Da Vinci Hoax Blog

How is the movie different from the novel?

I've been meaning to write a bit on this question, but have been spared some of the time and effort by Greg Wright, who wrote this short but insightful review of TDVC movie when it first came out (oh so many days ago). Wright (who is not a Catholic, btw) observed the following:

Earlier today, MSNBC carried an AP story which reported that Ron Howard's movie "subtly softens" the material of Dan Brown's book. The Associated Press couldn't have it more wrong.

Yes, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon does find some new dialogue in his mouth courtesy of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, words that at least play devil's advocate with Ian McKellen's Leigh Teabing. But in the end, the cinematic Langdon becomes much more of a true believer than does his literary counterpart.

Three major innovations introduced by Howard's movie:

First, his film portrays Opus Dei and the "shadow council" of the Vatican as really being in cahoots, really conspiring to kill people in the name of God, really trying to supress intellectual inquiry, really turning its back on truth and righteousness. In short, Ron Howard turns the Catholic Church into a genuine villain. Shameful.

Second, the movie further fabricates ancient history, making the charge that history is unclear whether the Roman Empire or the Christians were the first agressors. Please!

Third, and most importantly, the film invests significant energy in validating the Magdalene myth. While in Brown's book Marie Chauvel basically leaves the existence of the Sangreal documents and Magdalene's bones to the world's imagination, Howard has Langdon and Neveu discover plenty of material evidence to back up the claim.

Where's the mystery that feeds the soul? Where's the adventure? You'll have to find it in the book, I'm afraid. There's no codebreaking here, just polemic.

These are excellent points — but they were missed (or ignored) by most other reviewers of the movie. For many reviewers, the unforgiveable sin of Howard's flick is that it is ponderous, boring, silly. But Wright is absolutely correct that movie, just like the novel, is much more about polemics than storytelling. Which is one reason the storytelling is so ponderous, boring, silly. Which, happily, blunts some of the polemics, but hardly exonerates the filmmakers from going to such lengths to disdainfully (or is it "dis-Dan-fully"?) attack the Catholicism, historical fact, and commonsense.

Posted by Carl E. Olson on Friday, June 02, 2006 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

I saw TDVC and I almost lost my faith...

... in decent screenwriting and filmmaking. One word: pathetic. If I were Dan Brown I would sue Sony and Ron Howard for doing what I thought was impossible: making a movie that was worse than the novel, which is like Isaiah Thomas taking over the Knicks and making that team even worse. Hey, it can be done, but it takes a special sort of, um, genius to do so.

Anyhow, sports comparisons aside, Steve Greydanus's review of The Da Vinci Code is excellent and right on the money. The changes made to the movie do not, as he rightly points out, "soften" the anti-Catholicism, but merely make it that much more insidious. I nearly laughed aloud a couple of times when Langdon and Teabing disagreed about this or that historical point -- and both were wildly wrong. The not-so-funny aspect of such exchanges is that some viewers will see this is as an example of serious debate between two scholars, but will never bother to see if the "competing" perspectives offered have any basis in real scholarship.

The movie is painfully long and dreadfully self-important. It is, in fact, very much like the novel, which is a poorly written, overwrought, pseudo-intellectual piece of anti-Catholic rot. In The Da Vinci Hoax, Sandra Miesel and I offered a description of the novel that fits the movie just as well: "The Da Vinci Code is custom-made fiction for our time: pretentious, posturing, self-serving, arrogant, self-congratulatory, condescending, glib, illogical, superficial, and deviant." Thus, it's irritating to read so many reviews (not Steve's, of course) insisting that the movie lacks the magic, charm, wit, excitement, intensity, blah, blah, blah of the novel. Poppycock. The movie simply reveals many of the serious artistic flaws of the novel; it hardly could avoid doing so, unless the screenplay had completely departed from the novel. It seems to me that most people today make more demands of what they see in a theater than they make of what they read on the page. Part of that, I'm sure, is because many fans of TDVC don't read many books, or, to be more precise, many good books.

The movie, like the novel, takes its message very, very seriously. This is blatantly obvious in the final 15 minutes, when Langdon (Tom Hanks) yammers endlessly about how the most important thing is what you believe -- not whether or not it is true, good, or right. While deviating in exact language from the novel, this is essentially Brown's message (as he as expressed in interviews): we must be able to create our own truth and not have truth shoved down our throats by nasty old men who are selling us the lie called Christianity. This is a misleading and false choice, of course, but one that plays very well in today's culture.

