Proof positive that ACTORS should ACT, not SPEAK PUBLICLY

[fossten]

Da Vinci Code Actor: Bible Should Have 'Fiction' Disclaimer
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on May 17, 2006 - 08:44.

If "The Da Vinci Code" was already feeding the flames of controversy with its challenge to the basic tenets of Christianity, actor Ian McKellen managed to pour a refinery tank's worth of gasoline on the fire on this morning's 'Today' show, asserting that the Bible should carry a disclaimer saying that it is "fiction." Video: Windows Media or Real Player, Plus audio MP3

Matt Lauer, in his second day "On The Road With The Code," was in Cannes for the film festival, where the Code will have its debut. It has already been screened to some critics, who have given it decidedly mixed reviews.

As I reported here, NBC reporter Melissa Stark yesterday dipped a timid toe in the sea of controversy when she interviewed Code director Ron Howard, asking how he reacted to the controversy the movie has created . . . for the Church! Sounding more like a sensitivity trainer than a Hollywood director, Howard offered up some ambiguous prose about it being healthy thing for people to engage their beliefs.

Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:

"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"

There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:

"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."

With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity.

 

[FreeFaller]

Oh...who cares? I've about had it up to here with all these people up in arms over this movie. It's fiction...a movie...

I hate this crap where everytime someone disses religion somebody has to cry about it...or everytime some kid decides he wants to read his bible at school some jacka$$ has to throw a fit.

Why can't we just let each other be without having a hissy everytime somebody offends us. :soapbox:

 

[raVeneyes]

Oh...who cares? I've about had it up to here with all these people up in arms over this movie. It's fiction...a movie...

I hate this crap where everytime someone disses religion somebody has to cry about it...or everytime some kid decides he wants to read his bible at school some jacka$$ has to throw a fit.

Why can't we just let each other be without having a hissy everytime somebody offends us. :soapbox:

:iconcur: :yourock:

 

[Calabrio]

In a perfect world, I'd agree too.

But do you think the studios have the same artistic convictions used to mislead the public into thinking the Christian religion and the Catholic church have engaged in a 2 century conspiracy to do the same to Islam?

Maybe a 2 hour long movie about how Mohammed was a child molesting rapists?

Of course not, it's only o.k. to attack Christianity. Hell, you can't even show a picture of Mohammed.

And, I do wish everyone were informed enough to realize the DaVinci code is nothing more than a well written piece of fiction. Even the stated "facts" are fictional.

 

[TheDude]

And, I do wish everyone were informed enough to realize the DaVinci code is nothing more than a well written piece of fiction. Even the stated "facts" are fictional.

That's the individuals fault, I watched King Kong recently, I didn't actually believe a 60 foot gorilla ran amok in New York.

Who's knows though, give it a few hundred years and 'The DaVinci Code' may become gospel.

 

[Calabrio]

That's the individuals fault, I watched King Kong recently, I didn't actually believe a 60 foot gorilla ran amok in New York.

Who's knows though, give it a few hundred years and 'The DaVinci Code' may become gospel.

I don't understand your point. You say it should be obvious that the movie is entertainment, just like a fantasy movie like King Kong, and then you say that Brown's novel might become part of the gospel in a few hundred years? Why?

The difference between King Kong and the DaVinci Code are great. The makers of King Kong never attempt to present their story to the audience as being "truthful." Brown takes historical facts, misrepresents them or reports them completely incorrectly while presenting them as truth, and then leads the audience down a flawed logic path.

I have a problem with the PR tactic Brown has taken by implying that his story is factual. And I do have a problem with the double standard used by the media when discussing this movie. As stated before, they would NEVER make a movie so disrespectful of Islam or Judaism, but have no reservations promoting a movie that implies the foundations of Christianity are a 2000 year old fraud.

 

[raVeneyes]

But do you think the studios have the same artistic convictions used to mislead the public into thinking the Christian religion and the Catholic church have engaged in a 2 century conspiracy to do the same to Islam?

Maybe a 2 hour long movie about how Mohammed was a child molesting rapists?

I disagree, there are several movies about the hypocrisies of Islam coming out of the studios and movie festival circuits.

