Jesus had a beard in that painting, so I don’t think he looks particularly feminine. As for the Apostle John’s allegedly female appearance, that’s simply the style by which Florentine artists depicted young men during the Renaissance. (See Leonardo’s painting of John the Baptist for another example.)
That’s too bad.
The part that tickled me in the previews was the bright light emanating from the dead guy’s genital region. I know they had to keep it PG, but still. Did they have a convenient window poised in the right spot, or is there even more meaning to the Radiant Crotch?
Nope. There is a perfectly normal bright light on a stand near his dead body. Here’s how they got around the exposure problem. ( small cameraman’s pun. 
)
The center of that spotlight was measureable at, say, 500 footcandles. ( no matter what the real measure was, this is an issue of ratios ). As the light fell off, it got darker in a circular area around the body. The rest of the “Gallery” was lit dimly with great fall-off in many areas.
They exposed for the light cast on the actor’s faces. Let’s say, 150 footcandles. The camera iris is very open for they are dimly lit. The body, whose torso is bathed in both blood and a bright amount of light, is overexposed to a serious degree.
No genitalia sourced light. We even see them standing NEXT TO the light and light stand in a few angles. The man’s torso went away detail-wise because of simple overexposure of his overexposed bits. 
I saw the film yesterday. I’m a big fan of history and historical fiction, so nothing about this book pissed me off one bit. ( I listened to an unabridged read a few weeks ago, in “preparation” for the movie ). Look, it’s fiction. People who get their panties in a twist are forgetting that this man is not Robert Langdon, supposed Symbologist from Harvard. He’s just a guy who loves telling stories using historical bits and pieces that suit his whimsy. This didn’t used to be the stuff of outraged readers. This used to be the stuff of enjoyable fantasy.
Somewhere along the way, the Information Age made us believe we had the right to absolute proof and cite of anything we read or hear- even if that thing is never set before us as fact. I cannot remember anyone proving that Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code as a college textbook in history of religion.
He’s a clever writer. I don’t see fans of knitting going into a frothy tizzy over Madame DeFarge’s use of wool and needles to immortalize the guillotined martyrs in “Tale Of Two Cities”. It’s called “storytelling”, right?
As for the viewing experience of our friend DiosaBellissima, that is much more than unfortunate. Those people walked into the theatre angry at the Church, and looking for ammo to support their angers.
Cartooniverse
I agree, you are correct that the Council of Nicea wasn’t about the Trinity, but it was about establishing the divine nature of Jesus. The very fact the Christian community had to decide the doctrine of Jesus being equal to the Father (and in AD 325), shows that the Christian faith did not universally accept that Jesus was God at the time of the Resurrection. I haven’t read the De Vinci Code but in the movie, as I said before, Langdon and Teabing didn’t seem like they was teaching a class…just summarizing Christian history. Really, we do the same all the time; can you really say that World War II started on September 1, 1939? It only involved Germany, Poland, France, and Britain. If we use December 9, 1941(two days after Pearl Harbor) we can add Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan, the United States, and two dozens other countries.
The Council of Nicea officially set Jesus’ place in the Trinity…and it was that placement that Teabing was talking about. The third part of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit (or Ghost), wasn’t important to what Teabing was talking about, so I don’t fault him for not mentioning it. As far as I know, there is a term to describe just the Father and Son in common usage. As Teabing was talking to a typical Christian, and a typical Christian probably couldn’t define the Holy Spirit anyway, the usage was appropriate.
Actually, it took Britain and France two days to formally declare war on Germany.
No, it wasn’t. Arius fully acknowledged that Jesus was divine. He simply maintained that Jesus was not co-eternal with the father.
No, it doesn’t. What you described is the concept of co-eternality, not divinity.
Moreover, Dan Brown is 100% wrong when he says that Constantine invented the divinity of Christ and introduced it in AD 325 at the Council of Nicea. I would argue that the Gospels themselves – which date to the first century, even by liberal standards – teach the divinity of Jesus (John 1:1-14, for example). But even if you don’t buy that explanation, the early church fathers themselves taught that concept. For example,
"We also have a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word before time began, but who afterwards became also man of Mary the virgin.” – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, AD 110-130
“…in order that through Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow’…” – Irenaus, Against Heresies, AD 115-190
“In these books, then, of the prophets we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin…and being called the Son of God.” – The First Apology of Justin, XXXI, AD 110-165
The divinity of Jesus most certainly was NOT introduced – or voted on – at the Council of Nicea. Anybody who makes that claim is simply wrong.
