Will Catholics get a disclaimer for "DaVinci Code"?
03.14.06 (3:16 am) [edit]The Catholic League ran an open letter recently asking Ron Howard, the director of the sacreligious "DaVinci Code" and its studio Sony to put a disclaimer at the beginning of the film noting its FICTITIOUS nature.
From the Catholic League-- http://catholicleague.com/06p...%201/060313_not_averse.htm
March 13, 2006
SONY, RON HOWARD, NOT AVERSE TO DISCLAIMERS
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, spoke out today about his request for a disclaimer in the upcoming film, “The Da Vinci Code”:
“Last Monday, the Catholic League ran an ‘Open Letter to Ron Howard’ on the op-ed page of the New York Times requesting a disclaimer in the beginning of the movie noting its fictional nature. That request has since been denounced as an ‘arrogant’ demand, suggesting it is an infringement on the artistic rights of Sony, the company that is releasing the film, and Ron Howard, the director. But a little research reveals that neither Sony nor Howard are averse to disclaimers in their movies.
“When Sony released ‘The Merchant of Venice,’ the movie opened with a disclaimer noting that ‘Intolerance of the Jews was a fact of 16th Century life even in Venice, the most powerful and liberal city state in Europe.’ And in ‘A Beautiful Mind,’ a Ron Howard film, the movie ended with a disclaimer noting that it differs from the book (of the same name) that inspired the film: Howard, and screen writer Akiva Goldman, admitted that they ‘fictionalized a number of the incidents.’
“So much for the argument that the Catholic League is out of line by asking for a disclaimer in ‘The Da Vinci Code.’ The Dan Brown book upon which the film is based is a pack of anti-Catholic lies, and it is the author’s duplicity that is driving our campaign: he has tried to pitch his book as if it were an authentic historical account. Thus, to the extent that the movie fails to note that it is a fable, some viewers will be misled. And, as we warned in the ad, Howard’s reputation will be damaged. There’s a lot at stake and there’s an easy way out. The ball is in their court.”
More on "The DaVinci Code"-- http://www.catholic.com/libra...
posted by: sos (reply)
post date: 03.14.06 (5:36 pm)
Hey.. I think pack of lies is a bit much. I mean, he did get a few historical facts right. There was once a guy named Leanardo DaVinci and he did paint the "Last Supper". Other than that pretty much every historical "fact" in the book is complete and utter nonsense, but he did get at least two right..
Lol..
posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 03.17.06 (3:27 am)
It's funny, you guys are soooooo sensitive. Does Dan Brown claim it's not a novel? See that's how it work... if it's a novel, it's not true, or meant to be true... so "full of lies" must be accurate... my bad. There are some historical accuracies. I did enjoy the background on when Christianity really took hold during the time of Constantine. That IS accurate whether you can wrap your tiny brain around it or not. Tons of proof of that.
posted by: reducto (reply)
post date: 03.17.06 (9:09 am)
Here is why YOU have a tiny mind. The problem is not that DaVinci is not a novel (it is), but that Brown said that his novel was based on facts. And, worse, he doesn't discount it when the media portrays the things that Brown portrays, like Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus, and the attack on Opus Dei, as FACT. You see, Surrogate, the story is fiction-- but Brown is claiming that all of the stuff on The Catholic Church in it are true.
It is the most succesful book of the 21st century, and it rests its story on lies about the church. This misleads everyone about the church and prejudices others against the church. So as you can see, it's not about a story, it's about the "research" that Brown claims is true. And so it's not about being sensitive.
Please write a blog showing the "tons of proof" about Brown's background on Christianity. I'd like to see that.