The Da Vinci Code

[maly.ksiaze]

Właśnie wróciłem z kina. Co by tu jeszcze napisać...? Hmmm... A...

Pozdrawiam,

mk.

[kan_z_oz]

maly.ksiaze napisał:

> Właśnie wróciłem z kina. Co by tu jeszcze napisać...? Hmmm... A...
>
> Pozdrawiam,
>
ODP: Lepiej pozno niz wcale. Podobal Ci sie?
Ostatnio obejrzalam; Trzy pogrzeby Malquides Estrada oraz X-mana.

Kan

[ertes]

A ja jestem ciekaw co sklonilo cie do zalozenia watku na temat tego filmu o
ktorym nawet nie wiesz co powiedziec? Chyba ze to jedyny film jaki obejrzelas w
kinia w ostatnich latach gdyz nie przypominam sobie zebys zakladal watki na
temat innych, obejrzanych przez ciebie filmow.

[kan_z_oz]

Hej Bruner nie takie z nami numery - klotnia juz na ten temat sie odbyla. MK
sie spoznil - bad luck.
Nie wypuszczaj Ertesie...

Kan

[ertes]

Sie tylko pytam...

[maly.ksiaze]

Bo ja wiem? Moze to, ze wydalem na bilety $9.50 (x2) i wydaje mi sie, ze za te
cene nabylem prawo do 'wypowiedzenia sie', nawet jak nie mam zbyt wiele do
powiedzenia? A moze wieczorna nuda?
Jesli sugerujesz, zebym napisal cos o filmie jako takim ...to juz napisalem.
Wsrod znajomych oceniajacych film zauwazam tendencje: film podobal sie tym,
ktorzy nie czytali ksiazki. I w tym rzecz.

Pozdrawiam,

mk.

[tortugo]

Artykul z National Review napisany przez czlonka Opus Dei. Przepraszam ze nie
link, ale nie da sie ;) Nie zapraszam niniejszym do dalszej dyskusji an ten
stary temat, jeno jeszcze jeden poglad, jakoby "od wewnatrz", w odpowiedzi na
post m.k.

enjoy :)
~:O:=o

Laugh When You Watch That
TDVC’s shortcomings aside, at least Dan Brown can poke fun at himself.

By Fr. John Wauck

Naturally, as a priest of Opus Dei, I can’t claim to be thrilled about Dan
Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, or this weekend's movie opening, but it seems to me
that there is, despite the copious ink spilled and still awaiting spilling,
something that commentaries on Dan Brown’s work consistently overlook: its
author’s self-deprecating sense of humor.

He has designed something that, for all its faults, artfully resists being
taken too seriously. In fact, there’s a key scene in the novel which stands out
both as a testimony to Brown’s humility and as a clever invitation to laugh
with him when you watch the movie.

The hero, Harvard professor Robert Langdon, is in New York having a “power
lunch” with his editor, Jonas Faukman, to discuss his upcoming book on
the “symbology” of the sacred feminine. Faukman, worried by the manuscript’s
daring conjectures about Jesus, Mary Magdalen, and the Holy Grail, wants to
make sure that Langdon has scholarly support for his theory, so he reminds
him: “You’re a Harvard historian, for God’s sake, not a pop schlockmeister
looking for a quick buck.”

Of course, what makes Langdon’s imaginary manuscript controversial is precisely
what has made Brown’s real novel controversial, and, just in case anyone misses
the parallels, Brown has made the editor’s name an anagram of his own editor’s
name. The scene is clearly meant to conjure up a real-life conversation between
Brown himself and his editor Jason Kaufman.

What makes this an impressive tribute to Brown’s humility is the comparison
that he invites the reader to make. The fictional Robert Langdon is indeed a
Harvard historian, but everyone knows that Dan Brown is not. In fact, most
readers will naturally wonder if the author of second-tier thrillers like
Digital Fortress and Angels and Demons isn’t—to use a word much abused in the
novel—literally a “pop schlockmeister.”
So, in an amusing way, Brown calls attention to his own lack of academic
credentials and the sub-literary quality of his novels—points which certainly
haven’t escaped notice. The art historian Bruce Boucher has suggested that the
book be turned into an opera instead of a movie, because “If something is too
stupid to say, you can always sing it.”

