CANNES: "Da Vinci Code" Director and Cast Speak
"The Da Vinci Code" director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks said they hope audiences will enjoy the film and that it will spark discussion, but it shouldn't be regarded as theology. The director and star, along with cast members Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina discussed the film at a press conference Tuesday.

Left to right: Paul Bettany, Jean Reno, Audrey Tautou, Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina
Hanks said the appeal of "The Da Vinci Code" for him was that it is the type of movie he would want to see in the theater.
"As a guy who likes to go see movies, I like two things," he said. "I certainly like crackerjack entertainment. At the same time, I want to be challenged somehow. I want to see movies that are provocative."

The film should be considered a fictional work to provoke thought, not something to be taken literally, Howard said.
"This is supposed to be entertainment," he said. "It's not theology, and I don't think it should be misunderstood as such. Yes, it stimulates conversation, but that's what good fiction does. In that spirit, it's ultimately a positive thing.
"Audiences are very, very intelligent, and I think they're often underestimated," he continued. "I think they can arrive at their own conclusions. But one of the things that the movie and the book does underline is that life is a continuing mystery, and one of the gifts we have, from God, if you will, is our mind. We have a curiosity and a desire to explore and understand."

"I don't think a motion picture of any sort of stripe, particularly one that's obviously an entertainment, one that's a commercial enterprise, that is going to specifically alter how anyone feels about their place in the universe," he said.
Still, Howard said he knows there are many -- particularly devout Christians -- who are wary of the film at best. He said that one solution is to avoid the movie.
"Given the nature of the story, there's no question that the film is likely to be upsetting to some people," he said. "My advice is to not go see the movie if you think you're going to be upset. Or wait -- talk to someone who has seen it, discuss it, and then arrive at an opinion about the movie."

McKellen said he feels the controversy may have something to do with the medium.
"When the book came out, the controversy that you're all interested in didn't seem to exist," he said. "Is that because readers can be trusted to have minds, whereas people who go to see movies are the mindless masses that need to be protected? I believe cinemagoers are just as intelligent as readers, and they'll make up their own minds. In the meantime, they'll have a thoroughly fantastic time."
One of the other reasons the film might evoke passions is that it's based on a popular book, Howard said.

"Certainly you're taking on an adaptation of a novel with a high profile," he said.
But Howard said he's not concerned about the box office numbers as much as he is telling a story. He also said he hasn't read any reviews of "The Da Vinci Code," which is currently at 19 percent on the Tomatometer.
"I choose films because the subjects fascinate me and I'd like to spend a year and a half or two years of my life telling that story," he said. "I hope it's successful, but I don't choose movies based on that."

Hanks also addressed a lesser controversy that has swirled around "The Da Vinci Code" -- his pseudo-mullet.
"It's not up to me to decide whether I'm having a bad hair day," he said. "I trust the press to communicate that opinion around the world with lightning speed."

Left to right: Paul Bettany, Jean Reno, Audrey Tautou, Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina
Hanks said the appeal of "The Da Vinci Code" for him was that it is the type of movie he would want to see in the theater.
"As a guy who likes to go see movies, I like two things," he said. "I certainly like crackerjack entertainment. At the same time, I want to be challenged somehow. I want to see movies that are provocative."

The film should be considered a fictional work to provoke thought, not something to be taken literally, Howard said.
"This is supposed to be entertainment," he said. "It's not theology, and I don't think it should be misunderstood as such. Yes, it stimulates conversation, but that's what good fiction does. In that spirit, it's ultimately a positive thing.
"Audiences are very, very intelligent, and I think they're often underestimated," he continued. "I think they can arrive at their own conclusions. But one of the things that the movie and the book does underline is that life is a continuing mystery, and one of the gifts we have, from God, if you will, is our mind. We have a curiosity and a desire to explore and understand."

"I don't think a motion picture of any sort of stripe, particularly one that's obviously an entertainment, one that's a commercial enterprise, that is going to specifically alter how anyone feels about their place in the universe," he said.
Still, Howard said he knows there are many -- particularly devout Christians -- who are wary of the film at best. He said that one solution is to avoid the movie.
"Given the nature of the story, there's no question that the film is likely to be upsetting to some people," he said. "My advice is to not go see the movie if you think you're going to be upset. Or wait -- talk to someone who has seen it, discuss it, and then arrive at an opinion about the movie."

McKellen said he feels the controversy may have something to do with the medium.
"When the book came out, the controversy that you're all interested in didn't seem to exist," he said. "Is that because readers can be trusted to have minds, whereas people who go to see movies are the mindless masses that need to be protected? I believe cinemagoers are just as intelligent as readers, and they'll make up their own minds. In the meantime, they'll have a thoroughly fantastic time."
One of the other reasons the film might evoke passions is that it's based on a popular book, Howard said.

"Certainly you're taking on an adaptation of a novel with a high profile," he said.
But Howard said he's not concerned about the box office numbers as much as he is telling a story. He also said he hasn't read any reviews of "The Da Vinci Code," which is currently at 19 percent on the Tomatometer.
"I choose films because the subjects fascinate me and I'd like to spend a year and a half or two years of my life telling that story," he said. "I hope it's successful, but I don't choose movies based on that."

