Hanks blasts and Howard has his cake and eats it too...

From the "This is London" section of The Evening Standard:

But Oscar-winner Hanks said objectors to The Da Vinci Code are taking the film too seriously, telling the Evening Standard: "We always knew there would be a segment of society that would not want this movie to be shown.

"But the story we tell is loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense.

"If you are going to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this, you'd be making a very big mistake.

"It's a damn good story and a lot of fun... all it is is dialogue. That never hurts."

Ah yes, the ol' "it's just a fun story" routine. Of course, Hanks is correct in saying the story is "loaded" with "hooey," but would it be as much fun if the story was about how the Holocaust was an elaborate lie meant to bolster the power of Jews, or that Islam was founded in order for Mohammed to kill and pillage whenever he desired? No. But if the story involves assertions that the Catholic Church was founded for purely political ends by Constantine, hates and kills women, is fun by cynical and power hungry old men, and is built on bloodshed, murder, and violence—well, that's different. It's "fun"!

And then there is Ron Howard, also having it both ways in this lengthy interview found on INQ7.net:

I’m a filmmaker, a storyteller—and so freedom of artistic expression is at the center of my whole, my reason to exist. I fully respect and understand any audience member’s choice not to see a movie. But to deny other people who may find value in the story the right to see it, that’s kind of militant. I don’t advocate militancy in enforcing or defending belief systems because I think that leads to oppression, violence and hatred. I wouldn’t support or advocate that. Individual choice? Absolutely.

The other thing that I would say is that no one has actually seen the film. I don’t have it ready. [Until today] I couldn’t even show it to folks like you, whom I’d like to show it to. So the fact is that anyone who is talking about the film—let’s be honest—they’re utilizing the high profile status of the story and the publicity that’s swirling around the movie to make sure their own ideas are heard. That’s okay, too, but let’s understand as well what that is.

Are you glad there is so much controversy surrounding this movie, or is it bothering you?

I have mixed feelings about it because it’s not my nature at all to be confrontational, combative or provocative. I chose this story because I thought that many of the ideas in this novel were very thought-provoking and very intriguing. As a storyteller, I thought about it in great detail and decided that it was a great way to take a work of fiction that many people would want to see on film and actually generate discussion and debate. So ultimately, I feel that’s a very healthy thing. When fiction stimulates the mind and results in a dialogue between [groups of] people, that’s a good thing.

From the Philippines to the Vatican and even in a newspaper in Norway, there’s a lot of discussion going on about the book and movie. How aware are you of all these?

The Internet is a fabulous thing; if the studio tries to hide something, I find it anyway (laughter). I have a sense of how people are responding. I’ve had many conversations with Dan Brown who has been aware of the novel stirring a similar kind of controversy for years. I get back to the fact that, while I am not the kind of person who seeks out controversy, I am not surprised that the story and the premise of this particular thriller are stirring that kind of discussion and that articles are being written about it, pro and con.

One of the things that good fiction has to offer from time to time is that it will stimulate some debate and discussion. It’s part of the fun of going to see it. I hope the movie is exciting and people who don’t want to have a care in the world would want to go and watch the mystery unfold in an interesting way. I hope they enjoy the movie. I think it works on a number of levels.

I just came back from Chile which, like the Philippines, is a predominantly Catholic country. Do you think the book and movie will shake people’s beliefs? Were you yourself affected? Did you learn something from reading the book or making the film?

First of all, I think we tend to underestimate the intelligence of readers and moviegoers when it comes to something like “The Da Vinci Code”—which is a novel, a work of fiction—and the way they respond to it. People are far more capable of reading a novel or seeing a movie and making some really healthy, constructive decisions themselves as to what is thought-provoking and what isn’t, and [what is] part of interesting entertainment.

What I myself have learned, I am not going to reveal. But… working on this film was sort of a life-changing experience for me on a lot of levels. Spending that time in Europe, learning about the history and looking back at the story theologically was fascinating. I am not going to tell you my conclusions because that’s personal, but it’s the kind of story that does create really interesting conversation. What’s [useful] to acknowledge is that human beings have not solved all the mysteries of the world. That doesn’t take away from our need for faith because some questions will never be answered. [For me] that comes back to a need for faith and that’s a pure thing. [emphasis added]

Hmmm...so I take that Howard is saying that the novel is thought-provoking, but it's just a story. It should stimulate debate, but it's just fun. Besides, we really can't know what really happened. Even though Dan Brown makes all sorts of definite (and definitely false) assertions about what happened in the early centuries of the Church. Hey, why not apply this sort of logic to other controversial topics and make a movie about how the Holocaust didn't happen, or how Jews run the world from an office in Toledo, Ohio, or how aliens now make up 32.675% of the population? After all, those things are "thought-provoking" and fun and entertaining, aren't they? And how do we really know, anyhow? Well? Huh?

