MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 - 16 Comments »

Opus Duh

Variety is supposed to understand the film business, right? The

16 Comments »

16 Responses to “Opus Duh”

  1. EDouglas says:
    April 25, 2006 at 3:33 am

    David, do you have any idea how much Da Vinci Code is costing? Just wondering.

  2. Nicol D says:
    April 25, 2006 at 5:24 am

    The problem is…you can’t ‘sell’ controversy.
    True controversy is organic and from the ground up.
    I actually think from a PR point of view Sony is doing the right thing in the way they are selling it.
    How else could they ‘create’ controversy? The controversy is that the book tells historical fallacies about Catholics and portrays them as the villains of history in an effort to promote Dan Brown’s belief in the Pagan earth goddess.
    That kind of stuff isn’t going to sell to the average filmgoer on Friday night.
    The people to whom this book is genuinely slanderous are not going to see this movie.
    The people who genuinely believe in Brown’s (and perhaps Hanks and Howards?) view are going to see it regardless of the quality.
    What is left is that murky middle. People for whom the subject matter has no sway either way and are just looking for an adventure on a Friday night with America’s favourite star.
    To these people…the current sell is most likely effective. Hanks hasn’t been in a massive tent pole summer film in a while and it may be his last chance.
    It also has franchise potential-perhaps the sequel could have him taking down Catholics in a Boston homeless shelter and forcing the hungry to sacrifice their first born to Gaia the Earth Goddess for food. Hey…Al Gore could make a cameo as the high priestess!
    (deep down you all know that idea is being considered over one to many cheap beaugeolais’ at the Chateau Marmont)
    I also believe the big dust up with Catholics that Sony is hoping for is not going to happen.
    This film will be no more or less controversial than the book. It is just an extension of the culture of it which has been around for two years now.
    And quite frankly…saying Catholics are the villains of history isn’t really controversial anymore (memo to Madonna). If it were, mega corporations like Sony would not be financing movies with Tom Hanks in them about it.

  3. Stella's Boy says:
    April 25, 2006 at 6:07 am

    Does this movie (and the book) actually offend you Nicol? Isn’t it fiction, or did I miss something? And is it saying that all Catholics are villains, or just this small, secretive faction of Catholics? Seems like a pretty big difference to me. I can’t imagine being outraged by The Da Vinci Code.

  4. Nicol D says:
    April 25, 2006 at 7:11 am

    Stella,
    I do not know if you have read this book.
    Brown tries to get away with saying the book is a work of fiction but the ‘facts’ it is based on are not. The ‘facts’ are fallacies he tells about the Catholic church and the Opus Dei that have been discounted by virtually all respectful historians including the head of Oxford University history.
    But people are believing it.
    Much like CS Lewis wrote Narnia to advance his Christian beliefs; Brown wrote DaVinci to advance his New Age Pagan Earth Goddess beliefs.
    Does it ‘offend’ me? That is a loaded term. One can be offended by things that are true or not true.
    The book contains historical innaccuracies and lies that portray the Catholic Church as an evil organization and her followers as either evil or dupes.
    Brown’s Pagan belief system depends on the disparaging of Catholics. And to be clear, when I say pagan, I do not mean atheist. I mean full blooded worship of Gaia, solstice loving, wicker man Pagan.
    I have two aquiantances that have this belief system and they think he is a hero. None of them would know a Josephus from a Tacitus from a Pliny if thier life depended on it. And thier hatred of Catholics runs deep.
    The story and Brown’s ‘facts’ allow for no middle ground.
    “And is it saying that all Catholics are villains, or just this small, secretive faction of Catholics? Seems like a pretty big difference to me.”
    Many neo-nazi’s and followers of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam believe in a conspiracy that a small cabal of Jews control the world banking system and the IMF in order to dominate the world and oppress…
    Obviously, this conspiracy theory is complete and utter anti-semitic trash.
    Let’s say someone financed a film or wrote a book where a fictional character uncovered a plot by a small Jewish cabal to control international finance. The author or producer then says that even though the story is fictitious the facts that the story is based on were not. In other words, the cabal did exist.
    Would it be safe to say that all Jews would have a right to be concerned?
    Would the fact that it is a ‘small’ cabal make a difference?
    Look, this film is gonna be huge. I am a free speech libertarian. They have a right to make it.
    But free speech also means people have a right to question them on it and thier motivation in making the piece.
    Truth is, people will beleive what they will believe. DaVinci is successful because as with most complex things it takes about 2 minutes to state a lie and two hours to explain to someone why it is a lie.
    Sadly, in our society, we have forgotten those old fashioned tenets of ration, logic and reason and I do not have two hours to type.

