Church conspiracies in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code
February 26th 2007 03:00
Soap operas and period pieces tend to operate within the known and to leave everything the same. Mob stories and political intrigues can seem worlds away. Sci-fi and fantasy rarely forget that they're fictional. Whereas horror, the paranormal, the occult, the conspiratorial, thrive on the fiction/non-fiction border. As do folk tales, children's stories, myths and legends. As do crime stories, serial killers.
The monster disrupts the audience's actual feelings of security, which are restored with the monster's death (or not, when the horror film leaves dangers open-ended).
With the unknown explained, the supernatural becomes absurd, comic...
***
It's reassuring when fictional facts don't end up diverging from the real world, though sometimes exciting when they do.
***
Restoration is rarely complete for the characters; normality rarely returns entirely. Hero comes back from hero journey with newfound strength, the married couple in "The Awful Truth" discover how much they mean to each other, etc.
Vs "The Big Lebowski" -- the dude abides.
***
The Da Vinci Code movie goes the easy stereotype route, and omits a minor detail: there was no Catholic conspiracy. There was no shadowy group intent to suppress the sacred feminine. On the contrary, Bishop Aringarosa is brought to the grailquest by Teabing, and believes the grail some sort of relic. It's unclear how he would have reacted had he been handed Mary Magdalene's skeleton.
And all this is a surprise to the reader. Up to this point, Dan Brown has gone to some lengths -- parcelling out information, playing on genre conventions, screwing with audience prejudice -- to imply a picture of corrupt priests and Vatican cabals, to make the most ordinary unexpected.
An Opus Dei cilice -- a small metal chain with inwardly-pointing spikes
So you're set up to fall -- there's a change of mental picture. Them Catholics ain't so bad after all. Opus Dei turns out merely a strict organization, not an evil one -- though its practices might be alienating. And instead of devil in priest's clothing, it's just a priest in priest's clothing -- as loving, as sincerely religious, and as horrified by murder, as Catholic priests are supposed to be.
| Silas's soul thundered with remorse and rage. "Father, if it takes my lifetime, I will find the one who deceived us, and I will kill him."
Aringarosa shook his head, looking sad as they prepared to wheel him away. "Silas... if you have learned nothing from me, please... learn this." He took Silas's hand and gave it a firm squeeze. "Forgiveness is God's greatest gift." "But Father..." Aringarosa closed his eyes. "Silas, you must pray." |
***
Compare the moment in Angels and demons when Langdon reveals the Camerlengo's evil. Vittoria moves to leave the room, and is blocked by a wall of cardinals.
| "What are you going to do?" she exclaimed. "Kill me?"
The old men blanched, and Vittoria immediately regretted her words. She could see these men were gentle souls. They had seen enough violence tonight. They meant no threat. They were simply trapped. Scared. Trying to get their bearings. |
The cardinals' blanch is surprising. One had accepted without murmur that the Camerlengo was psychopathic, for why shouldn't he be? This is the reality of the fictional world, and Vatican intrigues are not so implausible in our own.
Illuminati ambigram
***
Here's four thoughts on why.
Firstly, the development is natural, the audience can swallow it. Whereas an indigestible narrative is just one damn implausible thing, one random event, after another, perhaps culminating in a convenient deus ex.
There are rules of narrative construction; there are limitations on what can happen. Compare Aristotle's talk of inevitability in tragedies. Though in a modern context, inversion is also required -- the story must be both right, and surprising.
In this case, Dan Brown is prepared; the line is unrandom. There are ways in which the twist feels more satisfying than would have the alternative. For instance, there have been various hints along the way that are now explained. There is better sense made of character motivation -- there's less complexity required. And it seems more probable that a bishop was tricked, than that a shadowy cabal is cynically maintaining its powerbase.
Secondly, the twist lends itself to greater closure than would have been the case. There aren't as many loose threads, as much unfinished business. There isn't as much chance of a Da Vinci Code Two. You don't, for instance, have questions about the extent to which the cabal controls the Vatican, about the fate of the cabal's other members, about future assaults on the Priory...
Thirdly the inversion actually means something, when the elements are rendered into symbolic form. The story is richer than it might have been. The reversal teaches you an Aesop's fable lesson, however superficial -- along the lines of "Don't always think the worst of people" or "Gather the facts before you conclude". And the maxim is felt to be useful.
And fourthly, the partial restoration of belief is more satisfying than would have been the case. Faith returns, and not just Catholic faith. Most of the old certainties are still certain.
It's the adult-child's equivalent of the bedtime-story where the monster takes off his monster face and sits down to have tea. It's the beginnings of the pat ending of dreamer awakening from dream.
In the eye of memory, this is a moment, as in the case of porn, of retreat then grounding. The dissolving of threat into a hug. How silly of you. Though you'd been believing all along in the corrupt church, of course it's not true, and how could it be. And what an insight into your own nature that you'd suspected and leapt to conclusions so readily.
***
Notes
* Regarding "The Awful Truth", Wikipedia notes that Stanley Cavell clases this among "Comedies of remarriage" -- stories where a couple separates, then reunites -- almost perfectly restoring status quo.
* This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia articles The Da Vinci Code, Opus Dei. The image from Wild Things came from this website. The image of the Louvre came from this website.
| 150 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by David
I haven't read 'The DaVinci Code' ... nor seen the film ... Not going to do either ... Rather read the life of Mary Magdalene from Rev Alban Butler's Lives of the Saints ... and how she ended up in France with her brother Lazarus and her sister Martha... and how they took the relics of St Anne (the Blessed Virgin's mother ... and wife of St Joachim) with them on their boat, and how she became one of the greatest mystics on earth living out her days in a French cave ... or read the Papal Encyclicals of St Pius X and Leo XIII ... or Jacob de Voriagne's 'Golden Legend' .. or the Fioretti ... thanks ...
Or just contemplate Mary Magdalene's conversion from the scant (yet full of depth, simplicity) ... details of it in the Gospels ...
So, a lot of what you've written in relation to the texts (written and visual) of 'The DaVinci Code' is a bit (beyond me) ... And I can't comment on either of them in any specific way...
All I know about this text is that apparently Mary Magdalen is portrayed as a post conversion slut and Christ is portrayed as a male slut? ... (might be wrong ... the media lies all the time ... *
But my overall impression of what you write, is that you have a grasp on reality ... (how can you be a blogger? ... *
As a way of making a general observation on this Post ... ? ...
Nearly every institution in the world has bad people and good people within it ... The institution itself should be 'judged' independently of the people within it ... It should be 'judged' or evaulated primarily on its founder and the teachings and life of its founder ...
And that's why I'm remaining a lapsed Catholic for the rest of my life ... *** ...
David ...
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Know you'll enjoy that one.
katyzzz
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
Thought provoking post. Really enjoyed it.
Mis
Comment by Damo
It probably would have fallen on deaf ears two years ago when Da Vinci Code was the new black.
I haven't read DVC yet, only because when a book becomes so popular, so fast, it is rarely because of its quality of writing and clever storyline. There was a sort, "Have you see the film yet?" pressure about it for a while. Some of my family who have read it have several opinions but the gist is, "That was an enteraining piece of crap that did not tax my thinking at all."
I think some people believed it was real, but not many.
If you want to have a good laugh at some wild conspiracy theories then the Chick Tracts make as much sense as DVC.
http://www.chick.com
It is an absolute scream because Chick is serious.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I read the book and saw the film and enjoyed both, for the shift in consciousness they engendered .. observation is that few do actually question anything anymore.
Perhaps DVC offered answers to questions people had never asked and that’s what made it interesting? It offered a capsule of information that primarily asked, why have people stopped asking questions? Should we ask, or take things at face value... which buys freedom, which offers truth?
I always ask too many questions, especially as a kid ... to me it eventually removes fear, prejudice and judgement?
I don’t know, only guessing? Perhaps it stems back to the old adage : ‘ask no questions, hear no lies… but that always reminds me of another saying : wise is the man who has two loaves, and sells one to buy a lily.