And yet, the joke is not on Brown, because he’s clearly in on it himself. In
fact, before that New York “power lunch” ends, the comedy gets richer and even
more self-aware: Prof. Langdon triumphantly pulls out a bibliography of fifty
historians who support his theory, and Faukman, glancing at the list,
gasps, “They’re… real historians!”

Here again, Brown is winking at the reader, because it’s perfectly clear that
there are no real historians who support the nonsense that Langdon has written:
only one of the “real historians” on the list is mentioned, and he’s entirely
fictional. In fact, he’s the novel’s villain: Sir Leigh Teabing, the
famous “British Royal Historian.” Obviously, were a real historian available,
it would have cost Brown nothing to include the name.

As everyone now knows, “Teabing” too is a coded name: an anagram of the last
name of Michael Baigent, one of the unsuccessfully-litigious authors of Holy
Blood, Holy Grail, the popular work of pseudo-history from which Brown got many
ideas for his novel. Needless to say, Baigent is not an historian. Not content,
though, to make Teabing the villain, Brown also makes him criticize his
namesake. Commenting on Holy Blood, Holy Grail (in an odd way, his own book),
Teabing adds insult to injury by telling the heroine Sophie, “To my taste, the
authors made some dubious leaps of faith in their analysis.”

By this point, it should be obvious that the author of The Da Vinci Code is
having far too much fun to worry about getting his facts straight or making
much sense. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the entire novel is a
convoluted search for Saint Mary Magdalen’s tomb, which has been a popular
pilgrimage site in Provence for about thirteen centuries.

By the end, Brown emerges as a remarkably daring writer. He even mocks his own
novel’s appeal, introducing the phrase “Everyone loves a conspiracy” like a
weary refrain. At one point, a librarian laughs at Langdon and Sophie for their
tiresome search: “I wish I had a shilling,” she says, “for every time I’d run
searches for the Rose, Mary Magdalen, Sangreal, Merovingians, Priory of Sion,
et cetera, et cetera. Everyone loves a conspiracy.” Prof. Langdon himself
recalls people talking about the Holy Grail “ad nauseam” on the Internet and
says to himself: “Everyone loves a conspiracy.” Yet again, Brown is teasing his
readers, because “a conspiracy” is precisely what he’s selling.

Brown is clearly a good sport who knows perfectly well what he’s up to, and he
can’t resist tipping his hand to let us in on the joke. So hats off to an
author who’s not ashamed of coming across as a “pop schlockmeister looking for
a quick buck”—and, as we now know, finding it with a vengeance… literally.


—Fr. John Wauck studied renaissance history and literature at Harvard and lives
at the world headquarters of Opus Dei in Rome, where he is a professor at the
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. He blogs on The Da Vinci Code at
davincicode-opusdei.com.

[kan_z_oz]

Tortugo to wszystko? Jestem rozczarowana. Myslalam, ze beda w wywiadzie wywody
obalajace jeden mit po drugim. Cytaty, linki, dowody a tu tylko maly 'smrodek'
pt; zdyskretytowanie Browna za brak kwalifikacji z HARVARDU.
Przepraszam bardzo ale mnie nie interesuje co ten Pan studiowal i jakie
stanowiska piastuje - interesowalaby mnie natomiast rzeczowa wypowiedz; takowej
w cytowanym wywiadzie nie znalazlam.

Kan

[tortugo]

Kanie, ten artykul wysmiewa Browna i jego wersje "historii". Obalania mitow nie
oczekuj bo sie nie doczekasz: Brown zadnych mitow nie stworzyl wiec nie ma co
obalac, natomiast jego powiesc, jesli ja uznamy za probe obalenia mitow
chrzescianskiej wiary, jest smieszna. I to wlasnie pan Wauck, na swoj sposob,
obnaza, poprzez dyskredytacje Browna jako powaznego zrodla interpretacji
historii. Artykul ten, zatem, powinien byc odebrany nie jako powazna polemika z
Brownem i jego wersja wydarzen, a raczej jako miernik wagi, jaka instytucje
przedstawiaone w powiesci (konkretnie, Opus Dei) nadaja tekstom Browna. Jest
ona znikoma.

