1. 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."
I agree on what Brown is saying. His book “The Da Vinci Code” has many interesting things which will attract people. The book is highly controversial but what Brown is saying is also can be taken in to the consideration. He is on a constant spiritual journey, and if there he finds some faults in religion, it is his duty to let others know about that. There is not only one religion in the world and if Brown is finding other religion better than one which he knows that, then he can try to change it, after all religion is made by humans. Spirituality is in knowing our own self and this book let the characters do it. He also have shown some flaws of Christianity, which if we look at it with sceptic eye seems true to us. Then everything needs change with time, so does the religion. So I agree what Brown is talking about debate, that this book give us the different angle for looking towards the things and it doesn’t mean to be anti – Christianity. It provides us the ground for healthy discussion and debate and the book can be used as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.
2. “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[1].” How far do you agree with this observation of Norris J. Lacy?
I do agree with Lacy’s observation. What film is trying to show as fact those are just made up theories. But it obviously held the viewers attention as it is unfolding in very interesting way. It will beautifully fooled those who don’t have enough historical sense and proofs to prove Brown’s narration wrong. I do agree with second statement also that screenwriter has held the core of the novel till the end, by focusing on Grail, Sacred Feminine, Mary Magdalene, Priory of Sion, and Leonardo Da Vinci’s art.
3. (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?
If we look towards these three text by its style of genre of narration than, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary young mind than “Genesis” and “”The Paradise Lost”. “Genesis” (The Bible) is written as words of God, where there is no space to question anything which seems totally foolish or unbelievable. “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton) tries to give some different personality to the characters of “Genesis”. But it still shows the fear of God. When we talk about “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown) he is trying to free human being from blind faith in religion. It also tries to give logical reasons (though not fact) to convince the readers. Other texts are trying to show God as divine but “The Da Vinci Code” is trying to show God as human being who has done good deeds. It tries to says that religion is made by human being, for the betterment of human being according to the ancient time, and if there is necessity we can make change according to the recent time. So, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary mind.
4. 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?
Every narrative left it imprints in the mind of human beings. Same every narrative has done something good or bad for humanity. Here we are looking for the harms which has done by “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton), and “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown). Milton by portraying God as punishment giver, it tries to make humans afraid of something and tries to control the free will of human being. It also seems to say that questioning mind is not good because it leads towards the punishment. So it kills the basic human instinct to be curious and free. While on the other hand “The Da Vinci Code” is trying make humans free from the shackles of religion, but humans also need something to believe in it, from which they gain strength to fight the difficulties in their life. On the other hand there are some people who have grown up with religion and if suddenly someone snatch the very base of their existence it will become hard to live for them. So from both the ways it damages humanity.
5. 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 'Hermione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code? How would justify your answer?
Mostly these all female characters are similar but at some extent they differ from each other. If we talk about Ophelia and Elizabeth are portrayed as subordinated to the male characters while Hester Prynne, Hermione Granger and Sophie Neveu have their own voice in movies. Another big difference between all these characters and Sophie is objectification of their body. Directors have shown women’s body very openly and also when there is no need of such scenes, but Ron Howard has remain faithful to the theme of novel and which he keeps in his film is that Female Sacredness. He has not shown Sophie’s body as a object. This is the big difference between portrayal of all other female characters and portrayal of Sophie Neveu.
No comments:
Post a Comment