Re: Hanks for DaVinci code
I understand what you're saying, gollum. And that's fine. I'm not trying to criticize you for saying what you did. I wasn't even really answering you specifically except in that your comments triggered a train of thought in my mind. I'm just trying to analyze why this particular book, and by extension the film as well, is such a target. I think my point is that everyone and their brother are debunking (that's a word I hate, by the way) Brown's book all over the place, so much so that it seems like a person would have to have been living in a cave for the past year or two not to be aware of the issue. And my question is, why is everyone so concerned to correct this particular book, when there are so many other films and books that could benefit from the same treatment.
I don't know. To me, it's abundantly clear that most of what Brown tries to pass off as fact when he is interviewed about "The DaVinci Code" is actually a combination of historical misinterpretation, confabulation, and outright hoax. There are certainly other books and films out there that purport to tell a historical story but don't get it quite right or anywhere near right. Although I haven't seen it myself, I understand that the film "Pearl Harbor" that was out a few years ago is one of those. Apparently "A Beautiful Mind" (also directed, by the way, by Ron Howard) doesn't quite follow the the real life of John Nash. This became somewhat of a controversy as I recall, but only after the film was nominated for several Academy Awards. Lots of historical novels play fast and loose with the truth, by lack of research or by design. Very rarely does anyone comment on them.
Actually, I suppose the big deal about Brown's book is that he takes on a religious theme. But so what? If you read the four books of the bible that claim to set out parts of the life of Jesus (which is what "The DaVinci Code" talks about, after all, although in an oblique manner), you will find four very different accounts. There are literary reasons for this, but that is beyond the scope of this thread. My point in mentioning it is that people (outside of theological and biblical seminaries) are not really terribly concerned that there are contradictions there, or that there are controversies about the historical accuracy of those books. In my humble opinion, the religious authorities that appear on programs trying to discredit "The DaVinci Code" are shooting themselves in the foot by even bothering to comment, because those who actually believe that there are historical facts in Brown's book are only going to point to all of that shocked indignation as a sign that the religious establishment really is trying to hide some esoteric truth.
Look, I didn't think that Brown's book was all that great. I read it. It was mildly enjoyable for all the fact that it had plot holes you could drive a starship through. I had the most fun of all counting all the "facts" Brown cribbed from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". There were quite a lot of them. And when the film comes out I'll probably go see it, as I have enjoyed the other films I've seen that Ron Howard has directed. And I"ll take it for what it is, two hours or so of escapism that may be silly but is in the final analysis harmless. And I won't be keeping a scorecard on which "facts" are true and which are not.