Hanks also addressed a lesser controversy that has swirled around "The Da Vinci Code" -- his pseudo-mullet.
"It's not up to me to decide whether I'm having a bad hair day," he said. "I trust the press to communicate that opinion around the world with lightning speed."
Related Items
| Celeb: | Ron Howard |
| Tom Hanks | |
| Ian McKellen | |
| Alfred Molina | |
| Jean Reno | |
| Audrey Tautou | |
| Paul Bettany | |
| Movie: | The Da Vinci Code |
| Cannes Film Festival 2006: Rotten Tomatoes Eat France! |
|
masta_chill writes: on May 18 2006 04:38 PM I hate everything. Yes, I know I need a girlfriend. Damn, Tommy looks old. (Reply to this) |
|
vidbits writes: on May 18 2006 11:30 PM > Damn, Tommy looks old. Yes, I am shocked at how much he has "aged". He looks tired out and is starting to look bloated like John Travolta. Perhaps it's that NUTTY hairdo! Cut it off TOM!!! I guess there will never be another Tom and Meg picture.... Forrest Gump will always be my favorite... (Reply to this) |
|
jeanpaul writes: on May 19 2006 05:43 AM [b]VERY DISSAPOINTING HANKS. No thanks for "advice"[/b] I'd love to see these TWO-FACED Howard and Hanks, make a movie, say, insulting the faith of Jews or Muslims for instance-- and then make up the crappy remarks like the ones appearing above. I'm sure had they done that to Jews or Muslims or whoever-- the people belonging to those Religions would had stoned them in broad daylight (yes, yes, in "this free opinionated world") before they could open their mouths and utter a single advice about "so called entertainment", "discussion" or about "upsetting some people"... God, these guys are FULL OF THEMSELVES! Mr. Hanks (I sincerly hope this reaches you and your friend, Howard): Devout Christians or any person with the slightest RESPECT toward Christianity will avoid seeing your "entertainment movie"-- and they'd do it without thanks to your "advice". Any people who care about "what nonsense is said in the name of fiction and entertainment and taken as fact by gullible teens"-- will know exactly how to treat yours and Dan Brown's insulting rubbish. I'm personally very dissapointed in Mr. Hanks-- that he even agreed to be a part of this Brown's agenda, against one the more humane and welcoming-all Religions around. I had admired and held close to heart, the characters Hanks portrayed, such as: Captain John Miller, Chuck Noland, Forest Gump, Micheal Sullivan, the young business man in 'Splash'-- and above all, Victor Navorski and the three wonderfull, blessed and beautifull characters voiced and acted by Hanks in "The Polar Express"... I'm dissapointed that Hanks agreed, after being recognized as the portrayer of such wonderfully, admirigly-crafted characters-- Hanks chose to deliberately be part of Dan Brown's scheme against anything and everything Holy to Christians. Like I said, I'd like to see him, or Dan Brown, or Howard dare do the same thing with any other Religion around the Globe. Christians are very lenient with such people like Brown and whoever participates in this utter-rubbish-- and therefore make "easy targets" for exactly such, self-loving and full of themselves people. (Reply to this) |
|
ari lander writes: on May 20 2006 10:20 AM [b]WOW[/b] This is not the sort of forum I normally contribute to, But here I am. Jeanpaul, I am a religious Jew. I have studied in religous colleges in Israel and I am a lecturer at a university in Sydney Australia. I teach Jewish history and I tutor and guest lecture a course that looks at religion in world history. You and I obviously come from very different worlds, but aside from the theological differences I was quite stunned by your comments regarding your assertion that if Howard or Hanks made a film that insulted Judaism that Jews would stone those indivduals in broad daylight for insulting their faith. I'm not sure if you're aware of the controversy that surrounded films like 'munich' and the 'Passion.' Personally I had no problem with either film, but I can understand the passions that both films stirred up and I can understand - although I disagree with those particular interpretations - why they would offend some people. You may be an individual that sees Gibson's film the 'Passsion' in a very different way to the way many Jews felt about that film. Personally I was very indifferent to the film. However, if you understand the particular historical experience of Jews and the fact the Vatican itself apologized for instilling anit-Semitism in the Western World, and stressed that the Christian Testament shoudl no longer be interpreted in a way that allows anyone to blame Jews for the death of Christ... I'm sure you sure you can appreciate why many Jews felt this film was a step backward for Christian-Jewish dialogue... Nonetheless, despite the fact that many felt both films in their own way were deeply insulting, anti-Semitic, etc etc I am not aware of Spielberg, Kushner, (Of course both were Jews themselves but the makers of DVC are Christian) or Gibson, or any other individual being stoned for their involvement in those films. I ask you to consider the way films like 'True Lies' or Seigals' Executive Decision' portray the Islamic faith. These are two examples out of an endless tirade of films that demonize one billion people in the most simplified, senseless manner. No member of those films has been stone in 'broad daylight.' The cases of Muslim authors like Rushdie, Hanif Kureishi or Nobel Prize winner Naguib Mahfouz highlight the complex state of affairs in the Arab world. I invite to look at the work of these authors and other arab intellectuals, Said, Ziauddin Sadar, Ibin Warraq, Mazuri etc The point remians frankly, I find the implication of your argument offensive, find me a case of Jews, killing people who made anti-Semitic or controverisal films. Leni Riefenstahl was never stoned to death, nor have their been any attempts on the lives on the Egyptian film makers who have made films that depict Jews killing young boys to use their blood for passover. Again no stoning. (Reply to this) |
|
bigcfk writes: on May 20 2006 06:20 PM why do people write essays on here? lol I was considering this movie... but not anymore oh well Over the Hedge came out this weekend too (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |


