there was nothing controversial about the "code"!
If anything’s to say at all about the film, the Da Vinci Code’s a really good spy thriller, waay better than anything MI:III will ever want to be. But really, there’s nothing sex-and-violence-y about the “Code”, unless of course you consider Tom Hanks’ potentially sugar-daddy look against his female lead Audrey Tautou (Amelie) disturbing. But if anything at all, the “Code” is nothing more than a film that tackles and dissects a topic taboo to many. And that “topic” just happens to become one of the cornerstones of the Western “civilized” world’s biggest religions. Ever.We caught the last full show of the “Code” last night in one of the local posh malls nearby, since we didn’t want to go too far. Nobody in the house had time in the morning, or in the early afternoon, to see the “Code”, and besides, it’s always more fun with family. So we decided to skip the dinner and head to the theater.
We were really hoping that, since it’s the last full show, we’d be able to get my sister Daphne in. But when I stepped of the escalator and into the theater, I immediately smelled that despite the film hitting a gold mine at the box office, everyone was uptight about it, including the ticket seller. As soon as my mom walked up to her, she asked who she was going to see the film with. And when she saw Daphne looking all uncomfy in my mom’s Fendi handbag I made her carry on her shoulder, she declined to sell my sister her ticket.
So we decided to have a little spy thriller of our own. Okay, maybe just a thriller. We decided to walk up to the supervisor and explain our case with Daphne. First of all, we understand that it’s rated R-18 (in the Philippines, it means for adults over 18 only). But for one, BOTH of her parents are with her, and WE, her adult brothers, are with her. So she’s really gonna get all the guidance she’ll never need, being my mature, forward-thinking sister (and besides, I really don’t want to see that Aquamarine flick). When that didn’t work, we walked up to the manager and she saw the light. So off we go to the “Code.”
Turns out, there’s really nothing to go R-18 about in the film. By far, the only sex-and-violence-y about the movie is Silas’ self-flagellation, and a quick shot where Sauniere was humping a girl apparently for a Priori of Zion ritual. There wasn’t really anything else brow-raising about the film, not even a cheek peck. Which gets me and my mom to conclude that the R-18 was probably a concession from the MTRCB for the film not to get banned in the country. And I later learned that the film was banned in the city of Manila. Which is total hogwash, since it was just a really good film. They should’ve banned MI:3 instead.
Which gets me now to the theme. What is it about the film (and the book, by association) that gets all the conservative people freaky? What could be the most obvious “blasphemy” of the film was the theory that Jesus was a every bit as human as we all are, even to the point of being a family man himself, having a wife and kids with the Bible’s resident “whore”, Mary Magdalene. Now, if you dig Jesus having extra “ghetto superstar” points like that, you’d have no problem. In fact, you’d even like how Ian McKellen’s character rolls the story out.
You’d also have no problem with the “Code” if you’re feminist, since it gives forum to the idea of matriarchy, what with Mary Magdalene being the rightful heir(ess) to the Church, until Peter had to step in, screw it all up for her, and take the post for himself. Gives light to the theory that Magdalene was never a whore to start with, that it’s just a smear campaign against her, and by association, to all strong women everywhere, just because she’s a threat to the men who want a piece of her rightful power.
But the problem starts with the very idea itself. In so much as Jesus’ humanity is discussed, there is no mention of his divinity. Which is great for Catholics, because where there’s no mention, there’s no questioning (Hanks’ character Robert Langdon makes this explicit). But here’s the beef: the mere theory of Jesus’ humanity as the “Code” sees it, rocks the very core of Christianity, or at least Christian doctrine as we know it, and has every potential in the world to turn this core, this “foundation,” into nothing more than a little ol’ lie.
Now, here’s how I see it. If the theory is true, then Jesus, by association, is on a level playing field with the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Now, if I get my history right, Muhammad was just a regular guy with wife and kids, and every trapping of humanity there is, except that Allah entrusted him with the holy Koran, thus, being the caretaker and founder of Islam on earth.
Jesus was as every bit as Muhammad was, but the Church just had to turn him into the big guy he really never needed to be and transformed him into this universal entity something who came to earth riding a big shiny white Bentley of a motorcade (figuratively), swaggered and swashbuckled his way like a celebrity into converting everyone, and when he was done with his “assignment,” went back to heaven like it was one, big old gig. Vacation package included.
Kinda makes me question why the Church has been so insecure of other religions right of the back. Although Langdon won’t speculate as to who made the attacks on whom (the Church said they defended against the pagans, the pagans said they defended against the Church), history will tell us that this brand of insecurity has been so great that great travesties that could ever be committed by mankind (mass murders, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, the friars, mass looting and plundering, the decimation of indigenous tribes everywhere there’s a colonization happening) have either been sanctioned by or actively participated by no other entity than the white man’s Church. You never hear this sort of thing happening from the end of other religions, although they also do have their own set of problems.
Which makes me now think, had the theories been true? Dan Brown only made a fiction disclaimer to the storyline, not the historical accounts and documents. So is Christianity, in all of its foundations and all, a big lie? Consider this, even if the theories aren’t true to begin with (scientific proof still has yet to arrive), what’s the biggest entity that made the biggest atrocities on women and minorities? What’s the biggest force against free thinkers and science right off the back? What was the biggest entity that implicitly stood against freedom of expression, just because its interests weren’t sought? What’s the sole entity from which the basis of the conservative WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant)’s culture and set of beliefs, which many view now as bordering on fascism, spring from? What’s the one thing Dubya Bush resting on when he launched an all-out attack against gay marriages and non-traditional family statuses (divorcee, single parent, etc)?
These questions are not merely formed out of conspiracy theories, but by history itself.
I know my musings border on heresy, but you have to understand. After having this country looted and pillaged for centuries by Spanish friars, and looted and pillaged once more (up to now) by the American WASPs, as Filipino I really can’t find it in my heart to ditch the very freedom the Church is implicitly seeking to take away from me by trying to have the “Code” banned from theaters. It’s not just a matter of whether the “Code” is controversial or not now, it’s all symbolic at this point. This is a jump-off point to everything else that can be labeled “blasphemous.” Not just by the Church, but by any powerful entity that seeks to have its interests protected by screwing free thinking and free speech.
After the film (I think we left the theater around 12 midnight), we all schlepped to a nearby Yellow Cab where we had a quick dinner. And when I saw Debate on GMA 7 that night, I was really turned off by that arrogant monsignor, and really rooted for Sir Danny Arao. After all, shouldn’t I be the one who’s capable of forming decisions for myself and choosing the beliefs I feel are the best for me, and not some random priest whose idea of me is based on the rare times I went into confession?
Afterwards, I learned from Daphne that she didn’t get a thing from the film, and dozed off just before Ian McKellen’s character uncovered some lively twist to the “Code.” At least I didn’t get to see Aquamarine. That one I’ll probably see on pirated DVD.
Gawd, that was a damn good movie.
0 Comments:
Publicar un comentario
<< Home