The Magdalene Review

Da Vinci, slowed…

Today, in spite of a mean headcold, I caught a matinee showing of The Da Vinci Code. I probably would have waited to see it, but darn that Fandango.com, they just make it too easy to buy tickets in advance. I purchased them on Thursday just in case the theater was sold out, given that this is the opening weekend for the “biggest film event of the year.” I needn’t have worried; the theater was only filled to about 60% of capacity.

The most remarkable thing I can say about the movie is that it played out on the screen almost exactly like it played out in my head as I read Dan Brown’s novel. Now, this can mean a couple of things. Either Dan Brown is very good at generating in his readers the setting he has in mind, or Ron Howard was so painstakingly faithful to the book that not a prop was out of place. Perhaps both possibilities are true, but whatever the case, the end result is that I watched the movie feeling like I had already seen it. Sure, it was fun to see Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen and Jean Reno acting out the characters that had mostly remained faceless in my mind’s eye, but I was also perfectly comfortable getting up for some popcorn during the film without feeling like I would miss anything important.

Dull, plodding, boring, literalistic; these are all adjectives used by critics when referring to the movie. I had hoped that having lived my life with DVC for the last few years would have rendered the experience a bit more exciting, but what I found was that the criticisms of the movie were perfectly warranted. I was impressed by the film’s deft avoidance of the more controversial dialogue in the novel, though, and was almost interested by a few flashbacks of a pregnant Mary Magdalene with curly red hair. I’ll admit that the hair on the back of my neck stood up at least once during a couple of dramatic pans of Mary Magdalene’s sarcophagus, heightened as they were by a fantastic film score. Magdalene’s alabaster jar even made more than one appearance in the movie, but tragically, it contained a single red rose. (Could there be anything more cliché than a single, long-stemmed red rose, under any circumstance? Hello, Phantom of the Opera. Why not a lily? It would have even been appropriate given the importance placed on the fleur-de-lis in the story.)

The buzz on the Mary Magdalene email lists about the movie is generally supportive. A few people have gushed about how beautiful and empowering it is to see the sacred feminine making such an appearance in popular culture, but it just didn’t have that vibe for me. It felt tired. Overwrought. Milked dry. When I left the theater with my husband, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the movie will do more to end the DVC phenomenon than to perpetuate it. It was as preachy as the book, minus the action and excitement. Although I suppose it is a cultural marker to see goddess-worship and Christianity mingled in this manner on the big screen, it didn’t feel momentous in the least. As the audience filed out after one of the most anti-climactic final scenes ever, I caught mumbles of how long and boring the experience had been.

My advice? Wait for DVC on DVD.

The Jesus Papers

On MSNBC:

The Mystery of the Jesus Papers
by Sara James

Chris and I watched the NBC Dateline special last night that was either derived from this article or resulted in this article. Either way, the article reads like a transcript from the show. Michael Baigent, one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (and also one of those suing Dan Brown) has a new book about to hit the market, entitled, if you haven’t guessed by now, The Jesus Papers. I haven’t received a review copy yet, but based on the Dateline special and the marketing collateral I’ve seen, it seems to be not much new.

The “swoon” theory of Jesus’ death and resurrection, that is, the idea that he didn’t die on the cross but only appeared to, has been around for a very long time. Michael Baigent’s Jesus Papers explores this idea, interprets scripture from this point of view, but doesn’t seem to take it in any new directions. His main innovation appears to be the claim that he has seen physical proof of Jesus’ survival in the form of letters written by Jesus himself dated around 45 C.E.

The letters are secret, of course. Baigent won’t reveal the name of the owner, and confesses to not being able to read Aramaic, in which the letters were written. He hasn’t had the documents validated, in fact, even the photos he took of the alleged documents ended up disappearing. There was never even any discussion of why documents of such import to Western history would be in the hands of a private collector rather than available for study by scholars. Convenient, no? Readers are forced to take Baigent’s word for it.

Elaine Pagels and Craig Evans, both Dateline guests, sum up my feelings on the subject:

Pagels: It’s imaginative to say the least.

Evans: It’s voodoo scholarship, it shouldn’t be taken credibly.

Mary Magdalene’s role in The Jesus Papers remains to be seen. My guess is that she is only mentioned in connection with the author’s belief that Jesus went on to sire a family with her. If this is the case, then perhaps we could view The Jesus Papers as a sort of prequel to Holy Blood, Holy Grail. I’ll post more about it once I see an actual copy of the book.

The Dateline program was a lot of flash, not many revelations. I’m hoping that the National Geographic special on the Gospel of Judas (Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 8 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT, on the National Geographic Channel) proves to be much more substantial.

Reject the Bloodline

Even if I thought it possible that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had started a family, without incontrovertible proof, I will never support the idea. There is a sinister subtext here that is rarely discussed. Think of it this way: Jesus was the Son of God, and he fathered a child, who then carried his “divine” blood. This bloodline then spread throughout Europe (where else?), giving some people of European heritage yet another reason to think themselves superior. We have a word for this, people. It’s called “racism.”

Does this really happen? Yes.