 

[fossten]

I disagree, there are several movies about the hypocrisies of Islam coming out of the studios and movie festival circuits.

I'd be interested in you actually posting a list rather than just making claims.

 

[TheDude]

I don't understand your point. You say it should be obvious that the movie is entertainment, just like a fantasy movie like King Kong, and then you say that Brown's novel might become part of the gospel in a few hundred years? Why?

Because over time some things no matter how improbable can become fact if enough people believe and even facts can be distorted over time to become something entirely different.

I don't want to start a theological war here, but do you really think Jesus actually turned water into wine. Or is it possible that this story had a real life basis of Jesus pouring a bottle of wine and this was blown out of proportion over the centuries every time it was repeated/written down until you end up something of a magical nature.

The difference between King Kong and the DaVinci Code are great. The makers of King Kong never attempt to present their story to the audience as being "truthful." Brown takes historical facts, misrepresents them or reports them completely incorrectly while presenting them as truth, and then leads the audience down a flawed logic path.

I think you're wrong there, I will double check with the book I have at home (my wife read it) but I belive he wrote a disclaimer at the very begining of the book stating that the work is fiction. Maybe someone else here recently read it and can confirm this.

I have a problem with the PR tactic Brown has taken by implying that his story is factual. And I do have a problem with the double standard used by the media when discussing this movie. As stated before, they would NEVER make a movie so disrespectful of Islam or Judaism, but have no reservations promoting a movie that implies the foundations of Christianity are a 2000 year old fraud.

Have you read that book? I think you're jumping the gun here, I haven't either but I have seen the history channels documentary on it and the story isn't about Jesus or Christianity being a fraud, it's about a conspiracy by the Catholic church to stay in power.

DONT READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE! Spoiler Warning

In the Cliff-notes form, Jesus married Mary Magdalene (who wasn't a prostitute) and before his death, they had a daughter, a secret society was formed to watch over her and has been watching over Jesus’ bloodline for the past two thousand years. This 'fact' that Jesus has an heir posses a threat to the Pope/Catholicism. There's plenty more, but that's just a drive by taste of it

 

[fossten]

Deville, your biggest weakness in making arguments against the Bible is that you've never read the whole Bible through. Until you do that, you can't make any credible observations or criticisms concerning its contents.

Furthermore, isn't there a statement at the beginning of the book saying that all the rituals, art, etc. are accurate?


Bozell Column: No Passion Against the 'Da Vinci Code'
Posted by Brent Bozell on May 17, 2006 - 17:01.

When Mel Gibson introduced "The Passion of the Christ" into the public conversation, Hollywood had a lot to say about it. Now Hollywood is offering its response with the upcoming release of "The DaVinci Code," inviting commentary not on that movie, but on Hollywood itself.

Three years ago, Mel Gibson gambled his own personal fortune on a great creative risk, going completely outside the established Tinseltown system to produce a horrifyingly realistic reenactment of Our Lord’s crucifixion, and resurrection. It took not just sacrifice but also real courage to make this. The studios all scoffed at the idea. The reviews were horrible – before anyone had seen a frame of it.

Film critics and political commentators didn’t just pass judgment on the film’s subject, but on the craziness of the director (and even his father). Gibson’s devout Catholicism, so foreign to sybaritic Hollywood, was described as a crutch for a man with an addictive personality.

The media assembled a stable of professors of religion (not religious professors) to insist that Gibson’s film was not historically accurate, that his Pontius Pilate was too meek and his Jewish Sanhedrin was wildly exaggerated by prejudice, and that the Gospel writers were not reliable historical guides to the life of Jesus, since they wrote their works decades after his death.

But perhaps harshest of all, these pundits claimed "The Passion" would cause hatred in the land and violence in the streets. The "experts" strenuously connected Gibson’s film to the notion that passion plays were traditional tinder boxes for anti-Jewish pogroms and inquisitions, that Adolf Hitler praised passion plays. Allegedly, Christians would see the film and head for the exits to deface synagogues and assault rabbis. It was even called an "ecumenical suicide bomb.

