It's not often that I wrestle over whether to participate in a boycott or not. Usually, I'm not inclined. It's not that I'm apolitical, it's just that boycotts usually don't work. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a watershed, but to be honest, I ate a lot of grapes during the grape boycott. As for The Da Vinci Code, I'll pass on the movie. I did read the book, having organized a seminar about it, but I'll refrain from the movie and support the boycott. The movie's that offensive. Banning it is another thing altogether.
Several bans have been proposed in several places. Some on religious grounds, some merely on the basis that it offends religion. The Catholic Church is upset, as is Opus Dei, a Catholic organization central to the tale of The Da Vinci Code. A ban might have grounds in some countries, but in America, it is quite antithetical to our democratic principles and, truthfully, unappealling to our masses.
First, there is nothing to gain politically by even attempting to ban the movie. It is, after all, just a movie. Second, while it is blasphemous and insulting (both to Jews and Christians), the ideas presented in The Da Vinci Code are nothing new. The church has ably, through apologetics, defended its position. Modern Gnosticism, in the form of the New Age movement, is only a minority belief, and ancient Gnosticism only a memory. It does concern me that unsuspecting believers or seekers will be thrown off by the movie, but perhaps this presents an opportunity to engage the general public in our beliefs.
At Mountain Bible Church in Los Gatos, California, I led two seminars on the novel and its claims. We also examined the creeds and the canon of the New Testament. It is more important to know what we believe and why we believe it than to overthrow the claims of The Da Vinci Code. Truth is self-evident.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Mark, I wonder if you're familiar with a concept - it's called 'entertainment'. One form involves watching actors portray a work of dramatic fiction on a large screen. Viewers enjoy watching this and having their intellects stimulated. This happens in a movie theatre. Which, by the way, is not the same thing as a church.
Dave
2 - Natasha
See, I just feel like if you're that open-minded about discussing your beliefs and thoughts, then its odd for you to boycott the movie. It is just a movie and it's for entertainment. Very few people watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to get their political information instead of the news. So who would watch a movie based a fiction book to form their understanding of Catholicism? In order to follow the plot, the person watching would have to have some ability to reason and therefore, extrapolated to religious belief, there is no reason for the person to come away anti-Church or Opus Dei. Silas is the "obvious" villain throughout the book, but let's not forget how Teabing kills Remy and allows Silas to die. If people can enter the military to die for the beliefs the US was founded on, its not hard, for me as a reasonable person who doesn't particularly love any sort of military in general to understand how people can allow faith to guide them so completely. I think it's being blown out of proportion.
3 - RogerMDillon
"It does concern me that unsuspecting believers or seekers will be thrown off by the movie,"
Then how strong is their faith?
"I led two seminars on the novel and its claims."
As a novel, it desn't make any claims of fact.
"Truth is self-evident."
Apparently fiction isn't for some, even when properly labeled.
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Having read the book - I haven't got money to waste on movies like this - I can only say that the author plays with this stuff and has a formula to his books that he sticks to. If Opus Dei wants to go after the author, fine. All they'll do is increase his sales. If the Vatican wants to go after the author, all they'll do is make him a richer man.
I have to honestly say that the idea that Christianity might be disproven was rather pleasant. But obviously that couldn't hapopen, not even in fiction - at least not best selling fiction. So the readers of the da Vinci code were treated to a strip tease.
5 - Hoggle
If you don't want to go see it, don't go, but why hassle other people into not going? This is, fundamentally (!) the problem I have with all religions - they tell other people what to think and then judge them as inferior or worthy only of pity if they ignore the 'advice'.
Christianity started in the second century when the mysogynistic branch of the judeo-buddhist sect begun by Jesus's desciples helped the Romans to wipe out the other branches and imposed a simplistic, MacDonalds-style teaching standard. The complex ideas of gnosticism were suppressed simply because they took power away from the priesthood.
Since that time, the teachings of Jesus have been largely ignored or spun to suit the power-management needs of the organisation (and each of the various offshoots that resulted from the enlightenment).
Anyone who believes such teachings is abandoning his or her right to think for themselves. Anyone who believes in the pseudo-history in Da Vinci is doing likewise.