Finally, I figured (as did nearly everyone else) that the opening weekend would be huge for this movie. And it was. But I also thought that its numbers would substantially decrease after the first weekend. However, I wonder now if I was wrong in thinking so. Like the novel, the movie will continue to attract attention. The only advantage held by the novel, so to speak, was that it came out of the blue; the movie has been met with a flood of criticism and response, which has, to some extent, changed perceptions of the movie, if only to cause nearly every review on the planet to condescendingly point out that it's "just a movie" and "just entertainment." And why is it so entertaining to millions of people? Well, it's not because of the writing, the characters, or the plot. In large part it's because many people want to be told that it's alright to reject and bash Catholicism, and feel as though they are smart and sophisticated in doing so. However, if, as I think is the case, people do take their movies more seriously then their reading material, perhaps the movie will end up sinking quickly.

I plan to post a few more thoughts about the movie and reaction to it in the next couple of days. Again, Steve's review is an excellent and accurate assessment of the movie.

Posted by Carl E. Olson on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (2)

Sandra and I are interviewed by Ankle Biting Pundits

The interview can be read here.

Posted by Carl E. Olson on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 01:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Meeting The Real Mary Magdalene | An Interview with Amy Welborn | May 12, 2006



Meeting The Real Mary Magdalene | An Interview with Amy Welborn | May 12, 2006

Amy Welborn is a prolific author and widely read blogger. She holds an MA in Church History from Vanderbilt University and has taught theology in Catholic high schools, and served as a parish Director of Religious Education.

Her writings have appeared in many periodicals, including First Things, Commonweal,Writer's Digest, Liguorian, Catholic Digest and Catholic Parent. Her books include the Prove It series, The Loyola Kids' Book of Saints, The Loyola Kids' Book of Heroes, and Here. Now. Two of her most recent books are De-Coding Da Vinci and De-Coding Mary Magdalene, both published by Our Sunday Visitor.

IgnatiusInsight.com recently spoke to Welborn about her books addressing the claims of The Da Vinci Code, especially the many assertions made about Mary Magdalene.

Continue reading...

Posted by Carl E. Olson on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 09:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Recently interviewed and quoted...

... by a couple of very different websites. The first is the Sharper Than Dull blog, operated by the irreverent and quirky David S. Titus, who sent me the most interesting and fun questions I've been asked in a while. And so I was able to have some fun with it, poking fun at nearly everything and everyone, including myself:

David — The first question: As a reader of A Gaggle of Deer TM, it is quite evident that you are well educated, where did you study?


Carl E. Olson — Like Dan Brown, I went to high school. However, he attended some fancy private school in New Hampshire (which, I'm told, is in New England. So, which is it: New Hampshire or New England?), while I attended school in the wilds of Montana. There I learned how to hunt, fish, tie
 knots, tie fly fishing lures, and avoid ties that go around one's neck. I don't want to get into specifics (out of legal concerns, of course), but I graduated from high school in less than ten years, which put me in the median range of young men between 15-26 who were raised in small towns in western Montana.

Read the entire interview.

The second piece is a column by Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy In Media Report, which is based on an interview that I gave to Kincaid a few weeks ago:

The Oprah-promoted James Frey book, A Million Little Pieces, turned out to be fiction described as fact. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, a full frontal assault on the basic tenets of Christianity, has been sold as fiction based on fact. And that is why the major media should scrutinize this novel that is being turned into a major motion picture.

Carl E. Olson, co-author of the book, The Da Vinci Hoax, says, "There is no such thing as just a novel or just fiction from the standpoint that even lightweight popular fiction has ways of influencing how we see the world and affects our perception of important and unimportant things. Fiction-if we broaden that to include television shows, sitcoms, movies-is probably the primary means by which most people today gain their understanding of big and small issues alike."

Read entire column.

Posted by Carl E. Olson on Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

DaVinciCrock blog summarizes the court case

Lewis Perdue, novelist and blogger, has been following the Coded Craziness from the beginning and has written a lot of helpful material about many aspects of the success of The Da Vinci Code. Last year he lost a lawsuit against Dan Brown; Perdue claimed that Brown plagiarised elements of two of his novels, Daughter of God, published in 2000 and The Da Vinci Legacy (1983). Since I am not a lawyer and am still trying to make sense of what constitutes plagiarism in the 21st century, I cannot say much about that case (I did glance through Perdue's novels. There are certainly similarities, as he has outlined in detail.) However, Perdue's blog DaVinciCrock has much to offer, including this fine summary of the court battle in London:

Other than Dan Brown confirming that I was correct about the James-Frey-like biographical fabrications over on Writopia, (and that the legions of books debunking DVC's historical, factual and religious errors were also correct) the testimony confirmed that:

• Dan did rely heavily on HBHG,
• He was well-coached for cross-examination and conveniently can't remember details or historical fact,
• There are contradictions between his statement and the Random House briefs in my case,
• Blythe and not he conducted what research there exists,
• Most of the well-hyped research consisted of pages of material copied from other authors and,
• Blythe is the real force,

Baigent & Leigh don't seem to have proven any specific infringements in the expression.

