Wednesday, May 10, 2006

It's a friggin' movie. Settle down.

I’ve been reading quite a few news stories recently about the controversy surrounding the novel-turned-motion-picture The D@ \/inci Code. Many Catholics, particularly Catholic pontiffs, have been worked into a lather because the film apparently portrays the \/atican in a negative light.

Ok. So what?

Truth be told, I’ve never read the book and nor do I have a particular interest in doing so. And while I’m not opposed to seeing the movie, I don’t feel particularly compelled to do so. I usually avoid things such as this simply because I’d much rather observe a fad than actually be a part of it.

Also, not having any vested interest in the actions of the fledgling Catholic church, it’s hard for me to enter the debate on one side or the other.

All that said, what little I do know about the D@ \/inci code can be summarized thusly: Apparently, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, they had a child, and for some reason the Catholic church covered it up because it would somehow shatter the foundation of Christianity. Um, ok.

Ignoring for the moment that the D@ \/inci code is, as they say, just a movie, there are a few other things about this that I would like to address.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. What of it? If Jesus was — as is widely believed — a rabbi, there are certainly no prohibitions within Judaism against him being married. In fact, of the dozen or so rabbis I’ve encountered in my life, I would say that most, if not all, were married. And of those that were married, most of them had a litter of children. That’s what rabbis do.

I fail to see how this causes the foundation of Christianity to collapse. I consider myself at least somewhat well-versed in the text of the New Testament, and I don’t recall seeing anything that explicitly said Jesus was either married or unmarried. So it’s not as if him being married would render the New Testament, in and of itself, obsolete.

Moreover, if the foundation of Christianity is, as I understand it, the believe that Jesus is the son of God, died for the sins of mankind, etc. etc. etc., how would his marriage negate that? Maybe I’m missing something.

Moving on.

Supposing that Jesus was married and all the rest, what difference does it make if the Catholic church did try to cover it up? Again, maybe I’m missing the point, but it doesn’t seem to me that hiding the fact that Jesus was married has any real bearing on the foundation of Christianity.

As I said before, I’ve never read the book and I’m indifferent towards the movie, so don’t quote me on any of this.

What I find most curious about the whole ordeal is the reaction by many Catholics around the world that are worried people don’t have enough religious education to decipher the movie’s fact from the movie’s fiction. Really?

If people are so gullible as to treat a film starring Forres+ Gump — and directed by Richie Cunningham — as fact, the Catholic church shouldn’t want their business anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, Tom H@nks is one of my favorite actors and Ron How@rd does some fantastic work, but keepers of the truth, they ain’t.

Here are some other things from their movies that you might be shocked to learn:

-There is no Eastern European country known as Kyrkozia.
-A Fed Ex employee will not keep your package while he’s paddling around the ocean for two years with his best friend, the volleyball.
-Mich@el Clark Duncan cannot cure your bladder infection by copping a feel.
-Toys are not alive…or are they?
-You cannot age 20 years overnight by playing a carnival game.

Oh, and the Grinch really did steal Christmas. He just didn’t give it back. That was added later because the original story was so depressing.

Point is, those that are upset about this film are either giving the film far too much credit or the people of the world far too little. I highly doubt Tom H@nks is going to lead an exodus from the Catholic church. And if people do leave the Catholic church because of a movie, like I said, the Church is probably better off without them.

It’s a friggin’ movie. Settle down.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Michelle said...

Personally, I think it's a good thing to have movies with religious content. That includes the ones that raise a little controversy. The controversial ones bring about religious conversations and maybe a little soul searching so people can decide what they do believe. It seems to me that people care more about their religion when it's being challenged than otherwise.
I can't say that that's a bad thing. Perhaps this will cause a second Great Awakening in our country. We could definitely use one...
As for the Da Vinci Code specifically, it's a fascinating and fun read. Is it true? I don't know. I look at it as a work of fiction. There seems to be more proof to support the traditional points of view than their theories. While I can understand being upset about challenges to fundamental beliefs in one's religion, personally I'm more interested to know how much really could be true. And there's no bloody way of knowing. So it amounts to something fun to think about. Just like most of the conspiracy theories out there. Bottom line: it's harmless fun. I'll be seeing the movie opening day.

9:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home