Shouldn’t the Catholic Church worry about other things...than what an admittedly fictional novel, already charged with plagiarism and falsification...

The church is pissed about Opal Mehta, too?!

If Christians are just 2% of India’s population, isn’t all this negative publicity just going to drive the non-offended 98% straight into the theaters? (Apparently, yes)

As the saying goes in show business: "Any publicity is good publicity". Remember that film "The Passion of Christ", how some Jewish groups denounced it and consequently the movie generated loads of controversy? Guess what happened? It drove the Gentiles, and Jews, in great numbers running to the theater.

I was lucky enough to hit the premiere for this in London, and was blown away by the fact that Paul Bettany came out at the beginning and said "I apologise for Tom Hanks in this movie; it's the first time he's been in a Paul Bettany film."

And then I watched the damn' thing and realised he wasn't being facetious.

Interestingly enough, Kerala with a Christian population of about 20% has refused to ban the movie -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1568062.cms - not that they didn't try.

Sound thinking from Goan politicians who said "The myth that Jesus married Mary Magdalene has been in circulation at least since the fifth century. For us, Catholics, such views are theologically unsound. However, we do not burn heretics at the stake anymore. In this age, we respect the right to differ."

Nice!

http://www.navhindtimes.com/stories.php?part=news&Story_ID=051249

There is a muslim hand behind the ban of The Da Vinci Code in Andhra Pradesh. An example of Christians and Muslims coming together to fight common enemy for greater good of humanity. May be it is vote bank politics as the council elections are to be held next month. BTW, Chief minister of Andhra Pradesh is Christian

On a lighter note, Amul is using this controversy to gain publicity.

Not to offend anyone's religions sentiments, but if what's his name wrote a book followed by a movie which blasphemes your God (depending upon what religion you prefer to practice) , lets see whether you and your ilk don't have blood in the streets. So it all depends on how much it affects you. So preach what you can practice.

Interesting that in the US even the boycotters have thrown in the towel, after Sony more or less coopted them:

The Sony strategy, following the Sitrick model, was to try to turn the controversy over “The Da Vinci Code” to the film’s advantage. There was no way to stop a Christian critique of Brown’s ideas, but, if leading Christian voices could somehow be coaxed into an association with the “Da Vinci” movie, the criticism might seem less like an attack and more like engagement. Many in Hollywood remembered the passionate reaction to Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” (1988), which proved to be a public-relations nightmare for Universal. It was better, to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, to have the Christians inside the theatre, discussing “Da Vinci,” than outside, picketing.

* * *

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, and a usually reliable volunteer in the culture conflicts, decided early on that he was not going to participate in any boycott of the film. “First of all, it’s a useless exercise,” he says. “The movie’s going to be a box-office extravaganza the first weekend or two. After that, if it’s a good movie it’ll continue; if not, it’ll fail.”

