The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

iansales said:
Further, Brown has claimed in interviews that the book's premise is based upon "historical fact", a claim that has subsequently created an entire industry--all those "real" / "decoded" Da Vinci Code books, etc. :)
Click to expand...

I know - even "reputable" organisations like the BBC are creating "Da Vinci Code" documentaries to discuss it.

I think it's quite rare that a novel has got this much attention and scrutiny devoted to its construction, as opposed to its value as an entertaining story.
I'm undecided whether or not this is a good development or not :)
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

RE: The New Yorker article on The Da Vinci Code.

There are so many negatives in this article, I don't know where to begin. So I won't. It is so pro-conservative-thinking that it's not worth wasting time on. It's an intentional debunking with obvious mistakes. Anthony Lane should check his facts before publishing in the New Yorker.

The film and the book was not meant to "cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith." They are meant to provoke thought and thinking for oneself, something conservative religious traditionalists don't want us to do.

'Faith' is individual and personal, and no one's business but your own.

Think for yourself!

MJM
Author of 'Universal Tides: Barbed Wire Blues'
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I agree with Dan Brown. His novel is indeed based on "historical fact" and like all well-written stories, fact is exaggerated into "a good yarn."

One thing to think about is this: Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. In Jesus's time, all Rabbi's were expected to marry and have children. So it's quite normal that Jesus married and had children.

MJM
Author of 'Universal Tides: Barbed Wire Blues'
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

MJM said:
One thing to think about is this: Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. In Jesus's time, all Rabbi's were expected to marry and have children. So it's quite normal that Jesus married and had children.
Click to expand...

Did Jesus marry? We have no documentary proof that he did, and Biblical Israel was a well-documented period. But it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Did his wife and child travel to France and found the Merovingen dynasty? That's a bit of a stretch. And again, no proof has come to light supporting this.

Did the Priory of Sion, an organisation dedicated to preserving Jesus' bloodline, ever exist? That's a resounding no. It's been well-established for more than a decade that the Priory of Sion was a scam.

There's not much in the above that can be called "historical fact"...
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

iansales said:
Did Jesus marry? We have no documentary proof that he did, and Biblical Israel was a well-documented period. But it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.
Click to expand...
No, we don't have any "proof" that he married. But in actual fact, we don't really have any "proof" that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels even existed at all (contrary to popular belief), but I think that the point is that if Jesus were a Rabbi, then yes, it would be unusual for him not marry, and you'd have to provide some sort of evidence to show why he wouldn't.

I think the real issue about the whole thing is not really the divinity of Jesus, but the idea that the Biblical accounts cannot be trusted because of the way they have been manipulated to serve the early church's agenda.

If a Christian can't rely on the Bible, how can they rely on their salvation?:eek:
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

You asked: "Did his wife and child travel to France and found the Merovingen dynasty? That's a bit of a stretch. And again, no proof has come to light supporting this."

In those days, there was a well-travelled trading route from the Middle East to southern France, namely to Saint-Marie-de-la-Mare. It's not a stretch that a traveler paid passage on one of the trading ships and arrived in France. That is "historical fact." It happened daily.

I attended the annual festival there. Thousands of Gypsies arrive for a weekend of festivities. On the Sunday they parade to the sea two statues of the two Mary's from the small church. But more importantly, they also parade to the ocean a Black Madonna that is hidden in a chapel crypt below the church. This Black Madonna who is worshipped throughout Europe, represents Sara, the daughter of Mary of Magdalene and Jesus of Nazareth.

Fact of fiction? I don't know, but millions of Europeans think so.

It's time to open our minds and live outside the box of media propaganda. To think and research for ourselves.

MJM
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

To live outside the box of media propaganda would be to ignore The Da Vinci Code altogether.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I did not read the book, but I did see the movie and liked the story. I imagine the book is better, seeing as how that's always the case.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I aggree with Paradox with how well the film stayed to the book. It is one of the most faithful cinematic adaptations I have seen, and while there were some changes they were minor and didn't seem out of place. It is also one of the few books I have had trouble putting down once I began reading it. I had read a lot about the movie in the run up to its release and was actually quite anxious about it due to the fact that many aricles stated that Howard had changed the ending. However was pleased that the changes were subtle. I loved the way he superimposed the past events ontop of the current action. Also loved Tom Hanks as Langdon ... he wasn't the same as the person I had pictured in my head but he worked really well. Teabing's character in the movie also differed to the Teabing I had pictured when I read the book. I just felt sorry for Ian McKellen's Teabing in the movie.

I think the reason that the movie got bad reviews was because of the obvious religious issues surrounding the book. I can't really understand why the church is making such a fuss about it really if they know that everything Dan Brown said was false. In my opinion by making such a fuss they are making me question the real truth of the matter. But that's just my opinion.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

For me, the film was worse than the book. While the book goes by at such a pace you're left with no time for reflection (thankfully, for otherwise how could one miss the gaping plot holes to which the only suitable analogy is a black hole?), the movie drones on for such a long time you're left with alltogether too much time. And for the latter half of the movie, while squirming in my seat, I couldn't put it out of my mind how ludicrous the entire thing was. No doubt it's fiction, but there is also very little doubt it's bad fiction.

