Opus Dei asks for disclaimer for "The Da Vinci Code"

[movielib]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aiaTVjV.92Hg&refer=us

Opus Dei Asks Sony, Shareholders for 'Da Vinci' Film Disclaimer

April 14 (Bloomberg) -- Opus Dei, the Roman Catholic group portrayed as murderers in "The Da Vinci Code,'' asked Sony Corp. to include a disclaimer in its upcoming film of the novel that would label the thriller as entirely fictional.

"Such a decision by Sony would be an expression of respect toward Jesus Christ, the history of the Church and the religious beliefs of viewers,'' Seizo Inahata of Opus Dei's Japan information office, wrote in an April 6 letter to Sony's Japanese shareholders, directors, employees and the Tokyo-based company.

Sony's adaptation of Dan Brown's 2003 novel, directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks, opens May 17 at the Cannes Film Festival in France. The tale of Opus Dei and the Vatican violently covering up Christianity's true origins has sold more than 40 million copies and sparked an outcry from Catholic groups that say the book distorts the religion.

"We haven't decided on a response to the letter and decline to comment on the issue at the moment,'' Sony spokesman Koji Kurata in Tokyo said. "We received the letter from Opus Dei on April 6.''

Bloomberg News obtained a copy of the letter, in Spanish, from Opus Dei headquarters in Rome. Opus Dei, an organization of 84,000 laypeople and priests in some 60 countries, posted an unsigned version in Japanese on its Japan Web site.

The New York-based Catholic League has also called for Sony to add a disclaimer to the film, according to a March 21 news release from the group, which seeks to defend Catholics and the Church from discrimination.

'Capital Markets'

Opus Dei, in its letter to Sony, raises the possibility that the company's stock price could be hurt if Sony doesn't exhibit corporate values such as respect for peoples' beliefs. Corporations' intangible values "consolidate their economic value in the capital markets because they guarantee stability,'' the letter says.

"Some media have written that Sony is weighing the possibility of including at the start of the film a disclaimer that would declare this a work of fiction and that any resemblance to reality is purely a coincidence,'' the letter says. It then endorses the idea.

"The novel mixes reality and fiction, and in the end, one doesn't know where the lines are between true deeds and invented deeds, so that the reader who knows little history can arrive at the wrong conclusions,'' the letter says.

Opus Dei's office in Japan didn't immediately respond to phone messages requesting additional comment on how the letter was distributed.

On April 7, a London court cleared Brown of allegations he plagiarized the plot from an earlier book. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of the non-fiction "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,'' sued Brown's publisher Random House Inc. for copyright infringement, claiming the author made millions from their theories that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and fathered a child, spawning a royal dynasty.
Apparently the Opus Dei organization was greatly misrepresented by Brown in all sorts of ways. They have no monks and are certainly not murderous. Frankly, I'm surprised that Brown didn't make up a fictional organization to be this villain instead of using a real group in such a false way.

While Sony doesn't have to include the disclaimer, I think it would be a good idea for them to do so and I hope they do. I'm not all that worried that moviegoers will think the story is anything except fiction but I think it should be made clear that an actually existing organization is not necessarily as it is portrayed in the film.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Um no, it's just a movie.

[FinkPish]

What about the disclaimer that goes at the end of every fictional movie: "This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this movie are fictitious, and any resemblance to real people or events is purely coincidental."

[Tarantino]

A disclaimer would just be...I don't know...stupid.

= J

[Matthew Chmiel]

While Sony doesn't have to include the disclaimer, I think it would be a good idea for them to do so and I hope they do. I'm not all that worried that moviegoers will think the story is anything except fiction but I think it should be made clear that an actually existing organization is not necessarily as it is portrayed in the film.
I think Sony should tell them to shut the hell up and not include the disclaimer. Let 'em bitch!

[CKMorpheus]

Did the novel have a disclaimer at the beginning?

[Coral]

I wonder if they'd be pissed if they also included the mention that Jesus was also fictional. ;)

[Birrman54]

What about the disclaimer that goes at the end of every fictional movie: "This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this movie are fictitious, and any resemblance to real people or events is purely coincidental."

I would think that'd suffice.

[mndtrp]

At least these guys didn't jump straight to suing Sony.

[dsa_shea]

If you wrote a book naming a specific person or people killing others then you could get in trouble for it. I don't see the difference here. Out of respect to this group they should include a disclaimer as to not lead some who are easily influenced by film to believe that this movie holds any valid truth. As a teacher I still have to explain to some teenage students, who are made to believe that movies like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are true, that these movies are simply created around bits and pieces of things that are drawn from the real world.

[Jackskeleton]

There's plenty of films that protray the Government as the bad guys, no need to label those films as being works of fiction. The difference between this and Texas Chainsaw Massacre is that film promoted itself as based on true events. I don't see the creators of The Da Vinci Code pushing this as the truth behind the bible.

Not to mention that the if the film needs the tag line then they should also be putting this "entirely fictional" label on any bible they sell.

