Da Vinci Hoax Blog

Cinematic version of the Code getting raked over the coals

Some readers of TDVC (both fans and non-fans) have suggested that the novel is about as ready-made for a movie as can be. I've always disagreed with this notion, believing the novel has far more in common with soap operas than with successful summertime movie fare. Some of the similar elements include: thin characters, laughable dialogue, endless conversations, constant posturing (by characters and novelist), silliness/stupidity, and a complete absence of nuance. Oh -- and the plot is even more thin than the characters, which is saying something. Last summer I was interviewed by The New York Times (for this article) and I said this:

"There's no way you can take out the central point of the novel, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church has done everything in its power, including murdering millions of people, to cover it up," said Carl Olson, co-author of "The Da Vinci Hoax," a book refuting the "The Da Vinci Code." He predicted that many devout people would be offended "unless they make a movie that bears a pale resemblance to the book, in which case they'd have a lot of irritated fans."

Oddly enough, the first reviews of the movie indicate that Ron Howard has apparently achieved something remarkable, if not altogether commendable for a director: he has made a movie that will both irritate fans and bore and confuse non-fans. The Reuters review calls the movie a "bloated puzzle" and adds:

Strictly as a movie and ignoring the current swirl of controversy no amount of studio money could ever buy, the Ron Howard-directed film features one of Tom Hanks' more remote, even wooden performances in a role that admittedly demands all the wrong sort of things from a thriller protagonist; an only slightly more animated performance from his French co-star, Audrey Tautou; and polished Hollywood production values where camera cranes sweep viewers up to God-like points of view and famous locations and deliciously sinister interiors heighten tension where the movie threatens to turn into a historical treatise.

The movie really only catches fire at the midway point, when Ian McKellen hobbles on the scene as the story's Sphinx-like Sir Leigh Teabing. Here is the one actor having fun with his role and playing a character rather than a piece to a puzzle.

True believers and those who want to understand what all the fuss is about will jam cinemas worldwide in the coming weeks in sufficient numbers so as to fulfill probably even the most optimistic projections of Sony execs. But the movie is so drenched in dialogue musing over arcane mythological and historical lore and scenes grow so static that even camera movement can't disguise the dramatic inertia. Such sins could cut into those rosy projections.

The BBC reviewer, Caroline Briggs, is also underwhelmed:

Taking its cue from the book, conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is depicted as a murderous and power-crazed organisation.

But Howard, who won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind, faced a tougher challenge in translating Brown's narrative to the big screen. And his fondness for historic flashbacks and other gimmicks to tell the story border on patronising.

They are too obviously used to help gel together the two-and-a-half hour screenplay whose storyline may prove confusing for those who have not read the book.

One of the book's triumphs is the way in which it allows the reader to solve the clues before Langdon and Neveu, giving the reader a smug satisfaction at their own perceived intelligence.

The film does not allow the same satisfaction, but instead must join protagonists Langdon and Neveu on their convoluted journey.

Briggs is quite right in describing the "books' triumph", since the novel has certainly been, for many readers, a revelatory text filled with secret knowledge and exciting ideas (How about it, National Geographic? Have a cover with the DVC displayed and the headline: "The Gospel of Dan Brown," Discovered in 2003. Is it true?). But it appears that the movie is actually revealing something else: that the novel is a pile of pseudo-intellectual blatherings that lacks both historical veracity and logical coherence. Of course, we've been saying that all along. But it's rather touching that Sony, Ron Howard, and Co. would spend tens of millions of dollars to prove our point.  For the record, I'll be seeing the movie this Friday night and hope to write a few thoughts here soon thereafter.

Sandra and I are interviewed by Ankle Biting Pundits

The interview can be read here.

U.S. News & World Report cracks TDVC with some help from...

... The Da Vinci Hoax. The May 22, 2006, feature article, "Debating Da Vinci," was written by Jeffery L. Sheler, who quotes from our book a couple of times in the course of addressing some of TDVC's main assertions. Entire article is available online here.

Survey: Readers of TDVC twice as likely to believe...

...that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children. The Daily Mail also reports:

Of those questioned in the poll for the Da Vinci Code Response Group, 60 per cent of people who had read the book believed there was truth to the suggestion, compared with 30 per cent who hadn't.