While I am pulling for B&L for purely psychological reasons, and while I do think that there are probably real infringements there, I do not think that B&L have proven their case.

I have to agree. That Brown relied heavily on HBHG is a no-brainer. But I doubt the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated enfringement of copyright (but, again, such things are so hazy and apparently  — nearly impossible? — hard to quantify...). Regardless, the trial has shown clearly that Brown is not a well-informed and diligent researcher as he has been so often touted by his publisher (who described TDVC as "... intricately layered with remarkable research and detail.") and many in the MSM. And his sources are, to put it kindly, dubious at best — unless you're the sort of person who entertains flat earth theories and would rather spend a vacation at Area 51 than Disneyland.

Posted by Carl E. Olson on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 08:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

The CODE goes to court: A running commentary

Readers who haven't visited IgnatiusInsight.com or the Insight Scoop blog might be interested in these posts about the lawsuit and trail in London involving two authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Dan Brown, and Brown's publisher, Doubleday. More posts about the trial coming soon...

   
• He copied. He didn't copy. He borrowed. He didn't borrow.
• Did Dan Brown do any of his own research? Any at all?
• The hero of The Da Vinci Code was inspired by...
• "I'm not much of a detail person. I like 'the big idea'."
• Brown acknowledges "reworking" passages, using ideas from HBHG
• Reader: Be like Jesus and stop fighting the Code
• Dan Brown: Resurrection, Maybe. Incarnation, No.
• Report: Judge tells Brown he is a "liar"
• The woman behind The Da Vinci Code
• Leonard da Vinci: Conflicted Christian or Passionate Pagan?
• Brown is "astounded" by plagiarism suit
• Tolerant Fan of the Code: "Throw eggs at those boycotting the movie.
• "Author Dan Brown got a date wrong in 'The Da Vinci Code'."

Posted by Carl E. Olson on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 07:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Welcome to the Da Vinci Hoax blog!

Over the next several weeks and months, Sandra Miesel and Carl Olson will be posting regular comments about what they call the "Coded Craziness" — everything related to the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, the soon-to-released movie based on that novel, and the incredible interest in the numerous ideas and claims found in both. For those who do not know, Sandra (bio) and Carl (bio) are co-authors of The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code (Ignatius Press, 2004), described by Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, as "the definitive debunking" of The Da Vinci Code's historical, theological, and artistic claims. This blog is a companion site to the DaVinciHoax.com site, which contains numerous articles, interviews, and free downloads, as well as extended excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax.

More coming very soon!

Posted by St. Ignatius of Loyola on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Recent Posts

  • The Cinematic Code is Dead
  • Atheist scholar: I dislike TDVC as much as Christians do. And here's why...
  • How is the movie different from the novel?
  • GodSpy: "How Dull the Con of Ron"
  • Ya think?
  • TDVC Movie: A Bungled (But Influential) Hate Crime
  • Who's right: The Da Vinci Code or The Da Vinci Hoax?
  • "What Do Christians Know?" | Carl E. Olson for Human Events Online
  • I saw TDVC and I almost lost my faith...
  • Who is historically illiterate?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Blog powered by Typepad

Books

Archives

  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006

Categories

  • Art and Architecture (3)
  • Books (70)
  • Current Affairs (63)
  • Da Vinci Code in Court (16)
  • Da Vinci Code Movie (39)
  • Dan Brown (47)
  • Early Christianity (25)
  • Emperor Constantine (1)
  • Errors in The Code (51)
  • Fiction/Literature (68)
  • Film (24)
  • Gnosticism (8)
  • Holy Blood, Holy Grail (15)
  • Jesus Christ (17)
  • Leonardo da Vinci (6)
  • Mary Magdalene (9)
  • Paganism: Old and New (9)
  • Religion (58)
  • Science (1)
  • Television (4)
  • The Da Vinci Code Novel (76)
  • The Holy Grail (4)
  • The Priory of Sion (5)
  • The Templar Knights (5)
  • Travel (6)
  • Web/Tech (9)
  • Weblogs (8)
See More