Now forget for a moment that exactly none of that violence occurred. When the film succeeded, and people attended in droves, and left in silence and prayerfulness, then the "Passion" critics complained that Gibson was "marketing Jesus," that he was going to make millions by cynically stirring the sheep out of their churches and into the theaters, exploiting their devotion for personal gain.

Now witness the coming of the movie version of "The DaVinci Code." Think of it as the anti-"Passion." In one film, Jesus was Lord; in the other, Jesus was not only merely mortal, he was the center of an elaborate fraud. In one film, Jesus founded his Church at the Last Supper; in the other, the Catholic Church unfolds as a secretive, murderous, thoroughly evil conspiracy. So what’s Hollywood’s take? The reaction to this movie is almost the exact opposite of what Gibson received.

The studios reacted quickly, with Sony lapping up the film. The network news divisions have acted like devoted puppies, with Matt Lauer planning to go "On the Road with the Code" for NBC. ABC has held "DaVinci Code" contests on its morning show. Denying the divinity of Jesus – the central tenet of Christianity – is just fun and games, grins and giggles.

No one has singled out "DaVinci Code" author Dan Brown for his anti-religious and anti-Catholic bigotry. No one put him in amateur therapy. Since he was Sony’s hired gun, no one assaulted director Ron Howard for his religious beliefs – even if (or especially because) his acceptance of this job suggests he has no problem directing a film smearing Jesus or the Catholic Church.

Film critics and political commentators have been largely silent, in part because Sony has been so secretive with the film. When Gibson was slow to show his film to non-Christian audiences before its release, critics railed, but Sony is receiving no guff for anything it does with this film. Where is Frank Rich? The New York Times columnist was a major mudslinger on Mel Gibson’s path, but try to find a word he’s written on "The DaVinci Code."

The media assembled no stable of professors to question the historical authenticity of "The DaVinci Code," which is ironic, since its claims to non-fiction absolutely collapse within minutes of exploration. Instead, ABC News devoted an hour a few years ago to the show’s shoddy claims and "legends," focusing almost exclusively on the experts trying to support it.

No one has predicted mass violence from the Christian faithful for this film’s denial of the Christ, which is odd. If they were willing to riot for "The Passion," shouldn’t they be much readier to rumble after this flick finishes smearing Jesus and his Church? Unlike Gibson’s film, this movie took no courage to make.

Certainly, no one accused Dan Brown or Sony of "marketing Jesus," since they’re going to be making millions by pouring mud on Our Lord. Hostility or indifference to Christianity is just another day at the office for today’s titans of popular culture.

 

[TheDude]

Deville, your biggest weakness in making arguments against the Bible is that you've never read the whole Bible through. Until you do that, you can't make any credible observations or criticisms concerning its contents.

Furthermore, isn't there a statement at the beginning of the book saying that all the rituals, art, etc. are accurate?

I have read the Bible front to back; I just haven't memorized it so I can't remember every verse off the top of my head if asked to.

I believe there is something to that content, but I also believe Brown states that his book is fiction. I could not confirm this last night, my wife loaned the book to a friend. If someone else has it, maybe they could post the 'disclaimer' in its entirety.

You article attack's Dan Brown, Sony, Ron Howard etc. of pouring mud and smearing Jesus and Christianity but I do not think that’s the books purpose. From what I know, it's a murder mystery piece of fiction involving religion, that’s all. Some people are just taking it WAY to seriously, most likely out of fear. I'm watching it this weekend, maybe my opinion will change.

On the subject of Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ', that was a terrible movie and utterly pointless, he could have made something meaningful centering on Jesus, his teachings his triumphs etc., but instead he made a two hour torture movie. I do not blame the critics for giving it an 'F', but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[fossten]

I have read the Bible front to back; I just haven't memorized it so I can't remember every verse off the top of my head if asked to.

Okay, if you say you've read it, then I believe you. That being the case, you must have read the parts where the Bible states unequivocally that Jesus is God, right?

If you believe that, then why would you have a problem believing that Jesus could perform a mundane miracle like turning water into wine?

