There he goes again.
As I stressed in my recent “Who is Dan Brown?” piece for the Da Vinci Dialogue site, the author of Da Book that is being turned into Da Movie isn’t terribly fond of facing tough questions about his work or his beliefs.
Thus, I bring you this news flash: Dan Brown has interviewed himself again and Dan Brown, the novelist, thinks that the upcoming movie of Dan Brown’s book is just great.
It was a really nice touch that Brown allowed this new content about himself — it’s a short clip from the foreword of the published movie script — in one of the only places in public media that people online will not be able to link to it and discuss it. That would be USA Weekend, which noted at its website:
The exclusive cover story written by Dan Brown on The Da Vinci Code movie is available only in our print edition. See USA WEEKEND in your local newspaper.
You’ll be shocked to learn that Brown offers no insights into the truth claims vs. fiction issue and he does not even bother to address his critics directly. Here is one of the only interesting quotations:
“Novels change as they adapt to the screen. They simply must.
“Now, before you read this as an author’s disclaimer for any differences between the book and the movie, let me assure you that it’s all there — the Louvre, Saint-Sulpice, Chateau Villette, Westminster Abbey, Rosslyn Chapel, the codes, the sacred feminine, and the quiet invitation to think about faith, religion and history with a fresh, open-minded perspective.”
Take that, historians! This means that all of his fact-based critics are the opposite of fresh and open-minded. But we already knew that, of course.
It is also interesting that at the end of the article he comes very close to confirming the rumors of his wife, Blythe, being the coauthor of the book. Then again, maybe he is just being loose with his metaphors. It’s hard to tell fact from fiction with this guy. Brown writes:
“My wife and I live our lives by a simple mantra — to make wonderful memories every day. For us, few memories will ever be as vivid as the night we spent exploring the darkened Louvre by flashlight … and seeing a frightened curator flee through the Grand Gallery with a pale monk in pursuit.”
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times has put into print a hint of the buzz on the left coast, where some people are wondering why the studio isn’t letting critics take an early look at the movie. Of course, it is perfectly logical for Sony executives to assume they do not need to use traditional PR for this product. Nevertheless, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has heard some of the whispers.
The film’s distributor, Sony, has been doing its best to keep the film shrouded in mystery, forgoing the usual media run-up in favor of an unveiling at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday. It’s a tactic usually employed by studios to try to hide stinkers. But Goldsman says it was a strategy decided upon before the film was even edited, “which was to try to diminish the ability of people to indicate pre-release what was different from the book. Part of what is intriguing is the ability to go and experience that yourself.”
Not incidentally, however, the strategy also undercuts critics and protesters who are forced to resort to debating the merits of the book — not the film.
Early reports do indicate that the movie contains actual flashbacks to offer its own twist on biblical events, which means that many of the book’s long conspiracy-theory speeches will now be offered as clips from a kind of post-Passion, neo-gnostic, goddess-friendly bathrobe epic.
Traditional Christians and historians are going to love that. And their complaints will be music to the ears of the millions of loyal fans of the novel and, almost certainly, the movie. As one Brown supporter wrote me this morning, in an email from Memphis:
liberating jesus from the likes of falwell, roberson, bush, graham the younger, van impe, hagee and the rest of the ahistoricalevangelicaldumbdamentalists seems to me to be a fine mission and ministry … likewise for the seriously constipated roman catholics who believe they, too HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS and the ONLY ANSWERS!! those whose “faith” is “threatened” by this book — or any serious theological thinking and reflecton — probably deserve having that “faith” “threatened” … big time!! time to grow up into the big world of adulthood, kiddies!!!!
P.S. Our friends over at Beliefnet have a pretty interesting series of video features up right now on you know what, featuring Father Robin Griffith-Jones of the Temple Church in London. They are not journalism, per se, but they do give you an idea of what critics — even left-of-center mainline critics — are saying about the book.
 | Posted at 9:44 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (12) |
May 15, 2006, at 10:14 am
What is this about Brown seeing a pale monk?
An interesting part of this story relevant to GR is that your Memphis emailer’s attitude is very similar to that of many Evangelicals, from the more intellectually and politically oriented who are tired of association with Elmer Gantry and the GOP. That’s the evangelical middle/swing vote identified by Amy Sullivan (which you covered). Then there are the “Emergent” types, whom you’ve also covered, who have similar politics but also a more Dan Brownesque approach to scholarly issues and standards. They also, like Brown and pretty much all Protestant liberalizers, see their main chance as biblical “debunking” and revisionary interpretation centering on “what Jesus really meant.” Brian McLaren’s interview re. the DVC for Jim Wallis’s Sojourners (which I mentioned in an earlier comment) indicates this common ground and the shared motive of “dissent.” Elsewhere McLaren and others of his movement echo the Brown disciple reaction “I must be on to something if my open-minded questioning and dialogue raises any hackles.”
