It turns out that Catholicism didn't end when The Da VInci Code came out last weekend, but it does give us time to reflect and wonder about the vitriolic reaction from the Catholic Church about the movie. What all of the hoopla boils down to is the fact that collectively, the church was too uncomfortable and too vocal to not wonder about its motivationsthe church doth protests too much, methinks.

At the same time, it could be the theological equivalent of playground "he said/she said" with the media playing the part of Nellie Oleson.

The problem with the "Da Vinci Code" story as controversy is that the outraged side just refuses to play ball. The primary victims of the foolishness committed in the book and continued on screen are the Catholic Church and Opus Dei, a deeply conservative and rather unwholesomely secretive organization of mainly lay believers given to education, hard work and a couple of creepy spiritual practices. Brown and his cinematic confreres have produced a cartoon that depicts the church as deceitful, corrupt and conspiratorial and Opus as murderous, corrupt and conspiratorial. These are moral, though thankfully not legal, slanders at least not yet, though you never know what this desperate Congress will do.

The media, always mindful of the pathos to be wrung from a good auto-da-fé, have zealously circled the globe searching for outraged Catholics. So far, what they've got are a Nigerian cardinal in the Vatican curia, who grumbled that somebody, somewhere ought to take legal action, the urging of a boycott in China, a ban in Manila and a couple of Indian Catholics who threatened to set themselves on fire outside a theater when the film opens there. (They didn't; apparently, somebody reminded them that the church they're defending inconveniently forbids suicide.)

For its part, Opus Dei convened a team of "crisis managers" under the direction of its "global communications director," Juan Manuel Mora, and charged them according to the Wall Street Journal with converting the film's release into "a marketing opportunity." They overhauled the organization's website, www.opusdei.org, which last year received 3 million hits, as opposed to 674,000 the year before Brown's book came out.

It is understandable, to a certain extent, that the media would have to fan the flames of controversy, but if your organization actually has a "global communications director," something's amiss.

Open_Wound

San Francisco, CA

May 2005

MAY 22, 2006 04:39 PM

Nellie Oleson. That's damn funny.

I have a vague recall of something like, "there's no such thing as bad publicity". And I agree that the media are most likely to be at least partly responsible for fanning the flames.

Then again, it's just an old theory about people who may or may not have existed 2,000 years ago, turned into a mediocre novel, then into a movie starring an actor who is this day's Jimmy Stewart (and I don't necessarily mean that as a compliment).

History is written by the victors.

Nokturn

United Kingdom

April 2006

MAY 22, 2006 04:57 PM

Open_Wound said:
I have a vague recall of something like, "there's no such thing as bad publicity".

Yeah, I heard today applications to join Opus Dei had gazillionified since the film opened.
Everybody wants to be a homicidal albino monk.

But to be fair, the church has a right to make thier opinions felt. This is, after all, a democracy, and the film does, after all, portray them as... well, homicidal.
I think if somebody made a film about homicidal Buddhist monks I'd complain...
No actually I'd clap with one hand, smirk and hope they don't cast Steven Seagal in the lead role, but I'd have a right to complain.
The fact that nothing the church had to say made any difference to the release and success of the film probably says a lot about the church's level of influence these days.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 by Nokturn]

PhLaXuS

Fort Lauderdale, FL

November 2005

MAY 22, 2006 06:37 PM

In the end, it's people's 'religion' which becomes incenced. Spiritual people understand how unnecessary it is to even be bothered by such things...This is sometimes mistaken for a lack of belief. we all must choose our battles and some are just too damn stupid.

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

MAY 22, 2006 06:43 PM

Nokturn said:
I think if somebody made a film about homicidal Buddhist monks I'd complain...

Kill Bill?

Kaziklu

Canada

November 2004

MAY 22, 2006 08:08 PM

You know I find it funny that the Church has to tell people that the book is a work of fiction. First off... read a Brown Novel, or just the "facts" in one.. they are laughable, the Movie is a work of fiction, as it the book.. it's Non-Fiction, it's sold as Non-Fiction... let it be.. forget about The Da Vinci Code, and go rent National Treasure. Dan Brown is a hack writer the writes fiction based on highly distorted information and claims it's "based on facts" The Da Vinici Code (and his other novels) are total works of fiction... only stupid people will think that the book is based on accurate facts. One just has to check his "facts" so see he is using his "claims" to bring about increased sales.. through free publicity.

Just ignore him....

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

MAY 22, 2006 08:46 PM

Kaziklu said:
You know I find it funny that the Church has to tell people that the book is a work of fiction. First off... read a Brown Novel, or just the "facts" in one.. they are laughable, the Movie is a work of fiction, as it the book.. it's Non-Fiction, it's sold as Non-Fiction... let it be.. forget about The Da Vinci Code, and go rent National Treasure. Dan Brown is a hack writer the writes fiction based on highly distorted information and claims it's "based on facts" The Da Vinici Code (and his other novels) are total works of fiction... only stupid people will think that the book is based on accurate facts. One just has to check his "facts" so see he is using his "claims" to bring about increased sales.. through free publicity.

Just ignore him....

Do you think he made all that stuff up or do you think his sources are bullshit?

ikcsmiley

Asheville, NC

July 2003

MAY 22, 2006 08:56 PM

Clov said:

Do you think he made all that stuff up or do you think his sources are bullshit?

Alot of the stuff that was once seen as fact (like 20 years ago) is now known as bs (as almost any "Real DVC" documentary on A&E, History Channel, Discovery Channel, or and major network that has airin the past year has shown)

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

MAY 22, 2006 09:16 PM

IKCSmiley said:

Clov said:

Do you think he made all that stuff up or do you think his sources are bullshit?

My point was that Brown wasn't just pulling stuff out of his ass. It's based on research. Whether that research is bullshit or not is not what I was getting at.

PhLaXuS

Fort Lauderdale, FL

November 2005

MAY 23, 2006 06:06 PM

I think they need to move the disclaimer at the end of the movie to the very beginning: '...Any resemblance between the characters herein and real persons living or otherwise is purely coincidental...'.