[JayDerek]

If you wrote a book naming a specific person or people killing others then you could get in trouble for it. I don't see the difference here. Out of respect to this group they should include a disclaimer as to not lead some who are easily influenced by film to believe that this movie holds any valid truth. As a teacher I still have to explain to some teenage students, who are made to believe that movies like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are true, that these movies are simply created around bits and pieces of things that are drawn from the real world.

What if I wrote a mystery novel where the killer turns out to be a doctor? Do I need to have a disclaimer in the book stating that not all doctor's are bad??

SHEESH.

This is getting beyond ridiculous. The is a FICTIONAL film based on a FICTIONAL novel. For the life of me I cannot understand the big deal here.

~Jason

[movielib]

I really think this case is different from others that are being used as analogies in this thread. Brown chose a specific existing organization - Opus Dei. He has portrayed them as ruthless murderers. There is no truth behind this at all.

What if an author did the same thing with the NAACP or the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League? I don't agree with everything either group does but I know they are not murderous thugs any more than Opus Dei is.

I'm sure most people here know I am an atheist. I am hardly a defender of Christianity/Catholicism. I'm sure I would agree with very little of what Opus Dei promotes. But, while everyone knows The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, everyone also knows that there can be reality behind some fiction. I cannot help but believe that at least some of those who have read the book or see the movie and see a specific existing organization portrayed in this manner might think there is some truth behind that aspect of the story.

I think the film should do one of two things: either change the name of the group to something fictional or run the disclaimer, preferably at the beginning when people are watching rather than at the end when 95% of the audience is already in their cars.

[Josh-da-man]

He has portrayed them as ruthless murderers. There is no truth behind this at all.


Wasn't it just one person from Opus Dei (granted, he was the leader of the organization) who was using a mentally unbalanced person to commit the murders? Not exactly representative of the entire organization.

But it shouldn't be too surprising, the way Brown plays fast and loose with the facts. In both "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons" he's pulled some real doozies out of his ass.

[Breakfast with Girls]

I think I'm going to write a screenplay that depicts the Promise Keepers as an organization whose sole purpose is to molest children. I don't care if they want a disclaimer; that would be stupid, and they should just shut the hell up.

[ravan]

What if it isnt fiction? :)

[Giantrobo]

Um no, it's just a movie.

:up:

[FantasticVSDoom]

Unbelievable...No, no fucking warning. What is this, Dogma?

[awmurray]

I personally know someone who was saying some really off the wall crap and long story short, he got it from this book.

At the time, I didn't know it. I had heard about the book, but didn't know what it was about. So, there are people who believe this is an expose' of sorts. The unearthing of the biggest conspiracy known to man, etc., etc.. Blah, blah blah.

So, I could see a disclamer, but I think one of the intents of the book/movie is to make people think it is true even though it's full of fiction. I think the reason the book (and probably movie) has done so well is that it deftly blurs the line between truth and fiction. A disclaimer would hurt that...

[marty888]

<i>"Opus Dei, in its letter to Sony, raises the possibility that the company's stock price could be hurt if Sony doesn't exhibit corporate values such as respect for peoples' beliefs.</i>"

Actually, making a veiled threat such as this tends to make me wonder what "means" they believe would justify their "ends".

I can't imagine Sony quaking in its boots - rather, they probably appreciate the bonus publicity.

[wendersfan]

What about the disclaimer that goes at the end of every fictional movie: "This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this movie are fictitious, and any resemblance to real people or events is purely coincidental."What a radical concept. I wonder why no one has thought of that before?

[Numanoid]

They'd better do as Opus Dei says...or else!

[riley_dude]

I knew as the movie got closer groups would pop up asking for disclaimers.
It's a movie!
I think most people are conscerned with the weird hair Tom Hanks has in the movie.

[kcbrett5]

I think Dan Brown has encouraged this. I have seen him on TV specials expanding upon the theories presented in the book. He goes out of his way not to call it fiction when he is promoting it. The controversy sells books and it will sell movie tickets so that makes him smart.

But for Opus Dei, which frankly I had never heard of before I read the book, they have a right to be worried. We Americans are dumb. We will believe parts of fiction stories even though their is a standard disclaimer at the end. They should ask for a disclaimer and they should get one at the beginning. I mean how hard would it be to state that the events depicted are fictional at the beginning in addition to the end?

[Rockmjd23]

There are people who to this day believe the Blair Witch Project was a documentary. I'm sure many will now look down upon Opus Dei, but it's not up to the filmmakers to ensure that the general public doesn't make stupid assumptions. They didn't need a disclaimer at the end of Passion of the Christ that said "All Jews aren't Christ-killers". They don't need one here, and I'm a religious Catholic.

[silentbob007]

I might not agree that they need a disclaimer, but I don't fault them for asking.

[wm lopez]

Let's not become like the Musliums and start making threats and rioting.
This movie is just one of many that has tried to give a different story on Jesus since 9/11. The goal here is to confuse those who are not into Jesus and so when they see all these different views they will be so confused that they will not read the Bible.

[RUSF18]

Did the novel have a disclaimer at the beginning?

Just when it was placed in the "fiction" section.