Of course, this is only my opinion, and I would encourage everyone with an interest to look into the serious academic studies on the subject and come to their own conclusions.
6 - Mark Adams
Heaven forbid a Christian should exercise his right of free speech or association. Hoggle feels "hassled" and Dave wonders if I'm familiar with the concept of entertainment. As I am familiar with the concept of democracy, I will certainly exercise my right to speak out against The Da Vinci Code, even my right to boycott the film and encourage others to do so. If my religion offends, fine. But if my democratic inclinations offend, go to... heck.
Hoggle, if you seriously believe Christianity began in the 2nd century... gee, I can't even begin to comment on the idea.
7 - Jewels
The fact that the Catholic church and "Opus Dei" are offended by this book's (and now the movie) contents, and how loudly they are wailing "boycott" only influences me to conclude perhaps Dan Brown's fictional account may have roots earthed within a certain level of fact. The Catholic religion has a long history of fact control and manipulation. If this fictional work had been ignored by the church, would lend greater credence to nothing in the book resembling fact. All this controversy is creating more revenue for Brown, I've noticed he is keeping a relatively low profile and probably quietly trotting to the bank.
8 - Mark Adams
Jewels, I wouldn't conclude too quickly. Regardless of the church's response to the book, if the facts don't support the conclusion, one needn't just accept The Da Vinci Code.
9 - Blue Meanie
For a more scholarly and factual bit of info on the subject, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was the source book for much of Dan Brown's speculation. Some good stuff there.
As for this movie, and people's right to speak for, against or even boycott. Do as you like, for whatever time we have of it, America is still a theoretically free country.
But it is only a movie, and maybe the topic will get people to think about the topics involved and do a bit of digging on their own.
Is that such a bad thing?
10 - JR
Mark Adams: As I am familiar with the concept of democracy, I will certainly exercise my right to speak out against The Da Vinci Code...
If you are familiar with the concept of democracy, then you should understand that in itself it is no guarantee of freedom of speech. That right was written into the constitution as a protection against the "tyranny of the majority".
Jewels, I wouldn't conclude too quickly.
Some of us think you already have.
11 - Mark Adams
JR, yes, but don't confuse the exercise of speech with tyranny. The system works if people excercise their rights. You'll note that I am opposed to banning the film. I feel boycotting it is a more appropriate form of expression.
12 - Blue Meanie
Mark-
Even though I personally think any talk of boycotting the film is a bit silly, I would firmly defend your right to do so.
The thought for you here is; does such attention help or hurt your cause more? How many people will go to see the film, merely because some people say they shouldn't?
13 - Jewels
Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a good read. Blue Meanie you raise a great point, all the boycott talk will work to drive people to read the book and attend the movie to see what all the fuss is about.
14 - Mat Brewster
I'm only halfway through, but so far the only part of me offended is my sense of good writing.
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Matt, I'm forced to agree with you.
Having read Brown's novel Angels and Demons (my kid had his mitt on The daVinci Code and wasn't letting go) first, I found The daVinci Code terribly formulaic - Angels and Demons 2, so to speak. But I don't want to spoil your "fun", so I'll shut up.
16 - RogerMDillon
"if the facts don't support the conclusion, one needn't just accept The Da Vinci Code."
Who is asking you to? Again, it's fiction not a history book. What don't you understand about this concept? Just because the Bible mixes fact and fiction doesn't mean all books do.
But please continue drawing attention to your boycott. The free publicity for the film will only hurt your cause.
17 - Mark Adams
The "what don't you understand about the concept" arguments are growing tiresome. Yes, it is a work of fiction -- that is after all, the evangelical response to the work -- but, it's also offensive. Trust me, boycotts do work, not always, but generally. Let's not forget that the Last Temptation failed miserably. It didn't help, for example, that Edwards Cinemas in Orange County would not show the film (that, and the film was pretty awful, from what I'm told).
Will my protesting draw attention to the film? Yes. Will the film draw attention to my beliefs? Yes, again. In that regard, I have very little to lose and much to gain.
Lastly, this is a consumer market. If you offend the consumer, is it unreasonable that the consumer might balk?
