The Fact vs Fiction Faction

With the first Australian screening of The DaVinci Code happening in just over 16 hours it's time to prepare for an onslaught of fiction being argued as fact. Now don't think I'm singling out Dan Brown's little money-spinner here, you might remember me talking about the movie Wolf Creek in similar tones last year. From Wikipedia:

Wolf Creek was marketed as being "based on true events" in the same way that "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was. Despite this claim, the movie is fictitious, and the producers have not disclosed which incidents inspired the film. Some media sources have speculated that it may have been based on the backpacker murders of 1989-92, the Peter Falconio disappearance of 2001, and/or the 1992-99 Snowtown murders. The similarities of the film with the Falconio case led the defence team of the man charged (later convicted) with his murder, Bradley John Murdoch, to obtain a court order preventing Wolf Creek's release in the Northern Territory during the trial. (The film was released there in January 2006.) The film's director and writer has stated that Wolf Creek is not based on any single event.[1] There have been comparisons made between Taylor and real-life serial killer Ivan Milat, who also preyed upon backpackers in the Outback.

Of course Wolf Creek was not the first film to muddy the truth to increase it's box office. Also from Wikipedia:

The 1973 film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre claims to be based on true events, but this is not the case.

A dislaimer before the 1996 film Fargo makes the claim that it is, in fact, a true story, but this was outed by its creators, the Coen brothers, saying that people would more readily believe something outlandish if told that it actually happened, as per the "Truth is stranger than fiction" idiom.

When the 1999 film The Blair Witch Project was released, the extensive marketing campaign claimed it to be a real documentary, compiled from footage discovered abandoned in a forest.

Even the history of magic has been changed by Hollywood fiction in the minds of many movie fans:

A mostly fictionalized version of Houdini's life was made in a film in 1953 starring Tony Curtis. Most of the misconceptions about Houdini's life are due in part to this film. For example, it portrayed him dying from the Chinese Water Torture Cell, instead of the less spectacular peritonitis.

It's easy to say "Movie goers need to understand they should accept films that are 'inspired by true events' with a grain of salt" so does that mean we should not believe anything we see on screen except documentaries? Well Michael Moore certainly spoiled that genre. Yet despite hundreds of books and websites picking the eyes out of his lies and re-interpreted facts, a huge amount of people still accept Michael Moore's fiction as fact - because it was called a 'Documentary'.

By the same token, many people will accept portions (if not all) of Dan Brown's film as real because it is touted as "based on fact". How it is possible to say a film is "based on fact" purely because it is set in locations that "really exist" and mentions societies that are "real" (though Opus Dei is presented in a terrible light and the Priory of Sion is accepted at face value though in "real life" it has been busted as a hoax).

People seem happy to accept information as fact if it supports their world view (look at the arguments about the Iraq conflict - many are based on false reporting), though there have been instances of Christians reading The DaVinci Code and abandoning their faith... based on false claims.

Dan Brown himself claims to be a Christian and says:

"I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate."

The discussion centres around the false claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and they had a child. But why debate issues that have no basis in fact? Have the books that deny the holocaust ever happened be used to promote discussion about the Nazis and the Jews? No. Simply entertaining the thought that the holocaust didn't actually happen is an affront to the millions of Jews who died. By suggesting that it never happened and presenting false facts to back up that claim the only thing that will happen is that some people might actually believe the claims and, over time, huge doubts will be cast on the authenticity of history.

By claiming that Jesus was married and there's a huge conspiracy to cover up that fact, Dan Brown is opening the door to doubt on historical fact. He is certainly free to say or write anything he likes, but as a Christian, he would be aware of 1 Corinthians 8:9 "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak."

Christians know that the story is fiction. I hope that those seeking spiritual truth don't dismiss Christianity on the basis on the theories presented in The DaVinci Code.