I don’t know yet whether I’m going to see The Da Vinci Code. While I thought the book was a good read, I heard that the movie is long and dull. If I learn otherwise, I will likely see the flick despite my discomfort with the story’s misuse of myth. (With Ian McKellen in the movie, I am tempted to see it.)
While many Christians are upset with the way it treats the Church and the version of Christian history it provides, I’m bothered by how author Dan Brown perverts the Grail legend. This is not the first movie to play with this sacred story. But, unlike Monty Python, Brown wasn’t trying to be funny. To be sure, like that great flick, his book did entertain. Given that there is something archetypal in the quest for the Holy Grail, Brown was brilliant in creating scavenger hunt as a kind of a quest for the Grail.
Despite Brown’s contention, the grail legend is not inherent to the Christian myth. The grail legend only became a Christian one after the Celtic peoples of the British Isles converted to Christianity. As they adopted their new faith, the Celts kept their myths (and images) alive by relating them to the passion of Christ — or other Christian teachings. Indeed, the Grail itself is derived from an image of Celtic mythology — a vessel of plenty. They incorporated that mythic chalice into Christian stories through Joseph of Arimathea, the rich disciple of Jesus who buried Jesus in his own tomb.
In the original Grail stories, we thus have Joseph taking Jesus’ blood in a chalice and later bringing that chalice to Britian. (Or altenatively taking a cup used in the Last Supper.) Brown rather creates some strange legend that the Grail legend is inherent in the Christian myth, suggesting that the real Grail was a woman!
To be sure, revisioning a myth is not enough to destroy a movie. I thoroughly enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where that screen hero takes a sip from the “actual” Grail which gave some medieval knight extraordinary longetivity (and the ability to speak a version of English not spoken until several hundred years after he had last had contact with his fellow man). And while playing around with an ancient legend doesn’t prevent it from being entertaining, eliminating the fabulous elements altogether can render an engaging myth dreadfully dull.
I guess I’m really just upset that with all the hullabaloo over the The Da Vinci Code‘s treatment of Christianity, nobody is paying any attention to its treatment of the Grail Legend. I guess we Grail aficionados don’t have a strong media presence — or active lobby.
And while Dan Brown’s story invents a fanciful retelling of the Grail legend, I still might see the movie. I mean, Monty Python took some liberties with the legend and still created one of the greatest comedies of all time. But then again, today’s release isn’t a comedy.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
In Comment 21, my friend soon-to-be Dr. Froyd observes that I may be mistaken:
. . . the idea that the Holy Grail is possibly the BLOODLINE of jesus is not a creation of dan brown, and there are just as many theories tracing the grail as cup back to different myth systems as there are tracing it to celtic myth.
In the book “From Scythia to Camelot” [link discovered by GPW following soon-to-be Dr. Froyd’s suggestion], they actually trace the ideas of the grail back to the myth system of the scythians, and refute MUCH of the theories tracing it to the celts.
So read his whole comment for his thoughts on the matter.
well if you do decide to watch the movie, you should submit a review to FilmCrowd.com 🙂 we have a page up for Da Vinci Code right here: http://www.filmcrowd.com/content/world/all/5092/Da_Vinci_Code_The/8/0
Brown was sloppy all around, not just with Christian and Celtic myth. A couple of examples that particularly annoyed me:
Flouting centuries of protocol and tradition, every character in the book calls Leigh Teabing “Sir Teabing” instead of the only permissible form, “Sir Leigh”.
The supposedly brilliant Sophie Neveu seemingly finds it so exceptional that a line of poetry in English is in iambic pentameter that the meter should be considered a clue.
… I could go on for days.
I’ll wait till I can borrow the DVD for free from the library.
Of course Monty Python took even greater liberties with “The LIfe of Brian”, another brilliant version of the Christian story. It is amazing what you can get away with when you use humor.
Doug, very well said, he was sloppy all around.
And Leah, exactly. Humor changes everything.
What bothers me is Brown’s pretense to be putting forward serious theories. He can still spin a good yarn.
It’s only a movie.
Not only is it “only a movie,” it is also fiction.
I’m amused at the controversy that this movie has engendered. The producers probably couldn’t have gotten better advertising for a movie that more than a few critics have panned. It reminds me of the free advertising that “salacious” books used to want to get by being “banned in Boston!”
Yup… and by all accounts, a fairly crappy movie.
My parish men’s group is discussing the DaVinci Code, beginning in about ten minutes. I usually go. I’m not going today.
Instead, we’re going to Hershey. It’s only a hundred miles, and we’ve never been. Nice day, nice weather.
It’s fiction, and it’s entertaining. Don’t take the Da Vinci Code that seriously.
Let’s see: 2 ½ hours long – with bad hair (Tom Hanks), wacky plot (Jesus was married) and an evil albino character….Vera would have preferred a musical version directed by John Waters, with Patty Hearst as Mary Magdalene, but that’s just Vera.
I’m hoping Hollywood really throws political correctness to the wind and green lights: “Mohammad – Man or Myth” detailing the exciting and sexy side of the (alleged) Prophet Mohammad in his adventures to conquer the world. Live action only – no animation – from what the Danes tell me.