18 - Blue Meanie
Mark-
Thank you for the clarification. I had not been aware of your particular flavor of faith.
As for "rather tiresome", well then, stop making obtuse, straw man arguments. I just don't understand how any from protestant denominations have such problems with this material since the basis of their sects are formed around the belief that the Catholic church and Vatican are wrong and have not only hidden things, but actually skewed dogma to benefit the Church. See good old Martin Luther's reformation screed.
No matter, as for comparing this film to "Last Temptation of Christ", good luck there. That was an obscure smaller budget flick. This one comes from a world wide best selling novel and has a world reknown director and star.
19 - Mary K. Williams
I have read the book, enjoyed the pace and the interesting ideas. I look forward to seeing the movie, but only as entertainment.
It's sad and concerning that the Catholic church has such little faith in it's flock. If someone is firm in their beliefs then this movie isn't going to sway them. Offend them? Maybe?
I don't remember such a fuss when the movie The Order was released. It did not portray the Church in the best light. As I recall, it the papacy wasn't painted all that pretty either.
Now I could conclude from the lack of fuss that the film's concept was just too far-fetched to get worked up about.
And this concept?
Someone in an above comment noted the possiblity of the inherent chance of truth within the fiction. That's what some may be afraid of: there's always a kernel of truth.
20 - Rodney Welch
"Viewers enjoy watching this and having their intellects stimulated. This happens in a movie theatre." -- Dave Nalle, who clearly has not attended a movie anytime recently
21 - Rodney Welch
Mark,
"Let's not forget that the Last Temptation failed miserably." Because of protests? No, I don't think so. I think a lot of people just weren't interested, or they disliked it for artistic reasons. A lot of other people thought it was a beautiful film, and a lot of others no doubt went just to see what the fuss was about.
When I went to see it, there were protest groups on both sides, for and against. Boy, that was a night to remember.
Controversy ALWAYS helps a movie. Always.
You know, the fact that you can mention a 15-year-old movie, and everyone knows exactly what you're talking about, indicates it wasn't a total failure.
Remember, back in the day, conservative evangelical groups were trying to buy "Last Temptation" from the studio for the sole purpose of burning it. Now you can find it in video stores and libraries across the country. Some failure.
22 - RogerMDillon
Well, your crusade to get the facts of a work a fiction straight is just as tiresome.
"Let's not forget that the Last Temptation failed miserably."
The film's budget was only $7 mil. It made over $8 mil in US B.O. then you add worldwide, cable and home video sales. Thanks for illustrating your commitment to getting the facts straight. The film was very good, but you would need an open mind to view and understand it.
The consumer is free to balk all he likes, but when his outrage is based in ignorance he shouldn't be agahst when other consumers take him to task.
I usually skip opening weekends but you have sold two tickets, and probably the DVD.
23 - Mark Adams
Blue Meinie, I don't recall anywhere in Martin Luther's reformation creed there being mention to Jesus being married and having offspring. A nice distraction, but it does little to support you argument.
We have problems with this material because...
a) it's offensive (basically it says what we believe is a lie)
b) it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)
I'm not sure which part of my argument employs a straw man, but I'm sure you can tell me.
24 - Michael J. West
They're not exactly straw men. But one is on pretty thin ice:
it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)
Which may be true. But bear in mind that there's very little factual basis for the claim that Jesus even existed.
That's not me trying to offend, Mark, I promise. I'm just pointing out that you are on far firmer ground when you say that it's offensive than you are in questioning its historical veracity.
25 - Mary K. Williams
a) it's offensive (basically it says what we believe is a lie)
b) it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)
a) If Dan Brown made the grand pronouncment that this is a new discovery in the studies of the Bible and published his work as non-fiction, then I could see being at least quite concerned - if not offended.
People everyday say that what Christians believe are lies. Do you want to be offended? Or rather, would you just work at spreading the Gospel as you know it, acting as Jesus would (turn the other cheeck?)and pray for those who have lost their faith?
b) It is supposed to be fiction. Why worry about the historical fact. I know you don't like the 'fiction' argument - but it is just a movie.
Are people SO worried that the audience will be swayed that much?
This is what I don't understand. People are going to make up their own minds. They don't need to be protected from the movie.