Readers of the blockbuster were also four times more likely to think Catholic organisation Opus Dei, which features in the novel, was a murderous sect than those who hadn't read it.

Almost one in three believe the Priory of Sion was a real medieval organisation, when it was actually a twentieth century hoax. Only six per cent of non-readers believe it existed.

The book has been hugely popular in Britain, with 22 per cent of adults having read it, the survey of 1,000 people by Opinion Research Business found.

The DVC Response Group, which is made up of priests, monks theologians and members of Opus Dei, wants the film adaptation of the novel to carry a disclaimer making it clear it is fiction.

"The Da Vinci Hoax" on EWTN this week

THE DA VINCI HOAX (60:00) NEW

Father Mitch Pacwa interviews the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax, Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel, about the errors contained within Dan Brown's best-selling novel. Topics focused on here include examinations of several of the book's subjects, including the Gnostic Gospels (and the Gospel of Philip in particular), Emperor Constantine, the Council of Nicea, the Knights Templar, Mary Magdalene, the Priory of Sion, and of course Leonardo da Vinci himself.

Wednesday May 17, 2006 10 PM and Friday May 19, 2006 10 AM

• More about "The Da Vinci Hoax" DVD

In case you were wondering where I will be this coming week...

This Tuesday evening, May 16th, I'll be at the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., to show The Da Vinci Hoax DVD and give a talk. It begins at 6:30 p.m. And for those who don't know, the Center is run by ... Opus Dei. Gotta like that! More info can be found here.

Then it's on to the Big Apple to (hopefully) give some interviews and maybe even pop up on a news program or three on Wednesday. On Thursday evening I will be giving a presentation to the Legatus chapter in Morris County, New Jersey. Then back home early Friday morning (a mere seven hours!) to pack, catch up on this and that, and then attend a 10:30 p.m. showing of (gasp!) The Da Vinci Code. On Saturday we head to Spokane to visit with close friends for a few days, then on to Plains, Montana to attend my parents' 40th wedding anniversary (congrats, Mom and Dad!).

A mostly complete schedule of my various talks and appearances during the next three months can be found here. (Please note that the June 10-12 Fullness of Truth Conference has been cancelled.) I will not be traveling in August unless absolutely necessary, and then plan just one or two trips a month through the rest of the year. I have a lot of work to catch up on, and will be trying to finish a book manuscript by the end of the year. And for those who are curious, my next book is a complete and thorough refutation of everything written by Danielle Steele.

CBC producer: Dan Brown's lies are "historical and institutional"

Peter Kavanagh, a senior producer at CBC Radio One, has written an insightful column about the Coded Craziness for The Toronto Star. He states:

The comparison between James Frey and Dan Brown isn't as odd as it might seem. Frey wrote a non-fiction work, which turned out to be in part fictional, and he was pilloried. Brown wrote a novel, claiming that everything apparently based in historical fact was true, which turned out to be a lie, and became rich and famous. And it says something about our slippery grasp of the idea of truth that this bothers very few of us. Frey's lies were personal; Dan Brown's are historical and institutional.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda. Too extreme a comparison? Of course! But we are left wondering about the attraction of Dan Brown's tale. The "fiction" at the core of the story is the most post-modern of lies: the lack of evidence supporting it is proof of the conspiracy and denials on the part of the Vatican and other Christian leaders is evidence of the continuing cover-up.

It is by no means original; it weaves together a host of myths, legends, suppositions and heresies and packages them in a potboiler of a story of which the most complimentary thing critics can say is that it is a perfect airport book.

The only truly original thing that can be said of the novel is that it somehow proved to be the right book at the right time, or if you are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the wrong book at the wrong time.There's an element of the Christian community, which argues that Christianity is the only religion at which it is still permissible to hurl slander, innuendo and lies. And when you think of the collective glee and profit that corporations, businesses, media outlets and millions of ordinary people indulge in through contemplation of the Code, it's understandable why some Christians believe their faith is under siege.

