21 May 2006

The Da Vinci Dudd

This weekend Sony Pictures released the highly anticipated, highly controversial film version of author Dan Brown's bestselling book, The Da Vinci Code, starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou and Sir Ian McKellen. The phenomenon that this book has engendered has effectively divided the world into halves: those who've read it and either love it or begrudgingly admit that it's "quite a good read", and those who haven't, but are bored of it already and just waiting for everyone to shut up about it. How much more semi-educational diversions on art, pop-conspiracy-theory history, cryptology and symbology can the book-reading, movie-going world possibly talk about???

Due to the heretical teaching contradicting the Biblical story of Jesus Christ, The Da Vinci Code has been scrutinized and berated by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians alike. I attended the film last night with a small group of friends, intent on watching the film for the purpose of an after-discussion at a nearby cafe... a movie club, so to speak (I know, kinda' geeky). I know this film is one that many feel every Christ-follower should boycott, but I have a very strong conviction about why (some) Christians should be watching and reading the same things the general public is. In this case, the world is having a conversation about the historical accuracy of Jesus Christ. As a Christian I can either boycott the book and film and remain completely out of the 'conversation,' or I can read the book and see the film and participate in the conversation - bringing to it a Christian perspective.

Having read the book already, I must confess that I watched the film, for the most part, with an eye for the adaptation, not the message. I couldn't imagine how this particular story could possibly be told effectively within its 149 minute running time. I was, sadly, correct in my scepticism.
With great films such as Backdraft, Apollo 13, Ransom and A Beautiful Mind to his credit, The Da Vinci Code was sure to be a hit with director Ron Howard at the helm. Unfortunately, not even little Opie Cunningham could do this justice.
In stark contrast to the page-turning thrills of the novel, the movie dragged painfully at times... provoking thoughts of, "Did I leave the iron on?"

Despite the hype, the controversy and the cast, this film was all but set-up to bomb. As if it weren't enough that the entire Christian world was maligning the message of both book and film, the movie-going public will now attack the adaptation from page to screen.
The film quite simply did not deliver like the book did. I know, I know... big surprise. When has a film ever lived up to the book before... ever heard of The Lord of the Rings?
I digress.

So what really is all the fuss about? Has everyone completely missed that this is, in fact, fiction we're talking about? The evangelical community has always attacked fiction titles that in one way or another contradict Biblical truth, from Huckleberry Finn to Harry Potter. Why should this be any different? The interesting thing is, that this kind of thing has been going on since Jesus, Himself, walked the earth. He was falsely accused, labled a liar, and judged for the company he kept. There were religious and non-religious groups alike desperately trying to discredit his name and his claims while he was here. Why would that change? The fact is, Jesus still poses a threat to many people who refuse to accept him as the Son of God... as Lord and Savior.

By my best estimation, based on what little research I've done, Dan Brown took someone else's theory (Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh, that they claimed to be fact) and made a riveting story out of it. The fact that the Christian/Catholic community takes such offense only exposes what I see to be a deeper issue... a crisis of faith issue. If Christians are so sure of the TRUTH, then why get so hung-up on a piece of writing that is simply inaccurate? If someone wrote a compelling bestseller supporting the existence of Santa Claus or Smurfs would your beliefs... would your knowledge of the truth be compromised? Of course not, so what is the origin of this fear?

The most common fear I hear is on behalf of people who may mistake The Davinci Code's fictional historical account of who Jesus is... or more importantly, who He isn't, with the Truth. But there are countless religions, philosophies and faiths out there that contradict the Bible that have been around for much longer and that have far more followers than Brown's book is accumulating. If we're really afraid of people being misled, why such a fuss over this book that primarily resides within the scope of entertainment? Why not launch full-scale assaults on Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism or Hinduism? The church seems far more enthusiastic about standing against something that makes a claim against its central figure. I don't buy the argument that we need to debunk this claim for the sake of the lost. I think the church has established a personal vindetta against Brown's story because it paints an alternate picture of who we know Jesus to be. In contrast to its recent outcry, the church, in the past, has remained relatively silent about books/films that are equally disputable regarding, for instance, redemptive violence.

If anything, I'm excited about a story, however innacurate it may be, that invites me (Christians) to talk about Jesus. We have a green light, not to solely attack this point of view, but to discuss the True story of Jesus Christ and his ministry. Make no mistake though. I'm about as interested in discussing historical facts about this as I am in performing retinal surgery on myself. The Bible doesn't need my defense. The Bible doesn't attempt to prove the existence of God. It already establishes that in the first verse of the first book - Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We're talking faith here, not historical proof.

The church's public outcry and outrage directed at this book/film doesn't reveal the church's strength of faith, but rather portrays it as looking spooked. Santa Claus doesn't exist. If you say that he does, that doesn't threaten my resolve on the matter. Furthermore, in the church's relentless pursuit of Truth, it has jettisoned Grace. Attacks on Dan Brown are just wrong. Here is an opportunity to speak openly about our Lord AND show grace to those who may have a different point of view.

If the whole point is to win as many to Christ before our time here is finished, won't we be more effective by being full of grace, truth and love? If the church were to "win" this argument, will She have "won" any to Christ insodoing? The old axiom, "win an argument, lose a friend," comes to mind here.

Okay, so that's my soapbox on the issue. As far as The Da Vinci Code goes, I recommend reading the book rather than seeing the movie. The film just leaves too much to interpretation and also just leaves too much out.

Afterword:
As I was reading the book I was suspicious that amidst all the cryptologic inclusions within the story, I was sure that Dan Brown would likely have his own nods to some of his inspirations. I was quite pleased with myself to discover that the character who embodied the whole controversial message (Leigh Teabing) was an homage to Holy Blood, Holy Grail authors, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. LEIGH, being the first name, and TEABING, being une annagramme, a la the scrambled Fibonacci sequence -- Baigent. Did anyone else catch that?