Mysle, ze w ogole reakcja kosciola istnieje tylko dlatego, by zapobiec
rozrastaniu sie pomyslow Browna wsrod tej czesci czytelnikow (lub widzow
filmu), ktorzy sa na tyle tepi by dac im wiare.

Przykro mi, ze Cie zawiodlem... ;)
~:O:=o

[ertes]

tortugo napisał:

> Jest
> ona znikoma.
>
Mylisz sie bo niby skad ten caly zgielk? A przeciez ta ksiazka nie jest jedyna a
jedna z wielu. I wiele ksiazek jest duzo dokladniejszych i podbudowanych faktami
historycznymi. Brwon napisal po prostu latwo czytana, wartka powiesc sensacyjna
osnuta na kanwie teorii spiskowej ktora zdobyla ogromna popularnosc. I tylko
dlatego zadrzaly te organizacje spod ciemnej gwiazdy jak Opus Dei lacznie z
tlumaczeniem sie co robia w national TV na ABC w kilkugodzinnych programach,
artykulach w TIME i innych.

Znikome to raczej nie jest tym bardziej ze te proby dyskredytacji i osmieszania
dzialaja wrecz odwrotnie.

Natomiast ten

[kan_z_oz]

Do tej pory bylo sporo na ten temat tylko, ze siedzialo w zakurzonych
bibliotekach. Spoleczenstwo konsumpcyjne nie lubi sie wysilac, na skomplikowane
wywody zasuszonych naukowcow, gdzie malo kto rozumie o co im chodzi.

To ponizej znalazlam przegladajac cos na necie; takich jest sporo.
Tylko to jedno stwierdzenie zmusza do myslenia.

"In her introduction in The Nag Hammadi Library, Karen King makes these
observations:
The confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of
Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and The Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the
tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox
positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the
authority of women to teach. The Gospel of Mary attacks both of these positions
head-on through its portrayal of Mary Magdalene. She is the Savior's beloved,
possessed of knowledge and teaching superior to that of the public apostolic
tradition. Her superiority is based on vision and private revelation and is
demonstrated in her capacity to strengthen the wavering disciples and turn them
toward the Good."

Kim jest Karen King?

"Karen King is Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University
in the Divinity School. An occasional consultant to the Ford Foundation on
Religion and Human Rights, Dr. King has received awards from the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst, Harvard
Divinity School, the Irvine Foundation, and Occidental College. She is the
author of The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, The Secret Revelation of John, What Is
Gnosticism?, Revelation of the Unknowable God, and scores of articles in
scholarly publications.

O jaka konfrontacje chodzi?

The Gospel of Thomas
________________________________________
Translated by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer
(Visit the Gospel of Thomas Collection for additional information)

[Saying probably added to the original collection at a later date:]
114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve
life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may
become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself
male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."


Tak wiec naukowcy - Ci z Harvardu tez sie zastanawiaja.
Materialow na temat wczesnego chrzescijanstwa sa tysiace.
Do tego wszystkiego na listach materialow nielegalnych znazly sie tez materialy
nie chrzescijanskie jak np; Plato, Republic 588A-589B;

Jest oczywiste, ze koscioly sie bronia; bo jak np moglyby ustosunkowac sie do
roli kobiet w kosciele czy celibatu tylko w ramach tego jednego fragmentu?

Z materialow zakazanych jasno wynika, ze nasi pra-pra dziadkowie mieli te same
pytania, obiekcje i zastrzezenia, ktore sa obecnie dyskutowane. Sufrazystki tez
byly duzo wczesniej.
Ja to uwazam za fascynujace.

Kan

[swiatlo]

maly.ksiaze napisał:

> Właśnie wróciłem z kina. Co by tu jeszcze napisać...? Hmmm... A...

A co oglądałeś? Bo ja X-Men 3.