It is impossible to imagine a comparable collective rubbing of the hands if the heart of a novel alleging a conspiracy of such magnitude were Buddhism, Judaism, Islam or Hinduism.  Fans of the Code will argue that it's just a novel, a little bit of fun and speculation. But even that is an extension of the lie, a dissimilitude about the ping of recognition that reading the novel sparked, "I knew there was something wonky about the story of Christ from the very beginning."

"The myths of the present become the facts of tomorrow."

That quote comes from a university professor who decided to have his students examine the historical assertions made within TDVC. Why? Because some students were accepting those mythical assertions as established fact. Read the whole story here.

Actors playing American "symbologist" and French detective have this in common:

They are both clueless. Tom Hanks has already made light of concerns that TDVC presents an unfair and misleading picture of Christianity and the Catholic Church. The Christian Post reports that French actress Audrey Tautou (who plays cryptologist character Sophie Nevueu) is now uttering the "it's just entertainment" line:

Amid continuous religious controversy regarding ''The Da Vinci Code,'' French actress Audrey Tautou, co-star of the new film, is saying critics should remember that the work is based on fiction.

Tautou, who plays the cryptologist Sophie Neveu in the film, is reportedly surprised at the ongoing debates. After all, the movie is intended as entertainment, she says. Tautou herself was brought up in a church-going culture, and says she would never act in a film that was derogatory to the Christian faith.

“The controversy, any of it, doesn’t worry me,” she says. “There have been hundreds of books written on this subject and this is just fiction…. It is not a true story or a documentary. It is also not a religious movie.”

“Everyone should be aware that this is just a thriller,” she adds.

Which begs the question: What is so thrilling about TDVC? In addition, how many references to religion, religious beliefs, and religious figures does a movie need to have to constitute a "religious movie." But she is probably correct. If the movie is anything like the novel, it must be an anti-religious movie, specifically, an anti-Christian movie. How thrilling. How entertaining.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Or should that be "Danned if you do. Danned if you don't"? I'm referring to some of the responses given by those who are either puzzled, amused, or annoyed that some Christians are (gasp!) responding to the historical and theological claims made in TDVC.

A typical line of inquiry begins, of course, with this question/assertion: "Why are you so worried about a work of fiction?" Once an explanation has been given as to why TDVC is not "just fiction,"  one of these questions inevitably follows:

• "But isn't it a good thing that people are talking about religious beliefs?" That depends. What exactly are they talking about? The notion that it is good to simply talk about how you feel about this or that is nonsensical. Using words isn't good enough; rather, how are the words being used? Are conversations that begin with a question such as, "Why are you a member of a Church that has such a rotten past and hates women?" going to result in much good? Of course, it depends in part on how you respond. But, really, how substantive are the specific conversations that result from people reading TDVC? What sort of questions are being asked If people simply immerse themselves further in the Coded Craziness (by reading, for example, Michael Baigent's The Jesus Papers, or some other piece of pseudo-historical trash), then "talking" is of little value. (Following a recent talk in Portland, I was asked by an audience member: "Why should I believe you instead of Michael Baigent when it comes to deciding whether or not the gnostic texts are historically reliable?" But it's not an issue of Olson vs. Baigent, but of reading the Christian Gospels and comparing them to the gnostic gospels, and recognizing that the latter have little to nothing to say about historical persons, events, and details. Read the sources!)

This question, by the way, was posed by Anderson Cooper of CNN this past week when he interviewed Sandra and me on his late night news program. I think we handled it well enough, but the notion that the TDVC is a good thing because it sparks conversation reminded me of the trick question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You are put immediately on the defensive by an absurd question. Yet many conversations about TDVC begin with absurd questions that immediately put Catholics on the defensive. Then, if you choose to defend yourself ("I've never beaten my wife. Why did you say that?"), you sometimes hear:

• "What are Christians so afraid of? Obviously you are hiding something or else you wouldn't be defensive." Several readers have told me of the frustrations that come with being unexpectedly accosted by a family member or co-worker who has suddenly received his doctorate in Church history by reading TDVC (after all, the Chicago Tribune did write that Brown's novel does "transmit several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation"). They are put on the defensive and often react defensively, naturally. Unfortunately, again, there are some people who really do think that if a Christian tries to defend or explain their beliefs, they have admitted guilt. Period. Say no more! You wouldn't be trying to defend yourself if you weren't guilty! Of course, you can't win, because if you say nothing, your silence is also understood to be an admission of guilt. (For a subtle variation of this approach, see this recent piece in TimesOnline, which also uses the "it's just fiction but it's also true" approach.) If, however, you are able to respond to this "question," you will probably have this reply thrown in your path:

