Mrs. Betty Bowers is the First to Review "The Da Vinci Code"

How many lawyers are in the Da Vinci Code movie? I don't recall seeing any in the book.

Jespah -- There were hundreds of them disguised as Knights Templar.

Had I gone to law school as my mother wanted, the year I would have graduated, in the state where I lived, teachers could count on a first year salary of $8,000, the same as a social worker's pay. New attorneys would make about $12,000. Journalists working for one of the big dailies -- after a year or two in the boonies post-college -- would make $10,000.

THose salaries seem so much more realistic. Notice, the numbers are closer together.

Anyone care to discuss bad dialogue in DVC? Like the point at which the prostitutes id Langdon and the girl?

There are ambulance chasing attorneys trying to pin a plagiarism charge on Dan Brown but they haven't been succeeding. Maybe they should run for the Senate or the House. There aren't any politicians in "The Da Vince Code" either -- if there were they'd likely vote to go to war over Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene.

Mr. Plain Old Me---I do hope that your knowlege of literature is not as abysmal as your knowledge about law and the salaries gathered by, as I repeatedly referenced, LAWYERS FROM THE TOP TWENTY LAW SCHOOLS.

quote
Saturday June 17th 2006-New York Times
After years of stagnating, salaries for associates at law firms are on fire. Every week seems to bring a new report of a firm, or a whole posse of firms, sweetening associates' pay in order to, well, keep up with all the other law firms. It is beginning to look a little like the real estate market, except the targets of the bidding wars are heavily indebted law-school graduates instead of colonial-style McMansions.

Several Chicago firms recently raised the salary for first-year associates to $135,000, according to an article from Law.com, and the Austin Business Journal reports that various Texas law firms have been leapfrogging each other in the race to raise entry-level pay.

In fact, according to this week's article in the National Law Journal, competition for new recruits is so fierce that firms are looking at first-year law students to fill their summer associate slots, rather than second-year students, as is the tradition.

The reasons, according to a recent article from The Wall Street Journal Online, are that law firms are getting bigger and their revenues have been rising. The pool of top legal graduates, meanwhile, has stayed fairly flat. Add a little supply-and-demand to the mix, and voila: salaries rise.

A deeper question, though, is whether higher salaries are in any way related to a general decline in the perceived glamour or desirability of the legal profession. The Law School Admissions Council reported a 4.6 percent drop in applications to its member schools in 2005, and the early reports on 2006 have been even more grim.

end of quote--
You did note the $135,000 for first year lawyers in the top 100 law firms, did you not, Mr. Plain Ol Me?

It is exactly as I said and your puerile attempts to denigrate me are rendered useless by my evidence. It shows that you are the uniformed one.

Do some reading, Plain Ol Me. You may eventually catch up on what is happening in the world of big law!!!

Now you've got him shouting to make his point. I'm not ready to believe a top paid attorney from the best law schools would give up all that money to become a US legislator with the idea that he is "serving his country." It's bullshit but, then, that's what politicians are really good at.

As to the topic of this thread, I won't be seeing the movie until DVD or cable. It's likely disposable entertainment more than anything else. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It is apparent that Light Wizard does not know that becoming a member of the House of Representatives does not lead one to riches immediately. However, there are dozens of ex- House members who are serving as lobbyists. They make far more than many top attornies.

You really shouldn't comment on things you do not know very much about.

And then back to the topic. As one of the premier critics in the USA , Roger Ebert, said about the novel- Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous------Roger Ebert.

The critics, on the whole, have panned it. That it has been watched by so many people is a testament to the generally moronic level of the American public. After all, large numbers of students tested in the US public schools, especially in the large cities, reveals that the majority of the high school students cannot find Iraq on a world map!!!

No they're not. They're just wealthiest. The shrub is a Harvard business graduate, and that retarded moron couldn't write shopping list.

I am very much afraid that you are incorrect, Mr. Wilso. If you will examine the entrance requirements for entry into the TOP TWENTY LAW SCHOOLS in the USA,You will find that very very few people ever get into those schools without scoring on a variety of tests that show they are in the 130-140 IQ range at the lowest.

Please note my conditions--TOP TWENTY LAW SCHOOLS IN THE USA.

A better question... does anyone give a damn about this latest bernard tempest in a teapot about lawyers on a movie thread?

My vote is no. How about yours?

No -- we are just feeding the troll.

Well, I think, as I said above, that the best way to take DVC is as a satire on the American worship of the title PhD that is coupled with a total disregard and lack of respect for what the PhD stands for.

Mrs. Brown is a publicist and Mr. Brown was getting nowhere prior to their marriage. I think the plagiarism charge is her doing: PR.

She did do a lot of the research but it doesn't look like it will ever stand up in court because a work of fiction based partially on some conjectures that are just as fictional could not likely be plagiarism. Because the historians of the time did not specifically record the life, trial and crucifixion of Jesus, the events penned in the Bible could spawn all sorts of conjecture. It seems to have been entertaining to many readers as a thriller but I wonder how many really put much credence in the premise.

The men who wrote the Bloodline book -- whose last names are Lincoln, Leigh and ____________ something that I can not recall at the present time -- charged in the London court that heard the case that Brown used an anagram of the name I can not remember to produce Teabing -- the role played by Sir Ian -- which was combined with the surname Leigh as a first name. Brown allegedly used Lincoln's physical appearance and mannerisms for the character. Sounds like satire to me.

Interestingly, Margaret Starbird, author of The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, a book about Mary Magdalene, continues on the lecture circuit as she has for several years, but now adds that Dan Brown ackowledged her book as the foundation of his research and she acknowledges Lincoln et al.

Well, I picked up DVC in the book store and found no acknowledgement.

