Call for Disclaimer
From this week's batch of press releases comes this interesting tidbit:
The New York Times ad points to a Canadian survey indicating that a third of the Code's readers consider it authentic. Wow. That's truly astounding. It certainly confirms that our culture has a real problem with artistic literacy.
But is that Dan Brown's fault? Is it Ron Howard's? The Da Vinci Code is not the problem; it's simply the most visible symptom. Here's hoping that we don't get too hung up on the individual trees in this very dark and troubling cultural forest.
MORE HERE
Christian Newswire, 09.03.06
Da Vinci Outreach, a national initiative to expose the anti-Catholic lies in the upcoming movie The Da Vinci Code, is joining the request made by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights for director Ron Howard to clearly state that his film is a work of fiction.While Outreach and the Catholic League certainly have their facts right about history and so forth, they apparently don't see many movies. Works of cinematic fiction always include such language in their closing credits.
This week, the Catholic League ran an ad in the New York Times calling on Ron Howard to have the decency to do what Dan Brown, author of the novel, did not do: declare up front and in no uncertain terms that the movie is fiction.
...
What Davinci Outreach and the Catholic League are requesting of Ron Howard is merely a customary statement such as this: "This is a work of fiction. All information is the creation of the author's imagination. All persons, alive or dead, or events portrayed or depicted in this story are fictional and any resemblance to real people, organizations or incidents is purely coincidental."
The New York Times ad points to a Canadian survey indicating that a third of the Code's readers consider it authentic. Wow. That's truly astounding. It certainly confirms that our culture has a real problem with artistic literacy.
But is that Dan Brown's fault? Is it Ron Howard's? The Da Vinci Code is not the problem; it's simply the most visible symptom. Here's hoping that we don't get too hung up on the individual trees in this very dark and troubling cultural forest.
MORE HERE
Christian Newswire, 09.03.06
posted by Greg Wright at 10:55
10 Comments:
Yes, it is fiction, more than that, it is a parable. Most parables are fiction but they call us to imagine, "what if...". They call us to imagine things from a new perspective.
For Christians the central question is not, "What did da Vinci believe?" Even the question about Jesus marital status is secondary to the basic issue, The cannonization of the new testiment. Dan Brown's parable calls us to genuinely investigate that historic process before passing other judgements. How seriously do we take the Bible? How much are we willing to investigate any possible biases in its formation? Are we willing to consider scholarly works like Elaine Paigles books on the Gnostic Gospels?
If we do the scholarly work on the Bible and find that indeed there were many known gospels at the time that were deliberately ignored and left out of the cannon, how can we require Sony, or Dan Brown or Ron Howard or anyone to make statements that imply that there is no truth to be found in this parable?
Yes, you're right about the "what if" thing. And I really do think that's Dan Brown's point: Know why you believe what you believe, and be sure to ask tough questions.
Of course, one of the answers we find may be: Actually, there were good reasons for excluding certain gospels from the canon. That's what I've decided.
The point being that the disclaimer needs to be put in the large print - right up front. Nobody reads the boilerplate in small print at the end of the credits, unless its a Smoking Gun movie, and then it's probably funny. Too many people believe that this book is historically and theologically accurate, and are taking it too seriously. A nice, bold disclaimer during the opening credits would position the story nicely.
"A nice, bold disclaimer during the opening credits would position the story nicely" for you, maybe -- but it would pretty much kill the illusion of reality on which all fiction films (and even some "documentaries" like Michael Moore's) depend.
Your issue is not with The Da Vinci Code, if you think disclaimers are the answer. Your issue is with film in general. The artform works the way it does because of the audience's ability to lose themselves in a story. If you ask for a disclaimer on TDVC, you'd have to insist on one for The Passion of the Christ, too, which was also not a "historical" documentary. Do you want one there, too? If so, fine. If not, get over it.
This is art we're dealing with. The real solution is educating people about the nature and function of art, which doesn't "tell" the truth. It conveys an aspect of truth through creative license. Anyone who takes for granted that a work of art presents "reality" doesn't understand art.
