Final Da Vinci Post
Perhaps my heading is too optimistic but Anthony Lane in the New Yorker is effervescent.
A sample:
The Catholic Church has nothing to fear from this film. It is not just tripe. It is self-evident, spirit-lowering tripe that could not conceivably cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith. Meanwhile, art historians can sleep easy once more, while fans of the book, which has finally been exposed for the pompous fraud that it is, will be shaken from their trance. In fact, the sole beneficiaries of the entire fiasco will be members of Opus Dei, some of whom practice mortification of the flesh. From now on, such penance will be simple—no lashings, no spiked cuff around the thigh. Just the price of a movie ticket, and two and a half hours of pain.
I suppose Anthony Lane has the reputation but I can’t shake the feeling that this review is one of his worse. It seems to lack everything for which the New Yorker is known; development, analysis, thoroughness, objectivity, insight, different ways of looking at the movie, etc. Maybe I should have been alerted to this when Lane did not like Forest Gump who would only serve ice cream to a nun.
It almost seems as if Lane was commissioned by his bishop to pan the book and movie. Then again the book has a gargantuan audience which eo ipso would ban it from consideration by the New Yorker. And, mirabile dictu, Lane admits he did not read the book, entirely. I know some notables on this blog have said the same but that does not allow them either to escape immediate and automatic excommunication.
Aside from Lane it is amazing how many non experts in the religious field denigrate this book. In point of fact it has gotten sterling reviews from the best reviewers in the business. http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/reviews.html
And check out Maslin’s gushing review.
One can debate the nuances of the book but why lower oneself by declaring its a poor novel. This is Pagel’s comments on the significance of the DVC. How many have her viewpoint?
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/14633739.ht
I’m genuinely interested to know the last time Janet Maslin gave something a negative review. Anything.
There’s something peculiar about citing the number of nonexperts in religion who denigrate DVC. Aren’t there far more “nonexperts” who have elevated it? And: aren’t we talking about a mass-market novel, and a wide-release film?
Luckily for Lane, film critics are obligated to evaluate movies on their own terms. Have you seen the movie yet, Bill? It’s a crushing bore. I don’t care how riveting the theological, historical, or ecclesiological questions raised by a movie are. If the performances are wooden, the direction stilted, and the script lame, you don’t have a good movie. You have an excercise in poor taste.
Here’s an example of the subtle, penetrating questions raised by the screenplay. When Sophie and Robert think they’ve reached the spot where Mary Magdalene’s tomb should be but find it’s missing, dear Sophie utters in a near-whisper:
“Maybe the church really did get her.”
The film is plodding foolishness. The book could only be better. But by how much I don’t think I can stand to find out.
The point: Lane’s review if fun!
He’s absolutely right about Brown’s prose, which I trudged through in February before our Fordham conference, “Waiting for DaVinci: From Factoid to Mythoid.” Lane’s got the book right. Haven’t seen the movie.
Did like this “Though I have recited the Nicene Creed throughout my adult life, I never realized that it was originally formulated in the middle of a Beastie Boys concert.”
Grant, I read the book and saw the movie. I thought the movie could have been much better. At least Peggy read the book which Lane and you did not.
I avoided reading the book for a long time because I found the idea of a romance between Jesus and Magdalen unseemly and far fetched. I presume that is most of our problem. We can’t get past the emotions.
Emotions? Nothing to do with that, Bill. It’s simply an attempt to avoid something trusted friends tell me I should skip. I continue to be mystified by the near reverence you afford this silly story.
There is a piece in this week’s Tablet by Jack Valero, a director of Opus Dei in England, describing the work of “The Da Vinci Code Response Group” convened by the English Bishops’ Conference to be available to the press for interviews and comments during the run-up to the film’s opening. He details their day by day efforts to counter misinformation and innuendo until the 17th of May when they learned of the devastating verdict from Cannes, and decided against any further comment, since, as Mr. Valero says, “We don’t strangle turkeys.” I don’t agree with Opus Dei about much, but allowing interest in this silliness to expire naturally through a policy of studied inattention might be a way to go.
Grant, I am failing to communicate if I convey “near reverence” for the book. We have discussed this before where I noted that art is that which gives pleasure and it is in the beauty of the beholder. What is the rush to demean others because they enjoyed the book?
There are two issues, however, that I have mentioned often on this blog that are very important that the book brings up, however crudely. The question of the divinity of Jesus and the role of Mary Magdalen and women in general in the church. At the same time it is about time that we demolish the image of the Lady in Blue from the revered Mother of Jesus.
I believe we can handle these issues without harming our faith, one iota.
Bill Mazella wrote
“I believe we can handle these issues without harming our faith, one iota.” (The issues being the divinity of Jesus and the role of Mary Magdalen and women in general in the church)
Can I doubt the divinity of Jesus and still call myself a Catholic?
Dear Sunil,
Lawyers know how important it is, not only to ask, but to frame the question. So if I can bypass yours for the moment and ask one myself which may answer yours.
For example, can I call myself Catholic if I assert that the first three apostles to the Gentiles were women—the Syro-Phonenician woman, the woman at the well and Magdalene who was the first to have the vision of the resurrection–could I still call myself Catholic? The first thing a child hears about Magdalene is that she had seven devils exorcized out of her according to pope Gregory. What do we do when Rome does not get it right, like in the French Revolution and Nazi Germany?
The laity is growing up or being restored–however one characterizes it–but how many are ready for it?
Bill,
May be the question should have said ‘Christian’ instead of “Catholic’. My understanding is that the divinity of Jesus is central to all Christian denominations. I may be wrong. The identification of the apostles (say) is not something crucial like that.
To me much of the Gospel makes sense only if Jesus is the Son of God. But that is a matter of faith. I cannot expect anyone else to accept that as a matter of course.
Sunil,
Jesus is the one who chose to first proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles through these three women. Women were the object of Jesus’ attention as they were/are part of the downtrodden. Jesus’ central message is for the poor, the crippled and the downtrodden. This is crucial.
The fact that many of his so-called disciples have forgotten or ignored this throughout history is the largest problem.