But do you recall Dan Brown saying that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”? Because I sure do.
Jthunder, the Arians believed that Jesus was a creation of God (the Father), not part of the deity himself. Uninvited to the Council in AD 325 was the Gnostics leaders that believed even less than Arians. What we know of both groups is limited because the result of the Council of Nicea was to establish these minorities’ views heresy. Most of the writings of Arius were destroyed so we don’t know how far from the majority view he possessed.
Again in the movie, the mention of the Council was to explain that the early Christian church didn’t universally agree that Jesus was part of God. The fact that the Council took place in the first place, proves this point. I haven’t read the book, so you may be right about Dan Brown’s conclusions being wrong, but as it played in the movie…I don’t see a problem.
More accurately, they believed that Jesus was a created being, but still divine. Elementary logic therefore dictates that the divinity of Jesus was not under dispute at the Council of Nicea. Nor was the concept introduced at Nicea, for reasons that I have already given
You have no case.
It was an entertaining movie. It suffers from the same problems that the Harry Potter movies do - there is so much that has to be cut/compressed from the book. Overall, there were some parts that suffered, just as HP does. But it was well worth the admission price.
And I don’t understand what all the furor is about. It’s a work of fiction about a work of fiction. And people are getting their feathers ruffled because this work of fiction contradicts what their work of fiction says. I liken it to having Dumbledore suddenly announce that Granny Weatherwax actually was married in her earlier days and Verence is her son.
Arius’s beliefs:
There is only one God.
Jesus was not God.
Therefore Jesus was not a god.
JThunder, There is no evidence that the Christian community ever embraced anything but monotheistic beliefs; there is but one God. I remind you, that in the early part of the religion, Christianity was thought to be a sect of Judaism. Arius wasn’t so radical that he believed there were two gods; just one god and Jesus was not part of him. Arius taught that Jesus was superior to other men, possibly “angel-like”, but he was not God in the flesh. He didn’t claim that Jesus only was 10%, 20%, or 30% of the True God, he believed Jesus was not part of God period. This isn’t something Dan Brown made up; it is fact. You can attack Brown, along with some Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moslems and Jews if they mischaracterizing how events unfolded at the Council of Nicea…but you can’t deny what the council was meeting about. The Council met to decide if Jesus was God, or at least, part of Him.
As I said before, the Council of Nicea was only brought up in the movie to illustrate that there was a time in Christian history where not everyone believed that Jesus was God. In that same scene they talk about the Gnostic Gospel of Philip. In that gospel, Jesus is alleged to have a companion named Mary that he kissed regularly. Both these subjects I too would use if I were explaining the possibility of Jesus being a mortal. If I fault Brown and Howard for anything it would be for not giving more examples. They could have spoken of Jesus being tempted by the devil, praying to himself, and even dying on the cross. None of these things I would expect from God. As it was in the film, it may have been simplistic and bias, but it wasn’t necessarily wrong.
Of course, Dan Brown also got one tiny detail wrong about the Gnostics - they believed that matter was evil, and therefore denied Jesus’ humanity.
Arianism’s modern day equivalent is the Jehova’s Witnesses, but I’m not sure if that little factoid will help clarify or muddle the issue.
People always get uncomfortable when the beliefs they hold very close to their personal identity are questioned. Just look at the kerfluffle over intelligent design vs. evolution. I mean, it is just a theory, right? 
Not exactly true. Arius taught that Jesus was not of the same essence as God the Father; however, he but did not – strictly speaking – deny Christ’s divinity. Arius taught that Jesus existed before all time and created all worlds (in keeping with chapter one of John’s Gospel), but was not co-eternal with the Father.
Was his concept of god inconsistent with Christian theology? You betcha! But that does not mean that he denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.
We are not talking about “the Christian community.” We are talking about ARIUS, a specific individual. His beliefs were NOT consistent with those of the Christian community. That is EXACTLY why they were denounced as heretical at the Council of Nicea!
No, it isn’t. Like virtually everything that Dan Brown said about history, it is false.