Except that art, at times, reflects history or fact. Sometimes it doesn't. The uneducated masses really can't tell the difference unless the know the true history to begin with. My problem is that books such as DVC are read as fact because the reader doesn't know any better. To think that all consumers everywhere will look at a piece and say "That's nice - but its not accurate to history" is rediculous. People need to be told that its 50% history, or based on actual events, etc. People who already know (the minority) don't need the disclaimer, while the vast majority do.
I agree in general with everything you say, and in particular you are right that "The uneducated masses really can't tell the difference unless the know the true history to begin with."
That's the general problem, and that's where we need to spend our time.
The problem is not each new movie or book that comes along. It's dishonest to demand something different from Dan Brown and Ron Howard than we do from Mel Gibson (or Paul Crouch, Tim La Haye, etc. etc. etc.)
The fact is, millions of people out there have already read the book. The film will reach a SMALLER audience than the book has. Putting a disclaimer on the movie is like slapping a bandaid on a torn aorta.
I agree that the movie will reach a smaller audience than the book, all told, but it will reach a different audience. I would imaging that only 10% of the people who see the movie read the book, while the rest are going because the book is such a success and they don't want to read the book. What this is doing is expanding the scope of the misinformation. The disclaimeris Howard/Sony acknowledging that it is a work of fiction, while Brown continues to evade the topic by stating that it is factual. In the absense of such a statement, I would have to conclude that Howard believes the DVC as fact and I would lose great respect for him.
Yes, you're right -- the movie will reach something of a new audience, no doubt. But by and large, I believe that film audiences are even more hip to the nature of fiction than book audiences, sadly -- though those who are misled can be more deeply so.
Sony and Ron Howard -- and Dan Brown -- have already acknowledged that TDVC is a work of fiction. That they haven't done so in a fashion that satisfies you as all that is at issue.
Howard's and Sony's failure to kowtow to disclaimer hawks in no way suggests that they believe everything every character says is true -- because that's an impossibility.
My gosh -- does the word "villain" mean anything? Does the book's own admission that the Catholic Church and Opus Dei did nothing wrong in the book carry any weight?
Why should Howard care more about facts than you do?
There can be a story that is entirely fictional, and then there is historical fiction which takes place in a true historical setting, yet the story itself is fiction. Brown asserts the latter, saying his story is fiction but is based on factual ideas - Priory of Sion and the like.
Howard should care about facts because of the damage he could be doing through his media. I believe it to be within creative license to take liberties with someones factual life so long as you do not attempt to change who that person is (that is, do not damage their reputation.) To suggest that Jesus was married and had children, and to further state that it is a fact (or based on "true" accounts - such as the Gnostic gospels), is to do damage to the legacy of Jesus, is to confuse the faithful, and to (most importantly and prob. most harmful) steer the uncertain away from the Church, since she has now been painted as a most hypocritical and sinister institution.
It is this damage and misinformation that Howard should be concerned. Since Brown seems only concerned with furthering his book sales through sensationalism and controversy, the movie (a much more accessable and digestible medium than a book - even one by Brown) should at the very least acknoledge the danger and do the responsible thing. Such action is not 'kowtowing' - but being responsible to the audience.
I agree completely with your point about historical fiction. And I do think that Brown, at least, has been somewhat cavalier and irresponsible in that he knows as well as anyone how the guise of "historicity" can suck people in. (Can't say for sure about Howard yet, because I haven't seen the movie.)
Still, I think your comments illustrate that the audience is just as culpable as Brown or Howard. If you think that Brown suggests "that Jesus was married and had children" and further states "that it is a fact (or based on 'true' accounts - such as the Gnostic gospels)" then you're arguing with yourself, not with Dan Brown. The only "facts" that Brown asserts is the existence of Opus Dei (more or less true) and the Priory of Sion (also technically true, but clearly a discredited hoax).
All the rest of the stuff that you quote originates with the story's villain. Isn't that disclaimer enough?
And the fact that you either aren't aware of that, or that you somehow missed that while reading the book, says more about you than it does about Dan Brown. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home