The Da Vinci Code
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
A murder in the Louvre sets off a quest to find answers to a historical question from 2000 years previous, in this adaptation of the popular novel. Much religious speculation ensues...Opinion:
As I write this (January 2007), it's entirely possible that I was the absolute last person in the entire country not to have read "The Da Vinci Code" or seen the movie until this last week. (Somehow, though, life went on for me...) As usual, this means I'm behind the times in sharing my thoughts on the 'controversies' surrounding the book/movie, but let's press forward anyway.
As a movie, in and of itself, "The Da Vinci Code" is unremarkable--you can find many other 'thrillers' with more thrills, dramas with better dialogue, and mysteries with more clever plots. Structurally, the movie's two 'surprises' are almost laughably predictable long before they are revealed, and the basic premise of the movie contains one huge plot hole that pretty much invalidates the entire film--which I'm surprised has not gotten more discussion amid the controversy. (Avoiding spoilers is probably useless at this point, but I'll save the discussion for that below...)
I suspect that the book/movie owes pretty much all of its popularity to its religious nature, specifically the historical speculation presented as fact that has caused most of the controversy in the first place. Take all of that away and you probably have a bargain-basement book (or direct-to-video movie) that would have disappeared into obscurity within a couple weeks of release. Take away 'religion' from the "The Da Vinci Code" and it would become imminently forgettable.
But, of course, take away 'religion' from "The Passion of the Christ" and you have a movie about some guy who gets scourged and crucified which no one would care about. The point is "The Da Vinci Code" IS about religion--and thus we should discuss the religious elements at face value, while admitting that the movie doesn't really have anything else going for it.
How one views "The Da Vinci Code", more so than most other movies, may depend entirely on one's own personal religious beliefs. A Catholic who watches "DVC" would have vastly different feelings than, say, a Mormon, Protestant, or someone irreligious.
For the Catholic perspective, we might as well turn to the always excellent analysis at DecentFilms.com, where Steven Greydanus writes:
Is "The Da Vinci Code" anti-Catholic? Well, if it isn’t, then we must simply conclude that no such thing as anti-Catholicism exists, or at least that no anti-Catholic movie has ever been made.It's easy to see why "The Da Vinci Code" is anti-Catholic (and you should read the whole article for the full view from the Catholic side, but it's important to note that "The Da Vinci Code" could NOT at the same time be called an "anti-Mormon" movie or, generally speaking, even "anti-Christian"--although this, of course, depends on the personal flavor of Christianity you ascribe to. "Da Vinci Code" is only 'anti-insert-your-religion-here' if your religion happens to hold the very narrow subset of doctrine that is contradicted by "facts" from the movie.
Compare to the current debate on evolution: evolution and religion are not inherently incompatible--they only conflict if your religious interpretation of the Bible stakes out a strict subset of Bible literalism as truth that happens to contradict elements of evolutionary theory. As frequently noted on this site, there are a number of alternate interpretations that allow evolution and creationism to co-exist together as 'truth'. Under any such alternate interpretation, then, teaching evolution in schools becomes no more damaging to one's faith than teaching interpretative dance.
Put simply, the moving freight train of "The Da Vinci Code" only threatens the foundations of one's church if said church just happens to be built on the tracks directly in front of it. (Those of us on the side can just wave to it as it travels by, without worry...)
As a Latter-Day Saint, I can recognize that Catholicism almost always gets the brunt end of the stick in movies. (Quick: think of the last Catholic priest you saw in a movie that was a positive character. Compare to, say, the last gay couple you've seen in a movie...) As a Latter-Day Saint, though, it's hard to get "offended-by-proxy", especially since the doctrinal difficulties presented by the events in "The Da Vinci Code"--even if they were true--are based purely on Catholic-specific interpretation, which my church (among others) has already considered to be non-Biblical and mistaken for years. We've stepped out from in front of that train years ago...
Having nothing personal at stake in the 'truthfulness' of "The Da Vinci Code" (in comparison to most Catholics) allows Mormons a 'buffer' of sorts for viewing the movie--allowing Church members to accept the movie as (mostly) harmless entertainment without getting wrapped up in personal issues. Too bad without the controversy, the movie from an entertainment perspective doesn't leave us much to be excited about.
Content Analysis: (PG-13 2-2-3-0 on the Baron's PSVD scale)
"The Da Vinci Code" earns its PG-13 rating, with some violence scenes and a little profanity--but not to an extreme extent. If it's 'offensive' at all, it would be from it's religious nature, as noted. The DecentFilms article linked above makes some other good points about the film's 'bias' against early Christians in its account of history, which are well taken and I'll just point you back to that article without repeating any of them.