As for any perceived insult to the Muslim community, Vera is sure “It’s fiction!” and “it’s only a movie!” will be more than enough to counter any hard feelings.
As for the grail itself, Vera has always appreciated fine stemware herself.
You hit the real story Vera, that I think many in the world have missed.
When somebody makes a blasphemous semi-crappy movie about Jesus (or Grail or Moses or Mozart or whoever), some people register their objections but that’s it. “Let’s go on with the show!” “It’s only a movie”
But if you only show Mohammed in a cartoon – don’t insult him – it’s time for fatwas, riots and assassinations. And – this is the worst part – we, or at least our leading news organizations and politicians, give in.
It’s fascinating – the double standards and cowardice.
Calarato –
Vera agrees completely with you.
Offend the Christian or Jewish Community (with everything from “Last Temptation of Christ” to “Munich”) and those people who take offensive get a stern lecture on the rights of free speech and benefits of religious dissent. Mention Muslims rioting over cartoons in mixed company and someone is sure to call you a racist.
Vera awaits a bio-pic on a film maker who lost his life for his art: Theo Van Gogh.
Vera isn’t holding her breath….
I found it interesting that the name “Leigh Teabling” was made up from the last names of the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”.
monty
Oh, well. Every good film maker is going to have made a turkey or two. Maybe “DaVnici” just wasn’t meant to be a movie. Too much detail needed to tell the story; a quantity of detail which just can’t be made to fit into a 2 + hour film and make any sense. But unlike, say, “Jaws”, where you only need the basic, simple plot from the book to tell the story, how do you tell the “DaVinci” story without the minutia. The best Steven King adaptations “Green Mile”, “Sharahnk Redemption”, and Stand By Me”, were all lifted from short stories or novellas, giving the film make plenty of room to add and subtract stuff to make the movie work. “DaVinci”, as good a read as it might have been (haven’t read it), it just wasn’t a good choice silver screen treatment. It was too complicated. Ron Howard will probably kick himself later for doing this project. To quote the Grail Knight in Last Crusade: He chose poorly…”
PS And it’s funny. “DaVinci” the movie was going to be a Holy Grail for Hollywood, one that helps them break out of the two year ticket sales slump.
Who has time for movies when there are Mexicans to shoot and Muslims to hate? Christmas is only seven months away…. shouldn’t we all be preparing for that war?
The cartoons were only cartoons. Even sillier than a a silly movie.
The world is watching.
Dan, despite your typically cogent analysis and commentary, I am sad to say that here you miss the mark and your comments are *completely* out of line. Such an unfair cheap shot.
King Arthur was *not* “dreadfully dull”!
LOL, Joe, glad to see that someone checks my links! And I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one.
I’ve read the book “Da Vinci Code” but haven’t seen the movie yet…
I agree with comments #6 and #9. It is a fiction novel with fictional characters (very good read, btw–a page turner), but that’a all it is…it’s generated so much controversy becuase some of the high ranking clergy members of the catholic church and Opus Dei went public with their outrage over it, blowing it all out of proportion — and the lawsuit between the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” and Brown’s publisher was also high profile, which generated even more publicity for the book/movie. It’s no wonder the book did so well. It probably sold a few million more copies just due to the ‘curiosity’ factor. As for the movie being dull and bland…. One reviewer wrote that due to the book generating so much controversy, some of the corresponding scenes scenes in the movie were either toned down or eliminated completely. Too bad. I want to see it, but I can wait for the dvd.
#16 – Oh, of course. You’re right. Give in to fascism because “they’re only cartoons”. It’s “only free speech”, after all. And Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh’s life is “only his life”. If the fascists (Islamists) want to take those things – let’s let them! More “peaceful” that way, I agree.
Actually Dan, the idea that the Holy Grail is possibly the BLOODLINE of jesus is not a creation of dan brown, and there are just as many theories tracing the grail as cup back to different myth systems as there are tracing it to celtic myth.
In the book “From Scythia to Camelot”(maybe exact title, maybe not), they actually trace the ideas of the grail back to the myth system of the scythians, and refute MUCH of the theories tracing it to the celts.
The grail has been part of the christian legend for a long time, and its origins are possibly celtic just as much as it is possibly scythian. What brown did in his book, however, has been done before…specifically by the Cathars. They were a heretical cult that was wiped out by the church in the 11th or 12th century(I may be off on the dates) because they believed that Christ married and the bloodline carried on. Some theorists also believe grail has been misinterpreted and transliterated from such words as “graal” and things like that, and may not originally have denoted a cup at all!
In addition, not to mention another comic movie, think back to Kevin Smith’s Dogma: the idea that Jesus married or at least carried on children is definitely not a new one.
but that strays from the point that the theory that the grail is in fact christ’s bloodline is not new and not dan brown’s creation. Moreover, what brown really did was just combine pagan elements with this theory.
imo, the book was kinda boring and very formulaic. And not at all deserving of this much controversy.