Vatican calling for Boycott of Da Vinci Code

[Jeana (DP)]

I think asking for a boycott will just make more people want to see what all the fuss is about. These sort of things usually backfire.

 

[sandraladeda]

If i am not mistaken, I believe the Vatican encouraged Catholics to boycott the movie. The message being sent is that we do find it offensive, despite the cry of more enlightened folks shouting "It's just fiction!", and that we are not going to support a movie which we feel is detrimental to our church. I had already decided against seeing it. I was not using the term "boycott", I choose to say I am simply not supporting it. I don't know why I would go see it, I am not interested in seeing Catholics cast in a bad light. It's not like it's some great cultural phenomenon I dare not miss out on.

It's really funny how some people can see the logic in boycotting Tom Cruise movies because of his Brooke bashing, couch-jumping or Scientology beliefs, yet can't see why some people will choose not to support the DaVinci movie....

I personally feel more strongly about a movie that makes my church look bad....although I must add, I have also decided not to see any more Tom Cruise movies....

imho

 

[Jeana (DP)]

If i am not mistaken, I believe the Vatican encouraged Catholics to boycott the movie. The message being sent is that we do find it offensive, despite the cry of more enlightened folks shouting "It's just fiction!", and that we are not going to support a movie which we feel is detrimental to our church. I had already decided against seeing it. I was not using the term "boycott", I choose to say I am simply not supporting it. I don't know why I would go see it, I am not interested in seeing Catholics cast in a bad light. It's not like it's some great cultural phenomenon I dare not miss out on.

It's really funny how some people can see the logic in boycotting Tom Cruise movies because of his Brooke bashing, couch-jumping or Scientology beliefs, yet can't see why some people will choose not to support the DaVinci movie....

I personally feel more strongly about a movie that makes my church look bad....although I must add, I have also decided not to see any more Tom Cruise movies....

imho

I'm just refusing to see a Tom Cruise movie because I don't want to puke for two hours. Nothing else, just don't want to see his face. I have no plans to see this movie either, unless my husband manages to drag me to it. I just tend to think that if the Vatican "suggests" that people not see it, some people are going to wonder what all the fuss is about and see it just for that reason. The movie "Stigmata" seemed to have some MAJOR problems with the Catholic church, but I didn't hear about anyone having a problem with that movie.

Edited to add: I'm not a Catholic, so the church has no special hold over me and I honestly don't understand how it could anyone else, but live and let live.

 

[sharpar]

Its a shame " the church " wasnt this viligant policing itself in the past few

decades. When you scream about a piece of fiction and are virtually silent over

accusations right and left over your clergy seems to be you have your priorities

screwed up.

 

[cappuccina]

...the jury room...


It's a WORK OF FICTION...

This is not Nazi Germany; we do not ban or burn books here because we do not agree with them, nor should we....The fuss about this WORK OF FICTION is especially hypocritical in light of the doctrine of "Christian tolerance"...

 

[BhamMama]

For the record, "the Jews" didn't call for a boycott. Some may have. Others participated in producing and distributing the movie. Thousands of Jews went to see it, including most Jews I know. There is no monolithic Jewish authority or opinion.

Thats right, our Synagogues didn't come out and say don't see it, they didn't 'preach' from the pulpit about how it was sinful or even bring it up for that matter. Because, quite frankly, when you've been persecuted for a millenia, you learn to not sweat the small stuff. There were off shoot groups and personal opinions, but nothing from any council or from a gathering of the sects.

It wasn't going to make people rush to convert into the Jewish faith and it wasn't going to drive the faithful out. And if you believe that what the population has to think about your religion matters....too little, too late. Those that don't like you, still won't like you, those that don't care, still won't care, those that are firm believers, will still believe.

My thinking is, if those that read anything and change their minds about what a religion is/was/suppose to be but aren't members...they never would have been to begin with. And if they are members and they changed their minds, what does that say about their choices? Nothing except maybe they might not have had the faith needed and they were free to make up their own minds about what they needed from a particular faith.

Or, in the words of my 84 year old grandmother, clean off your own front porch before you go worrying about everyone elses.

Personally, I don't have a problem with this book, like I didn't have a problem with Passions of the Christ. I've been called a Jesus killer more than once but I know our history so their opinion don't matter. They can't see my heart or know my walk with my G-d, nothing changes that. Let em think whatever they want.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

...the jury room...


It's a WORK OF FICTION...

This is not Nazi Germany; we do not ban or burn books here because we do not agree with them, nor should we....The fuss about this WORK OF FICTION is especially hypocritical in light of the doctrine of "Christian tolerance"...

Tolerance?? The Catholic church tolerant? :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

 

[Details]

Calling for a boycott isn't what I'd call intolerant. Making it only able to be shown at some theaters, threatening (economically or otherwise) theaters that show it, trying to get it banned - that's intolerant. Saying that it's not a good representation of whatever, and suggesting that people shouldn't support it - that's just a normal way of registering disaproval.

Now if they were saying some garbage about excommunication, or calling watching the movie a sin - that'd be different, but they're just saying they don't think it's an accurate portrayal - even saying that so long as you recognize it's fiction, then they see no harm in it - they're just worried that people seem to be taking it as fact.

I don't agree with much of anything the church does, but this is just so minor in terms of the larger harm they do, and so normal for any group (wasn't there a boycott and picket line against a movie for portraying a group of people as bad - I forget if it was red-heads or short people or irish or some such - about 10 years ago maybe?) - it just seems like what any group would do.

