New at Reason

David Weigel | May 18, 2006

Jesse Walker attempts to decode the conservative panic over a certain blockbuster book/movie.

Comments

Timothy|5.18.06 @ 12:39PM|#

I think the real issue is that papists will panic over anything.

|5.18.06 @ 12:42PM|#

I was talking to an old lady and her church is organizing a large group of people to go see it and then go back to the church to discuss it.

Presumably the idea is "they're gonna do it anyway, we have to get our side in" ... but it still ends up as money for the movie-makers.

Brilliant.

|5.18.06 @ 12:53PM|#

I thought the religious right's favorite movie of last year was The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

|5.18.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Before all of the hype about the book and the movie, I thought Opus Dei was the guy who sang "Shout" in "Animal House."

|5.18.06 @ 2:19PM|#

I think Ian McKellen was spot-on.

|5.18.06 @ 2:25PM|#

Evan, ask him if he thinks the same about The Silmarillion :)

|5.18.06 @ 2:27PM|#

Liberace:

What?

I never read the book. What does McKellen have to do with it? Explain please.

|5.18.06 @ 2:29PM|#

Evian,

(1) Ian McKellan played Gandalf.
(2) The Silmarillion is the "bible" of The Lord of the Rings.
(3) Therefore, Ian McKellan is Socrates.

|5.18.06 @ 3:42PM|#

If there's a conflict here, it doesn't pit heartland churchgoers against the Hollywood/MSM secular elites of Michael Medved's fever dreams; it's a divide between orthodox Christians and New Agers

True. I think "secular elites" such as myself are more likely to show little if any interest in the film.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.18.06 @ 5:01PM|#

It's not a panic, you've got a book and a movie staking a claim that Christians are fools, liars, and dupes. That's bound to piss someone off in a similar way that Newsweek pissed us off when they printed that Lyndon LaRouche was a libertarian.

Saw the Tom Hanks quote in the Ian MaClellan link and he's as full of shit as a septic tank when he essentially says, oh, but it's just a work of fiction. That's like saying All the President's Men or Shindler's List were just works of fiction.

I read the book a year or two ago (it started off okay but fell apart by the end). Despite the spin on Brown's website, the theme of the book was to prove that Christianity is evil and hateful. To borrow a Randian term, the author resorted to mysticism, conspiracy theories, and abject bullshit, to do so, putting him in the same boat with the Walk On Water crowd.

Telling the church Tough Bounce, it's a free country is fine. OTOH, why paper over the reality that this book and movie are overtly hostile to Christianity?

Jesse Walker|5.18.06 @ 5:05PM|#

1. That was Time, not Newsweek.

2. I don't blame Christians for getting upset. I do blame (some) culture warriors for trying to force their outrage into the same old Red America/Blue America song-and-dance.

|5.18.06 @ 5:18PM|#

I'm outraged. I'm outraged they made a movie out of this dreck and not of something cool like, say, The Caves of Steel. Without Will Smith this time, please. In fact, I'm even more outraged that not a single one of Asimov's books has been made into a good movie.

Okay, don't like sci-fi? How about a good, English-language version of The Count of Monte Cristo? Is that too much to ask? Or, for the Randroids around here, why not some Atlas Shrugged? Edit out the speeches, and it would be about 120 pages--just right for a screenplay ;)

Warren|5.18.06 @ 5:57PM|#

JFK made the phrase "Oliver Stone movie" a lazy synonym for vast conspiracy theories, even though most Oliver Stone movies do not feature vast conspiracies.

No, "Oliver Stone movie" is a synonym (possibly in lacking industry) for "myopic American leftist historical revisionism". JFK was the film that cemented that definition, even in the minds of American leftists.

|5.18.06 @ 5:58PM|#

What "conservative panic"? Afaik, the only panicky ones are the usual twits at the "Catholic League" . . .

|5.19.06 @ 12:39AM|#

I'm even more outraged that not a single one of Asimov's books has been made into a good movie.


Unless you count his novelization of Fantastic Voyage...

|5.19.06 @ 3:23AM|#

Interestingly enough, here in Germany, the name of the Movie is "Sakrileg" which literally translated is "Sacrilge". I find it amusing to say the least. Oh and I hear lots of people want to go see it too.

|5.19.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Jim Walsh,

The movie came first. It's his one and only novelization. Though the movie did feature Raquel Welch in her prime. Yum.

|5.19.06 @ 10:05AM|#

I haven't seen The De Vinci Code or read the book. I may go see the movie this weekend because I like movies and, the firestorm of criticism regarding the historical inaccuracies and theological insults aside, at least one reviewer I trust thinks it isn't half bad. These days, "not half bad" is high praise for a Hollywood would-be blockbuster. It is certainly far higher praise than any review I have ever read about the book.

At one level, there isn't really much difference between the claims: "You shouldn't see this movie because it is (a) heretical (from a Christian perspective), (b) bad history or (c) a rotten movie." All involve the person urging others not to see the move presupposing that they either share his reason for disliking it or at least respect his feelings on the matter enough not to see it.

Now, and as many others have noted, people who condemn works of fiction because they are not historically or factually accurate are simply missing the point of fiction. They are condemning a dog for being an unsatisfactory sort of cat. Perhaps the most absurd trope in this age of "reality" television is the idiotic claim at the beginning of too many films "Based on a true story." It is, of course, a merely elliptical way of saying "Fiction." There are many reasons to read or watch a work of fiction, but learning history isn't among them.

So, too, objecting that The De Vinci Code slanders the Roman Catholic Church or Opus Dei or makes claims contrary to the claims Christianity makes is simply beside the point. Let me repeat for the conceptually impaired that what we're dealing with here is a work of fiction. That some people may believe the story it tells is no more significant than the fact that some people believe in alien abductions (typically including anal probing) or trust the federal government (soon to include anal probing) .

Doubtlessly, many people are offended by The De Vinci Code and its ilk. I could imagine impassioned pleas not to go see a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ("Based on a true story!") if Hollywood in some alternate universe -- because it sure as hell wouldn't happen in this one -- were to make such a movie. And they'd have a point. Works of fiction that feed into the religious or ethnic prejudices of others are, at least to that extent, worthy of criticism. At the end of the day, however, and just in case you missed the point above, we're still left with a work of fiction.

Dan Brown is either the smartest or luckiest bad writer alive. In the entertainment industry (key word: industry) marketing is the most expensive and critical element in launching a product. On the other hand, if the product fails to entertain it will soon flop. Apparently, Brown's book entertains, and that is all that can be asked of the movie.