I saw the Da Vinci Code movie today and thought it was an excellent film. Academy award? Probably not. But it was well acted and had an intriguing plot that I feel probably would be impossible to display on film as well as it was done in the book {I have not read the book}. There were many, many references to symbols and myth that I was very familiar with because of my studies in myth and dreams. There were many references to the number 9 I found intriguing. The one number on the key was very interesting. Adding them together you come up with 27. The number 9 in Greek mythology is symbolic of the Goddess.

Probably the most recognizable underlying message that comes across, and the church is so opposed, is those inequities toward the feminine. I think what the movie did so well was address the patriarchal bias of the feminine, not only in the broad sense of denying the feminine equal status in society but also the psychological feminine aspect as well, the feminine aspect in Jungian thought.

Opus Dei, or should we call them Opus Die from the movie's point of view {pun intended}, is betrayed in less than a favorable light but many of the portrayals are factual. We know from history the church, and here the Catholic church or church of Rome, wanted to make sure no pagan deities were affirmed and the real threat to that was the goddess in popular pagan religions. There was little mention of the Knights Templar but they were the heroes and this movie is about the villains.

I also liked the way the movie informed the audience of the history, which was very factual overall, of Christianity and how Constantine influenced the religion as it is today. So few Christians are aware of their own history let alone the opposing views of other sects of the religion in its infancy. Ask a Christian about gnosticism and the think you are talking about agnosticism. They haven't clue so blind their obedience. Having been a part of that culture I know well what is expected and free thinking isn't something that is encourage.

And for the central message of Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus. Thus far no archaeological evidence other than the Nag Hammadi scrolls has come to light to verify that possibility {I feel confident the church made sure of that if true}. But we know so little of the life of Jesus, we can not say it is impossible. According to customs of that period of time any woman who is as close to Jesus as Mary was, it meant they were married. Plus the newly discovered gnostic text Gospel of Mary Magdalene shines a lot of light on that possibility. She was undoubtedly his closet confident according to the Gnostics and other discarded texts of that period.

The Holy Grail. The whole thesis is that the Grail was the blood line of Jesus. The symbolic drinking of the blood of Christ, the disciple at the left hand of Jesus being Mary Magdalene in Da Vinci's Last Supper, the symbolic V formed in the painting between Jesus and Mary {V being symbolic for the feminine}. That was new. The story of Mary having child that carried on the bloodline, all convincing for the movie. But the real symbolic value of the Holy Grail is that it is the blood of the individual soul, when the soul is given power to rule the waking life. It is within us all, we need only bringing it out. Gnosticism, and even the mystical religions of the Sufi and Kabbalah point inward. And the whole point of Buddhism is to look inward.
{There is no grail cup in the Last Supper painting}.

I didn't see any real reason for the christian church to get so upset about the movie. I think the average person will come away from it as a fictional work. And Opus Dei shouldn't shout too loud. It only makes more people want to see the movie. I do hope attention is brought to bear for many viewers to the inequalities to the feminine. I also sensed an underlying reference to the earth, the feminine, without any real mention of it. Since we are in fact products of the soil {evolution}, the blood line is truly earthly.

I find it so strange that Christians believe in a very ornery and sometimes temper-mental God who is no doubt masculine, yet swear and are baptised to the message of Jesus who lived completely from the feminine aspects of the psyche.
The patriarchal church rejects Jesus by its own masculine tendencies, and the flock fails to see. Blind obedience, slavery to a lesser god. How sad.

See the movie! I thought Tom Hanks did a superb job with what was given him {a lot of twists and turns}. I think it can be sobering to those who have questioned authority but had never investigated the opposing possibilities. And it made sense, the plot, the possibilities in real life. I give it an 8 out of 10. But I admit my bias for any thing symbolic.

Gerard

Age & Gender & Location {Required}: 56

Have You Posted Before? Date of Last Post {Use Search and Your Post Name to Help Find Last Post} Male

I saw the movie last night. I agree that it was a pretty good movie. I did read the illustrated version of the book a year or so ago, and also got the Secrets To The Code that I did not get around to finishing (a collection of essays). First some comments about the book.

The writing seemed formulaic, and the first half was kind of Keystone Copp-ish (and the movie had that feel to me for the first 20 mins or so) but the second half picked up, for me.

I loved the symbolism and the premise. I don't see anything unbelievable about the notion of Jesus marrying Mary and their having a bloodline symbolic of the Grail. Not as unbelievable, in fact, as his rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, etc. that millions claim to believe without much analysis. Maybe this movie will prompt more of us to think about what we believe. My daughter and her boyfriend enjoyed it and they had a lot of questions for me. Neither of them had read the book.

I thought Tom Hanks did a very good job. Audrey was so so, though she's a beautiful, talented actress. Maybe too angelic. I think the script is what limited her. A tough role to play. I thought how difficult it is to relinquish the virginal, little girlish stereotype that is associated with the female who is "acceptable" in Christianity. Especially for Hollywood. Even for one playing a character who has not decided one way or another about her Christianity as yet!

I really liked the black and whiteish flashbacks to the Crusades and the rose. I'd read some awful reviews, and I don't see why they were so hard on the movie. I think more movie producers should invest in films that delve into our rich, though sometimes troubling western religious history and symbolism that is just waiting to be plucked. I thought Opus Dei and the RC church probably took a cue from the firestorm they received from their response to the book that they should just keep quiet.

I also remember thinking that maybe the formulaic style of the book was deliberate to reach the masses.

I'd suggest people ignore the reviews and go enjoy the movie.