Afterword 2:
Dan Brown answering "the big question" on his website -
IS THIS BOOK ANTI-CHRISTIAN?
No. This book is not anti-anything. It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate. Even so, a small but vocal group of individuals has proclaimed the story dangerous, heretical, and anti-Christian. While I regret having offended those individuals, I should mention that priests, nuns, and clergy contact me all the time to thank me for writing the novel. Many church officials are celebrating The Da Vinci Code because it has sparked renewed interest in important topics of faith and Christian history. It is important to remember that a reader does not have to agree with every word in the novel to use the book as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.

More from Dan Brown can be found at: www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

6 May 2006

Top 10 Comic Book Movies

With the arrival of this summer's X3: The Last Stand, a slue of adapted-for-cinema graphic novels and comic book series that have littered theaters for the past three decades, and several upcoming blockbusters set for release over the next year or so already in production, I thought it would be a good time to reveal my Top 10 Comic Book Movies list.
Agree, disagree, or indifferent, the following entries have proven to be more than just fodder for fanboys/girls and comic shop geeks. This is the lowdown on the best movies from the funkiest, funniest and coolest genre around.
Entries are not judged merely on their superior f/x or the accuracy of their adaptation, but again, their impact on cinema and the movie-going public at the time of their release. That's not to say that those attributes have been ignored, just not solely based upon.
I won't take the time or energy to breakdown each film in depth, but will give a satisfactory synopsis of each.

Here we go...

1. BATMAN BEGINS (2005): Although the previous four Batman releases thoroughly beat the Dark Knight franchise with the camp stick, this rendition redeems our hero by maintaining the same dark malevolence and coarse credibility that fuelled Frank Miller's revamp of the comic book franchise with The Dark Knight Returns (DC Comics, 1986). Despite the enigmatic title, this film gave us a cooler Batmobile, a killer cast and great villain in Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow.

2. SUPERMAN THE MOVIE (1978): Richard Donner's adaptation of the most iconic superhero of all time (Spidey and Bats are phenoms, but the Man Of Steel is the big kahuna) is a fantastical story that gave viewers the sense that the story was actually happening - that one would believe a man really could fly. Sure, the effects have dated considerably since the near-30 years that Christopher Reeves soared around the globe (reversing time), but it still has a sense of scale that impresses.

3. X-MEN 2 (2003): Bryan Singer's second stab at the X franchise is the perfect comic book entree which is exciting (Nightcrawler's attempt to assassinate the President), moving (Wolverine's anguish over his past), topical (a feared minority starts global conflict), and intimate (Iceman's 'coming-out' to his family). This edition was smart, funny and complex... and hugely successful for Singer, which bodes well for us as he is responsible for Superman's return later this year.

4. SPIDER-MAN (2002): A by-the-book origin movie that invites viewers to journey with Spidey every step of the way, as he faces off with a giggling Green Goblin. Getting to see the softer side of Spider-Man (Peter Parker) hit such a chord with movie-goers that this film is still the highest-grossing superhero flick of all time.

5. SIN CITY (2005): It was only a matter of time before someone attempted a direct rendering of the bold framing of comic book panels to film. Robert Rodriguez partnered with SIN CITY creator, Frank Miller, in this neo-noir release to produce the most accurate adaptation of graphic-novel-to-big-screen that's ever been done. SIN CITY oozes with style and its black and white film only adds to the style-over-substance design.

6. BLADE (1998): Predating the Matrix's leather chic by a year, BLADE is a slamming slice of high-quality action, dripping with attitude and cool. We see a reinvented BLADE (from the comic book) as a vampire hunter with a serious penchant for kung fu - the opening scene, in which BLADE lays waste to a nightclub full of bloodsuckers, is a veritable classic!

7. X-MEN (2000): This was the first Marvel masterpiece which sees a team of mutant superheroes protecting the very people who fear them. Riddled with spectacular special f/x, X-MEN is a wonderful story that single-handedly relaunched the comic-book-to-film genre after Warner Brothers effectively destroyed it with the horrific "Batman & Robin."

8. THE ROAD TO PERDITION (2002): Didn't know this one was a graphic novel, did ya? Without a cape or pair of tights in sight, TRTP is a classic gangster graphic novel, infusing the violence with fantastic cinematography
- the shootout in the rain is dazzling
- and finding emotional depths in the crux of father-son relationships. TRTP is a meditation on the effects of violence and a heart-wrenching family drama.

9. SUPERMAN II (1980): A multi-layered, multi-toned movie in which Supes falls in love, faces his own mortality and takes on three evil Kryptonians, each as powerful as him. With these three sub-plots in the mix, SUPERMAN II should never have worked... not to mention the fact that director Richard Donner was fired with 70% of the movie in the can, and replaced by Richard Lester, known for his playful streak that by all rights should not have meshed with Donner's straight-faced Americana.
But it did work.

10. HELLBOY (2004): Monstrous, horned and sporting an arm made of solid rock, for all intents and purposes, HELLBOY is the antithesis of almost every superhero you can imagine (save for, possibly, Ghost Rider or Lobo... but most of you have probably never heard of him). He's the spawn of the devil, for one thing, which may be why this labor of love is so appealing - spooky, exciting and romantic. Yes, romantic.

Honorable Mentions (in no particular order):

- A History of Violence
- V For Vendetta
- Conan the Barbarian
- The Punisher (w/ Thomas Jane)
- Ghost World

The Five Worst Comic Movies (in no particular order):

- Superman IV: The Quest
- Batman & Robin
- Tank Girl
- Dick Tracy
- The Punisher (w/ Dolph Lundgren)