I guess the Sony marketing machine didn't quite make it to Hyderabad.

~~~

DD -- didn't you know? if you play the audio book for Opal Mehta backwards....

AK- so dark the con of cut-and-paste.

Goa has also banned the movie. The AP Chief Minister's move is not suprising. His brother, also an evangelical Christian, is now angling to become head of the wealthy Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. Angryyoungman has missed the point altogether. No major Christian country has banned the movie although there are angry Christians in those countries.

"Christian countries" is a misnomer. These countries have so much public interest litigation from people like the ACLU to separate the state and the Church that the 10 commandments cannot be installed in the courthouse. Is it not ironical that one of these countries helped protect Rushie when he did the same to Islam.
Also can you imagine the kind of response it would have drawn had the book/movie been anti-semitic? Is anyone even ready to discuss that ?

Just a side note. . .
It is not particularly conducive to refer to the Roman Catholic Church (full disclosure. . . I am Anglican, not RC) as a singular entity. "Doesn't the Catholic Church. . ." implies that the behaviour of all members at all strata derives from a single public policy. In fact, our Italian friends are diverse of both thought and opinion, and act at their own discretion. The standing policy of Rome is, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity" which is derived from Augustine. Essentials are matters of doctrine, such as the virgin birth; silly fictional movies with panheretical content are assuredly nonessentials.

And, angryyoungman, "ironical?" Really?

My question: Has the only remaining genuinely Catholic state - Sede Apostolica, otherwise known as the Vatican - banned this movie?

anandos:

In fact, our Italian friends are diverse of both thought and opinion, and act at their own discretion.

They are, for the most part, extremely secular. There are some who attend Church every Sunday, but this is a small minority. Which partly explains why last year the Vatican was very worked up to push for certain kinds of legislation, among them being to declare that "Italy is a Christian country, founded on Judeo-Christian civilization and values".

Neither the Vatican nor the Italian government have banned the film.

CAD,
Sorry for any clarity-lacking. . . "The Italian Mission" or "our Italian friends" is Anglican-speak for the Roman Catholic community. A bit snooty, yes, but we like to remind them that they're not the only Christians in the world.
And thanks for the Vatican answer.

anandos:

Sorry for any clarity-lacking. . . "The Italian Mission" or "our Italian friends" is Anglican-speak for the Roman Catholic community. A bit snooty, yes, but we like to remind them that they're not the only Christians in the world.

Oh, ok ;) But for the sake of precision, the Roman Catholic community is composed more of Latin Americans, the Poles, etc rather than Italians. An example: when the Pope died, sure, Italians were sad-- they are, after all, Roman Catholic socio-culturally, if the only time they set foot in a church is for weddings and baptisms, even if that. And the Pope had been the only figure that a whole generation of Italians grew up with. But while some Italians a) didn't really care that much or b) watched the funeral on TV in passing, the most prominent and gung ho Catholics at the Vatican funeral were American Catholics and Poles (for obvious reasons, Papa was Polish).

And thanks for the Vatican answer.

Also can you imagine the kind of response it would have drawn had the book/movie been anti-semitic?

Didn't The Passion of the Christ break box office records? I am equally unaligned with both Christian and Jewish faiths, but the frequent placement of Satanic imagery among the Jewish masses was pretty obvious...Did Israel ban the movie?

Also, what irritates me most is not whether Da Vinci is or is not sacriligeous, (and there have been PLENTY of movies that take even tougher potshots at the Vatican (Stigmata and The Order seem much more critical) but that the prime minister can say "our reason is it head off irrational, violent Indian mobs." Which may be true, but is nonetheless depressing that no other country, not even the Vatican, anticipated that kind of reaction from their citizens. Are we truly a nation of hotheads, or are we being unfairly stereotyped by our own politicians?

The movie is well worth watching -- keeps you on the edge of your seat and oh my, what beautiful photography and dizzying recreations of past times flowing into present into past...

I have not read the book either: have heard its badly written from people whose opinions I trust. But go see the movie, I strongly recommend it! I know it initially got bad reviews, but hey, trust your own judgement and anyway, the critics are beginning to come around :).

Opus Dei has a branch in India...one in Bombay and one in Delhi, I think.

Neeraja:

Are we truly a nation of hotheads, or are we being unfairly stereotyped by our own politicians?

Regrettably, competitive intolerance is rife in India: It seems that every other day, one or another relgious group in India strives to take the prize for being most intolerant of freedom of expression. So it is natural for pols. to cater to such sentiment, especially in states with large Xtn populations (e.g., Nagaland etc.).

That said, most (perhaps all?) of the states banning the movie are member of the Cong-I led UPA (or aligned with it). So I wouldn't be surprised if an effort to curry favor with the Xtn leader of the Cong-I, also played a part, especially in states with a smaller Xtn population (Punjab, maybe even Andhra Pradesh). Whether such 'chamcha-gi' is what Sonia Gandhi wants or desires is another question altogether.

No doubt other religious groups will make a bid to show their intolerance. Prediction: Deepa Mehta's movie will likely run into even rougher waters in India, given the caving-in of the GOI in this case.

No doubt some Hindu groups will ask the Indian Govt. to accord them the same treatment accorded the Xtn community. For example, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi's of the Film Censor Board (?), screened the film for the Xtn community, essentially giving them a chance to vet the movie.

A truly unprecedented step, or hertofore anyway. As I said earlier, given the competitive intolerance of so many religious groups in India, Mr. Dasmunshi has set a deplorable precedent.

