I don't read many books anymore, but for some reason, I read Dan Brown's Davinci Code. Ron Howard has filmed that book. He didn't adapt it to film, he filmed it. This is the films strength and its weakness. It is a strength in this, details, dialouge, locations, sensations have all been captured and appear richly on the screen. It is a weakness in that the film, its scope and its actors seem limited by the covers of a book. Tom Hanks captures his character perfectly. Bewilderment, genius, fear, shock and bravery. Those are probably words that were written in the book, but lacking is a real person with deep faith or experience.
The first paragraph of my review only deals with the film as a film, which I would recommend on the merits of being a book-film transition as opposed to a book-film adaptation. I should probably take a moment to comment on the films subject matter and its perspective. I liked what Tom Hank's character had to say about Christians: We have historical, physical evidence that shows that Jesus was a good man, it is on faith that we believe that he is God's son. He is essentially saying that the truth isn't always something that can be physically proven, even if people try to cover it up, that doesn't change it being true. Unfortunately the film ends with a very clear glimpse of what the truth is (within the context of the film). I understand that this is a work of fiction and I was entertained. I just felt uncomfortable with this "historical fiction" that doesn't use truth as a backdrop, rather twists and flat out lies about truth for its plot. Kind of like watching an Oliver Stone film I guess.
5 comments:
Peter, here's an article that I found interesting. It's kinda long but it delves in to the disconnect between critics and audiences.
I think the problem with films of fiction dealing with issues of religion is that even knowing they are not true, they mix with what you believe. Though you might not believe that Jesus was ever married (simply because you saw DaVinci Code) you might acquire a suspicion of the Church and the motivation of Christian leaders throughout history.
Is that a bad thing?
Maybe I am off on this thought, but to echo Peter a bit...I think it is natural to be suspect of the church and its leaders. The DaVinci Code (which I saw) questions the actions of the (Roman) Catholic church. I have always questioned why the RC church believes what they believe and why they do the things they do (i.e. communion is actually flesh and blood, praying to Mary, confessionals, etc...) that is why I am not catholic.
Just my opinion.
I am reading a book right now that deals with this subject. God has given us minds that do question, He has also given us the truth.
Okay, but where do you find truth. Yes, I think when the church tells us things that contradict what God's Word says then we need to question that teaching, but when we are told that our eyes are truth and anything that we can't see isn't real and everything that we perceive is truth, then we no longer have faith.
What is the message of the DaVinci code? Is it that we should question authority? or that God is a myth? or that sex is religion and religion is sex? I think it's the third and therein is the seduction. People want a reason to defy God. If we realize that He has been lying to us about who He is, about who His son is, and about the very nature of mankind then we can break free from His bondage and live how we want to live. That is the message of the DaVinci Code.
So sure, it's entertaining, I would assume that it would be. What could be more enchanting than the chance to be rid of God and be free (read "enslaved") to sin? I'm not saying that's why you two liked the movie, I'm saying that's the temptation and that is what our friends and co-workers like (even if it is only subconsciously).
Post a Comment