I have seen worse. Ian McKellen stole the show. Wait for the DVD.
At least I have an excuse for this…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The world’s fastest review of the Da Vinci Code
May 22nd, 2006 |
 23 comments to The world’s fastest review of the Da Vinci Code |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Nice, tight review! Probably no less than 15 min. worth of movie trailers will come with this popular DVD.
I was told pretty much the same thing.
Yeah I’d have to agree with that. It wasn’t dreadful but that’s about as much review as it deserves… nice picture of Audrey Tatou though 🙂
I will stick with the book thanks. If you want a good movie in a similar vein watch the rather good National Treasure.
I have not read the book, but the film was O.K.
It did distort history in an anti Catholic way.
For example, the attack on all Templars in a single day (an example of how administration could be quite effective in the “Middle Ages” with sealed orders being sent out to people hundreds of miles apart to be opened on a particular day and attack), was not “all over Europe” and organised by “the Pope”.
It was all over France and organised by King Philip the Fair – who got the Pope to approve the action (the Pope did not have much choice).
The Templar’s great crime (of course) was to have lots of money and to be big creditors of various Kings (including Philip the Fair).
In England (where administration was less “advanced”) the Templars got off with a big fine and their order being dissolved.
Attacking armed men who know you are comming is less fun than dragging them from their beds.
Also the film does mess things up for people who think that Mary M. had a larger role in the early Church than is traditionally taught (and she may well have done) – as everyone will say “oh you think that Mary was Jesus’ wife and they had a child……..” (for which there is no evidence)
But within its own terms the story is O.K. – and the film is well made. I quite liked it.
Templars not “Templar’s” of course – I know that many people get upset over apostrophe abuse.
I can only agree with the comments given so far – the film, though over long and boring in patches, was enjoyable enough. Yes, the subject matter is tosh, but it’s good-natured tosh. And I definitely found myself falling for the elfin charms of Mlle Tautou as the film progressed. Try as I might I can’t see how the Catholic Church is getting its vestments in a twist over this movie – there’s nothing here worth taking seriously. The portrayal of Opus Dei, for instance, as a sinister, secretive organisation is clearly half-baked right down to the idea of an assassin albino monk wandering around modern day Paris. The best thing the church could do about The Da Vinci Code is ignore it.
i didn’t know gollum wore a dress. nice.
Where can I get a tat like that?
Or don’t.
It’s not like we’re actually deprived of culture that we’d have to bother with this kind of tripe.
The dress would be nice if it weren’t for that stupid knot at the lower right of the pic.
At least she’s not wearing that frightening makeup from one of her earlier films.
Haven’t read the book, but saw the movie last night.
They played pretty fast and loose with the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea as well as with the Templars.
Constantine was a professed Christian prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, the decisive battle which let to him being declared Emperor. His failure to accept baptism until he was on his death bed was fairly standard practice at the time; it was thought that baptism washed away all sin so it was sensible to wait until there was no longer chance of accumulating more sin before being baptised.
To label Constantine a pagan is a travesty. If the rest of the history quoted is of the standard relating to Constantine and the Templars then the whole argument is worthless.
I agree that Constantine was a Christian (in the sense that he accepted the Christian God) who delayed babtism because he wanted to wipe away his sins (and he certainly did a lot a very nasty things as Emperor).
However, matters are a little more complicated.
On Monday I was going round the Yorkshire museum in York looking at the Constantine displays (do not go all the way to York to see it – it is not wildy good). And I was reminded of how much Constantine used Pagan symbols. There was Constantive (on coins or other such) next to this Pagan denity or that.
True he plundered (or tolerated the plunder) of some Pagan temples – but he (at least to my knowledge) did not go about saying the traditional Gods were either nonexistant or were devils.
It is true that Constantine brought in legal changes that were influenced by Christian thought (such as making divorce harder or punishing adultery) – but various Pagan Emperors (indeed politicians back under the Republic) had tried such things from time to time.
Constantine’s real fault was nothing to do with Christianity – it was concentrating the best of the army around himself rather than having it near the frontiers (especially after he moved from the frontiers as he got older).
