Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It

Post by **Alatar** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:03 pm

It's his intelligence, not his career choice that affords him respect.

Post by **nerdanel** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:08 pm

I imagine that one can accord whatever weight one wishes to Sir Ian's opinion, whether based on his perceived acting ability, his perceived intelligence, or anything else. Odds are that in this case, many non-Christians would identify more with his remark than many Christians - for reasons that have very little to do with either his acting ability or his intelligence.

Post by **halplm** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:11 pm

Yes, as he has his own agenda.

I just don't really understand why his opinion should be accorded much relevance, as it is highly biased against the church.

Wed May 31, 2006 5:11 pm

I certainly sympathize with Sir Ian's point of view, not being a believer in a strict interpretation of the Bible myself. However, I do think that it would be a mistake not to acknowledge the difference between something that is clearly intended to be a fictional entertainment (that perhaps at most gets people to think about serious issues) and something that for millions of people is considered to be (to varying degrees) the Word of God.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:18 pm

If we started discounting people's opinions because of their real or perceived biases, very few of us would be entitled to say anything at all.

Post by **Whistler** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:31 pm

The last thing I want to do is defend Dan Brown, but I do find this passage from Philippians interesting:

Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

What Paul appears to be saying is, Ultimately it doesn't matter what people are saying about Christ, or whether I approve of their intentions. The important thing is that they are thinking and talking about Him, and that's always a good thing.

Something to consider, perhaps.

Post by **halplm** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:34 pm

I'm not discounting his opinion, Prim, I just am constantly seeing his opinion brought to this discussion as if he was some kind of authority on the subject.

He's an actor and he played one of the characters, and he played that character with a passion because he liked that the character hated the church.

That makes him a good actor, not any more qualified to comment on this discussion than anyone else with an opinion.

Post by **axordil** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:37 pm

Lidless wrote:Research, Ax! Research!

I thought about checking the web site. But then I realized that my post had exhausted my interest in the subject.

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed May 31, 2006 7:22 pm

halplm wrote:He's an actor and he played one of the characters, and he played that character with a passion because he liked that the character hated the church.

He played that character with a passion because he's a good actor and it's his job to play the characters as truly as possible.

I see no evidence that he gave his acting job any an extra effort "because he liked that the character hated the church." Seems like you are reading something into his quotes that isn't there. I don't think Ian McKellan "hates the church." And even if he did, I doubt if he would allow his personal feelings to change or affect how he might play any character. It's his job to play whatever character his part calls for.

Whistler wrote:What Paul appears to be saying is, Ultimately it doesn't matter what people are saying about Christ, or whether I approve of their intentions. The important thing is that they are thinking and talking about Him, and that's always a good thing.

I am experiencing a small swooning moment for Paul.

Wed May 31, 2006 7:28 pm

And me for Whistler

Post by **halplm** » Wed May 31, 2006 7:37 pm

I'm not reading anything into his quotes. His quotes are as plain as day, and he's had a lot more than the ones quoted here.

Post by **The Watcher** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:09 pm

Uhmmm, I know I can be dense at times, but what is exactly being argued here any longer? That The Da Vinci Code as a movie is grossing some money but is still seen as a poorly made, stodgy, and dull film? That a fictional movie based on a fictional book should have had disclaimers stating it was fiction?

Why are some here LOOKING for a reason to be pissed off? Were you forced to sit through the movie? Were you forced to have the book read to your unwilling ears?

And while we are at it, a disclaimer in front of Biblical movies would be only fair if DVC warrants such. I certainly do not believe in the Bible as anything but the most illustrative book of allegory, parable, and historic evolution of the power of myth and a sometimes spot on moral guide, but even there one finds some huge issues.....

Since the majority of world opinion lies on my side, I suggest that anything Biblically based needs to now carry a disclaimer stating that it is only opionion and not fact.

Sounds ridiculous, yes? That is because it IS.

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:53 pm

Whatever, halplm.

If you have quotes from McKellan where he states that he "hates the church," produce them. Further, if you have quotes where he says that he played this character with a particular passion because of his hatred for the church, I'd be interested in seeing them, as well.

I have my own issues with the church, but I am far from "hating" it.

You have put a pretty strong label on McKellan's feelings for the church and futhermore, you have subscribed an underlying motive for his performance. ("He played the character in this way because he hates the church.")

Seems like a false and nasty kind of accusation on your part, unless you can show otherwise, as I said, with specific quotes by McKellan.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:27 pm

It was #1 worldwide for the 3rd week in a row. Amazing.

Post by **Alys** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:51 pm

In the film Ian McKellan's character, while quite clearly hating the Catholic Church, says, just as clearly, that responsibility for the cover-up lies not with them or Opus Dei, but just with a select few members of both.

I thought it was OK btw, a bit over long and dull in bits and certainly lacking the pace of the book, but not as dreadful as some reviewers have claimed.

Post by **Lidless** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:04 pm

Alys wrote:I thought it was OK btw, a bit over long and dull in bits and certainly lacking the pace of the book, but not as dreadful as some reviewers have claimed.

In complete and utter agreement.