That connection is being made in some evangelical churches today where the main threats (sheep-stealers and rivals for converts) are seen as Emergent, Dan Brown, and the Catholic Church.
May 15, 2006, at 11:48 am
I wonder, do the “post-Passion, neo-gnostic, goddess-friendly bathrobe” scenes take place in the the immortal realm of Barbelo, where, according to the Gospel of Judas, Jesus came from.
May 15, 2006, at 12:41 pm
It’s looking like heads I win, tails you lose here. If the film tanks, then it’ll be all the fault of those horrible Fundamentalists and fanatical Roman Catholics who terrorised people from going to see this marvel of the cinematic arts.
If it does halfway decently, then it’ll be a vindication of Mr Brown and all open-minded reasonable folk.
Seems to me like the best way to treat this is neither to jump on the bandwagon and say “This is a wonderful evangelisation opportunity” - can you see the likes of your email correspondent being open to a reasonable discussion of why this is a steaming heap of tripe? - or to call for boycotts and protests, since that will only be grist to the publicity mill. I wish there were some way to get a bunch of like-minded people together and get them to mock the living daylights out of this: dress up for it, like albino monks and Spanish Inquisition cardinals; at every mention of the eeevil Vatican, cheer loudly and give them a chorus of “God Bless Our Pope”; loud booing when the ‘heroes’ are mentioned; when the infamous flagellation scenes start, say loudly “Call that a discipline? *This* is a discipline” and wave a thumping great cat o’ nine tails in the air; to heighten tension and create the requisite dramatic mood, chant a few verses of the “Dies Irae”; you know, stuff like that.
Ah, well: I can dream…and hope this turkey flops like no turkey has ever flopped before.
May 15, 2006, at 2:04 pm
By far the most blistering review of the book that I’ve read was in The Skeptic magazine, an atheist journal. One does not have to be a Christian or a fundamentalist to see that Brown is a hack. My favorite quote from the Skeptic article said something like :”It is not possible to be more wrong than this.”
May 15, 2006, at 2:41 pm
I found the book unreadable, and I like decent hack B-grade genre fiction. The writing is terrible.
May 15, 2006, at 4:08 pm
For what Dan Brown left out about the Mona Lisa, some startling new research is at
http://improbable.com/pages/airchives/paperair/volume12/v12i2/CanineMona-12-2.pdf
May 15, 2006, at 8:19 pm
“those whose “faith†is “threatened†by this book — or any serious theological thinking and reflecton — probably deserve having that “faith†“threatened†… big time!!”
In logician’s terms, that’s obviously the exclusive “or”…
and in fact, I constantly find my “faith” threatened by serious theoligical thinking and reflection, as serious theology shows me just how shallow and self-centered “my” faith can be, full of smug satisfaction and a desire to make myself feel good…yes, to the extent that faith is “mine” and not the Church’s, it definitely needs to be threatened. And killed.
May 15, 2006, at 10:13 pm
I enjoyed the book—it IS a good read though not as gripping as “Angels and Demons.”
I will see the movie and try to guess if Tom Hanks can survive his hairdo.
I did appreciate Griffith-Jones’ “exploitation” of the code!
May 15, 2006, at 10:18 pm
Martha, are you related to Chesterton, by any chance?
I’ve seriously contemplated going and laughing my guts out at the terribleness of it and mocking it like you say, but I anticipate it’ll just be sooooo bad - ick. Maybe I should look at it as a work of charity.
May 17, 2006, at 2:41 pm
Joan, I, too read Angels and Demons before Da Book and that set my mind in the proper mode for understanding who this Dan Brown person is as a writer. I enjoyed A&D up to a point and likewise, Da Book (I borrowed both, not wishing to further enrich the author). Seems to me that not reading the book or seeing the movie would bar me from any debate and discussion that inevitably will follow. I’ll see it this weekend.
May 18, 2006, at 8:36 am
Mary Kidd, I am a 23 yr old Pastor in NB, Canada and had an opinion about the book before I read it, which was unfair. So I picked up the book, like yourself to for my own semi-educated opinion, and was quite suprised by the writers descriptive-ness and fast paced writing. It was a good FICTIONAL NOVEL.
As far as people’s faith being shaken by a novel, that would cause me to ask, “how strong was their faith and how much to you know about your faith?” I think if this causes people to be challenged with what they believe and make them stronger, then in my mind that is a positive outcome. I work in the local Highschool and have had many positive conversations with people about this book and God.
I will see the movie as well, if I do not, then I have no right giving an opinion. That doesn’t mean I agree or support his theories.
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) […]