“Defence in depth” and “strategic reserve” my foot – the man was scared of frontier commanders taking power (as he had done). When armies move on their feet, having the best forces hundreds of miles from the main threats is to (in the long term) sign the death warrent of the Empire. It allows provinces to be destroyed before proper aid can arrive.
And (of course) Constantive extended the practice of relying on barbarian troops rather than Roman citizens. A nation (or Empire) that gets into the habit of recuiting most of its troops from outside (for fear of its own citizens owning weapons, or some other reason) is making a terrible mistake.
Yes Emperors from Augustus had discouraged (by law) the ownership of and training with weapons by ordinary citizens – and yes there had always been barbarians units. But only under Constantine (and after) do they start to be the bulk of the army.
It is not just a question of loyality – it is a matter of the Roman army being a very complex thing and needing vast amounts of professional training to work correctly.
Barbarian warriors think they know it all – but whilst they are big and strong and good at fighting, they do not know it all. Over time a army made up of more and more barbarians will not consent to the old long and harsh training regime and the complex operational regime. Again not simply a matter of loyality – also “I know how to fight”.
Almost needless to say none of the above was presented in York.
To return to the film.
I object more to the whole “Christians were more anti women that Pagans” stuff. The various “mother goddess” deities were not that powerful in Rome. And women were never considered equal with men in Rome (although their legal position was much better than that absurd man Terry Jones is going to claim in his Rome bashing “Barbarians” series for the B.B.C.).
Men tend to be stronger than women, and women tend to get pregnant (which makes them even less equal in combat) – this is why women have tended to be treated as inferiors. It is not fault of the Chrisitian religion (although the treatment of women by the Church has often been bad).
I object more to the whole “Christians were more anti women that Pagans” stuff. The various “mother goddess” deities were not that powerful in Rome.
Well it is a film based on a book based on a series of anhistorical works principally constituted by made-up genealogies. It is a bit like complaining that Geoffrey of Monmouth didn’t get the origin of Stonehenge right.
Equality ‘in Christ’ does seem to have been a selling point for Christianity to women (and slaves) in the early church. Christians haven’t however been consistent on their treatment of women even within particular sectarian traditions over 1900+ years. But you wouldn’t expect the HBHG hebegeebees to grasp that institutions change over time.
Quite so Guy, but it would not have taken much tweaking to get a lot of the history right.
For example, one could have one of the characters say “almost every ancient culture (Greek, Jewish, Roman whatever) held that women should not be in a dominant political role – so natually there was pressure over time to down play the role of Mary M. It would not have harmed the dramatic tension of the story (as they have people talking a lot anyway – they would just have to say a few different things).
After all they do get some things right – like the Pope who (in 591?) said that Mary M. was the prostitute.
The Catholic Church has admitted for more than forty years that was a mistake (Popes can make mistakes, even to Catholics – infalibility is restricted to a rather formal and narrow area).
Actually this was nothing to do with a power struggle (if there was one in the early Church it had been over centuries before) – the Pope was trying to say that anyone can repent and live a good life (i.e. his intention was a good one).
On the basic point:
Would it undermine the view that Jesus was the incarnation of God if he had got married and had a child (and for a Jew in his 30’s never to have been married would have been very odd indeed – especally a religious teacher).
Some people might that it would undermine faith (even though there is no doctrinal reason, as Jesus was both “fully God” and “fully Man”, why he could not have done so). Would such people be prepared to kill in order to prevent the undermining of faith (among people who did not understand that Jesus could be both the incarnation of God and a husband and father).
Now, of course, “no” (at least that is my view). However, in the past people killed over the slightest religious matter.
Of course there is no evidence that Jesus was married and had children.
Although (the defenders of the idea would rush to say) doing such things would undermine his position in the eyes of the Greek speaking world (the Romans count as “Greek speaking” for the purposes of higher education) as the Greeks made a big distinction between body and spirit. So his followers would want to bruch away such things.
And, of course, the Greeks (far more than the Romans or the Jews) tended to hold that women were hopelessly inferior. So any church led by them would not make a big spalsh (I am talking of cities like Athens – not Greek speaking cities outside of Greece, or of certain backcountry areas of Greece).
Jews do not tend to look at these things in the same way. But for Jews Jesus is undermined by his failure to liberate the Holy Land (one of the things the expected one was supposed to do), so whether Jesus had children or not would not be relevant for Jews (he was a just a religious teacher either way).