[eXcentris]

The goal here is to confuse those who are not into Jesus and so when they see all these different views they will be so confused that they will not read the Bible.


:hscratch:

If this is the sort of enlightenment that comes from reading the Bible I'd rather stay confused. :lol:

[Blade]

Did the novel have a disclaimer at the beginning?Just when it was placed in the "fiction" section.

Not a disclaimer, really, but it did have this:

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3681649/1146229751905_davincicode.jpg

[RayChuang]

...I think Sony President Howard Stringer will force the producers of the film to run a disclaimer at the beginning of the film--especially if there is public pressure through the Internet!

[B.A.]

I would think that the part of the opening credits that say "based upon the novel by Dan Brown" would allude to the whole fiction aspect of the story.

[Jackskeleton]

anyone who doesn't know this film is based on a book is a moron and should be treated as such.

[Hokeyboy]

I dunno about anyone else, but I'd LOVE to see a movie in which the Anti-Defamation League, the Catholic League, the NAACP, and all these other worthless organizations are exposed to be little more than cake juggling poof monkeys.

[Hokeyboy]

Let's not become like the Musliums and start making threats and rioting.
This movie is just one of many that has tried to give a different story on Jesus since 9/11. The goal here is to confuse those who are not into Jesus and so when they see all these different views they will be so confused that they will not read the Bible.
You are aware, of course, that many of the "revelations" brought to light in THE DA VINCI CODE have been discussed and debated for decades, long before 9/11.


But then you wouldn't be barking the company line, would ya? :D

[kvrdave]

I guess I don't really like the idea of a disclaimer, but I can see why they would ask for one. It is amazing how many people I know that have read the book and think that they are reading a scholarly book on the subject. As has been noted, Brown has done his best to keep that going. National Geographic had a good show called "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" or something like that. Most people probably know that NG doesn't try to cater to the religious crowd, and they really tore Dan Brown and his ideas apart.

[Baron Of Hell]

Wasn't it just one person from Opus Dei (granted, he was the leader of the organization) who was using a mentally unbalanced person to commit the murders? Not exactly representative of the entire organization.


No the main bad guy wasn't in Opus Dei at all. He tricked a devout member of opus dei into giving him control of a even more devout member of opus dei. The opus dei guy was trick and used which pretty damn clear in the book.

Lets be honest here. No body ever heard about opus dei before da vinci code came out. Everyone would have forgotten about opus dei by now and probably assume it was made up like some people think reindeer are made up. Most of the bad thing people are saying about opus never took place in book. Yes a crazy opus dei is killing people but not because opus dei is evil, but because he was tricked into doing it. He is a victim in the book.

How come no church groups complains about the sex ritual that was in the book. Yeah because we all would go to church more often if that happen.

[Blade]

The FBI spy they caught a couple years ago was a member of Opus Dei and the organization received quite a lot of bad media attention at that time.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375507450?v=glance

Wasn't the sex ritual done by the group trying to keep alive the central idea of the book? There aren't any mainstream (or even semi-mainstream) church groups who believe in what they were promoting, so what do they have to protest about?

Meant to say this yesterday...I think Opus Dei is foolish to bring this up, it only draws attention to the situation and will make some people wonder what they're so worried about.

**Edited to add link.

[ryuryu2949]

There are people who to this day believe the Blair Witch Project was a documentary.


Wait, so Blair Witch Project wasn't real?

[marty888]

Wait, so Blair Witch Project wasn't real?


<i>Of course</i> it was real! The filmmakers simply spread the rumour that it was "fiction" because they knew that documentaries generally do not draw crowds to theaters.

(could be the same thing with <i>Da Vinci Code</i>). -wink-

[Suprmallet]

Let's not become like the Musliums and start making threats and rioting.
This movie is just one of many that has tried to give a different story on Jesus since 9/11. The goal here is to confuse those who are not into Jesus and so when they see all these different views they will be so confused that they will not read the Bible.


I think even the left field was surprised and confused by this post.

[dx23]

This Da Vinci Code controversy is getting so ridiculous. An asshole here in Puerto Rico is promoting his book titled "Da Vinci Code: Farsa o Ficcion?" (Da Vinci Code: Farce or Fiction?). WTF?!!!! Did he recieved the memo saying that this book is fiction?!!!!! This like writing "Harry Potter: Farce or Fiction". What people will do for publicity and a buck.

[Suprmallet]

This like writing "Harry Potter: Farce or Fiction". What people will do for publicity and a buck.

Hey! Hands off my book! ;)

[talemyn]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aiaTVjV.92Hg&refer=us

Apparently the Opus Dei organization was greatly misrepresented by Brown in all sorts of ways. They have no monks and are certainly not murderous. Frankly, I'm surprised that Brown didn't make up a fictional organization to be this villain instead of using a real group in such a false way.

While Sony doesn't have to include the disclaimer, I think it would be a good idea for them to do so and I hope they do. I'm not all that worried that moviegoers will think the story is anything except fiction but I think it should be made clear that an actually existing organization is not necessarily as it is portrayed in the film.Sir, it is religious fanatics like you that give Christianity a bad name. Shame. On. You.