Regards,
Kumar

Are we truly a nation of hotheads, or are we being unfairly stereotyped by our own politicians?

Let's face it, the one thing Indians do well is rioting and disorder whenever there is a chance to let off steam - Christians have never been like that in India much up till now but they are simply following the cry baby hysterics and 'I'm offended so ban it or there'll be trouble' line that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs have perfected up till now. Although sometimes it just seems like it's in the blood; remember a while back when a film star died of old age in Tamil Nadu and there were riots? A man dies of natural causes and Indians riot. I think it's in our blood.

Are we truly a nation of hotheads, or are we being unfairly stereotyped by our own politicians?

Desis? Hotheads?? Naaaah. Why would Indian politicians, of all people, ever think that?

Clearly this film is a provocation against a persecuted minority in India (and elsewhere). This is meant to offend and humiliate an oppressed minority and it will be used to justify the rising Hindu hegemony in India.

We must allow for special rights (right not to be offended) for such minorities lest they react violently and start killing hindus.

Cool follow-up to this post Ennis did... Sad to see that they followed through with banning it after all.

I like this cartoon I found on the Samar Magazine website.

Re: communal competition, I think banning, boo-hooing, and attempting to censure films, book, and artworks happen when some cynical, opportunistic politicians or religious figures politicize the issue. Shashi Tharoor pointed out that when MF Hussain's painting of the nude goddess first came out back in the day, no one really cared. After the BJP came in power, the hoodlums of Shiv Sena coupled with BJP and some Hindutva factions completely politicized and "communalized" the issue, people started getting indignantly worked up.

In my opinion, this kind of situation is where one or two rabble rousers stir things up and people jump on the bandwagon.

Cheap ass desi nails it.

Shruti, the film has not been banned in/by "the West." It has not even been seriously boycotted. It's doing huge business. So the cartoon is stupid. There's plenty of hypocrisy out there, but this isn't an example of it. And I don't know what got up Manju's nose, but the opportunistic actions of a few politicians and bluenoses do not necessarily invalidate larger concerns about hegemony.

If this were an interesting film, one could then bewail the reduction of art to the reactions of idiots. Unfortuntately it's a crap film of a crap potboiler. But precedents matter.

CAD:

banning, boo-hooing, and attempting to censure films, book, and artworks happen when some cynical, opportunistic politicians or religious figures politicize the issue...

Boo-hooing and censuring is perfectly legit. I think (so long as done peacefully, of course). It's the banning and censoring to which I object. The latter is problematic since it erodes the back-and-forth 'conversation' essential for a healthy democracy.

Political opportunists abound in India, but without a thin-skinned populace they wouldn't find much traction. In the present case, as I commented earlier, I think demands for the ban came from both the thin-skinned lot as well as politicians eager to cultivate the Cong-I leadership (at least they think a ban will be viewed favorably by Sonia G.).

Angrez da putar

the opportunistic actions of a few politicians and bluenoses do not necessarily invalidate larger concerns about hegemony

"Concerns about hegemony" are not unrelated to the "..opportunistic actions.." you decry. Quite to the contrary, the two are closely related: The problem is that pretty much every community in India is concerned about 'hegemony', indeed eagerly seeking hegemonists left, right and center. Hence the readiness to take umbrage at every (perceived) slight, whether trivial or not.

A little less concern about hegemony and a thicker skin would lessen competitive intolerance and make Indian culture and politics a lot less rancid.

Regards,
Kumar

Quite to the contrary, the two are closely related: The problem is that pretty much every community in India is concerned about 'hegemony', indeed eagerly seeking hegemonists left, right and center. Hence the readiness to take umbrage at every (perceived) slight, whether trivial or not.

Well, maybe belligerent and bigoted right wing Hindu nationalists should not keep banging the drum of Hindu hegemony every few years. No need to seek them left right and centre, they exist.

In Tamil Nadu, 9% of the population is Christian. Karunanidhi, the current CM, received their vote. Banning the movie is his way of assuring them that he values their vote.

Red Snapper:

belligerent and bigoted right wing Hindu nationalists should not keep banging the drum of Hindu hegemony every few years. No need to seek them left right and centre, they exist.

Indeed, far right-wing Hindu hegemonists very much exist. But far right-wing Hindus are not the only wannabe-hegemonists in India. Such folk are to be found in nearly every religious community in India (e.g., far right-wing Muslim jihadis in J&K or some far right-wing Xtn groups in the Northeast).

Each group feeds off the other, resulting in the sort of competitive intolerance where any slight--real or imagined--is met with cries of censorship etc. Again, it would be best for all if everyone developed a bit thicker skin.

Regards,
Kumar

For me two questions arise on this issue:

1. Is freedom of expression justified if it depicts something as sensitive as religion in poor light?

2. Is it really worth the risk for a govt to screen a movie if there are indications that it will lead to mob-violence? After all peace should definitely figure high up in the govt's priorities.

Question # 2 becomes even more significant in India where emotions run high, as already mentioned by many here in the comments.

Here's my take on it.

Even though ideologically I am against the ban, purely from pragmatic point of view, I think it makes sense

Not to offend anyone's religions sentiments, but if what's his name wrote a book followed by a movie which blasphemes your God (depending upon what religion you prefer to practice) , lets see whether you and your ilk don't have blood in the streets. So it all depends on how much it affects you. So preach what you can practice.