  5. palmtree says:
    April 25, 2006 at 7:40 am

    Nicol, you’re not taking into account that lots of Catholics like Da Vinci Code. Maybe they don’t see the harm in it that you do. Maybe they can separate fact from fiction.
    If anything, DVC is leading people to find the truth. Everyone major bookstore has a “Da Vinci” section where books (both fact and fiction) are being sold. That tells me that most people realize there is more to Brown’s book and are willing to seek it. I mean, when I finished reading DVC, the last thing on my mind was a hatred of Catholics…sorry to disappoint you.

  6. Eric says:
    April 25, 2006 at 7:47 am

    There’s nothing lamer than manufactured controversy used as a marketing gimmick. It’s so tacky.
    I remember seeing a commercial for “The Libertine” that claimed it was “The most controversial movie of the year.” And I asked myself, can something really be controversial if nobody cares about it?

  7. Melquiades says:
    April 25, 2006 at 8:16 am

    No, the Da Vinci Code is successful because every chapter is about 10 pages long and ends with a cliffhanger and because all the little codes and puzzles make readers feel smart. It’s a popcorn book. I hope they don’t try to make the movie too serious — I think National Treasure hit the tone of The Da Vinci Code just right, and was a big success as a result.
    Anybody who is offended by this book takes him or herself way too seriously.
    As for Dan Brown’s supposed Pagan beliefs, who cares? You say that like it’s a bad thing. As somebody who finds serious belief in any religion silly, I’d have to say Pagans seem much less scary/dangerous than the rest.

  8. Joe Straat says:
    April 25, 2006 at 10:45 am

    My problem with making extreme Catholicism a villain is it’s too easy and too boring. I’m Lutheran, so it doesn’t deeply offend me, but honestly, aiming at fanatical, authoritarian Christians is like shooting fish in a barrel of fish. You might as well have Nazis (Not saying Nazis and Catholics are the same thing. They can just be twisted to look like the same thing).

  9. jeffmcm says:
    April 25, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    It’s very true that one can sell controversy, because look at how willing and eager some people are to be outraged. Basically just waiting for it for their own complicated inner needs.
    Is there any proof anywhere that Dan Brown is a ‘pagan’? I’m sorry, I mean a ‘New Age Earth Goddess Pagan’?
    Similarly, I agree that there’s a difference between being completely anti-Catholic and putting forth a fictional conspiracy in the institutional Catholic Church. Just like there’s a difference between being anti-American and loathing the actions of the top of the American government.

  10. Pete says:
    April 25, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Truthfully, I have my doubts that Dan Brown even wrote the book. Although the whole plagarism trial that he (justifiably) won in London seemed to exonerate Brown’s standing, a closer look at Brown’s and the judge’s statements raise eyebrows. In Brown’s mystifying 69 page opening statement/self-congratulatory diatribe, he puffed up his art history credentials, such as his vast knowledge of the PAINTINGS of Bernini. Yep. Paintings. What’s wrong with that class? Of course, Bernini was a SCULPTOR. Pretty interesting mistake from the venerable scholar Brown
    Brown had unusual difficulty in recalling even basic historical assertions from the book while on the stand (I think some of that in part not to tip his hand at some of borrowing he probably did from Holy Blood, Holy Grail). He mentioned how much research his wife did on the book, but pointedly kept her off the stand during the trial.
    While the judge was completely correct in ridiculing the Holy Blood authors for presenting such an asinine case, he also in his judgement said on record that Dan Brown had absolutely no command of the facts of art history. The whole pagan/Catholic hoorah has obscured the fact that Brown simply knows less than nothing about all forms of art. Secular art historians have laughed themselves silly at the pedestrian mistakes he made.
    Probably this wouldn’t bother me so much if Brown hadn’t gone around during the initial press run touting that every historical fact in the book was true. In my opinion, Dan Brown is a creation of his publisher. The tweed jacket wearing intellectual that appeals to the inherent biases of the intended base audience combined with a wispy effete wimpiness that appeals to consumers of mass market romance novels. Whoever actually wrote the majority of the book just wasn’t marketable enough. Brown will be in for a rude surprise whenever he comes up with the sequel. After you declare that a major world religion is a false, murderous lie, where the hell do you go to top that? I highly doubt if he attempts to do something on the Masons, he’ll have a ready made audience of conspiracy nuts just looking to stick it to the Shriners.