 

[narlacat]

I wanna know why they chose Hanks.....out of all the actors out there, why him?
I might not see it for that reason alone lol.

 

[BrendaStar]

Calling for a boycott is just going to make more people want to see it. I can't see it doing any good but bringing in more business for the film.

 

[ljwf22]

I wanna know why they chose Hanks.....out of all the actors out there, why him?
I might not see it for that reason alone lol.

I like Tom Hanks, but agree that he's not who I pictured in the role. Even the book described the professor as a Harrison Ford-type. Tom Hanks is bankable though. Who would you cast?

 

[Nova]

I've been called a Jesus killer more than once but I know our history so their opinion don't matter. They can't see my heart or know my walk with my G-d, nothing changes that. Let em think whatever they want.

What a wise attitude, Bham!

Personally, that "Jesus killer" stuff makes me a little sick to my stomach.

 

[Nova]

The movie "Stigmata" seemed to have some MAJOR problems with the Catholic church, but I didn't hear about anyone having a problem with that movie.

I know what you mean, Jeana, so I hope you won't find this post merely argumentative.

As you probably remember, I'm not Catholic, but I was very offended by Stigmata. Even more than its absurd portrayal of the Church, I was disturbed by the fact that it was basically glossy, anti-women, S&M *advertiser censored*. I have nothing against *advertiser censored* per se, but endless slo-mo shots of a beautiful blond bleeding bother me.

I'm glad Patty Arquette has gone on to better things.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I know what you mean, Jeana, so I hope you won't find this post merely argumentative.

As you probably remember, I'm not Catholic, but I was very offended by Stigmata. Even more than its absurd portrayal of the Church, I was disturbed by the fact that it was basically glossy, anti-women, S&M *advertiser censored*. I have nothing against *advertiser censored* per se, but endless slo-mo shots of a beautiful blond bleeding bother me.

I'm glad Patty Arquette has gone on to better things.

Is gratuitous bleeding *advertiser censored*? :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: How did you feel that the movie was "anti-women"???

 

[Nova]

Is gratuitous bleeding *advertiser censored*?

Yes.

How did you feel that the movie was "anti-women"???

Glamorizing (using lighting and camera techniques usually associated with selling beer on TV) the bleeding of a beautiful woman isn't my idea of treating women as human beings. That movies "loves" women as the objects of violence.

Yes, horror movies have long done similar things, but Stigmata seemed particularly bad to me. JMHO.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Yes.




Glamorizing (using lighting and camera techniques usually associated with selling beer on TV) the bleeding of a beautiful woman isn't my idea of treating women as human beings. That movies "loves" women as the objects of violence.

Yes, horror movies have long done similar things, but Stigmata seemed particularly bad to me. JMHO.

I don't agree. I don't think that it falls into the "*advertiser censored*" category. I also don't think that the movie was all that violent - as "horror" movies go. The message I came away with was that God isn't just in church. He's in your heart and everywhere you go, he's there. The "violence" was brief, in my opinion, and wasn't gratuitous, but a necessary step to get to the "message" in the movie.

 

[Nova]

I don't agree. I don't think that it falls into the "*advertiser censored*" category. I also don't think that the movie was all that violent - as "horror" movies go. The message I came away with was that God isn't just in church. He's in your heart and everywhere you go, he's there. The "violence" was brief, in my opinion, and wasn't gratuitous, but a necessary step to get to the "message" in the movie.

Maybe I'm remembering the wrong film, Jeana. I admit I saw it years ago. I'm all for the message you took from it, but my memory is that the "camera" seemed to take particular "delight" in detailing the blood on Arquette.

Per Freud and a host of others, reveling in bloodshed is a sadist (i.e., sexual) impulse. Hence, my characterization of the film as *advertiser censored*. Personally, I prefer "honest" *advertiser censored* that doesn't hide behind a "message."

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Maybe I'm remembering the wrong film, Jeana. I admit I saw it years ago. I'm all for the message you took from it, but my memory is that the "camera" seemed to take particular "delight" in detailing the blood on Arquette.

Per Freud and a host of others, reveling in bloodshed is a sadist (i.e., sexual) impulse. Hence, my characterization of the film as *advertiser censored*. Personally, I prefer "honest" *advertiser censored* that doesn't hide behind a "message."

Yes, same movie. They did show the blood, but they did have to show the wounds and their location on the body, so I guess its pretty hard to do that without showing the blood too.

As for the "*advertiser censored*" reference, I still don't agree, but I'm sure we can live with that!!

 

[Nova]

Yes, same movie. They did show the blood, but they did have to show the wounds and their location on the body, so I guess its pretty hard to do that without showing the blood too.

As for the "*advertiser censored*" reference, I still don't agree, but I'm sure we can live with that!!

Of course. And yes they had to show the wounds; it was more the way they did it. We'd probably have to see the movie again for me to explain clearly what I mean.

Stigmata isn't the only film that does that, just one that stood out for me.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Of course. And yes they had to show the wounds; it was more the way they did it. We'd probably have to see the movie again for me to explain clearly what I mean.

Stigmata isn't the only film that does that, just one that stood out for me.

I'm sorry, but that Priest was HOT. There's just something about that guy, but YUMMY!!!! :blushing: :blushing: :blushing: :blushing: