<p>Just came home from the movie: I don’t regret spending two hours of my life seeing it but it’s not one I’d bother to acquire on DVD. The changes from the book are mostly for the worst, though some are expedient for making a comprehensible movie that comes in at a reasonable amount of time. Tom Hanks is totally wrong–a younger Harrison Ford is needed but that option is available–and the chemistry between him and Audrey Tatou is laughable. And it really bogs down into tedium when they get to Roslin Chapel. And as TheMom says, what a come down for Gandalf (Ian McKellen playing Teabing…probably the best acting in the film).</p>
<p>The question of the nature of Jesus doesn’t bother me at all. Early Church history included a three-way tug of war regarding the nature of Jesus–human, divine, or dual–and the question was slugged out in the early church councils. Brown merely posits that one of the “losing” factions was the truth…which is a different matter than a “smear” job. An examination of how and which gospels became canonical and which were ordered destroyed or suppressed is fair game for historical inquiry as well…not even Protestant and Catholics agree on this today. I don’t necessarily agree with her conclusions but Elaine Pagel’s THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS (reffed in TDVC) is a serious examination of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts and has been in my reference library for more than 20 years.</p>
<p>PH, it does well to remember that history is written by the winners and that it doesn’t always accord with what actually happened. And you’re right, I’m much more offended by the treatment of Bill Clinton by the Republican Noise Machine than I am Dan Brown’s novel. The latter is at least clearly labeled “fiction.” (Had to laugh at the article where a Jesuit theologian was being pressed about TDVC and responded with something along the lines of, “You do know this is fiction, don’t you?”)</p>