In the fourth century, St. John Chrysostom said, quite simply,“There is nothing worse than blasÂphemy.” But the Church has not alÂways known how to deal with frontal attacks against her doctrine, especially in more modern times and democratic societies, and the “Da Vinci phenomÂenon” has made that abundantly clear. At first glance, it might seem fortunate that Ron Howard’s long-awaited film version of Dan Brown’s blockbuster pop novel, The Da Vinci Code, is a thudÂding bore, but it could also, unforÂtunately, make Catholics even more complacent about the very real chalÂlenges of blasphemy in our society.
But first, the film. Even setting aside for a moment the insidious herÂesies that underlie the film’s story- line, Howard’s cinematic adaptaÂtion fails on every level. It’s a borÂing “thriller” with a plodding pace and interminable expositions. These long-winded explanations are ofÂten accompanied by herky-jerky, washed-out, and computer-generÂated “historical” flashbacks that are not only silly but totally confusing. Except for the fundamental premises of the narrative—that Jesus was huÂman, that He married Mary MagdaÂlene who was the intended director of His church, and that the self-servÂing Catholic Church maliciously diÂvinized Christ and suppressed the truth—it’s hard to see how anyone who hasn’t read the novel will be able to follow the film’s confusing and ludicrous exposition of 2,000 years of Christian history.
Another problem is the already- shallow characters of Brown’s novel, who have here been further diminÂished into mere ciphers of explication. The main character, Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor of symbology, has no past (except for falling into a well as a child), no present, no family, no children, no wife, no friends, and no discernable interests except anagrams and the “sacred feminine.” Portrayed with zombie-like ponderousness by Tom Hanks, Langdon never tranÂscends being Tom Hanks the actor. As he struggles to solve the “code” and a related murder in the Louvre, Lang- don is thrown together with Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), introduced as the Paris police department’s “crypÂtographer,” but the two protagonists seem incapable of creating any kind of romantic chemistry. Tautou, whose accented English is often indecipherÂable, reveals none of the charm she exuded in the overrated Amelie (2001). Finally, there’s Sir Ian McKellen in an exquisitely hammy performance as Langdon’s windbag colleague, furÂther proof that aging English stage actors are now required to come to Hollywood, overact, and make lots of money.
These performers are, of course, hampered by the dreadful script adapted by Akiva Goldsman, who previously wrote Howard’s A Beautiful Mind, a film that consciously deceived its audience and misrepresented the real John Nash, and the more recent Cinderella Man, which didn’t manÂage to suck all of the life out of the powerful story of Catholic boxer Jim Braddock, although it intentionally distorted and maligned the character of the heavyweight champion Max Baer (no relation).
While Howard, one of HollyÂwood’s most puffed-up but well- connected directors, has made a film that’s confusing, dull, and pretentious, it’s useful to remember the unheralded but very entertaining 2004 advenÂture, National Treasure, that also dealt with codes and conspiracy. Yes, its backstory was rather ludicrous, claimÂing that Benjamin Franklin and other Freemason founding fathers somehow acquired the treasure of Solomon and left the directions to its location on the Declaration of Independence. But the film, starring Nicholas Cage and DiÂane Kruger, was fun and entertaining in spite of its historical nonsense, in the tradition of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The Da Vinci Code, however, is not about some historical fun, and despite its cinematic flaws and confusing preÂsentation, it still succeeds in claimÂing, over and over, that Jesus Christ was only human, that Christianity is a hoax, and that the Catholic Church is the evil perpetrator of the deception.
Brown, of course, has always inÂsisted that these claims are true, and his novel even begins with an erroneÂous section labeled “FACT.” The countless errors in the book, many of which also appear in the film, have been addressed in many formats, inÂcluding three useful books: The Da Vinci Hoax (Ignatius), The Da Vinci DeÂception (Ascension), and De-Coding Da Vinci (Our Sunday Visitor). Brown, a failed songwriter and prep-school teacher, had written three earlier genre novels with mediocre success before he turned his hand to blasÂphemy. The Da Vinci Code, although just as routine and poorly plotted (with numerous plot holes and conÂtrivances) as his earlier novels, has become one of the most popular bestsellers of all time, and Brown has already made an estimated $250 milÂlion from the book. Like the fourth- century Arius, another denier of the divinity of Jesus, Brown, apparently raised a Catholic, has learned that blasphemy is extremely lucrative.
But is it dangerous? Could anyone believe the nonsense in the book or the film? Many Catholic commentaÂtors have taken the rather superior position that it’s just too stupid for anyone to believe, but that belies the reality. Countless Americans now beÂlieve that St. Mary Magdalene was the wife and heiress of Jesus Christ, that the Catholic Church is an elaborate sham, and that Opus Dei enlists assasÂsins within its ranks. While it’s ineviÂtable that heretics come and go, their hateful ideas are always with us.
In 1965, another blasphemous bestseller, the “non-fiction” The PassÂover Plot by biblical scholar Hugh J. Schonfield, speculated that Yeshua (Jesus) was a Jewish zealot who came to believe that He was the anticipated messiah and that His death and resurÂrection would lead to the end of RoÂman rule in Palestine. Thus, Jesus, according to Schonfield’s admittedly undocumented speculations, plotted to fake both His death and His resurÂrection. With the help of a few conÂspirators, one of whom drugged the wine at the cross to knock Him unÂconscious, Jesus planned to survive the three-hour crucifixion, but the plot went wrong when the centurion used his spear, and Jesus later succumbed in the tomb. All the reports of Jesus’ resurÂrection and subsequent appearances (more than 100 references in the New Testament) are cavalierly dismissed as inaccurate or falsified by the Church.
So who could believe such nonÂsense? John Lennon, for one, who admitted, “My views on Christianity are directly influenced by a book, The Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schonfield.” The impact of Lennon on his generaÂtion is undeniable. The names of Arius, Schonfield, and Brown may eventually fade into the labyrinths of history, but the perniciousness of their ideas conÂtinues to damage people’s lives.
Older Catholics will still recall standing at Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and taking the Legion of Decency pledge, vowÂing to boycott any films condemned by the Legion as morally unacceptÂable. In its heyday, the Legion had a tremendous impact in Hollywood; but in the wake of Vatican II, the Legion was gradually marginalized, the oath disappeared from December 8 MassÂes, and the organization was finally disbanded in 1975.
Is it naïve to hope that the Church might once again find bold ways to challenge the media’s relentless atÂtacks on Jesus? Perhaps. But when the industry demeaned itself in the 1930s, Amleto Cardinal Cicognani made a call for the “purification of the cinÂema,” which led to the formation of the Legion of Decency. And 16 cenÂturies earlier, when the world had, as Jerome described it, “awoken with a groan to find itself Arian,” Athanasius stepped forward.