Hatrack River Forum: The look on Tom Hanks's face ...

This is topic The look on Tom Hanks's face ... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=043056

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2727969

This video is hosted on iFilm because of what Ian McKellan says about the bible. But I think it's far funnier that the interviewer (is that Matt Lauer?) clearly has never read The Da Vinci Code, and doesn't even know what the controversy is about. When he misstates it, they do this cut to Tom Hanks, who is looking at him like, "Are you a giant moron?" It's a great moment [Smile]

I mean, come on, you're conducting an interview about a novel that has a huge following, and you're addressing a controversy that millions of people are aware of and passionate about ... and you don't even do the most elementary research?

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

???

It sounds like he nailed the controversy pretty much on the head. Much of what I've heard has been from a perspective of people not having read the book and just being scandalized by the very idea that Jesus and Mary Magdelene might've had children.

I guess there's a quibble over whether those children may have been conceived pre- or post-crucifixion -- I haven't heard it stated EXACTLY as Lauer said it.

Frankly, I think Tom Hanks was just mugging for the camera. Being sort of funny.

Like "oh? There's a controversy???"

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :

that is *extremely* funny.

*extremely*

I also notice that someone else starts to laugh at Ian McKellan's statement and sort of cuts the laugh short, almost as if they agreed but didn't want to be caught expressing such a controversial opinion.

edit: Bob, Matt Lauer clearly says that the controversy is that "jesus didn't die on the cross, and wasn't resurrected" which isn't something discussed or even HINTED at in the book.

[ May 21, 2006, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :

Lauer says"

"If christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins, and therefore wasn't resurrected"

I don't remember any of that in the book. He also didn't mention anything about the continued lineage, or Jesus' marriage, or any of the bits of the book that are "controversial".

He either badly mispoke, badly misread, or was badly misinformed by his information prep people.

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :

Lauer made an enormous ass of himself on national television, but I find the comments on the video funnier than the video itself.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

I also don't recall anything from the book even hinting that Jesus didn't die on the cross.

There was lots of talk that he wasn't the Son of God, that he was just a man, etc., but why would have have to have not been crucified to be married and have a child(ren)?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

The book is based a lot on Holy Blood Holy Grail, which does suggest that. So rather than Lauer not having read Brown's book, it's possible that he read it and HBHG, and just didn't remember which parts were only in HBHG.

But giving the benefit of the doubt isn't nearly as fun, so don't let me get in your way.

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :

That was my thought. The idea that Jesus didn't die is put forth in HBHG. Maybe he did too much research and should have just stuck to the novel.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

Tom Hanks responds "Was that in the book?" before the camera cuts to his face.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

lol

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I also don't recall anything from the book even hinting that Jesus didn't die on the cross.

There was lots of talk that he wasn't the Son of God, that he was just a man, etc., but why would have have to have not been crucified to be married and have a child(ren)?

That's right- The really amusing thing to me about this whole "controversy" (as if it's a new thing...), is that people on the one hand rail on about how they don't believe the book, and then on the other hand try and get people to dismiss it out of hand-- after they have already acknowledged that it is important to them.

All ye christians and secularists and athiests and Agnostics and Jews and Shintoists and Zen buddhists out there, can't we just read a book that is about something without freaking each other out over whether we believe in it or not? Haven't you ever read something you disagreed with, (or agreed with) and not run around like a chicken with its head cut off, telling people about it? This whole thing baffles me, both sides do.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

quote:
All ye christians and secularists and athiests and Agnostics and Jews and Shintoists and Zen buddhists out there, can't we just read a book that is about something without freaking each other out over whether we believe in it or not?

You say that as though we all freaked out about it. Not all of us did.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

your right- all you freak-outers, stop that!

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

???

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
???

???

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :

quote:
all you freak-outers, stop that!

This should be Hatrack's motto. That is of course, assuming we are defining motto as "something everyone believes but rarely ever follows (at least until the 2nd day of the thread.)"

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :

I can attest to m_p_h's non-freak outness. We had a long discussion about it on GC and I was starting to get quite freaked out at how not freaked out he was. But he's right that He couldn't have conceived children after being resurrected. Still doesn't make me want to run out and read the book or see the movie. :sigh: I have so much to do. [Cry]