We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
‘Da Vinci Code’ Time Square opening I have been travelling and swamped with work since the space development conference in Los Angeles – so much so I have not even had time to post articles I have already written. From LA I went to NY and on to DC where I spent a week trying to working on a new product for an Internet Service Provider. Then I returned to Manhattan for one day: a day which by chance coincided with the opening of ‘The Da Vinci Code’ in Times Square.
I just had to go.
I went down in late afternoon after prepping for my next trip (I am as I write this at the gate for a San Francisco flight). Unfortunately, it was already sold out until near midnight.
 Photo: Dale Amon all rights reserved
Near the theatre there were a handful of religious picketers. This included some little old ladies handing out flyers but the biggest group appeared to be a Catholic one.
 Photo: Dale Amon all rights reserved
Evidently God was not quite on their side as a gust of wind knocked their large steel framed sign over, nearly hitting some passing pedestrians, not long after I took the photo.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I saw it in L.A. tonight–it was showing on 5 screens in the theater I went to. To me, it played out as a fairly standard chase picture on the order of “American Treasure,” and nearly as preposterous. No religious protesting outside.
“The Da Vinci Code is hate speech”… to which I would reply, even if it is, so what? No one has a right not to be offended.
And even more moronic…
“Ever since its inception, a true work of deception”
No, a true work of FICTION!
What idiots.
I live in NYC and wanted to see “The Lost City”, unfortunately only ran in the theaters for two weeks (nyc art scene is so provencial these days) so I missed the show however, I’m sure that THe Da Vinci Code or MIIII will run at least twenty different showings per movie theater until Oliver Stone’s movie about the WTC attack arrives sometime in August.
I’m still hanging on to the hope that one of these years Hollywood’s going to allow for freedom of expression. If only audiences would stop lining up in droves like marketed little androids then maybe Hollywood will stop behaving like Stalin’s useful idiots.
Perry de Havilland,
Do you feel that the R.A.V. right to engage in hate speech, which I share your support of, makes hate speech unworthy of condemnation? Is there no space in your mind for a “Nazis should be able to march through Skokie” coexisting with “Nazis marching through Skokie are engaging in awful behaviour”?
With regard to the “fiction” element of your criticism, it is entirely possible for fiction to be deceitful (Syriana, for instance), just as it is possible for it to convey truth (1984, The Fountainhead, et. al.).
This survey seems to suggest that the Da Vinci Code is very successful indeed at implanting falsehoods into mainstream consciousness. They may be falsehoods that lead people to greater truths that you appreciate (hostility to the church, rational views of the cosmos etc.) but it is not accurate to say that the Code is not deceitful. I also strongly suspect that your dislike for the groups who wrote this stuff would, on examination, exceed your dislike for these protestors.
Certainly, it seems unkind to call these people idiots merely on the basis of views that have at least colour of reasonableness to them.
The real controversy is over Tom Hanks’s hair. Is that a weave or the real deal?
So dark the con of man.
Dale,
For God’s sake get some rest… Try spending an entire day in the same time-zone.
James, by that logic (assuming I understand you correctly), is Alice in Wonderland a work of ‘deception’ because cats from Cheshire do not really talk or vanish into thin air (well, hardly ever)?
I do not dispute their right to protest if the Da Vinci Code upsets them if that is their want but I call them idiots because I find it so absurd to treat a work of fiction in such a way.
I have friends who are real honest-to-goodness members of Opus Dei and whilst they are not exactly thrilled at the way their outfit is portrayed, the Opus Dei in the Da Vinci Code is fictional, it is not really like that at all and it is much like showing the US government faking the moon landings (and some twits actually believe that too!).
So just because some fools will believe anything, I do not think various groups of Catholics are doing themselves any favours by protesting about an obvious work of fiction.
Whether it’s fiction or not, in the end ‘the poet is the unacknowledged legislator.’ (Percy)
I suppose this is the reason why freedom of expression is dead in America.
And the view point or ideas which some American may hold that are not being freely expressed somewhere are???
The last time I checked, I do not think any friends of mine, right, left or off on the -i imaginary axis, were in prison for whatever crazy ideas they espoused.
The book and movie are symptoms of a lack of education in history. I am appalled at the origins of Brown’s conspiracy theories – the nativist, Know-Nothings of 1854-1856. I want no part of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
I saw the movie on Friday night. It was okay, a bit plodding at times, but hey, I was at a charity event, drunk free champagne and chatted to actor and writer Stephen Fry, who was involved with the charity and is hilarious (namedropper!).
Two groupsexercising their right to free speech: Hollywood and little old ladies. What’s the problem?