Not helping matters were the characters whose "cardboard-ness" was hardly understated by putting a human face to them. Not even Tom Hanks, whom I consider one of the better actors of today, couldn't rescue the sheer dullness that Robert Langdon embodies with his entire existence on the page, or on the celluloid. And though I love and respect Tatou as an actress, her english did very little to improve the situation (oddly enough I was thankful for her understated participation - all she did was, as someone else mentioned, to be a device for further, dreadful exposition. Or rather, a cricket bat used to maul the dead horse even more). McKellen seemed to be not only mocking his own character in a subtle way, but also the entire farcical business in which he enrolled himself for a sizeable paycheck.

Maybe the remake (for that is all Angels & Demons ever will be) will be better.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I read the book a couple of months back and thought it was ok. Not one of the best books I've ever read, but it was a good read nonetheless. I have heard nothing but bad things about the movie. Everything from the chemistry between the characters to bad acting to not doing the story justice. Probably way too much hype to begin with. I haven't seen the movie, nor do I plan to until it comes out on pay-per-view, then I'll watch it at home.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I just watched this movie, not expecting much and I got what I was expecting.

Fairly generic detective yarn with the odd obligatory tacked on 'action chase sequence'. For the person which earlier said that it was very faithful to the book - erm, you mean apart from the ending which was changed completely presumably??

Tom Hanks performance was bad. Really bad. In fairness you see none of the buildup or thought behind the solving of the riddles in the movie that you do in the book. In the movie it's "Tom Hanks looks quizzical for a few sceonds and then goes - Of course! It's so simple!" and then demonstrates how complex the answer actually is. :)

It's an 'ok' movie if I'm feeling generous but the book was actually far superior. The pacing in the novel was much more coherent rather than the jerky stop-start feel to the movie.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Winters_Sorrow said:
Tom Hanks performance was bad. Really bad. In fairness you see none of the buildup or thought behind the solving of the riddles in the movie that you do in the book. In the movie it's "Tom Hanks looks quizzical for a few sceonds and then goes - Of course! It's so simple!" and then demonstrates how complex the answer actually is. :)
Click to expand...

That is too funny... I thought, even in the book, that decoding a lot of the stuff would take the average cryptologist years to figure out, and yet the two of them seemed to figure it all out in a matter of days.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I've seen it today, and am even more glad I didn't read it.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Dianora said:
That is too funny... I thought, even in the book, that decoding a lot of the stuff would take the average cryptologist years to figure out, and yet the two of them seemed to figure it all out in a matter of days.
Click to expand...
Probably because they were supposed to figure the code out. Saunier intended his message to be understood by Langdon and his granddaughter.

I've seen it today, and am even more glad I didn't read it.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm going to ask the question again, because nobody answered last time.
What is so terribly bad about this book? (not directed at you Marky, because you've obviously decided not to read it - but since the issue has raised its head again...).As I mentioned before, I was absolutely hooked when I read it - couldn't put it down.

At the risk of being completely slammed - it strikes me that there's a lot of snobbery surrounding this book. I thought it was superb.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Paradox 99 said:
Ok, I'm going to ask the question again, because nobody answered last time.
What is so terribly bad about this book?
Click to expand...
The book was a complete page-turner, reading very rapidly, keeping you interested in the story and dealing with compelling subject matter. It's easy to see why so many people couldn't put it down.

It was also one of the most poorly written books I have read in years, with ear-blisteringly bad prose and stunningly awful dialogue. Some of the writing actually made me laugh out loud, it was so dreadful. I jotted down notes at one point referencing page numbers I wanted to go back and make fun of later. Sadly, I lost those notes, so I can't point out some of the very worst examples.

But dear lord, Dan Brown has a way with words. A delightfully awful way, that is.

Still, it was an engrossing page-turner. Can't take that away from it. A solid thriller.
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I don't think it's snobbery, I think that people who have read truly great stories by truly great authors get a little perturbed when a very mediocre story by a very mediocre author gets so much attention. I mean, now everyone's reading this book, and that's fine, but it seems a waste when, as shoegaze said, it really wasn't written very well at all.

I guess the argument could be made that as long as people are reading, period, it is a good thing... and that is true. I know people who don't read at ALL have picked this one up and can't put it down. But... as an avid reader myself, I tend to appreciate the finer things... such as a great plotline, character development, and maybe, just maybe, an unpredictable ending.

I mean... come ON... Newton? Apple? for crying out loud.... I'm sure damn glad they had Robert Langdon to figure that one out. Nobody else on earth could have put those two together...
 
Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I've read parts of the Code, Para, and it was so badly written at some times that I couldn't believe it. Yes, I can see why people loved it and couldn't stop reading it, but it doesn't mean it is well-written. As Shoegaze said, he writes such a bad proze it can easily make you laugh--if you weren't crying so loud, that is. I think this is especially bad to read for someone like me, because when I write I try to come up with this perfect sentence, and not with some lame proze about the way the garden looked. And then, we have to face it, even though he won his case, he didn't come up with the story, really. There are those ideas about the Holy Grail and he connected the dots. With some very flat characters I have to say. So, his part is to come up with an interesting connection, and he completly failed. I don't feel "anger" towards Brown, he wrote it, credit to him. Fair-earned money. No hard feelings. But, when people who know I love reading and recommend the Code, "because it's the best damn book ever written" I just need to scream and surpress the feeling to stab someone in the eye with a Samurai sword.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Anthony G Williams Film: The Da Vinci Code (2006) General Film Discussion 5
G Calling all Da Vinci Code fans in the UK! Promotions 0
N The Da Vinci Code Historical Fiction 17
McMurphy Da Vinci Code-"Last Supper' Debate Art 12
Leto More on Da Vinci - no Code History 3

Similar threads


Back
Top