"The Da Vinci Code": It's just a movie

"The Da Vinci Code" is just a movie. There, I said it. Is that really so hard an idea to grasp? A movie that, in fact, I haven't yet seen. Nonetheless, "The Da Vinci Code" is just a movie, just like "Road House" and "Cannonball Run II" before it.

It's a successful film based on a best-selling book, just like "The Firm" or the "Harry Potter" series. It stars the guy from "Bachelor Party", the girl from "Amelie" and Magneto from "X-Men". A work of fiction intended to do one thing better than any other: Make money.

That so many people can't wrap their heads around so simple an idea is a testament to how stupid our society has become. That thousands, maybe millions, consider "The Da Vinci Code" a direct threat to their faith speaks to a paranoia beyond my comprehension. It's just a movie, folks. Get over yourselves.

Driving to an area bookstore Saturday, I was greeted with the sight of a man hammering signs into the ground on busy street corners. The signs, and I paraphrase, said something like, "I believe in Jesus Christ; Reject The Da Vinci Code". For now, I'm considering it a coincidence that I spotted another man leaving leaflets under patrons' windshield wipers at the bookstore that informed us that the Bible had disproved evolution. I didn't have the heart to tell him that he wasn't likely to find many converts to so stupid a notion in the parking lot of a bookstore.

Getting back to the movie, however, I've noticed anti-"Da Vinci Code" signs at local churches, too. And these aren't isolated incidents, either. You can't watch Fox News for five minutes without catching a host or commentator challenging the movie, much like the network made it a point to assault "Brokeback Mountain" at every turn. Or bash Mexicans.

Why do people behave so irrationally? Because they fear change. They fear that the face of the 21st Century in America won't be white. They fear that fewer people view two loving people who happen to share the same sex as a threat to democracy. And they fear that people may ask questions about the origins of their faith. Why think for ourselves when these people, these arbiters of wisdom, can do it for us?

As I wrote earlier when I referred to many of these same people as the Nuisance Generation, they can preach all they want about the ownership society and personal responsibility. But they don't practice what they preach. What's worse, they don't trust your sense of personal responsibility. They trust theirs better. And they want to impose it on you.

Think about it. They don't want you reading certain books. They don't want you watching certain movies. They don't want you listening to certain music. They don't want you to possess the knowledge needed to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. They don't want you to accept facts that have been conventional wisdom everywhere else for decades. They think a burning flag is an affront to America. They think a translated national anthem will tear the whole system down.

But these people, these turds in our collective punch bowl, fail to recognize the spectacular hypocrisy inherent in their outrage. The people who lecture everyone else about personal responsibility can't exercise it themselves. If they could only change the channel instead of filing a complaint, our lives would be so much easier. If they could only spend more time working for good than picketing a box office, the world would be a much better place. But they can't, because they realize that it's much easier to be against something than for anything.

You want to know what's a real threat to people's faith? Church sex abuse. And the longer some blame liberals for the blight instead of looking in the mirror, the more problems the church will have. Problems like the fact that some people consider it a good thing to physically assault those whose only crime is holding different viewpoints. Problems like the notion that Pat Robertson and others like him say things they'd spend a lifetime decrying if they came from a mullah. Problems far greater than "The Da Vinci Code".

It's just a movie.

Tags: christianity, religion, The Da Vinci Code (all tags)

Comments

4 Comments

And not a very good one, I am told

Catholic pedophile priests aren't  the main issue I have with the church, mostly because I am protestant and I see that as someone else's problem.

DVC is a great book. Go get it, and read it. Its worth the read. I read "holy blood, holy grail" before it, and the first few chapters of this book have set itself up for me so that I can guess a bit where the storyline may go - and I am fairly stoked.  I really do want to see the movie, but I guess I'm not.

Actually spike lee's "inside man" is a really good movie. I don't know if its still out there. But go see it if you do.

by turnerbroadcasting 2006-05-23 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: And not a very good one, I am told

Inside Man is AMAZING. I agree.

by Joseph Hughes 2006-05-23 09:25AM | 0 recs
National Treasure was better
National Treasure was better paced, directed, photographed, and more fun than Da Vinci Code.
Da Vinci Code's biggest flaw was that it was damn boring.
How a hack like Akiva GOldsman gets so plum assignments is beyond me.
by Pravin 2006-05-23 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The Da Vinci Code

Well the movie wasn't bad, I was just diappointed because I expected so much more the book was very fast moving with lots of action in the movie they slow it way down and drag it out a bit

by Johnny17 2006-05-23 11:28AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads