Respect History: NOW

Tom Hanks is starring in a movie. I'm sure you've all heard about it. You know, the one about the supposed truth about Mary Magdalene and the nature of Jesus' lineage. The film is an adaptation of Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' which itself is a piece of fiction 'borrowed' from other books. The original is 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' (1982) by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln*, a book I read when I was 19. I knew then that it was fiction (with possible kernels of truth).

Nothing has changed 15 years later to reverse my initial thoughts. In fact, all Dan Brown taught me is how wise I was - to me anyway.

History is a funny thing. It's filled with gaping holes to which little is known. Historians serious of their craft painstakingly take years to build their models to form a plausible thesis. It's how we treat the lack of evidence through hypothesis that must be treated with severe care. This principle that governs our intellectual integrity seems to be all but gone now. It's a dime a dozen world where impatient scientists and historians push their agendas to the detriment of their disciplines and ultimately our ability to accept what is true and what is false.

If the financial success of the first book is any indication, the film should prove to be enormously profitable. The 'Code's' popularity is somewhat disconcerting for me. I have heard too many people use it as a legitimate source in meaningful discussions about Leonardo Da Vinci, the bible, Jesus and history in general. George Clooney made a remarkable (and tenuous I might add) assertion when he won his award about how Hollywood is ahead of the cultural and social curve.

Is this Hollywood movie ahead of the curve?

Dear God, the answer is clearly no. Since when does Hollywood ever get it right? It's so busy trying to rebel against mainstream history that it abandons any thought to rigorous verification of facts. To this mind, this film does signal a malaise in the contemporary mindset. Hanks'n Hollywood are only profiting from a cynical population who are having a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction.

So do Oprah and her colleagues, whom many love. Musicians take liberties with history also. It's easy to dismiss this as 'coming with the territory' but things are somewhat disjointed. They may not wittingly be aware, but programming, talk shows and news outlets have convinced themselves they are bringing important news to our attention. Are they? It is my contention that they report to us what is going to boost their ratings.

Consider how very few - if any - networks ever consult reputable historians when discussing how Hollywood tackles and interprets history. Yes, it is merely entertainment but does that give them the right to behave boorishly towards history? I would submit that some even try to be coy and hoodwink us into believing that what they are saying is true.

Never mind that this film is a direct attack on Christianity. What religion or moderate peoples of faith on this planet would tolerate such flagrant propaganda and misappropriation of historical facts? I recognize that we live in a cynical world looking for immediate answers (and instant self-gratification. Our food is instant why not history?) to some mysteries, however is this an appropriate manner to begin searching for these answers? Revisionism in the wrong hands should indeed be viewed as a social problem.

In any event, aren't certain things better left unsaid?

This is not to belittle Tom Hanks or George Clooney. But what will it take for Hollywood to recognize that they are hardly progressive. If anything, they are merely mirroring our times. That they are coincidental social indicators. The profit margins are not bad either. It is easy to think that the patients run the asylum in the halls of modernity.

What is that saying? Art imitates life? Dante would be proud - not.

*I heard that they are suing Dan Brown.