The Passion of The DaVinci Code

“This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.”

Recognize this quote? It’s from the opening shot of the movie Fargo. You know what the best part is? It’s total bs. Despite its claims, Fargo is 100 percent a fictitious film. No events even remotely close to what was depicted in Fargo ever happened in Minnesota, or anywhere else for that matter (and thank God, that wood chipping scene would have kept CSI and Forensic Files drooling for years).

In a few weeks, The DaVinci Code and Tom Hanks’ creepy, yet effective hairline will debut in theatres, and if Christians have their way, a disclaimer along the lines of “this movie is a work of fiction” will accompany the start of the film. Of course, it doesn’t take Forrest Gump to realize that most movies are works of fiction in the first place, and that those movies that are based on real events, usually are Hollywood-ized.

Fargo claimed to be true, but was actually completely false and a deliberate joke. Same with The Blair Witch Project. A Beautiful Mind was “based” off the life of John Nash, yet that film left out little details like John Nash was a bisexual, had an illegitimate child, and divorced his wife. JFK claimed to be true, too, but pretty much every substantial assertion is more from the creative mind of Oliver Stone, rather than historical or forensic fact. I don’t recall reading a disclaimer about the authenticity of Braveheart, even though they claim a romance between William Wallace and Princess Isabelle occurred, and that she was pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution. Historically, the real Isabelle was a nine year-old girl still living in France at the time, meaning she never met Wallace, and married Edward II after he became king and after Wallace had died, seven years earlier. Oh, and Braveheart forgot to add in the bridge during the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Did anyone get upset that there wasn’t actually a Jack and Rose on the Titanic, or that the Heart of the Ocean diamond was courtesy of the imagination of James Cameron?

So what’s the big fuss?

Obviously the reason The DaVinci Code is being so passionatley persecuted is because 1) it’s about the authencity of The Bible and the life of Jesus Christ, and 2) it claims to be mostly historically accurate (that’s assuming the movie will make the same claim the book does – which isn’t a given since movie adpatations often differ from their book counterparts).

In 2004, Braveheart director Mel Gibson made a little film called The Passion of the Christ. Maybe you heard of it? The movie grossed like $611 million (25th all-time) and inspired Christians worldwide. So what about the accuraccy of Passion?

Well first of all, I don’t think Jesus was half-Irish, as James Caviezel is. Jesus was not European, yet traditionally Christian artists and now moviemakers, incorrectly depict him looking like he is of German/Irish descent. More accurately, Jesus was Jewish and from Israel, and was probably short (rather than tall and slender, as we usually “see” him) and most likely closely resembled someone of Middle Eastern descent, rather than someone of European descent. You can draw your own conclusions on why a Jesus who looks like he is from Iraq or Iran would make us feel more uncomfortable than a Jesus hailing from the United Kingdom.

Also in Passion, Jesus the carpenter, constructs a table and chairs in upright form. Jesus did not invent the modern-day table and chairs, nor is that ever suggested in The Bible that he did.

Jesus’ journey to his place of execution is one of the longer sequences in Passion (the fourteen stations of the cross), yet the Bible does not delve into any substantial detail about this journey and the images regarding this walk shown in Passion, have little historical evidence to support it.

On a DaVinci Code-related note, Passion identifies Mary Magdalene as the prostitute in the Gospel of John (chapter 8). This may be true, but there is no evidence for it in The Bible.

And finally, how about Jesus getting nailed through the hands at the crucifixion? This is almost certainly historically wrong, given that the Romans usually nailed people through the wrists.

So if Passion can misrepresent Jesus’ physical appearance, fictionalize powerful scenes/images that are not written in The Bible, exaggerate or plainly lie about Jesus’ accomplishments, and incorrectly depict how Jesus was crucified – especially since the nail-through-the-hand is one of the more substantial symbols of Christianity, why is The DaVinci Code being pressured to include a disclaimer about it’s authenticity at the beginning of the movie? Since Passion isn’t totally “historically accurate,” or “Biblically accurate” either, why didn’t they place a similar warning at the start of that film?

The reality is, every movie – true or false – contains a disclaimer at the end of its credits. We have all seen it. It states that “the characters and the events depicted in this film are fictitious …” Yada, yada, yada. Or, if it’s based on a true story, the disclaimer reads, “although this film is based off of actual events, some of the characters and stories have been fictionalized …” The DaVinci Code will have one of those disclaimers. Just like The Passion of the Christ. Isn’t that two paragraph disclaimer in the film’s ending credits good enough?

Artistic license allows Joel and Ethan Coen to make the “true story” joke at the beginning of Fargo. It’s the same license that allows Mel Gibson to leave out the bridge in the Battle of Stirling Bridge and have Jesus being the inventor of the modern-day table and chairs. And it’s the same license that allows Ron Howard to claim (again, assuming he will, as Dan Brown did in the book) that the theories in The DaVinci Code are historically accurate. More than 75% of Americans believe JFK to be an accurate portrayal of the Kennedy assassination. Yet if you watch A&E or The Biography Channel anytime around November 22, you’ll quickly learn JFK is a work of fiction, just like The DaVinci Code.

In the end, what is the cinematic difference between the opening title shot in Fargo and the “fact” claims of The DaVinci Code?

There is none.

(Look out! Here comes the soapbox!)

We should be able to watch our movies without jeopardizing the filmmakers’ artistic license or having political or religious warnings and disclaimers as a preamble. Let us decide what we choose to believe. Education comes in many forms; sometimes it’s doing our own research to figure out that The Blair Witch Project was a hoax; other times it is reading a World War II book to find out that Oskar Schindler was far from a saint and spent most of his post-World War II life living off of the Jews he saved. Fact or fiction, right or wrong, true or false, educating yourself about a movies’ subject matter is one of the best parts of going to the movies. If anything, I hope The DaVinci Code will encourage more people to learn about the life and times of Jesus Christ and the history of Christianity. Isn’t that what Christians should be promoting instead, not boycotting the film and asking for warnings?

Now lets take this whole silly disclaimer idea and toss it into the wood chipper.