  11. jeffmcm says:
    April 25, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    That all makes sense, I think it’s more logical to assume Brown (or whoever) is a writer in the sense of Crichton or Grisham: mass market hacks out to write sensational best-sellers. Except that Brown has even less expertise or knowledge that he’s basing his work on. To say that it’s all part of some kind of campaign to promote beliefs is to give him more credit than he seems to deserve (and to indulge in narcissistic self-victimization).

  12. palmtree says:
    April 25, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Brown’s writing style makes it easy to believe he’d cut those corners. But the appeal of the book wasn’t literary and it wasn’t religious polemics…it was simply good TV. It’s like reading a treatment for a script. Crichton does the same thing, but he goes deeper with his facts (I guess going to Harvard will do that).

  13. Drew says:
    April 25, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Harvard… sure…
    Crichton’s team of uncredited ghost-writers/researchers may also have something to do with that. And that’s not speculation. They exist, and they are some frighteningly smart folks.

  14. palmtree says:
    April 25, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    Interesting….how recent was that? I’m guessing it was after his ER/Jurassic Park explosion in the 90s. Certainly you’re not saying that about his early stuff written under a pseudonym…are you?

  15. Cadavra says:
    April 25, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    Hey, I’m looking forward to this. I haven’t seen Opus Dei and the Knights since ANIMAL HOUSE.
    Thank you! I’m here all week!

  16. mary says:
    April 26, 2006 at 5:23 am

    Don’t forget that both The Da Vinci Code and The Day After Tomorrow has more than $45 million P&A. The Passion of The Christ ,Fahrenheit 9/11, Brokeback Mountain and Crash wouldn’t have more than $25 million P & A.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

leahnz on: Don Draper: Critic

Keil S. on: Don Draper: Critic

Joe Leydon on: Don Draper: Critic

Keil S. on: Don Draper: Critic

christian on: Don Draper: Critic

movieman on: Don Draper: Critic

movieman on: Don Draper: Critic

palmtree on: Don Draper: Critic

Foamy Squirrel on: Don Draper: Critic

leahnz on: Don Draper: Critic

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I don’t really think, Sean, that you need to know about my various sexual liaisons. Or that anyone else needs to. I did write about them. I filled a hundred pages of Moleskine notebooks with my one-night stands, my affairs. But I decided they didn’t belong in a professional memoir. First of all, these are real people we’re talking about. Many of them were enjoyable. Some were abject failures. My wife said to me when she read the pages, ‘Of what purpose is this in a memoir? Of what purpose is this other than to titillate?’ The point is, I never see them. It’s because I have nothing in common with them, frankly. And probably didn’t at the time. I could not provide a sensible reason why I married these women. The thing is, in the case of my marriages, it takes two people to fuck up a marriage. It wasn’t simply the fault of these women that I lost interest in them and realised they were insignificant relationships. Which is how I look at them right now–as being insignificant. I see them as blips.”
~ William Friedkin On Cutting Interviewers Off At The Sass

“I have to imagine from Mr. Spielberg’s point of view, the paradigm shift in the 1970s was just the new “normal,” a “halcyon era” from which we are straying in the 21st century–because theatrical exhibition is tenuous (as it has been since the 1940s), the home video market has dried up and people are watching pirated movies on their phone. Spielberg’s coming-of-age era was for him the halcyon period that the 21st century “implosion” will cause to go “crashing into the ground.” But he is wrong. The market for movies is actually diverse and highly segmented–although from the top-down movie industry vantage point and media punditry you would not think this to be true.  Would we really mourn for Mr. Spielberg or ourselves if Lincoln would have been made for cable or had played on public television?  Is it bad for humanity that cable television is creating wonderful, resonant stories in long-form series that people want to watch at home on TV (or streamed onto their computer)? I don’t think so, but it is a paradigm shift and it might affect people’s theatrical moviegoing habits. Televisions in people’s homes have had that effect for seven decades–it is not a new phenomenon. As Art House cinema impresarios we need to focus on what WE can do at our theaters and in our communities. It is not productive for us to fret over what pundits say or about what well-meaning filmmakers like the Stevens–Spielberg and Soderbergh–say. We should fret about what we can do in our communities. What we can do to support filmmakers.”
~ From A Response By Russ Collins, CEO, Michigan Theater – Ann Arbor And Director, Art House Convergence, To Mr. Spielberg