Er, angryyoungman, I don't suppose you've heard of MF Husain? It certainly put the outrage-over-the-Muhammad-cartoons into a better perspective, even though I'm fairly agnostic for a Hindu (and don't really care either way if Durga is presented, ah, having "intimate relations" with a tiger). I still enjoy oohing and ahhing over the pretty pictures in Amar Chitra Katha, but that's about the extent of my image-worship. :)

Opus Dei has a branch in India...one in Bombay and one in Delhi, I think.

heh... well, so do the freemasons, bang across sterling cinema, and the theosophists are near churchgate, and ummm the rajneeshis are in pune, and if you look around you'll find the ananda margis hiding somewhere...

you almost sound like you want to go on a cult/secret society hunt...;)

Jokes apart. It is silly to engage people who argue on the lines of "ooooh but you wouldnt react like this if it was your god who was being blasphemeed!!"

Like the the last poster... im fairly agnostic, but to the believers my question is : If you say god is all powerfull, why would he need nitwits like you to safeguard the divine image of his avatars, his prophets or even his 'children'?"

Fanaa was also banned in Gujarat because the leading actor of the movie, Aamir Khan, said something that "hurt the feeling of Gujaratis" according to youth group of BJP. He said that he wanted rehabilitation for the farmers and villagers who were displaced because the height of the dam is raised and that means some villages will be under water. BJP took it as Aamir is against the construction of the dam. He repeated his views in numerous press conferences , but the gundas at BJP failed to grasp a single word and they still continue their protests.

God help these mavalees

Jeet,

Regarding Fanaa... I am against banning anything, however, let's set the record straight.

Aamir initally said that "All the work on the dam should stop until the displaced villagers are settled." We all know what this means: It's a way of un-democratically doing something which cannot be done by due process. That is, they tried to stop work on the dam - Supreme court said nothing doing. So now they want work stopped until a condition is met. When will the condition be met? Never. No matter how many villagers you compensate, they will keep bringing new claims in from all kinds of people claiming that they have been displaced. This will go on for years/decades, and all the while the work on the dam will be put on hold.

Nice try. But it's been done before. Try something new.

If the villagers are not compensated, then that is wrong and they should go to court. The very fact that they have not followed the due process of law (despite enormous sympathy they wield) goes to show that the really affected people have been compensated well (as the Gujarat govt claims), and these new claims are spurious.

Secondly, even the Congress is up in arms against Aamir, and so are the Multiplex owners. In fact, Modi met the producers and promised them protection. But the theater owners refused to budge - apparently there's also an issue with the high rates multiplexes are demanding and Chopra does not wants them to lower rates.

M. Nam

In fact, Modi met the producers and promised them protection.

Hail Mogambo!

Is there no end to our leaders greatness?

Truly, he is the most humble, caring, and kind. The very face of India.

Hail Modi-go!

Indian secularism is the Gandhian "sarva dharma sambhava" - all religions are considered noble and equal, which leads the state to protect and to -the height of silliness!- promote all religions. Other types of secularism are religion-indifferent secularism (United States), and anti-religion secularism (maybe France). I think the American model is best.

There was a problem with multiplex owners and Yashraj distributors but it was solved

Aamir is for the displaced people to get rehabilitated and so is the SC, so i dont know where the problem is.

Was Aamir Khan right in his views? And did he do the right thing by coming out in the open or was he doing this for publicity? One can go on debating. What is important to note is that Aamir Khan never really opposed the raising of the level of the dam. He just spoke for the proper rehabilitation of the people affected in the process. This is also the concern, not just of the NBA’s prime mover Medha Patkar, but also of the Supreme Court. Then why does the youth wing of the BJP have a problem with Aamir Khan? Could it be that the party has run out of issues to protest on and had been out of the news for too long?

Just because he voiced his opinions, the politicians should tear his movie posters and burn effigies? They want him to apologize...sheesh

and i thought the work is already underway and the height is being raised??..maybe not

"Other types of secularism are religion-indifferent secularism (United States), and anti-religion secularism (maybe France). I think the American model is best."

The French secularism or laicité is something else than what you suggest. To have a clearer view you may look up the link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2903663

Read this interesting article on the banning of the Code in Punjab. Priceless quote:

"Ashok Sharma, joint secretary of the Northern Indian Motion Pictures Distributors' Association, told Outlook, "Except for the soft-porn variety,there isn't much demand for English movies in Punjab. No cinema hall in Punjab had approached us for The Da Vinci Code. So, ban or no ban, it wasn't going to be shown in Punjab."

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060612&fname=Punjab+DA+Vinci+%28F%29&sid=1

I didnt find anything offensive with the book. Probably coz I am not a christian or probably I seek logic and reason behind myths and my logic says Krishna, buddha, Jesus Christ, Sai Baba were all humans, only more enlightened.

I recently read the book and seriously didn't find anything that would bother anyone. Dan brown is brilliant in the book with mixing facts with fiction which is basically his own point of view and last time i checked, it said on the cover that its a NOVEL.

Being a muslim this really reminds me of Salman Rushdie's Satani Verses, even that was a novel where he used islamic personality and created a world where things that happened were his brain's creation.

As far as i know, anything that challenges the religious scripture, even if its an isolated view, its considered offensive.