Unless one of those ladies shoots Ron Howard, slices his throat open, and then pins a note on his chest with a large knife, I don’t see an issue here, nor a cause for smugness.
Hollywood and little old ladies “groupsexercising their right to free speech”? Is there a video? I do hope not.
I think those numbnuts are hired by the movie company to gee up interest. Most reviews think the movie blows; so pretty much the controversy is all they got to keep things moving in the box office.
‘Dale’: lots of good science fiction and such are based on making good yarns out of bits of history. I imagine the majority of them would have some numnuts out demonstrating (as is their right) because they do not like someone creating a different fictional story than the one they believe in.
Poul Anderson’s “The Boat of a Million Years” covers a lot of ancient history too, and does its own take on things. So do many, many other stories.
I am sure it is part of ad agency strategy to rile up the most easily riled because in theatre (and movies) there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I intend to go see it; I will probably enjoy it at least mildly; and I will not believe in its reality any more than I believe in the fictional histories of most religions.
I have no problem with people holding those beliefs or demonstrating nonviolently in favour of their version of reality so long as I can mostly ignore them.
Perry de Havilland:
On the importance of fiction, even of “obvious fiction”
Alice was not written to persuade people of the loquaciousness of Cheshire Cats.
If you look at my examples, you will note that, although they are fiction, they are put forth as containing true statements about the world. In my example of 1984, Orwell’s truth-claim is not that there will be an empire called Eastasia, but there are truth-claims about the nature of totalitarian regimes and about the socially constructed nature of truth, identity, and thought. I believe that much of what he claims there is true.
Another example might be the Constant Gardener, a film that was promoted as fiction that depicted the behaviour and attitudes of pharmaceutical companies in the real world. The filmmakers had the intent of persuading people of particular claims, and actually persuaded people of those claims. To the degree that those claims were false, I view the fact that the medium used to promote them was an openly fictional tale as utterly irrelevant. I don’t think that Atlas Shrugged is less important than Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, simply because it is fiction. I do not believe either that it made any less powerful arguments about the nature of society. Again, to the degree that those arguments were important and effectively conveyed, the fictional nature of the medium was irrelevant.
It seems particularly sad to me to see a self-professed libertarian to take your position. As I understood it, the classic libertarian justification for free speech is that speech, including works of fiction, is extremely important, not that “it never hurt anyone”. Libertarian thought has often been most effectively put forth by fiction, to a much greater degree than mainstream Conservative, Labor, Lib Dem, or Communist views.
Perry de Havilland:
On the logic of protesting:
Slurs about Opus Dei and Catholicism in general have significant impacts on the lives of individual Catholics. I’ve sat in a Con Law class, taught by a respectable professor, and been told that Scalia and Thomas were Opus Dei members and that this caused them to render judgments based on what the order told them to do. On a smaller scale, I’ve seen friends lose relationships, find their work environment becoming unlivable, and suffering a near psychological collapse because of myths about Catholicism.
The protesting is as much about the book as the film. It may not have had much critical success, but it has had tremendous sales and persuaded immense numbers, even of people who have not read the book, to believe absurd positions.
I’ve seen this blog advertise a number of protests on things far less likely to impact the lives of the protestors. The protests in favour of animal testing, for instance, are monumentally unlikely to result in any change that will result in any particular experiment being done that would not otherwise have been done, that will result in any advance being made that would not otherwise have been made, that will in any way impact on the life of the protestor.
That is, of course, not the only reason for protesting, which are manifold. Still, unless those protests were aimed at a specific piece of legislation (which I was not aware that they were), I cannot see any reason for protesting that that would not apply at least as well to the protestors against the Da Vinci Code. In both cases people are protesting against a moral evil (animal rights activists/ hate speech propagators) that dehumanized some of the protestors. Protesting seems like a sensible way to maintain their dignity in the face of personal attacks that some of the protestors are likely to have suffered, and to condemn hateful views. Bitching about the views on a blog would also seem like a good way of going forward, and I am glad of the Samizdatistas making use of both methods.
So, fiction has a viewpoint that usually reflects to some extent the beliefs of the writer. Seems a rather obvious point to make.
Yes, a ‘true believer’ would probably not write “Da Vinci Code”. A complete and total non-believer such as myself would, and would not even much care about the details other than, as SF writer Jerry Pournelle said “Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn”. Stories are also fun. They may or may not contain other values at a meta level… I have not seen Da Vinci Code so I really do not know if there are signs of the writers political views or not.
