Answer: 0.
We have just returned from viewing Ron Howard's Waterloo. We fell asleep only once and only began checking our watch after one hour and fifty minutes. The lovely Mrs. SWNID also did not have to physically restrain our urge to laugh out loud at the most absurd lines, but mostly because she thought such laughter entirely appropriate.
We believe that there might have been a good movie to be made from Dan Brown's novelistic dreck. The material could frame questions about warrant for faith rather nicely. On the one hand, traditional Christianity may be the result of a massive conspiracy propagated for crass political purposes. On the other hand, the alternate belief system of the "code" depends on faith in a few obscure relics and documents, arcanely interpreted, and the testimony of people who appear out of nowhere with elaborate stories. Both sides have adherents who have committed awful acts in the name of their belief. Which provides warrant for faith? What else needs to be considered? What is proper warrant for faith?
A good debate on this subject and more ambiguity in the end about which side got it right could have made for some interesting cinema and some interesting post-cinema conversation. Instead, we hear Ian McKellan spout off just about the worst reconstruction of early Christian history ever offered outside of an unprepared undergraduate's final exam essay, and his historical travesty goes unchallenged. And at the end we are left with the unholy image of a jowly Tom Hanks genuflecting at I. M. Pei's incongruous Louvre pyramid, honoring what he infers to be sacred remains which, if such remains actually existed, would be completely inhospitable to any sort of definitive analysis as to their true identity.
Much more could be said about this experience. But we didn't get enough sleep in the movie. We leave it to our gentle readers to offer the rest in the comments.
5 comments:
You should have come with my wife and myself and seen X-men, it was fantastic.
I found it absolutely hilarious when good old Ian said Mary Mags had written a gospel. Funny how liberals do all they can to argue against the Cannonical Gospels, but suggest(with a straight face mind you) that the Gnostic Gospels were written earlier and by those attributed to them.
Oh, and his suggesting that Constantine was in charge of the Council of Nicea made for some good comedy as well.
On a serious note, what is sad is after the movie a lady sitting next to me turned to her friend and said "what's crazy is all the history and theology in this was true. I saw it on the discovery and history channels."
Symbology has always been a tricky field. Luckily our open minded friends are able to sift through the garbage (the Bible to them) pull out the pearls for us, like the gospel of Philip.
NBC Dateline did a special last night called "Cracking the Code," I was unable to watch the whole thing, but the show did contain comments of our old friend Darrel Bock and among others, Ben Witherington, the pride of Asbury.
I, as well, found the movie to be trite in its presentation, arrogant in its assumptions and downright boring. This has to be one of Tom Hanks worst performances, and I'm not quite sure I have ever heard of his co-star, or ever will again following this debacle. Having read the book, the movie did not live up to the hype, either manufactured or genuine.
Mrs. Toolate got a great laugh out of the ending, where Tom is genuflecting over the tomb of the unknown wife. She got to thinking about Peewee Herman's search for his stolen bicycle which led to the basement of the Alamo. The punchline which set her off was "The Alamo doesn't have a basement." That was the best part of the movie.
I must protest, Dustin: I thought Tom played that poor role very well.
All in all, I'd have to give the enemy credit for a very clever trap which will likely insulate many from finding the Grace of God. What shall we then do 'bout that?
Post a Comment