It’s time for the obligatory update on you know what. In the media blitz, the most interesting angle (at least to me) is that the New York Times has joined the Los Angeles Times in wondering out loud about Sony Pictures’ decision not to allow critics to dissect the movie in advance. Here is how reporter Sharon Waxman deals with the buzz and the whispers:
In contemporary Hollywood, movies released without first undergoing test screenings, media screenings, “tastemaker” screenings and screenings for critics are fairly rare; that course is usually reserved for duds that studios would rather nobody notice. For a movie like Sony’s “Da Vinci Code” — with huge anticipation, a blockbuster-size budget, a major movie star in Tom Hanks, an Oscar-winning director in Ron Howard and source material read by tens of millions of fans — it is something close to unprecedented. Yet that has been the studio’s course.
“The Da Vinci Code” will make its debut at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday night. Critics and other journalists will first see the movie on Tuesday night, barely allowing them time to write their articles for the Wednesday premiere and Friday opening in theaters around the world.
It is also clear that much of this tension and intrigue is linked to the movie’s strong evangelistic message that millions and millions of Christians have been faked out for 1,700 years or so. Nameless studio checkwriters put it this way:
The concerns, said executives involved with the picture, were that information about the film could start a nit-picking debate over the filmmaker’s choices in adapting the book, rather than focus on the movie overall, or that it might fuel religious opposition to the film.
It is possible, of course, that this is the usual delay with special affects — a modern fact of life for directors who have to burn the candles at both ends until minutes before shipping the prints to the studio lords. Ask Peter Jackson.
Then again, the secrecy may be linked to author Dan Brown’s all-consuming desire for stealth and mystery. Will he, for example, play any role in the press junket for the movie? Will he do interviews with real journalists? The problem with doing real interviews with real interviewers is that they often ask real questions.
Yesterday, Catholic scribe Amy Welborn — who knows a thing or two about the DVC wars — posted a great example of this, using Lexis-Nexis to recover some of an April 26, 2003, NPR Weekend Edition interview that Linda Wertheimer did with Brown. Here is the key quote to remember, during a week in which Ron Howard, Tom Hanks and the Sony brass will endlessly repeat their mantra that everyone should lighten up and remember that this is “just fiction.”
What does Brown say about that?
WERTHEIMER: How long does it take you to research a book like this? I assume that, among other things, you would hear from the world if you’ve got anything wrong.
Mr. BROWN: Certainly. And it takes me about two and a half years to entirely research and write a book like this. Before I even started writing a page, I’d spent a year in research, and a lot of the research for “Angels and Demons” that I did in Vatican City played into this book, as well as my art history training in Seville.
WERTHEIMER: You’re trying not to get too fictional with the facts here?
Mr. BROWN: Absolutely. The only thing fictional in “The Da Vinci Code” is the characters and the action that takes place. All of the locations, the paintings, the ancient history, the secret documents, the rituals, all of this is factual.
See? The ancient history, etc., is all factual.
 | Posted at 10:22 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (26) |
May 16, 2006, at 11:08 am
The late Dr. Siegbert Becker, who taught at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, used to say that people will believe anything as long as it’s not written in the Bible.
The da Vinci Code is a prime example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 11:26 am
What is really sad is that many Christians believe the da Vinci Code since they choose to be ignorant of their history. Most American Christians are doing good to go back to 1620 in church history.
Most Christians should be able to give a good defense why the da Vinci Code is bad history, at best, or false history, at worst.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 11:54 am
The problem with doing real interviews with real interviewers is that they often ask real questions.
The interesting thing about the above statement, when compared with Wertheimer’s interview of Brown is that, by and large, she was a pretty friendly interviewer. Yet she still got in some real questions. (You can see more of the transcipt of the interview at Amy’s blog.)
What if the interviewer had been more disinterested, a little more probing about the specifics of the novel?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 12:02 pm
Sean:
Right. Note that there is no sign that Brown thought this was a hostile question. He was very up front, at that point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 1:49 pm
In the most recent Mars Hill Audio Journal, Ken Myers notes that in his last book on the NSA, Brown couldn’t even get the basic geographical desciprition of the NSA building and its surrounding geography correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 2:02 pm
[…] Seems like the whole media world is awaiting The DaVinci Code. I saw NBC devote about half the today show to their new “On the Road with the Code” feature. Over at Get Religion blog, tmatt has some interesting observations about the maneuvering behind the scenes. It seems the producers are trying very hard NOT to start a religious debate about this movie. Ron Howard appeared on Today to say that asking questions is a good thing. Uh…okay. Brushing your teeth is good too. What about the movie? […]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 2:11 pm
It’s been very interesting to watch Mr. Brown’s behavior over the past couple of years. In the beginning, not long after the book was released, he obviously felt comfortable enough preaching his gospel of truthiness in interviews like this one to promote his book.
Then when things took off and the book started selling like hotcakes, he pulls a J.D. Salinger and retreats into academic seclusion in New Hampshire, where he strokes his beard, refuses interviews and cultivates his reputation as a mysterious academic. A strategy that has the added bonus of making it unecessary to address those pesky questions from those who actually know what they are talking about.
He’s the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, and I predict we’ll never read another piece of writing from him again. (And hey, it’s not like he needs the income anymore).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 2:54 pm
He’s the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, and I predict we’ll never read another piece of writing from him again.
If *only* that were true. And it may very well be. However, I do remember him saying at one time that he was working on a novel that involved the Masons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 16, 2006, at 8:21 pm
I heard a priest, who had been studying in Rome, say that while there he ran into lots of confused tourists who took Brown’s description of Rome in “Angels and Demons” as ‘gospel’, and consequently got lost.