• "Well, you have to admit that the Catholic Church has brought all of this negative attention on itself by being so mean and secretive." This often comes from people who apparently have, for whatever reason, an axe to grind with the Catholic Church and who are of the opinion that simply being Catholic is an offense to reason and humanity. As a former anti-Catholic fundamentalist myself, I am very familiar with the old and tired arguments about how big, secretive, nasty, powerful, and deceptive the Catholic Church was/is.

What I eventually learned was that I was mistaking my gross ignorance of Catholicism and Church history as evidence of some giant conspiracy theory. In other words, the Church must have lots of secrets since I didn't know much about it. Then I made the stunning decision (duh!) to actually read Church history (as written by Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians), early Church writings, gnostic writings, official Church documents, and works of Catholic theology. Yes, there have been many bad Catholics and many bad deeds done in the name of the Catholic Church, which is often different than those acts being supported by the Catholic Church. Fair enough. What I found is that the Catholic Church, more than any other religious institution, has been willing to acknowledge the sins committed by sons and daughters of the Church. Every group has sinners within their ranks; but those groups shouldn't be judged solely by the sinners, but also by those who live and fulfill the mission of the group (also known, within the Catholic contexts,  as saints). After all, if the presence of evil deeds is a good reason to do away with the Catholic Church, it's a good enough reason to do away with all of humanity, regardless of race, color, or creed.

But, sadly, none of this matters to those who are convinced that the Catholic Church has done little but terrorize, oppress, plunder, deceive, manipulate, control, and even murder throughout two thousand years of history (or 1700 years, if you want to believe that Constantine created the Catholic Church, a belief apparently shared, oddly enough, by Dan Brown and Tim LaHaye). Yesterday I was interviewed on a radio program on a large Seattle-area station. One of the two hosts explained he really liked TDVC because it provided a history of Christianity that was different from "99.9%" of the information people are usually given.  He insisted  the Catholic Church  deserved to be portrayed negatively in TDVC because "that's how the Church was." After all, the Church has controlled "the story"of Jesus since the beginning, so isn't it time that people heard a different version? The issue at hand, it seemed, was not one of truth, but of options: I want a story that I like and that works for me. One  problem, I replied, is that Brown's version isn't supported by any evidence and his assertions are often contradictory or go against his supposed sources (e.g., the appeal to gnostic "gospels" for a Jesus who is human only). Which then led to the host launching another question:

• "But isn't it true that we really can't know what happened in the first century? After all, we really don't have any reliable evidence about Jesus, do we?" This is the height of irony (or even cynicism) considering it is usually uttered after a litany of "facts" have been given about the early Church: it destroyed secret gospels, hated Mary Magdalene, oppressed women, was all about political power, etc., etc. So the only established facts about the first few centuries of Christianity are all negative? How convenient. How unconvincing. But this, I think, may be one of the most damaging consequences of the Coded Craziness: the conviction that there is nothing convincing about the historical evidence, especially not if might be in favor of the Catholic Church. In the words of a certain Jennifer "reviewing" our book over at the Barnes & Noble site (and "who is still looking for answers"):

Even thought the book was a work of FICTION, some things ring true & have been proven so. The fact that paganism was around before Christianity came along is true. The fact that the Catholic church did smear the face of it to promote more to Christianity is true. Pagan temples were remade to be Christian churches. As for the rest, NO ONE knows the truth. Who knows if Jesus was married or not, no one can know first hand since it was so long ago. All we have to go on are books written by us (man/woman) alike, and we only write it as WE see it to be. This is the reason they are called BELIEFS. Since religion & information has been passed down through the centuries, the truth has been watered down. Everyone has their own beliefs, & we shouldnt put people down just because their's conflicts with ours.

There you go: No one knows the truth. And that's the truth. But, we do know that Christianity is horrible. End of story. And for many readers, TDVC will be the end of the story. And that is a shame, a problem, and a challenge.