Although (of course) different sects of Jews had different expectations.
Well said Paul and spot on.
Harmless tosh? There are lots of gullible people who think the book is real history, despite the author’s insistence that it’s fiction.
Plus, I am rather a fan of Opus Dei and Saint Josemaria Escriva. His writings are very challenging, spiritually…like a modern Imitation of Christ.
Perhaps this is my opportunity to invite people to read The Way, The Furrow, and The Forge? (Three short books of short spiritual reflections by Saint Josemaria Escriva.) The gullible fools will prolly start thinking I’m a crazed murderous albino monkette.
1. Great review.
2. The main thing to remember is that no one actually knows the truth about anything that happened 2000+ years ago and never will. It’s about your free will to have faith in what you will.
3. The only thing I’m sure of is that’s one extremely fine dress and woman combination. If isn’t too crass, I say “woof!”
“Some people might (think?) that it would undermine faith….”
Paul-
I would think that if I were planning to turn established religious/ cultural norms on their head
(… they that believe on Him shall be called children of the Most High God…)
then I would not to put all that at risk by having a family, because they would be immediately turned into an hereditary religious aristocracy.
For a similar reason, George Washington was a safe choice for the first US President in that having no children, the temptation to create an American hereditary aristocracy was avoided.
Yes there should be a “think” in there – clearly I do not think enough.
The medics say I have have a form of dyslexia – they also say that I have “dyspraxia”. As far as I can make out this means that I am a careless in spelling and miss words out – and that I am clumsy (as well).
Still enough about why I sould be sent to the scap heap.
I quite agree with Uain that saying Jesus had a family would not undermine faith.
Indeed I did not get an athiest “vibe” from the film at all.
Also (although I am not a Roman Catholic) I agree with kentuckyliz that Opus Dei is a force for good.
In a world where the traditional family and traditional Christian beliefs were totally dominant (to the extent that anybody who lived differently was treated like a freak) I might think differently – but not in the modern world.
And, of course, the openly political, “Tradition, Family and Property” organization is also a force for good as well.
I might not always agree with them, but they tend to be on the side of private property against statism – which is more than can be said for the “liberal” wing of the Church.
The virtue of charity is based upon freedom. There can be no compulsory charity (that is a contraction).
Nor is “justice” some “distribution” of income or wealth.
Justice is to each their own. What they then do with their property shows whether they are following the other virtues.
The “negative” virtue of justice (the nonviolation of the bodies and goods of others) being only one of the virtues.
Law and government (if there is a government in a particular area) is, or should be, about enforcing this “negative” thing justice.
And without this security in one’s body and goods there can be no long term improvement in (for example) the condition of the poor.
The effort to enforce such things as charity by the threat of violence, not only shows a basic misunderstading of the point that an action is only moral if it is voluntary (there is no saving of souls by coercing bodies), but it is part of the ancient mistake of trying to create Heaven on Earth.
In Heaven there will be no material shortages or poverty, but those who try (by the threat of violence) to create Heaven on Earth only succeed in expanding the Empire of Hell.
It is the oldest and most common heresy.
The main thing to remember is that no one actually knows the truth about anything that happened 2000+ years ago and never will.
Like the veracity of Julius Caesar’s “The Gallic Wars,” or who really won the Battle of Thermopylae?
That Tatou chick is way too pale, skinny, and refined to be the descendent of Jesus Christ. They should have used an actress who is earthier, Jewish, and well-fed. Bette Midler. Julia Louis Dreyfuss. They would have been much more believable. LOL I suspect Jesus had a great sense of humor, and it would have been passed down.
AK.,H
Well, I was afraid a sweeping statement like mine would be a cause of concern but – Yes, exactly.
How are we to know that the Spartans weren’t trying desperately to escape but all couldn’t make it. The Spartan Government’s Press Secretary may have made the best of it for the good of the general population and recruiting purposes. You know – like the highly successful Evacuation of Dunkirk, celebrated in song, story and movie.
I would say that pretty much any account of past wars by the winning politico-military leader is, err, slighly skewed to show them in the best light.
I’m just saying that faith in unseen/unknowable truths plays a large part in our world and one must decide for one’s self what’s to believed.