Peggy Noonan's comments on "The Da vinci Code"
here is the last part of Peggy Noonan's column today in which she comments on "the Da Vinci code":
"Speaking of the detachment of the elites, the second big news of the week--in some ways it may be bigger--is the apparent critical failure of "The DaVinci Code." After its first screening in Cannes, critics and observers called it tedious, painfully long, bloated, grim, so-so, a jumble, lifeless and talky.
There is a God. Or, as a sophisticated Christian pointed out yesterday, there is an Evil One, and this may be proof he was an uncredited co-producer. The devil loves the common, the stale. He can't use beauty; it undermines him. "Banality is his calling card."
I do not understand the thinking of a studio that would make, for the amusement of a nation 85% to 90% of whose people identify themselves as Christian, a major movie aimed at attacking the central tenets of that faith, and insulting as poor fools its gulled adherents. Why would Tom Hanks lend his prestige to such a film? Why would Ron Howard? They're both already rich and relevant. A desire to seem fresh and in the middle of a big national conversation? But they don't seem young, they seem immature and destructive. And ungracious. They've been given so much by their country and era, such rich rewards and adulation throughout their long careers. This was no way to say thanks.
I don't really understand why we live in an age in which we feel compelled to spoof the beliefs of the followers of the great religions. Why are we doing that? Why does Hollywood consider this progressive as opposed to primitive, like a pre-Columbian tribe attacking the tribe next door for worshiping the wrong spirits?
"The DaVinci Code" could still triumph at the box office, but it has lost its cachet, and the air of expectation that surrounded it. Its creators have not been rewarded but embarrassed. Good. They should be."
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
- Tom's blog
- Login to post comments
OK but
The book was an exciting read from a fiction point of view. Like Bonities of the Vampire, excitingbook, bad movie. It's sort of like Harry Potter--adventure. But, the Da Vinci code is sad from a religion point of view in that it will confuse and misdirect some.
Bonfire of the Vanities
"Bonities of the Vampire"? Shall we contact Anne Rice--great title, but I think you meant "Bonfire of the Vanities". I thought that was a great book--I really looked forward to the movie. when it got bad reviews I wouldn't accept them; I assumed the movie was better than those nasty critics thought. boy was I wrong--the movie was so bad, it was almost unwatcheable. And it had a great cast--Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, Melanie Griffith, directed by Brian de Palma. Some books are just good reads, but are untranslatable to film. "Bonfire of the Vanities" was one of them. Just think, if "DaVinci code" flops, a whole cottage industry of christain writers with web sites and books de-bunking the book will also go out of business.