big Fat Greek Wedding (theme of family), Signs (on fate v God’s planning), Changing Lanes (to do with forgiveness and resentment and their results), Finding Nemo (haven’t read this far yet but I assume about fatherhood), Seabiscuit (in a chapter called ’sailing through the storms of life’) and LOTR:TTT (in a chapter called ‘Winning your “Soul War”‘).
Comment by Sparky — 28 May, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Hi Simon
I saw the film and found it boring as many others did. However for a ridiculous plot it was well-acted I thought, save for Hanks who looked old and a bit subdued, and McKellen sho I thought was, for once, uninspiring. Then again, he didn’t have much to work with, did he? The Oxford-Harvard thing was abotu the most interesting of his dialogues. The French girl, I didn’t catch her name at the end, was very good, as was the cop who always seems to be a cop/bad guy/bad guy cop. Bettany was good as usual - I have yet to see him put in a poor performance.
X-Men was better.
Comment by Chris — 9 June, 2006 @ 10:58 am