It's interesting that "Da Vinci Code" departs from most other mainstream movies by having no hint of romantic chemistry between the male and female leads. Most other movies which feature an attractive, single hero, and an attractive, single heroine would simply have put them 'together' without thinking about it--possibly throwing in a superfluous sex scene in the middle as well. Give "Da Vinci Code" credit for a little...well, 'originality' in this regard...
In-depth Analysis:
The fundamental problem with "The Da Vinci Code", which few seem to be talking about:
(1) There's no proof that the person in the tomb is really Mary Magdalene. DNA tests may prove that Sophie is related to the person in the tomb, but not who the person in the tomb really was.
And even if you could prove it was Mary, you have a much bigger problem:
(2) Being related to Mary Magdalene does not prove you're Jesus Christ's descendant. Because, obviously, even if Mary and Jesus were married, there's no reason why Mary couldn't have had children with someone else after the crucifixion. Tying a modern-day person's DNA to Mary's is meaningless--unless you have Christ's DNA, there's no proof you're Christ's descendant, even if you could prove Jesus and Mary were married in the first place (...which you can't). Isn't this basic Forensics 101?
This hole makes the entire plot--centering around the 'danger' to the Catholic Church--to be pretty laughable. Were they to formally announce Sophie's ancestry and produce DNA tests tying her to the tomb, Catholic officials would just yawn and say: "Okay, you're Mary's descendant... So what? You're obviously not Christ's descendant because Christ was not married to Mary, and you have no proof otherwise." Which, of course, they don't... There is no 'smoking gun' here that would cause the "utter collapse" of the Catholic Church as put forth by the movie, making the supposed 'tension' within the film somewhat silly.
The dialogue within the film doesn't make much sense, either: proving Christ was married and had children would be damaging from a Catholic perspective only because Catholic doctrine says he was celibate. The movie, however, phrases the danger in terms of "proving that Christ was human"...as if that's meaningful in and of itself. We already know Christ was (part) human--that's never been in dispute! In His mortal ministry, Jesus had a physical body of flesh and blood--He ate, drank, slept, bled when wounded, and was subject to death (albeit on His own terms), just like any 'normal' person. Jesus having the capability of fathering children as part of His 'humanness' (which seems natural to assume) seems decidedly non-controversial. Is there a scripture that says Christ couldn't procreate? One can certainly argue that He didn't marry and have kids as part of His ministry--but arguing that had He done so, this somehow proves He was not the Son of God is a stretch.
From an LDS perspective, does the idea of Christ being married (with or without kids) affect our view of the Savior? In reality...very little. Since in the LDS tradition, marriage is honorable for all--and there's no inherent sin in having sex as in other religious traditions--there would be no 'sin' in having a wife, therefore any new revelation that Christ and Mary were really husband and wife would have no ultimate effect on the Savior's divinity or ultimate mission. It would, in reality, cause no more faith-shaking effect for Mormons than proof that Jesus was left-handed.
In LDS theology, Jesus could have been married and it would not have mattered...but of course this doesn't mean He was married in His mortal ministry. There is circumstantial evidence for Christ being married: the similarites to the 'water-turning-into-wine' party to a native wedding reception (and since Jesus and his mother Mary were hosting...), and most obviously, the fact that Mary Magdalene was the first person Jesus appeared to after His resurrection. ("Touch me not, I have not yet ascended to the Father" said the Savior at the time, implying she might not have been trying to just shake His hand...)
Some Church members take the view that the LDS plan of salvation, including exaltation within an eternal family, provide circumstantial evidence for Jesus having to be married (either to Mary, or someone else). I don't think so... The requirement for a spouse for exaltation--assuming that the rules apply to a member of the Godhead the same as everyone else--probably means Jesus would be married eventually, but there's no reason that needed to be while on Earth. There are any number of alternate circumstances that do not require Jesus to have been married before the crucifixion: He was married before His earthly ministry, He was married after ascending to the Father, He will be married in the future, after the Second Coming. There's no way to know...and no real reason to know, since under LDS theology, Christ's marital status is a non-issue--a irrelevant trivia question in our eternal progression, not unlike discussion of "Heavenly Mother".
Random Notes & Comments:
(1) As an example of a film with the Mormon/Catholic roles as viewers reversed, there's the upcoming "September Dawn" which purports to explain the role Brigham Young and the early Saints had in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In this case, a Catholic viewer could care less about whether the 'facts' in the movie are true, since they weren't going to accept him as a prophet of God either way, unlike a Mormon viewer who might have more at stake.
