Today the movie came out. Today Erica and I saw it. It was quite well done and I enjoyed it enormously. It has been just long enough since I read the book that I couldn't remember too much detail, and of course, a movie has to have less detail by the nature of the beast. In any case, the characters were nicely fleshed out and it was the extraneous stuff that was eliminated--I felt that every bit of the movie except one brief shot was totally neccessary to the story, and that the story was fully encapsuled in the movie.
When the book first came out, I refused to read it because of its anti-Catholic reputation. There's enough anti-any religion out there, and I was not interested in anything like that. Erica asked my permission to read it. We discussed why I chose not to read it, but I encouraged her to go ahead if she was interested in the book. She read it, and told me [repeatedly] that it was NOT anti-Catholic if you read it all the way through. So I read and emmensily enjoyed the book. I agree, book or movie, that it really is not anti-Catholic, nor is it anti-Christianity. It is a cleverly drawn tale using enough facts to make it plausible to a "willing suspension of disbelief."
According to Catholic theology, IF this were presented as a TRUE story, it could be very disturbing--as to all Christiandom. I would like to point out that at one point the "bad guys" admit that IF caught, they would be excommunicated, and it is these characters and their actions, I think, that draw the anti-Catholic label.
So...if you are interested--go see a good cloak and dagger movie. Be entertained. Enjoy the bits of "clues" that are manufatored and twisted to make this tale. But do not take it as Gospel, and do not confuse it with fact. A fun story should not be a danger to anyone's testimony of God!
10 comments:
I have never, nor will I ever, ask permission to read a book. Censorship of any form sucks, why would I force myself into it?
CLARIFICATION!
As I recall, I was asked if I thought it was OK to read the book. I, as the mother of a minor, thought said minor was asking permission, as said book was controversial and in the news. I did not then, nor have I ever tried to censor what terrierchica reads.
That would be really stupid [sorry, Aiden] on my part, now wouldn't it?
As I recall, I needed permission for a library card, as a minor, not to read the book. I did though, need to card to get the book from the library.
I'm so glad you posted this! I've REALLY been debating on reading the book. I've heard its a good read, but I've also heard that it's anti-christian and can blur your mind on gospel stuff so I've stayed away. But i've been really curious anyway!
I saw it on sale for $6 at Sam's Club and I'm debating on buying it. Is it the type of book you'd want to read again when the details fade in your mind?
My two bits, for whatever they're worth:
I listened to the book on cd during those early-motherhood days when I spent most of my time on the couch with my arms unable to hold a book. I thought it a very well-written story.
The premise which is considered so controversial, but which I will not dilvulge for those who haven't read it yet, has never been controversial to me. Why would *that idea* be a bad thing? To me it is by no means a blasphemous theory, but actually an idea I had considered before and supports my idea of the meaning of life.
Instead of it being a testimony-shattering experience I thought it was an envigorating story.
I read the book a few weeks ago, and last night Jesse and I went to see it (yes, we got to go on a date!).
I really enjoyed the book, and mostly enjoyed the movie. There was a little bit of change from the book in the ending that I don't feel was necessary, but other than that I liked it.
Personally, I found it a great, intriguing, story. I don't understand why people let it get so controversial. It's not like the author was trying to pass it off as fact, it is a FICTIONAL story. He did amazing amounts of research, and there's enough fact to make it more plausible, but he still never says either that he believes the theories the characters present in the book, nor does he say that the book is in anyway fact.
If you have read this book (and liked it), and you haven't read Angels and Demons yet, I suggest you do so. It takes place before Da Vinci Code does.
Fact: TC read the book and recommended it to me. We both read Angels & Demon afterwards, tho it was written first and is the same genre [obviously, as The Da Vinci Code is a sequel--in that it has the same main character. It doesn't matter if you haven't read the first book first, tho.]
FS--go ahead and read and enjoy the book. And at that price--yes, it is the type of book that you would want to read again--if only to catch more of the clues as you read!
PM--I think there are really two parts to the controversy. The first part is accepted by many LDS--tho certainly is not church doctrine...the second part...I could not accept without revelation telling me so, because it just raises too many questions. But I guess it might be very different for someone of a different background.[One of my big arguments with my best girlfriend in high school was over Mary, the Mother of God--according to Catholic belief, she was always a Virgin--not so to Protestants.[This has nothing to do with the book] When I joined the LDS church and began hearing that Jesus has actual physical brothers...well, let's just say that I had a hard time with the concept. [In the end, it doesn't matter to anyone but Joseph, I think.]
SINNERS!!!
heh. i kid.
i'm the last person who will ever try to deter someone from any book... except for the fact it is a form of reading. and reading is... well, reading.
Angel, My reply to you was LOST!!!Do you here me wailing?
I've not checked out historical errors, but I did find it a fun read. Period--no great lessons learned,etc. Just fun. I think that is all it was ever supposed to be.
Angel,
I understand exactly what you mean...but my memory is too far gone. I like to read stuff there is no need to remember, because I do not then get frustrated by my disability to remember any details.
What I want to remember I often can, because I read fluff in between. [I also have the 'eat all the chocolate in one day theory' at Easter time..so my theories may be suspect at best!]
I don't pretend to know as far as Jesus being human enough to want to marry...perhaps so, perhaps no. It really has no bearing on anything else He did. I also have my doubts about Mary Magdalene neccessarily being that woman AND being the prostitute who repented...I doubt she'd be both. I do know that I do NOT believe that the God of this world had human children. Way too fanciful to me...but if someone wants to make such implications to tell a story, as long as it is not being presented as Doctrine, I do not really have a problem. We could go on into all sorts of sectarian beliefs here, but I don't think it is neccessary. Some people will like the book, some people won't. I honestly do not find it blasphemous, and to me, that is what counts.
Interestingly enough my word verification ended with "bydvc" :)
Post a Comment