Let’s face it. We do not and unless we actually do invent time travel, never will know the true facts about one particular human being and his buddies who lived and died 2000 years ago. There have been far too many interests involved in bending the story to their own will to imagine that we will ever find anything approaching historical truth. Believers think they “know”. I am not a believer and I only see a totally obfuscated bit of history with essentially fictional documents written well after the events by people who were not involved but who had their own axes to grind…
So we do not know, will never know, and therefore we can write any fiction we wish about it and it will be equally ‘truthful’ because there ain’t no truth to be had.
James, but the Da Vinci Code is NOT putting forth anything other than a rather successful attempt to make money. That some twits take it seriously is a marvel and as far as I am concerned an unavoidable consequence of 50% of the population having IQ less that average.
You seem to be under the impression I am objecting to the fact they are protesting. I am not. I am objecting to their reasons for protesting and as such I too am just ‘protesting’ about them just as they are protesting about the movie. This is not a ‘libertarian’ or ‘free speech’ issue at all. That they should be allowed to make their daft protest is a given as far as I am concerned.
And BTW, the ‘official’ Vatican responce was rather better… in essence (if memory serves) they said “this is offensive tosh but it is also just fiction.” And they left it at that.
I am half-inclined to believe Andrew might be right that the ‘protesters’ were sent by the studio.
Just for reference and interest, here is the official Opus Dei response, which states with:
Sad to burst fondly imagined bubbles but I know several people in Opus Dei (a consequence of my (laspsed) Catholicism) and they are all really quite… normal… and do not lurk in strange Sith-like robes plotting grizzly ends for their enemies.
I’m with Guy—to hell with Hanks and his funny hair. I want to see the groupsexercising picture. Does it have captions for the hard of hearing?
VR, I’m still trying to comprehend Perry’s stunning statement claiming “50% of the population having IQ less that average”.
If this is really true, then there ought to be a law helping these poor people. It isn’t fair that they should be subjected to this status. We clearly need a better way to calculate “average”. 🙂
I think this point was that if average is the mean line running through the level of human smarts, kinda by definition 50% (more or less) will be below average. Not really a surprise!
Haven’t read it, won’t watch it. Has everyone forgotten the Illuminatus Trilogy by Shea and Wilson?
Religious types are fearful, as The DaVinci Code is hokum dressed up as fact – ideal fodder for their own congregations!
p.s. Look closely at the openning times. If you squint, it will read 1/golden mean.
Asus, I was making a parody of some of the people I’ve had discussions with. Some of their statements really are that unsensible.
I note it most often in discussions of income disparity. Somehow we are supposed to move the 20% at the bottom out of that fifth, but not replace them with anybody else. Their true income relative to the past is not accepted as relevent, it is their place at the bottom that must be changed. I shake my head and give up.
Perry’s statement had a comical sound that appealed to me.
And I did indeed intend that remark to be (semi) humourous.
Religious fanatics pick the strangest movies to obsess over. A better movie for them to be upset about, I think, would be “The Body.” I’ve only seen a fragment of it, which is too bad because that fragment was pretty good, but the idea is that an archaeologist in Jerusalem uncovers what various people believe to be the body of Jesus. It has Antonio Banderas as a Catholic priest sent to investigate, and from what I saw his character seemed to be genuinely interested in the truth, to the dismay of everyone else in the movie.
“The time will come when men will not stand for sound doctrine. Instead they will draw to themselves teachers who will tell them anything their itching ears want to hear.” ….. Apostle Paul
And so it goes. This was even happening in the decades following the ministry of Jesus and resulted in the Church getting together to toss out the acretions that had attached themselves as “other gospels” to the Christian literature, and resulted in the Bible.
For all the hyperventillating about a couple Christians complaining about an insulting book/ movie, I would ask you appreciate their “Christian” approach…. no beheadings, no burning buildings, just signs, songs and prayers.
What if? Some simple people like children and women were very hurt by the so called “fiction”. Brown eyed women lost their jobs, and their children faced ridicule in school.
Catholic religion > it is a relief …a moment of peace from pain A SIGN OF HOPE WHERE THE OUTSIDE WORLD SEEMS CRUEL AND FEARFUL….at least there is somewhere to run (imagination or heart or name it as you like).
Not everyone is able to understand religion to its heights as “professionals” like David Brown could or bishops or ……
I wish that “professionals” and people with high authorities would thinks of children and vulnerable women when write such things.
Our actions have REAL consequences EVEN IF WE write non-real stuff.
There are many more people in the world who do not read science fiction, and they take movies as proofs and act accordingly.
Everyone forgets about the homeless women who used to have it OK.
I guess this is just fiction just an idiot’s opinion right!
Thanks for the site, at least one can vent it just as GREAT as a prayer.