Brown, Starbird and the trio behind Bloodline all appear in a documentary hosted by the man who played Baldrick in the Black Adder comedy series which was shown on BRitish television.

Here is some commentary from a liberal Christian:



The Da Vinci Code: 'Is that all there is?'
by Donovan Jacobs
SojoMail 5-24-2006

A few hours before the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code opened last Friday, Pat Robertson was on The 700 Club repeating (like so many Christians in recent months) that the movie was "dangerous." Moviegoers failed to pay attention to Robertson, as the thriller grossed a substantial $224 million worldwide its opening weekend - in other words, more than 25 million people paid to see the film.

But it would have been a good idea for Da Vinci director Ron Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman to have listened to Robertson, though not in the way the conservative pastor would have liked. If the movie adaptation had been more daring and less tied to the thriller genre conventions and overall silliness of Dan Brown's novel, Da Vinci might have been both consistently entertaining and truly thought-provoking. Instead, considering the amount of controversy leading up to the film's release, one can't help but recall the old Peggy Lee song: Is that all there is?

For those either out of the loop or not among the tens of millions who read the book, Da Vinci revolves around Harvard professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), who's asked by French police to consult on the murder of Louvre curator Jacques Sauniere only to learn from police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) that he's the suspected killer. Langdon and Neveu use their skills at solving puzzles to collect clues then flee the murder scene, pursued by police detective Fache (Jean Reno) and the actual murderer, deranged monk Silas (Paul Bettany), the protégé of a ruthless Opus Dei bishop (Alfred Molina) zeroing in on the whereabouts of the Holy Grail.

The chase eventually leads to Grail expert Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), who discusses his version of the history of the early church and Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene. Teabing later accompanies Langdon and Neveu to England, where additional puzzles and provocative discoveries (though little suspense) abound.

Director Howard and screenwriter Goldsman have mostly succeeded in recreating the book's breakneck pace, though the movie is far too long (there are four or so different endings, with the final one being the least satisfying). But Howard relies excessively on thriller clichés, from overheated music and shutters slamming shut at spooky moments to obligatory gun battles and car chases.

In addition, most of the key characters are stereotypes: the relentless detective, the wild-eyed religious fanatic, and most damaging to the movie, the stuffy but brilliant central character. Much of the problem with Langdon lies with the casting of Hanks, who needs to be more rugged and quirky (or to switch bodies with Harrison Ford circa 1982) to make his character work. But most of the fault for the lame characters and other clichés lies with novelist Dan Brown. Da Vinci (like too many bestsellers adapted by Hollywood these days) served less as a blueprint than a straitjacket for the filmmakers, who needed but never got the opportunity to fix at least the creative flaws in the source material.

McKellen's energetic performance and Howard's compelling visuals, especially the computer manipulation of "The Last Supper" to reveal Jesus and Mary Magdalene's romance, make the movie's most controversial section (the so-called history lesson about the early church) one of its most intriguing. But even if this section is persuasive on screen, its details and most of the movie's other assertions don't seem likely to resonate with audiences who are new to this material.

Films best stimulate our minds when they engage our hearts as well, but Da Vinci tries to zip from one plot twist to the next so quickly that it doesn't take the time to engage the viewers' emotions and make them truly care about the underdrawn characters. In addition, unlike readers of a book who can review complex or confusing details, theatrical movie audiences don't get the chance to rewind and watch something over. In other words, it's hard to believe that legions of people will come out of the theater remembering what the Council of Nicea or the Sacred Feminine is, let alone converting to the Gospel According to Dan Brown.

This isn't to suggest that Christians can't guide audiences who are intrigued by this introduction to Jesus and the church's history to the deeper truths of the New Testament. And as Brian McLaren suggested in this publication a few weeks ago, it's a worthy plan to engage in dialogue with the many fans of Da Vinci who harbor the book and movie's resentments (fact-based or otherwise) about the church's actions.

But while some respect must be paid to Da Vinci's popularity, in the end this book and movie resemble the puzzles that Langdon and Neveu continually confront. They're intriguing on the surface and seemingly a source of enlightenment regarding significant issues, but ultimately devoid of much meaning, especially about faith and belief.

You get what you deserve looking for transcendence from a puzzle or a popcorn movie - and this isn't even a good example of the latter.

Donovan Jacobs is a development executive and script consultant for motion picture production companies and television networks. He specializes in developing family movies for television.

I still haven't seen the movie (will probably do like LightWizard and wait for the DVD release), but I have read the book and it shocks me that most of its readers apparently didn't recognize it for the satire that it so manifestly is. For me, it's one of the most amusing, funniest take-offs in years. It's just a scavenger hunt with overtones of Perils of Pauline type of cliffhanger plotting. People who get freaked by the notion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene as an "item" have their religious sensibilities where their sense of humor ought to be. (Plain Old Me -- good point about the anagram of Leigh Teabing's name. It's no doubt an intentional minor part of the overall satyrical intent.)

If it shouldn't be obvious to everyone, Dan Brown wrote the book to be a best seller. Best sellers are very rarely great literature. I believe he also wrote the book with making a movie in mind. It's our commercialism that has laid out this diluted quality of art to appeal to the masses. As Frank Lloyd Wright called it, "The Mobocracy." Doesn't keep me from enjoying a good popcorn movie but the critics are saying it isn't even that. I get the idea from the reviews that Ron Howard has taken the material and made a movie better than the book but still not something which would ever garner any critical acclaim.

There is a lot of "fine art" on the market in "limited edition" prints which are really valueless but the market clamors for it. The chief consumer in my area? Right Wing Republicans who don't know art from fart.

Baigent is the other co-author from which Teabing was created.

Which ones are they?

Who?