CALLED: reflections on the da vinci code

Thursday, May 18, 2006

reflections on the da vinci code

Warning: Long post and possible spoilers! And a rather unnecessary movie review. xP

I watched The Da Vinci Code today with Shujuan, her friend Kay (if I didn't spell it wrongly) and Halima. I'd probably never have caught it if Shu hadn't booked tickets in advance and asked me to watch it with her. I hadn't read the book and only had a very faint inkling of what it was about - except that the author claimed that Jesus had a daughter with Mary Magdalene, which I thought was nonsense when I first heard it. Recently I'd also heard a little about the lawsuit brought against Brown for plagiarism, but that was all. (I know, I should keep up more with the news right xP) Usually I'm skeptical of things that invoke such big hoo-ha's. I just didn't get it. It was just a book, a novel, it was made up. What on earth is everyone going on about?

So I borrowed the book from Shu and after reading it, I now understand the big hoo-ha...mainly because Brown claims that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate". Apparently not as many of books and documentaries out there will tell you.

Actually I find that sentence rather vague. Description is one thing, interpretation is another. Description is objective, but what I see in the book is more like interpretation through the lens of goddess symbology.

That said, I did enjoy both the book and the movie. Though in the movie they took away some parts of the book that were good, and added some which were unnecessary and slowed down the pace. If a certain local mag is to be believed, they did that to pander to the conservative Christians. Hmm. Don't think they handled that part very well, because if I were really a conservative, I wouldn't even go near it with a ten-foot pole. And if I did go to see the movie, I'd still be offended by other parts of the movie - heck the entire premise of the story would be offensive to me! The result of trying to dilute the book's claims, most notably from the viewpoint of Robert Langdon (one of the main protagonists), results in him appearing confused about his own beliefs. But then again, maybe he is. And I have to admit, it makes him a bit more sympathetic and likeable, the way he tries to argue for the other side.

They also down-played the romantic tension between Robert and Sophie. Well, maybe it's because it seems all too weird for Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou to be romantically involved. The strange thing is they made Sophie give Robert a little head massage in the middle (which was weeeird and not in the book), but at the end they seemed more like father and daughter than anything else! The other thing is that they took away one of the cryptex (what is plural for cryptex? cryptix? crypti? cryptexes??), which was such a pity because I thought the password for the first one was so sweet, and the way it was solved so smart.

Anyway, I've been thinking. I wouldn't really mind so much if it was true that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and they had children. Jesus was human, after all. Was it so out of the ordinary for Him to have been married and to have had children? Of course, this would mean He had sex, doesn't it? And what is so unholy about that? Sex is a gift from God in marriage. Yes, it says nowhere in the Bible that Jesus was married. But I don't believe that all that God was, is, will be, and all that He did can be contained in the Bible. There's still so much we don't know - can never know. God is supreme and sovereign; He chooses to reveal what He chooses to reveal. Who are we to question Him in this?

Both the book and movie talked about how the early church 'demonised' Mary Magdalene by rewriting her as a prostitute. I have a problem with this little bit because what I know about God tells me that He loves everyone the same way, regardless of the quantity and quality of their sins. He forgives all; murderers, prostitutes, liars, small-time crooks. There is no discrimination in His sight. Once forgiven, all slates are wiped clean. To say that painting Mary as a prostitute was a 'smear campaign' is to show lack of understanding of the extent of God's love and forgiveness! Surely Jesus never looked at Mary and thought any lesser of her because she used to be a prostitute (or whatever she used to be).

Oh, and in the movie Sophie said to Silas the monk, "Your God does not forgive murderers." If anything is blasphemy, this line is! It wasn't even in the book, actually.

Then there's also that bit about how the gospels that focused on Jesus' humanity instead of His divinity were burnt and excluded from the canon. I have a problem with that too, because - doesn't it say clearly in the Bible itself that Jesus was the Son of God as well as the Son of man? He was divine, but He was also human - He had to eat, sleep, drink, move His bowels, He was tempted. He was all man, but also all God. To deprive Him of either His humanity or His divinity is to miss the whole point altogether - God came down to earth as a man, lived among us as a man, so that He could die for our sins in the end.

Come to think about it, this Jesus that people talk about all the time - in the news, in novels, in movies, in documentaries - it's really strange. Because when they talk about Him it's as if He's this distant, long-dead person. But He also happens to be the One person in this world who knows me best, who knows every single detail about me and holds it precious. Who is right beside me now. He who tells me that I am the apple of His eye, who knows every thought in my head. He's so close. And it's strange, almost surreal, when they talk about Him like that.

Like Brown says himself in his novel (which at some points seems more like a personal commentary), most educated Christians know the bloody history of their church. Even today, power and politcs abound in the body of Christ. It shouldn't be, and it's very sad that Christians today are so divided. That so many of us, myself included, are so inadequate reflections of His glory. But God chooses who He will to do impossible things. Not by merit of anything but His grace. Some of the things Christians have done, in His name or otherwise, are absolutely shameful. Sometimes I'm disturbed by these things and by our history, Protestant or otherwise. It's so hard to know what and who is right or wrong.

Only one thing I know - I have experienced God, and there's no turning back. Sometimes I think I would have an easier time if I wasn't a Christian. But that's the flesh speaking. My spirit has tasted of the Lord and I know that He is good, true, and right. So He's going to be the standard against which I measure all things.

P.S. On the actors - it was a very good cast! Obviously nobody doubts Tom Hanks' acting, and I've always admired Sir Ian McKellen's acting (a knight to play a knight!). And Paul Bettany as Silas is intense (and handsome =P). He doesn't have many lines, but lines seem unnecessary for such a character - he is a ghost. He is, in a sense, the purest of all the characters, because he really believes, all the time, that he's doing the work of God. Poor, tortured, blind Silas. Sometimes his eyes are really freaky - the glazed look of the possessed. And then sometimes the person inside breaks through and he's so vulnerable. Somehow though, I still felt that could be more to such a character that didn't show...

posted by esther @ 8:43 PM

5 Comments:

At 6:57 PM, Anonymous said…

i figured they couldn't possibly show everything in 2.5 hrs so they had to leave out some parts..but they definitely should have included the first cryptex!! (or even that nice lady from the library and a dozen more things haha) and the additional scenes and lines were amusing too haha! its still better to read the book though.. and i'm still wondering what earl grey with lemon tastes like :D btw my friend's name is kaE :)
At 7:00 PM, Anonymous said…

p/s: silas was intense yes, but handsome? hmm.. guess i was too grossed out by the pain inflicted on his body to notice anything else!
At 9:03 PM, Jacinthe86 said…

yup
thts a major prob wif these adaptations
sometimes due to constraints they miss out bits n the atmosphere is a bit off
At 9:04 PM, Jacinthe86 said…

yup
thts a major prob wif these adaptations
sometimes due to constraints they miss out bits n the atmosphere is a bit off
n yes silas is intense in the movie n handsome in a certain kind of way(without the horrid skin fold under the eyes)
At 1:02 PM, esther said…

WAH 4 comments! lol. yeah, i liked the first cryptex! i didn't miss the nice lady in the library...but it was quite funny that they made them use someone's handphone to search the net instead.

oh i've seen the actor who plays silas before and i thought he was handsome then...yeah it was really gross the way he 'tortured' himself! but i still thought he wasn't bad-looking. of course minus the scars and freaky eyes and white powder lah. lol.