It isn’t exactly common, because most white supremacists, to my knowledge, are good Bible-believing folks who wouldn’t be keen to think of Jesus as a married man. But there are those who have already begun referring to the bloodline of Jesus and MM in the same sentences as “white race” and “brown race,” which sends chills up my spine.

Most often, the racism I’ve seen is much more subtle, sort of a “pre”-racism. The claims themselves aren’t racist, but they could be used easily by any believer to support fully racist arguments. I’m beginning to lose track of the number of people who have contacted me claiming to be descended from Jesus’ blessed ancestry, and by gum, they have the genealogies to prove it. The people who are buying into this idea, as was inevitable, are now trying to sell it, capitalizing off of supposed revelations about their heritage.

This is scary stuff.

I think that what is preventing more people from sitting up and taking notice of this aspect of the bloodline idea is the sheer novelty of it. Everyone is so focused on asking “could it have happened?” that they aren’t seeing potential consequences. Additionally, sometimes this “good genes” line of thinking seems innocuous, even silly, like one fellow who claimed that aliens (Annunaki, a la Zecharia Sitchin) came to earth, impregnated human females, and seeded the population with their superior DNA. This then became the blood of kings and prophets, a family into which Jesus was eventually born, and of course, which he propogated. Although this story goes in the “put on your tin foil hat” file as far as I’m concerned and is something I don’t take seriously, it still has insidious undertones.

Let me recap known history, for those of us who haven’t abandoned it completely:

1. “Divine bloodline” theories are dangerous.
2. They offer no redeeming value to society.
3. They can never be proved.

Any questions?

All aboard the gravy train

I’ve refrained from posting about this because, after all, this is a blog about Mary Magdalene, not The Da Vinci Code. However, I do find this case interesting, and wanted to comment on it briefly.

Dan Brown is being sued by Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln, two of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. They allege that Dan Brown infringed on their copyright by lifting their idea about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married and structuring his book around it. Their attorney says:

“[Baigent's and Lincoln's] historical conjecture has spawned many other books that developed aspects of this conjecture in a variety of directions.

“But none has lifted the central theme of the book.”

I’m curious, at this point, how they define “the central theme.” Is it that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were romantic, conceived at least one child, which was then taken to France, and subsequently married into the Merovingian bloodline? And that this secret was protected through history by the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, and a secret group called the Priory of Sion?

If what I perceive as the “central theme” of HBHG is anywhere close to their definition, then I can safely say that there are other books that have lifted these ideas wholesale. These books are usually non-fiction, and credit is given to the authors of HBHG. Dan Brown also nodded to HBHG in the course of his story, however, and since not many novels include footnotes, I’m not sure what else he could have done to acknowledge Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh. He even named a character after the authors, for crying out loud.

The biggest difference I can see between those books that have reproduced the “central theme” of HBHG and The Da Vinci Code is that DVC has sold 30 million copies. In fact, I find it quite interesting that Baigent and Lincoln are engaging in this lawsuit, considering that their book has enjoyed a renewed popularity since DVC was published. To me, the suit seems to be more about Dan Brown’s deep pockets than about intellectual property.

As a friend commented when he sent the above link, “the conspiracy is now under copyright.” I wonder: if the judge finds in their favor, will Baigent and Lincoln go after all other authors that make use of their theory?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Update (10:27pm): This article gives a hint at the arguments Dan Brown’s team will use to defend him. The fact that so many books have lifted information from HBHG in the past could work out very well for Brown. He asserts that he hadn’t read HBHG until nearing the end of his book, and that he didn’t depend on it when developing his outline and synopsis. This shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to believe; he could have read only the books of Margaret Starbird and come up with the ideas that appear in DVC, peppering it with a few more things from HBHG as it neared completion.

As an observer, I would say that a very clever lawyer would need only to assemble the pieces of DVC that have appeared both in HBHG AND other titles that made use of the conspiracy in question and see how many HBHG-specific pieces are left over. I’ll wager that it won’t be many.

DVC in Newsweek

The Da Vinci Code is featured in this week’s issue of Newsweek. The article revolves around how those involved with the film feel about the story as well as their roles in the movie. Some interesting tidbits about the business of DVC are revealed, such as how the film rights were captured by Sony, how the actors and directors came to be involved, and how sets were handled on location. (The real Mona Lisa, relegated to a storage closet!?)

Of particular interest was a statement that the film does not shy away from the parts of the book that make it such a contentious topic; there have been rumors that the film would be cutting out the whole bit about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married, but presumably, that won’t be the case. This is a relief, at least partially, since the movie might as well not even be made if they were to excise such an integral part of the story. (The argument could be made that the movie shouldn’t have been produced anyway, but that’s beside the point…)

You can read the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10509652/site/newsweek/.

I’m still wondering if there will be riots in the street when DVC debuts, theater screen slashings, and the kind of thing we saw with The Last Temptation of Christ. While Kazantzakis’ novel and the resulting film unquestionably had much more substance to it, I see The Last Temptation as only a fraction as blasphemous as DVC is considered by many. Certainly there aren’t any accusations of anti-Semitism circulating around this story (yet), but it has its own set of problems that render it just as controversial. Considering its relative proximity to the release of The Passion of the Christ, and the renewed interest shown by the faithful in big cinema, I wouldn’t be surprised by the occurance of some assertive displays of disagreement.