No, the movie went far beyond that. Both the book and the movie claimed that up until then, Jesus had only been perceived as human, nothing more. As Dan Brown said in his book,
“Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet….a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.” - Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code
As demonstrated by my earlier quotes from church fathers Irenaus, Ignatius and Justin, that simply isn’t so.
There’s a plot point or two that I didn’t get from the movie (and haven’t read the book - not enough interest). The sarcophogous of MM was moved from the Temple Church (?) to underneath the Louvre by the man acting as Sophie’s grandfather. Er, he couldn’t have been acting alone - that thing looks heavy - but never mind, I suppose that all of his helpers are dead, as well, and nobody else at the job site ever noticed a thing. Whatever. What’s not clear is whether there’s some other access to the sarcophogous vault, or whether it was completely bricked in. That is, will uncovering it take another 1000 years, or what? Does the book give any hints?
…And how long could a mad monk wait in the wings for the right moment to attack, if a mad monk could wait in the wings?
Not necessarily so. Jacques Sauniere was merely the grandmaster of the Priory of Sion, the organization which safeguarded the secret of where Mary Magdalene’s sarcophagus was kept. Neither the movie nor the book said that he personally moved the thing.
Athanasius, a critic of Arius, challenged Arius by saying that Arius’ beliefs would make Christianity a polytheism. Arius responded that he never claimed Jesus as a god, but an inferior being of The true God and a creation of that god.
From Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. 2001
“….According to Arius, Jesus was a supernatural creature not quite human and not quite divine. In these ideas Arius followed the school of Lucian of Antioch.”
Catholic Encylopedia Online
“Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.”
Okay - as I said, I missed some things. Someone else moved it then; several people, that is, some time or other. They moved it either as part of the modern construction at the Louvre, or they moved it mysteriously knowing the right place to put it. The ones who provided the clue as to where it now rests either knew where it is or were mysteriously inspired to use the right words. All as may be, the question still remains. Does it hint anywhere whether the sarcophagus is still accessible, or will it take another 1,000 years to be able to get to it? It’d be a fun point to mention, next time I hear anyone talk about visiting Paris.
As a product of parochial school, I can vouch that Catholicism is built on scavenger hunts and decoder rings.
Why did they describe the Knights Templar (Crusaders who’d been to Jerusalem) shaking down the Pope as “over a thousand years ago” not once, but twice? The First Crusade began in 1095. Sloppy.
Any fan of Kevin Smith movies had the Holy Grail pegged pretty early on. And hearing Tom Hanks’ character refer to Leonardo as “DaVinci” is a little like hearing an actor playing Oppenheimer say the word “nucular.”
Read the book, heard about the bad reviews, saw the film and actually liked it a lot more than I thought I would. Went to the film with a friend who had not read the book, and he liked the film a lot.
I only wondered why they changed the ending and didn’t include the “brother” being alive as well.
Small nitpick first: In the opening sequence in the Lourve, the curator makes a classic Bad Movie mistake: He’s running away from someone stalking him (Silus, in this case), and he keeps looking behind him. This is a sure way to get killed. Plus, Silus is later shown to have a self-inflicted leg wound, so logically the curator ought to be able to outrun Silus. For an extreme example of nobody outrunning the slow killer, see I Know What You Did Last Summer.
Medium nitpick: Silus shoots the curator in the gut, and then leaves. The curator then has several minutes to (1) leave extensive cryptic messages in his own blood; (2) get undressed, and leave a cryptic symbol on his own chest; and (3) at the moment of his death, position himself just right to invoke the Da Vinci symbolism. Rock-bottom minimum, that much work would take five minutes for a healthy person, and the curator is shown to be hurting bad. He certainly had enough time to find a telephone, call the police or the DGSE, and leave a clear and detailed message about the circumstances of his own murder. (But then, where would our story be?)
Big issue with the whole premise of the story: If we allow for the sake of the story that the Priory protects the secret of MM’s descendents, then even if they demonstrated clear and irrefutable evidence that Sophie (or anybody else) is the direct descendent of MM and Yesu ben Yosef, about two-thirds of the world would respond: AND SO? Various forms of oppression would not suddenly stop just because a key tenet of the RCC was suddenly conclusively disproved.