Monday, May 22, 2006

DVC: Dark Portent

I saw DVC this weekend.

There are plenty of great rebuttals to the film, and Lex Communis has most of them.

I think the best way for a Christian to refute the DVC is to open with the Resurrection. That's something every Christian will feel comfortably confident talking about, and something Dan Brown's novel and film skip altogether.

If there's no Resurrection, there's no point playing around with a "miracle gene" handed down through two thousand years of Frenchmen (2000 years of "free-thinking" French women and no bastardy?)
If Christ died and came back, where's the fraud in proclaiming his divinity?--And in spite of Prof. Joseph Campbell, Christ is not held to have died and arisen intact and unchanged as Osirus or any other god-myth I ever heard of. The Risen Christ, in the time before the Ascension, was a clearly different personality than the man who wept blood in Gethsemane. He was physically unrecognizable, He liked to teleport to and fro, He really enjoyed breaking up dinner parties of the Apostles. I don't mock--He was preparing some pretty dense friends of his for a lifetime of roadwork, spreading the news to all the world that Jesus was a lot more than just some inspiring dude from Nazereth. Snap out of it, I Am Who Am!

As for the stupid stereotypes of Catholics: anybody who thinks flagellant monks tour the capitals of Europe conversing in Latin--apart from believing they'd pack a Glock for God--can be stood off with Stultus est.

Yeah, 'it's just fiction'. So's Birth of a Nation. And if you don't accept the social context of the drama, then the emotional reactions of the characters to that social context will seem bizarre. If you don't think free negroes will destroy the Great White Way, you won't enjoy Birth of a Nation, which is a drama about fictional characters confronting that 'crisis'. Likewise, if you don't think faith in Christ is the worst thing to happen to humanity, you won't really enjoy The DaVinci Code.

Apart from that--apart from the blasphemy, bigotry, and historical relativism-- it's talky.

The police psychiatrist explaining Norman Bates' psychotic spree--Indiana Jones explaining the Ark of the Covenant--Morpheus explaining the Matrix--Gandalf explaining the One Ring-- not only was Tebing's explanation of the Grail longer than any of those, it felt like it was longer than all of them put together. Ron Howard tries to help by creating images of dancing pagans lynched by cross-toting barbarians, but he'd have done better to throw the money into tighter editing. If you consider those four examples above, you'll notice the industry is becoming more and more forgiving of lengthy speeches.

Not a good thing.

Inside of five years, expect a thriller where the heroes dodge the posse by hiding in the gallery during the State of the Union address, and the director stays with them for twenty minutes.

No comments: