This year, I'm getting a much appreciated and unexpected birthday gift from two men I admire but have never met -- Ron Howard and Tom Hanks -- and from my favorite French actress, Audrey Tautou of "Amelie" fame. 
Because these incredibly talented people have chosen to launch the most anticipated and controversial film of the year on MY birthday. If you're not sure what film I'm talking about, you must have been living under a rock for the past couple of years, because this Friday, May 19th, is the launch of "The DaVinci Code" based on Dan Brown's bestselling book. Okay... so they didn't plan to launch the movie just to make me happy on my birthday, but the only way I could be more excited about this movie is if I was actually IN Paris for the launch this week.
When you love books and movies, there is nothing like having one of your favorite books EVER come to life on the big screen, and when I first learned that Ron Howard bought the rights and that Tom Hanks would play Robert Langdon, I knew the film would be done the "right" way and would honor the book. Add Audrey Tautou as the French female lead and Ian McKellan as the secret bad guy and you've got a recipe for success -- the controversy about the story itself notwithstanding.
I know there are a lot of people who are upset and offended by this book and movie, and I'm not about to try and talk them out of how they feel, because everyone is entitled to their own feelings and opinion about it. But I am not in the least offended by the theories put forth in the story, and here's why. First, it's supposed to be a work of fiction, people... and you have to put it in that context. It might be the kind of fiction that incorporates some historical fact and research, and the kind of fiction that makes people think and debate -- but what's so terrible about that? Secondly, author Dan Brown is not the first person to hypothesize about the possibility of Jesus having taken a wife and had a child... he simply worked other people's theories into his fictional story. Whether or not Dan Brown has a personal agenda is something only he can really know... but to me, it doesn't take away from the excitement of the story and the intricate way he takes his readers through the "mystery/thriller" aspects of the book. To me, it was just plan good entertainment in book form, and I'm expecting the movie not to disappoint me either.
Lastly - what if the main controversial theme of the book WERE true - what if Jesus did marry and what if there was a bloodline? I do believe it's possible (note that I didn't say PROBABLE) that Jesus and Mary Magdalene could have been married (or whatever passed for "married" in those days) and that they might have had a child. I don't think we'll ever know the definitive answer to that question, but I do believe that the writings we've come to know as the "official" Bible teachings were actually very subjectively written and selected. I can't help but allow for the possibility that maybe there are parts of the real story that were lost, ignored, or destroyed because it didn't fit someone's religious agenda. It wouldn't be the first time in history someone "in charge" manipulated the truth to get what they want -- take a look at our current day politicians and religious leaders, because it's still going on today.
As far as the public objections of Opus Dei and their lobbying to get a disclaimer put onto the film (yeah, good luck with THAT) -- are they objecting because the book hits close to home with some of the less desirable aspects of that organization and its practices? Seems to me that whenever a religious group has secrets they don't want anyone to know -- whether it's Opus Dei, Scientology, this FLDS sect of the Mormon Church that's in the news because of the child abuse and polygamy -- whenever an "outsider" gets close to uncovering the ugly truth, the more offended and defensive those groups try to act. You know the expression: "Methinks thou doth protest too much."
I guess what bothers me about all the controvery is that the people who are upset by this theory seem to think that it demeans Christ's divinity... like it makes Jesus more "divine" or "holy" if he never took a wife, never had children? But why should that be so? Why are those two things mutually exclusive? I'm not looking to debate this, by the way... I'm just throwing my 2 cents worth out as a general question, food for thought.
Controversy aside... I can't wait to see the movie and how they will pack in the rollercoaster ride of a story into such a short time frame. But if anyone can do it justice, it's Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. Suffice to say, I think you can guess where I will be celebrating my birthday this Friday night -- in my neighborhood movie theatre here in New Jersey.
Now, if anyone happens to have access to a private plane and would like to fly me to Paris to see this blockburster in the famous city in which it was filmed... I wouldn't exactly say no. Hey, a girl can always dream.