 

[TheDude]

Okay, if you say you've read it, then I believe you. That being the case, you must have read the parts where the Bible states unequivocally that Jesus is God, right?

If you believe that, then why would you have a problem believing that Jesus could perform a mundane miracle like turning water into wine?

From what I recall, Jesus is the son of God, he is God and he is The Holy Ghost.

I do not agree with the bible on the part where Jesus & God are one and the same being.

 

[Calabrio]

Because over time some things no matter how improbable can become fact if enough people believe and even facts can be distorted over time to become something entirely different.

No, they can be popularly held misconceptions, but they can never become fact. But continuing your logic out further, this tendency would only further bolster the claims and the outrage of the "Davinci Code" detractors.

If you put a lie out there often enough, in the right format, it will be accepted. That's certainly true. How many people do you know who repeat things they've heard in a Michael Moore film as fact?

I don't want to start a theological war here, but do you really think Jesus actually turned water into wine. Or is it possible that this story had a real life basis of Jesus pouring a bottle of wine and this was blown out of proportion over the centuries every time it was repeated/written down until you end up something of a magical nature.

You're opinion of theology has nothing to do with the conversation and I think it'll ultimately become an unproductive, and possibly emotional, distraction.

I think you're wrong there, I will double check with the book I have at home (my wife read it) but I belive he wrote a disclaimer at the very begining of the book stating that the work is fiction. Maybe someone else here recently read it and can confirm this.

I'm not aware of any disclaimer on the book, and I'm certain the movie has NO disclaimer reminding the audience that they are watching a well-crafted piece of fiction.

See, unlike religion, which certain relies on faith, the DaVinci Code, written by a man I think is an agnostic, uses historical events, misrepresented, to allow the audience to arrive at a false conclusion. Brown will mention an event that actually did happen, but then explain the specifics of the event completely incorrectly. Unless you're a historian, you won't know this.

How many posts do we have on this board dedicated to the crazy 9/11 conspiracies? Film makers and propogandists are every bit as talented and clever in pulling off illusions as David Blaine.

Have you read that book? I think you're jumping the gun here, I haven't either but I have seen the history channels documentary on it and the story isn't about Jesus or Christianity being a fraud, it's about a conspiracy by the Catholic church to stay in power.

A 2000 year conspiracy by the Catholic church, making the bible a fraud. I would say this pretty much completly undermines Christianity and the Church, since most Christian teaching originated in the Catholic Church.

I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with making a thriller, using clever religious references. For example, I was surprised to find I actually enjoyed that popcorn film NATIONAL TREASURE with Nicholas Cage. I do think the DaVinci Code movie is incredibly disrespectful. In contrast, look at a movie like Indiana Jones. Those movies dealt heavily in Judeo-Christian references, but they did so in a very respectful manner. The Arc of the Covenant, the Holy Grail.....

 

[fossten]

From what I recall, Jesus is the son of God, he is God and he is The Holy Ghost.

I do not agree with the bible on the part where Jesus & God are one and the same being.

Actually, the Bible does NOT say Jesus is the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a separate person from Jesus and from God the Father.

So you pick and choose which parts to believe, or you disbelieve the whole thing as a whole?

 

[fossten]

A 2000 year conspiracy by the Catholic church, making the bible a fraud. I would say this pretty much completly undermines Christianity and the Church, since most Christian teaching originated in the Catholic Church.

Actually, most Christian teaching was attacked by the Catholic Church during the dark ages. If you visit the Vatican today, the tour guide will explain to you in detail how Christian teachings were merged with sun god worship to form Roman Catholicism. Do a google search for Constantine and read up on how he diluted Christianity and rode his new religion to military victory over Maxentius. It's interesting that he had the sign of the ankh painted on all the shields of his soldiers, especially when you find that the ankh is an occultic symbol. He actually proclaimed himself the first pope.

You will find it fascinating.

 

[TheDude]

Actually, most Christian teaching was attacked by the Catholic Church during the dark ages. If you visit the Vatican today, the tour guide will explain to you in detail how Christian teachings were merged with sun god worship to form Roman Catholicism. Do a google search for Constantine and read up on how he diluted Christianity and rode his new religion to military victory over Maxentius. It's interesting that he had the sign of the ankh painted on all the shields of his soldiers, especially when you find that the ankh is an occultic symbol. He actually proclaimed himself the first pope.

You will find it fascinating.

Regardless of his true faith (there is speculation & controversy among historians over it), Constantine I did spread Christianity throughout the known world. Christianity as a whole owes a debt of gratitude to this man.

Did you know, many early Christians adopted the ankh as a predecessor to the cross since many believe it stands/stood for 'life'. The Coptic Church which is a 1900+ year old Egyptian Christian church being one of the first to do so.

 

[barry2952]

The book clearly says on it's title page that it is a NOVEL, which Webster's defines as a FICTIONAL prose narative of book length. What's all the fuss? It was a good mystery, that's all.

 

[fossten]

Regardless of his true faith (there is speculation & controversy among historians over it), Constantine I did spread Christianity throughout the known world. Christianity as a whole owes a debt of gratitude to this man.

Did you know, many early Christians adopted the ankh as a predecessor to the cross since many believe it stands/stood for 'life'. The Coptic Church which is a 1900+ year old Egyptian Christian church being one of the first to do so.

Incorrect. Constantine spread Catholicism throughout the known world. Catholicism is NOT the same as Christianity per se. Ever heard of the Inquisition? Which were the Christians?

 

[Calabrio]

The book clearly says on it's title page that it is a NOVEL, which Webster's defines as a FICTIONAL prose narative of book length. What's all the fuss? It was a good mystery, that's all.

Actually, the book starts out saying FACT: then listing off a bunch of historically inaccurate information.

And Dan Brown publically keeps refusing to say it's fiction, and that he has personally become "Convinced" of the evidence that he fabricated and reported wrong.

 

[raVeneyes]

I'd be interested in you actually posting a list rather than just making claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4447366.stm

http://imdb.com/title/tt0780046/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0278102/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0415147/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0433116/


Why is it that just because you can't keep up with current events you think I have to prove myself all the time fossten? Either get up to date or keep your doubting thomas attitude to yourself.

 

[fossten]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4447366.stm

http://imdb.com/title/tt0780046/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0278102/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0415147/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0433116/


Why is it that just because you can't keep up with current events you think I have to prove myself all the time fossten? Either get up to date or keep your doubting thomas attitude to yourself.

Now, now, don't blow a tonsil. You should know by now that the way we do things around here is that you don't go around just making wild claims. You must back up your statements with facts.

Let's see - Trembling before G-d - not even ABOUT muslims. In fact, it makes fun of Jews.

Albert Brooks' movie doesn't make fun of muslims. It's him going around trying to find out what muslims find funny. Not released in the USA.

Marock is the only one that even comes close, but doesn't really pick on muslim beliefs. It's more of an interracial controversy.

In the Name of Allah hasn't even been released yet, so there aren't many details.

Submission hasn't even been made yet, and may not make it due to death threats.

So far, nothing even comes close to the DaVinci code's trashing of Christian religion.

Nice try.

 

[barry2952]

Actually, the book starts out saying FACT: then listing off a bunch of historically inaccurate information.

And Dan Brown publically keeps refusing to say it's fiction, and that he has personally become "Convinced" of the evidence that he fabricated and reported wrong.

Actually, you are absolutely wrong. The title page comes before the "FACT" page. Someone as astute as you are should conceed that it is clearly presented as a work of FICTION.

 

[TheDude]

Actually, you are absolutely wrong. The title page comes before the "FACT" page. Someone as astute as you are should conceed that it is clearly presented as a work of FICTION.

If you have the book would you please post verbatim the opening passage stating that this book is fiction, I glanced through it (over a year ago)when my wife bought it and I remember it saying something to that effect.

Dan Brown must be loving that people are getting so worked up over his book, if he isn't filthy rich over it already, he soon will be.

 

[barry2952]

It doesn't use the word FICTION. It uses the word NOVEL on the title page. One can assume that a book noted as a NOVEL is FICTION. Anything after the word NOVEL can safely be taken as FICTION, even though the second page lists "FACTS".