A place to indulge my narcissism... and write stuff...

Opus Dei and the Knights

There’s been quite a bit of buzz surrounding whether the box-office take of “The Da Vinci Code” will be follically challenged when it opens this Friday. There are also Catholic groups, including “Opus Dei” asking for a film disclaimer. Opus Dei doesn’t want to be portrayed as secretive monk-freaks… Um, whatever. As for the Catholic bureaucracy, Josh Grossberg wrote in E!-Online, “In a Good Friday sermon at St. Peter’s Basilica, Father Ramiero Cantalamessa, speaking before Pope Benedict XVI, attacked the book and the upcoming film as “pseudo-historic” works aimed at undermining the Church’s authority.” The church’s authority? Is that the same authority some of their priests used to rape little boys? Just wondering.

As for how the movie will do, just do the math. “Da Vinci” sold over 40 million copies of the book. Multiply that times people lending their copy to others, library borrowing, illegal Internet distribution of the text and audio version and that 40 million is probably 400 million. Those that haven’t read the book have certainly heard about it, so I expect the opening weekend to be huge. After that it will be all about word of mouth advertising. With Ron Howard directing, I expect movie-goer opinions to be stellar. I dare say that if “Da Vinci” had a love story and a sinking luxury-liner, it might end up the highest grossing film in history.

2 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    When I read some of these articles, I can’t help but think-

    …doth protest too much

    -M.

  2. Anonymous

    Oh my, 40 million plus people that believe by reading the book, that they have a solid education in the history of art and religion to form a relevant opinion. It is what I like to call, “intellectual laziness”. I guess if a work of fiction can generate the right discussions, then it really does not matter what the source was or who got thrown under the bus to make a point?

    The danger lies with individuals thinking they have fact/evidence to support their deep-rooted opinions (for example, Catholicism), by lowering their standards of sources to a work of fiction. I do not know if the families of the abused boys would appreciate the comparison; their experience probably felt much more nonfiction.

    I loved the book, btw. I remember smirking in a “nod/wink” way at some of the places that were blatantly wrong, especially the art-related areas. I knew many professors that were anti-religion but loved art, and knew that objectivity was in the eyes of the beholder.

    This whole thing reminds me of the controversy with Dan Quail’s speech that included a reference to Murphy Brown and generated great controversy. I remember talking to some chicks about the whole thing, and at one point I had to tap one on their arm and say, “You do know the Murphy Brown is not real, right?”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2020 Fifteenkey

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: