The people speak to “DaVinci”

  • Tomato with signFor those in need of a pepper-upper, here are “DaVinci Code” reviews on the site “Rot­ten Toma­toes”. The reviews are a mix of pro­fes­sional and “just folks” and they aver­age out at giv­ing the movie a 23% rat­ing. I’d love if they’d say things like “Too dis­mis­sive of 2000 years of Chris­t­ian teach­ing and tra­di­tion” or some­thing, but know­ing the world we live in, I know that it’s much more damn­ing to its suc­cess for would-be view­ers to read that it com­mits that ter­ri­blest of sins — being BORING:

    • “…ridicu­lous and crush­ingly dull”
    • “Way too long and duller than watch­ing Da Vinci’s paint dry”
    • “… mostly inert”>

    Actu­ally, the clos­est to hear­ing what I want and what will keep movie-lovers away comes from The Hol­ly­wood Reporter review:

    A jum­ble of his­tor­i­cal myth, reli­gious sym­bol­ogy and inter­na­tional thriller-action makes for an unwieldy, bloated melodrama.

    Well, um, yeah.

    The news isn’t as good, of course, when you notice how many of them only dis­like the movie because it wasn’t as “pow­er­ful” as the book. That’ll con­tinue to be what gets me down about the whole thing. Christian-challenged friends that I couldn’t have got­ten inter­ested in the light­est, breezi­est Christian-esque read (C. S. Lewis, Brother Cad­fael mys­ter­ies, even those Chicken Soup books) picked up this strange, vio­lent, hare-brained book and loved it.

    Some­one I know asked, “So isn’t this whole con­tro­versy mis­placed? It’s a work of fic­tion.” And that should be right, but I don’t know how else to account for its enor­mous pop­u­lar­ity other than to say that its metames­sage — “You can take what you want out of Chris­t­ian church his­tory and dogma and still get the naughty kick of slam­ming the church, Chris­tians and Christ” — was some­thing that peo­ple wanted so badly that they were will­ing to put it in that hazy place of sus­pended dis­be­lief that they keep so many fond — but essen­tially stu­pid and incred­i­ble — ideas. (Astrol­ogy, feng shui, ghosts, aliens, con­vers­ing with the dead, etc. etc. Have you ever tried talk­ing some­one out of those things who starts off by say­ing, “I don’t really believe in this stuff. Still, y’know, …”?)

    The jury is sup­pos­edly still out on whether there will be room in the wake of all this for any real dia­logue with inter­ested fence-sitters, but I think not. Chris­t­ian opti­mists have thought there would be. But that assumes that for once the main­stream cul­ture lets Chris­tians have their five min­utes of rebut­tal time. We’ve cer­tainly got­ten out a host of books to counter the myths of “DaVinci” and even if those books are only being read by Chris­tians that were a lit­tle weak on ortho­dox dogma and his­tory, it won’t have been a wasted effort. But as far as really land­ing a solid counter-blow, I think the time has already passed.


    No related posts.


2 Responses and Counting...

  • Jim Nel­son 05.18.2006

    I fit into the “What’s the fuss?” cat­e­gory. First, try­ing to use some­thing like the DaVinci Code as an evan­ge­lism or dia­log tool is really bad busi­ness, imho. Chris­tian­ity has to be taken or left on its own terms and not on the terms of the seeker. Using some­thing like the DaVinci Code as a dia­log point will ulti­mately so mis­shape the debate or dis­cus­sion that the Chris­tians will have lost before they ever begun.

    Sec­ond, I find movies like “Left Behind” much more dis­turb­ing than “The DaVinci Code.” Time LaHaye and his side­kick push those books and movie as if it’s pre­sent­ing authen­tic, main­stream Chris­tian­ity. I’ve never seen Dan Brown claim that he’s a main­stream Catholic and the movie peo­ple are par­tic­u­larly reli­gious at all, so there’s no claim being made by some­thing that could be con­strued as the Church say­ing that the DaVinci Code is the way it is. The media, of course, tries to pass it off as good his­tory, but no one except the media itself takes the media seriously.

    Third, Chris­tian­ity is not designed to be grip­ping. If it were, Jesus prob­a­bly would have had his ghost writer put together a mys­tery novel. Grip­ping sto­ries (in the sense that a thriller novel is grip­ping) enflame the pas­sions and get peo­ple to sus­pend ratio­nal­isty for the thrill of the pas­sions. That is anti­thet­i­cal to Ortho­doxy (although cer­tain strains of Evan­gel­i­cal­ism like to play that lit­tle game). In this light, the DaVinci Code is nei­ther good nor bad, it’s merely a bit of throw­away cul­tural trash that has lit­tle to noth­ing to do with intro­duc­ing peo­ple and invit­ing peo­ple to Chris­tian­ity. When ques­tions come up about it, the cor­rect answer is (as it was with the “Left Behind” nov­els), it’s not par­tic­u­larly Chris­t­ian. If you would be will­ing to spend a few weeks at Divine Liturgy, from that con­text you will begin to see what I mean when I say that it’s not par­tic­u­larly Christian.

  • I think I’m about done fuss­ing about this whole thing as well. There’s a big “what’s the point” lurk­ing behind even this last entry. I con­tinue to be floored that so many peo­ple were into that book and still are, but what are you going to do?

    I hadn’t thought of the con­trast with the Left Behind books. I think I’m with you; it’s prob­a­bly a toss-up which is worse. When I was a kid “Jesus Christ Super­star” came out. Devout Chris­tians had a fit (as I would’ve), but as some­one that was just toy­ing with reli­gious thoughts, it may have actu­ally given me a push in the right direc­tion. I also read “Late Great Planet Earth” when it came out, and it took years to un-learn the mis­takes in its escha­tol­ogy. But it gave me a push as well. It can be really strange some­times what ends up “min­is­ter­ing” to you, as the Prots say.

Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required