Finally, some food for thought from the Catholic League:

Brown, and the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, are emblematic of a deceitful genre of writers, producers and directors. For example, in the 1970s, Alex Haley gave us Roots, a book which purported to be an accurate account of slavery; it became the basis of an enormously popular television series. Not only was Haley sued for plagiarism by white and black authors—and forced to settle out of court—he admitted taking considerable liberties in weaving his tale: When pressed to provide historical evidence for his book, Haley replied that it was "faction"—part fact and part fiction.

Oliver Stone's "JFK" was a conspiracy theory about the Kennedy assassination made for the big screen. What made it particularly despicable was the release of study guides for classroom use; they were funded by Warner Brothers and distributed to 13,000 high school and college history teachers.

Steven Spielberg's "Amistad," a movie about slave traders and the early American judicial system, was the subject of a lawsuit for plagiarism. After Spielberg won that round, he was blasted by historians for ripping off the public: his studio sent study guides to 18,000 college and 2,000 high school educators. The movie was criticized for being nothing more than propaganda, and the study guides were denounced for being exploitative.

We don't expect there will be any study guides to accompany Ron Howard's adaptation of Brown's hoax, but that hardly resolves the problem. On the movie's website, there is a clip with a voice-over saying, "We are in the middle of a war. One that has been going on forever. To protect a secret so powerful that if revealed it would devastate the very foundations of mankind." It ends with a foreboding remark about this being "the biggest cover up in human history.

Speaking for the Vatican, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a friend of Pope John Paul II, last year labeled the book "anti-Catholic." John Calley, the film's co-producer, last year branded the movie "conservatively anti-Catholic." Is it any wonder why the Catholic League isn't taking this lying down?

Comments

[Project9]

A movie about the Jews faking the holocaust and then taking over the world with the help of an alien race that now makes 30% of the population? Great idea, that sure is going to be the movie of the century ... how is it possible that such a creative mind has to be debunking fiction to put bread on the table? That makes me sad, such a talent.

The only problem with your idea is that there's plenty of evidence on the holocaust so people won't buy your story as easy as they did with Brown's. The Catholic Church in the other hand is seen by many as a sexist organization, full of secrets and as an institution that was capable of going to great lenghts to get and mantain power over the masses. Brown exploited this opportunity and maybe that's why he's sold more than 30 million copies of his book.

[Carl Olson]

"....Brown exploited this opportunity..."

Excellent choice of words. Exploited. Exactly.

[MLC]

"The Catholic Church in (sic) the other hand is seen by many as a sexist organization, full of secrets and as an institution that was capable of going to great lengths to get and mantain (sic) power over the masses".

Which is precisely why we need such books such as "The Da Vinci Hoax" to tell the truth about the Catholic Church.

[Project9]

MLC books as The Da Vinci Hoax won't change the image the Catholic Church has projected over the years.

[MLC]

"MLC books as The Da Vinci Hoax the image The Catholic Church has projected over the years".

You mean the false image projected by the media.

[Cristina A. Montes]

"The Catholic Church in (sic) the other hand is seen by many as a sexist organization, full of secrets and as an institution that was capable of going to great lengths to get and mantain (sic) power over the masses".

"Books as The Da Vinci Hoax won't change the image the Catholic Church has projected over the years."

Those who visit this blog regularly would notice that my comments tend to laud efforts like "The Da Vinci Hoax" that correct lies about the Church. WHat motive would I have to be on the side of the CHurch if it's a sexist organization? Does "Cristina" sound like a man's name? Or could it be that women are generally stupid?

[Kathryn Grover]

I can't agree with everything Tom Hanks says, but I do appreciate the fact that he's taking the whole thing with a grain of salt and telling his fans to do the same. This is a far cry from a certain "fact" page.

People always miss the blatantly obvious. I tell ya, as an art major, I sat through more than my share of art history classes. I watched slide after slide of the Virgin Mary until my eyeballs were ready to fall out. If you ask me, there were far more Virgins than Crucifixes. I don't see how anyone could accuse the Catholics of not honoring women when such an obvious debunk is sitting on pedestals in front of nearly every cathedral. Not to mention that her image on a slice of toast goes for a hefty price on eBay...

But maybe I'm just a stupid Methodist and am not in a position to know about the complex conspiracies and cover-ups? :P

Keep it up, Carl.

[MLC]

Kathryn: therein lies the irony. We Catholics can't win! On the one hand we have some folks accusing us of honouring, if not worshipping, Mary more than Jesus; on the other we have Mr Brown accusing the Catholic Church of erradicating the sacred feminine! I despair, I really do.

[Kathryn Grover]

I'm really starting to feel for you guys... Getting picked on for not doing the one thing you were accused of doing for centuries.

[El Perro Patron]

Waa waa waa! You and your religion are such victims. Do you need a tissue? When are you going to get over this Professional Victim role of yours and get a real job, Carl?