Da Vinci code

Hello Readers, 

I'm writing this blog on the grounds of a task assigned to me by my teacher. To know more about the task CLICK HERE  .

Trailer of the Movie 

                Imagine if one day someone comes to you and says that you are the descendant of a Holy bloodline. What would you do if one day someone comes to you and says that your grandfather was not your real grandfather, he was just your protector? , what would you do if someone questions the very idea of God and the myths around his marriage and his descendants? What would you do when you come to know that you don't like riddles, puzzles and mysterious but you yourself are a key to all the puzzles, riddles and mystery? You wouldn't believe right, yes the same things happen with Sophia. I'm talking about the world famous and one of the most controversial books, DA Vinci Code written by Dan Brown. It's a mystery thriller which revolves around the bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Madeleine and it also narrates a completely different and Controversial story of Jesus's relationship with Mary Magdalene and the secret of The Holy Grail. The novel has bloodshed, treachery, puzzles, arts and mystery, so called religious "Gurus" and an Albino monk who in the name of God killed so many people which reminds us of the so called "Bhakts". 

Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, though he is on a 'constant spiritual journey' himself, and says that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith."

"Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become.    "  

• C. S. Lewis

Yes I do agree with Brown's statement, thought the reality of Jesus and Mary Magdalena is also questionable, but what Brown did is, that he had given a path to question even the most controversial things of religion. There are so many myths around each and every religion so rather than just blindly following the myths Brown came out with other myths, yes his myths are also doubtful but still he has tried to justify his myths and also made his readers to think beyond the cliché things told by the so called religious leaders. If one studies this book without any biases and being religious and with a mindset to gain spirituality rather than a blind "भक्त" who's sentiment gets hurt whenever someone questions or debates about the very idea of religion and spirituality this books serves as  a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.

Although it is obvious that much of what Brown presented in his novel as absolutely true and accurate is neither of those, some of that material is of course essential to the intrigue, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has retained the novel's core, the Grail-related material: the sacred feminine, Mary Magdalene's marriage, the Priory of Sion, certain aspects of Leonardo's art, and so on.” How far do you agree with this observation of Norris J. Lacy?

I completely agree with Norris J. Lacy's observation about novel and the screen writing of the movie by Akiva Goldsman but we can consider it as an artistic liberty, and also this book as well as movie created controversy around the world but if one seeks to know about the very idea of God and Spirituality this book can be considered as a study guide for them. The very idea of God is questionable, there is no enough evidence about God, we only have myths and myths can not be considered as reality. Here Brown put  Myth against a Myth with the help of artists like Da Vinci, Issac Newton and he himself states that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith."

(If)You have studied ‘Genesis’ (The Bible), ‘The Paradise Lost’ (John Milton) and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Dan Brown). Which of the narrative/s seem/s to be truthful? Whose narrative is convincing to the contemporary young mind?

In Genesis a larger narrative gives wrong judgements. When we see gender discourse, it has so many loose tones.  There are so many examples like Eve's birth, the fall of men is because of the women and mainly the whole concept of God and the punishment of Eve and Adam which is highly controversial and partial. These all ideas fail in a larger context or rather we can say in this scientific world. In The Paradise Lost Milton narrates the ideas which are more convincing. The main theme of Paradise Lost by poet John Milton is the rejection of God's Laws. This epic work deals with Satan's rejection of God's Law and Satan's subsequent expulsion to earth where he seeks to ruin Man. Satan is expelled with a third of the angels (now demons) who chose to follow him rather than the God.We find Adam and Eve have more power, they both remain in the center. Where's God standing on the periphery? When we read The Da Vinci code that time we find a new  representation of the painting, relationship between Jesus and Mary, and much more. As we have seen that reality and science has more power to convince the reader. So,  in conclusion we can say that What Milton represents is a fiction which gives a completely different narrative which shows the rebellion against God. As well as what Brown represents is also a fiction which broadens our vision towards choosing spirituality over religion. 

What harm has been done to humanity by the biblical narration or that of Milton’s in The Paradise Lose? What sort of damage does narrative like ‘The Vinci Code’ do to humanity?

"Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth."