“Now”, the priest added grimly, “he’s doing the same thing to history as he did to geography. “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 9:48 am
Chaz:
So you disagree with Dan Brown when he says:
“The only thing fictional in “The Da Vinci Code†is the characters and the action that takes place. All of the locations, the paintings, the ancient history, the secret documents, the rituals, all of this is factual.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 9:50 am
Christians are loopy for getting bent out of shape about a work of fiction.
In response to this comment, I’ll just repe what I wrote as a comment to an earlier post:
To those who shout, ‘But it’s just a work of fiction,’, I think you’re underestimating or forgetting the cultural influence of literature.
Were Uncle Tom’s Cabin and The Jungle just novels?
I doubt that Harriet Beecher Stowe replied that “But it was just a novel,†when Abraham Lincoln said to her “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War!â€
Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Jungle, and even a great American classic like Huckleberry Finn were books written with a distinct purpose of critiquing aspects of the society of the time in which they were written. I am convinced that Brown, at least in part, shared this same intent.
And considering that Brown’s book starts off with a “fact†page and has lots of other truth claims flow out of the mouths of scholars who make citations to supposedly trustworthy sources, it shouldn’t bother anyone for a journalist to look into the claims that Brown’s book makes.
Its sold more then 40 million copies and not a few of these buyers think that the background behind the novel has some veracity.
By and large, the Christians who are responding to this novel, and its movie adaptation, at least those who are responding in print, are not “loopy.” They’re trying to point out that what Brown portrays in his book, and portrays with an academic aura of truthfulness, is what is truly loopy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 10:07 am
In addition to Sean’s explanation, I think Mark Shea says it quite well:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 10:07 am
The fear that a work of fiction could make inroads against Catholic dogma and those who follow it is not very solid testament to the strength of that faith. All this amounts to a fiction being afraid of what another fiction might do to it. The Zinger of a Rat in Rome and his pals only care about how this might influence their cash flow. Loopiness is what loopiness does. Catholics have far greater concerns than wasting their time on this issue, e.g., holding your ecclesiastics accountable for the evils they perpetuate against the weakest among us. Catholics care more about a work of fiction than what these monsters have done and that is loopy. Talk about misplaced priorities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 10:08 am
Can you say “false dichotomy,” boys and girls? I knew you could.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 10:32 am
Having taught logic at Marquette University, there is no false dichotomy or dilemma in seeing that one isssue is clearly far more important, morally and ontoligically, than the other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 10:33 am
Ontologically even! LOL!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 12:27 pm
FOLKS:
I have just spiked a bunch of comments, trying to kill out those that wandered totally out of the turf of this blog and into personal attacks and a total focus on attacks on people’s beliefs.
There is a difference between accusing people of being stupid and corrupt and trying to discuss whether the press coverage of this event in pop culture is accurate or fair or simply funny.
Please take your doctrinal disputes and employment accusations elsewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 12:34 pm
Since I try to be honest, I want to publicly admit that I screwed up. It wasn’t a false dichotomy. It was guilt by association.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 12:35 pm
Well, maybe it wasn’t… Chaz’ implication was that people are either opposed to Brown’s mendacity or to the mendacity of the episcopal enablers of pederasty.
That’s not really a false dichotomy, I suppose, but it’s a fallacy. Excluded middle, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 2:27 pm
The Zinger of a Rat in Rome and his pals only care about how this might influence their cash flow.
—Chaz
I have just spiked a bunch of comments, trying to kill out those that wandered totally out of the turf of this blog and into personal attacks and a total focus on attacks on people’s beliefs.
—tmatt
However one thinks about the current bishop of Rome, I think that one can term the above quote from Chaz as a “personal attack” that “wandered totally out of the turf of this blog.”
Ergo, I think his post should be spiked. And although there are no personal attacks in it, perhaps my original response to him should be spiked as well given that I admittedly strayed away from the purpose of the blog.
I would have e-mailed this message to you, Terry, if I had your e-mail address on hand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 17, 2006, at 4:09 pm
I went to the advance screening last night.
I was underwhelmed, and several critics (including me) chuckled out loud at the biggest “revelations.â€
Really, it was kind of dull and occasionally quite silly.
I posted my review on my site, Scribe Life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 18, 2006, at 10:26 am
Wow. All Theological debate has been spiked.
Good work! Enjoy your fundamentalist imprisonment.
Love, Horus
****
And I spiked that one, too.
There are plenty of sites where people can yell names at each other about theology. Our goal here is to discuss issues in MSM coverage of religion news. It’s hard to keep that focus, but I will try to see if I can keep us from shouting matches that have more to do with heat than with light on the topics addressed here at the blog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 18, 2006, at 10:36 am
O I see you do not want comments, you want people who will agree and pat you on the back, the truth is hard to take, if your not asking for true input on the this topic you should just say so God bless
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 18, 2006, at 10:50 am
TIM:
There is no need to agree with this blog on the journalism issues involved in the coverage of this film and the book. We are looking for “input on this topic.” You simply want to talk about a different topic. Good luck finding a blog for theological shouting matches. If you have comments on the news coverage, fire away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 20, 2006, at 1:36 pm
“the truth is hard to take”
Ah yes. “It’s just fiction, and besides, you’re scared because you know it’s all TRUE!”
I love that one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 21, 2006, at 9:14 pm
[…] THE INFALLIBLE Dan Brown: “All of this is factualâ€; News flash! Brown on Brown, again. Are you ready for Tom Hanks and his mullet? …. (getreligion) […]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0