I enjoyed this post, and have just realised you're quite brilliant.
Thanks,
Lilla …
Comment by JoshZ
Well, I'm all for honest questions and answers...
JZ
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
Great post. One of the reasons I found the Dan Brown books so compelling was the weaving of factual information into the story. I have a very very strong dislike (I'm putting it mildly) of all religion. However, from Angels and Demon's and Da Vinci Code I actually learned a little about catholicism.
But, like so many other things, people take it for fact. Rather than questioning the information. Of course, the bloody Catholic Church didn't help by carrying on about the book. It is after all a work of fiction. I think the church calling for a boycott of the books (yeah, good idea calling for a boycott AFTER about 10 trillion books have been sold) just makes people more curious and think that perhaps there is more fact in the stories than there is.
Just my opinion. Great work
Kylie
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Great post, indeed, I'm with KylieW... I loved the Dan Brown books - all of them especially Angels and Demons and The DVC... what's not to love? It made us all question the unquestionable... what's wrong with that?
As a child I soon developed a knack of questioning everything (many teachers hated me for it too) *chuckle*... and to this day, I abhor anything with forces me hold another's point of view, without also allowing me the liberty to test the truths presented therein, for myself.
AS a truthseeker it is paramount and I loved the facts that were weaved in amongst Dan's books - did you read Deception Point and discover all the facts about NASA and why China is building a space platform ... as we speak? Blew my mind... loved it!
True it may not serve humanitarian purposes, but it is true that the truth sets you free...(well, providing you do the things that are stated beforehand... read the fine-print)... [something about if you follow the Lord your God, if you do this and if you do that.... then the truth will set you free...something like that]...*lol*
You say:
I don't necessarily agree, because things can still be taken into context within each paradigm and they make perfect sense when view with knowledge available at that time, compared to today, when we are perhaps, further from the truth than previous generations... yet closer to another truth, than those generations...
Really enjoyed the post,
Lilla ~
PS.. I am hoping your are well and your absense is due to holidays... I miss your rather excellent mind-bending, posts...*chuckle*
Comment by evan
Some of the 'factual content' is fiction! This is because it is a novel!
I have an Aramaic scholar I can put you in touch with - Ian Yound at Sydney University.
It is interesting how popular it is. It is of no value factually - it is a novel!
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thank you for your comment, your concern, and your tarot reading! And apologies for the speed and roughness of this reply.
Just rather overwhelmed with various things at the moment. Deadline pressures, as little as 2 hours sleep a day, that kind of thing. And these posts take a lot out of me to write. So hopefully I'll be back soonish...
About the supernatural... Well, I don't know that we necessarily disagree. I think often my posts are about such trivial things that people think they're saying more than they do.
I wasn't talking about the supernatural as such, nor about whether the Catholic church is right or wrong. All I'm really concerned with in this post (haven't read it in a while; going by memory here) is aesthetics. Narrative. Literature. Not the supernatural, but the depiction of the supernatural.
So when I say "With the unknown explained, the supernatural becomes absurd, comic...", well I do think this is the general rule, though I wouldn't claim that it HAS to be the case. I mean, when you have the supernatural in movies, which are the movies that explain the supernatural, and that show you the rules of the spirit world? The only movies I can really think of are things like Ghostbusters, or Ghost with Patrick Swayze. And these movies are never as scary, or as dark.
If you watch Sixth Sense again, there is a key scene where the meaning, the effect, the symbolism of the supernatural shifts. The little boy is in his tent, his sanctuary, and he turns around and sees a ghost -- his sanctuary is violated. He runs screaming, but then he thinks, Maybe they're not terrifying after all. Maybe they're people who just want to be talked to. So he goes back, and the ghost is still there. And then she burps and says, "Thank you, I feel much better now."... And from that point on, grisly just ain't frightening, because it's explained, normalized. The boy is casually talking to a woman in the dressing room, and then she turns around and walks out, and you see an axe is sticking in her back, and half her face is burned off. Black changes to black humour.
So I think there is some sort of effect here where explanation transforms the aesthetic supernatural...