The New Alchemy?
Observations on the 'Da Vinci Code' Phenomena

Paris Locations of The Da Vinci Code

Copywriting Secrets Behind The Da Vinci Code and LOST

The Da Vinci Code, The Best Selling Novel

The Da Vinci Code Controversy Under The Scrutiny Of Aristotelian Logic

The Michelangelo Code; Or How To Let The Da Vinci Code Pass On By

The Da Vinci Code: A book that books!

Do you know what a Cryptex is?

Trinity Authors

The New Alchemy? Observations on the 'Da Vinci Code' Phenomena

The Da Vinci Code, Good Or Bad? An Opinion From The Travel Industry

Da Vinci Delusion: 13 Strong Reasons to Resist Such Heresy

Tom Hanks and Opie

The Dan Brown Effect (Aka The Da Vinci Code)

Decoding and Debunking the DaVinci Code

More Secrets of Leonardo Da Vinci

The Secret Code - The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code

4 8 15 16 23 42 Better Than the Da Vinci Code

Mary Magdalene-A Faithful Disciple of Jesus Christ

Your Hidden Da Vinci Code

Is The Da Vinci Code Cracked - Or Just the People Who Believe It

Site Map

Tom Hanks is starring in a movie. I'm sure readers have all heard about it by now. You know, the one about the supposed truth about Mary Magdalene and the nature of Jesus' lineage. The film is an adaptation of Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' which itself is a piece of fiction 'borrowed' from other books. The original is 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' (1982) by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, a book I read when I was 19. I knew then that it was fiction (with possible kernels of truth). Nothing has changed 15 years later to reverse my initial thoughts. In fact, all Dan Brown taught me is how wise I was - to me anyway.

History is a funny thing. It's filled with gaping holes to which little is known. Historians serious of their craft painstakingly take years to build their models in a plausible thesis. It's how we treat the lack of evidence through hypothesis that must be treated with severe care. This principle that governs our intellectual integrity seems to be all but gone now. It's a dime a dozen world where impatient scientists and historians push their agendas and dubious research to the detriment of their disciplines and ultimately our ability to accept what is true and what is false.

Rigorous observations take time and with the media starving for information who has time to vigorously Galileonize our work?

Hey, this is nothing new. People who impede true scientific progress have always existed. Francis Bacon wrote about this in 'Novum Organum.'

If the financial success of the first book is any indication, the film should prove to be enormously profitable. Why not? It's an enticing and invigorating suspense story.

The 'Code's' popularity, however, is somewhat disconcerting for me. I have heard too many people use it as a legitimate source in meaningful discussions about Leonardo Da Vinci, the bible, Jesus and history in general.

It definitely will appeal to an audience that already treats established and organized religion as a cancer in society - to say nothing of conspiracy theorists. George Clooney made a remarkable (and tenuous I might add) assertion not so long ago when he won his award about how Hollywood is ahead of the cultural and social curve. Is this Hollywood movie ahead of the curve?

Dear God, the answer is clearly no. Since when does Hollywood ever get it right? It's so busy trying to rebel against mainstream history that it abandons any thought to rigorous verification of facts. To this mind, this film does signal a malaise in the contemporary mindset. Hanks'n Hollywood are only profiting -wittingly or otherwise - from a cynical, if not confused, population who are having a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction.

Hollywood is not alone on this long, lonely path to seek the truth. Oprah and her colleagues are cut from the same cloth. Musicians take liberties with history also. It's easy to dismiss this as 'coming with the territory' but things are somewhat disjointed. They may not wittingly be aware; talk shows and news outlets have convinced themselves they are bringing important news to our attention.

Are they? It is my contention - along with many others so there is nothing new here - that they report to us what is going to boost their ratings and ultimately their own popularity.

Consider how very few - if any - networks ever consult reputable historians when discussing how Hollywood tackles and interprets history.

Yes, it is merely entertainment but does that give them the right to behave irreverently towards history? I would submit that some even try to be coy and hoodwink us into believing that what they are saying is true. Insert Michael Moore here.

Never mind that the tenets held in the 'Da Vinci Code' can easily be interpreted as a direct attack on Christianity. What religion or moderate peoples of faith on this planet would tolerate such flagrant propaganda and misappropriation of historical facts? Is Opus Dei out of line when asking for a disclaimer? I recognize that we live in a cynical world looking for immediate answers (and instant self-gratification. Our food is instant why not history?) to some mysteries, however is this an appropriate manner to begin searching for answers? Revisionism in the wrong hands should indeed be viewed as a social problem. In any event, aren't certain things better left unsaid?

This is not to belittle Tom Hanks, George Clooney or Oprah. I'm undecided as to whether I will watch the film. But what will it take for Hollywood to recognize that they are hardly progressive on certain subjects? If anything, they are merely mirroring our times - that they are coincidental social indicators. The profit margins are wider like this I suppose. Why are we so seemingly intellectually disconnected and vulnerable to romantic and vociferous commentators passing as dissidents? It is easy to think that the patients run the asylum in the halls of modernity. But perhaps we should listen to what is going on a little harder. Art imitates life? Dante would be proud - maybe not.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alessandro_Nicolo