Albert Camus

The narrative of the Bible is highly problematic, Similarly, so many new things are being portrayed in Paradise Lost and in The Da Vinci Code. In the characters of The Paradise Lost,  we find more positive interpretations.  Adam and Eve have more power, how God is partial, the character of Satan and etc.  Most of the narrative is human centric,  which provides humans to think independently. Same way in The Da Vinci code,  we see a representation of Jesus, his marital life,  his family background.  Brown used a fiction against a fiction to find the truth and in my opinion it's a great thing. 

What difference do you see in the portrayal of 'Ophelia' (Kate Winslet) in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, 'Elizabeth' (Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or 'Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' or David Yates's 'Harmione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neuve' (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code? How would justify your answer?

In Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, Ophelia is objectified, there is a long scene of Ophelia and Hamlet making love, and the camera was running on the naked body of Ophelia which was not necessary. Yes we know that they loved each other but does it necessary to show the lovers "nude "? Ophelia becomes only a sex object nothing else. Elizabeth from Frankenstein, she portrayed as she is much more interested in being married to serve the Victor rather than to think independently and do something about herself. Demi Moore’s Hester Prynne is little bit different than Ophelia and Elizabeth as she dares to take a stand for herself or even she is ready to rebel against society, but here also we can find  problems in close up scenes where camera is focused on highlighting intimacy scenes, though they are no needed. In all these physical beauty of women remains at Centre while their intellectuality remains at periphery. While the character portrayal of Sophie is far beyond than this, here the feminine sacredness became central idea, she is portrayed as an independent national thinker who is in her own search of knowledge as well as throughout movie we can’t find a single close up which presents Sophie’s body as to satisfy male gazing ideas. But I have a question on the portrayal of Sophie in the movie as well as in the novel. 

That raises some questions.

 

Is Ron Howard trying to be a goody goody director in the portrayal of Sophie just because she is a descendant of Jesus? Or does he really believe in women empowerment? Is he playing a safe game? 

Do novel / film lead us into critical (deconstructive) thinking about your religion? Can we think of such conspiracy theory about Hindu religious symbols / myths?

Yes of course, even after reading this book and watching this movie my whole perspective changed, when I first heard about this book I considered it as a simply cliché book which tried to make controversy about religion to gain more fame but when I finished the book I get an insight that this book leads to a different path of questioning the so called religious norms. I'm a Muslim and there are so many ideas which are questionable, what we are doing is that we are not questioning, especially whenever it comes to religion. After watching this film and reading the book I tried to deconstruct some religious ideas of Islam. In Islam Namaz is compulsory but it has it's own scientific reasons. Namaz performed at least five times a day, consisting of 40 rakats. Namaz can be regarded as a type of stretching and isometric contractions exercise. I have come across only one movie "Khuda Ke Liye "

which tried to focus on the misinterpretation of religion and negative effects of religion and so called" dharma gurus" on people and especially on youth. We have the myth that during menstruations women are not allowed to go into holy places or in the kitchen. Maybe earlier this idea was manifested to give rest to women as their body became weak during this period as well as it seems ok because earlier women used to do a lot of farming works and household works, that’s why it became necessary for them to take rest. But now we are following it without having any logical reason behind it. 

Have you come across any similar book/movie, which tries to deconstruct accepted notions about Hindu religion or culture and by dismantling it, attempts to reconstruct another possible interpretation of truth?

Yes I have seen two movies OMG and PK which try to deconstruct the accepted notions about Hindu religion or culture and by dismantling it, it also attempts to reconstruct another possible interpretation of truth. In the movie PK,

the director very strongly tries to deconstruct the notions of all religions such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism but all the things were done by an alien which is quite problematic. While in the movie Oh My God,(OMG!)

God himself comes on earth to help the human Kanjibhai to deconstruct the lies spread by so called "धर्मगुरु ".

When we do traditional reading of the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Robert Langdon, Professor of Religious Symbology, Harvard University emerges as protagonist and Sir Leigh Teabing, a British Historian as antagonist. Who will claim the position of protagonist if we do atheist reading of the novel?

If we do atheist reading of the novel, the position of protagonist and antagonist will change, Sir Leigh Teabing claims the position of protagonist whereas Robert Langdon claims the position of antagonist. In the novel Sir Leigh Teabing, a historian tries to find out evidence in a scientific manner without having faith or fear from religion. He is the one who finds all the evidence as a historical proof to prove in front of the world about the relation between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. While on the other hand Robert Langdon finds the truth of Sarcophagus but he does not reveal to the world. So from this point of view through the atheist reading Leigh Teabing becomes the protagonist of the novel.