There Be Dragons

[yoco]

Release Date: May 6, 2011 (limited)
Studio: Samuel Goldwyn Films
Director: Roland Joffe
Screenwriter: Roland Joffe
Starring: Wes Bentley, Derek Jacobi, Charlie Cox, Olga Kurylenko, Dougray Scott, Rodrigo Santoro
Genre: Drama
MPAA Rating: Not Available

"There Be Dragons" follows the story of controversial Opus Dei founder, St. Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, in a sympathetic portrayal of the Catholic organization, bravely contradicting the sentiment set by Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code." In this action-packed film, director Roland Joffe surrounds the priest with fictional characters and deals with universal themes of love, betrayal and redemption.

[SealLion]

.....a sympathetic portrayal of the Catholic organization....

A sympathetic portrayl. LOL.
In WWII, this same organization had sent members to Nazi-affiliated/Nazi-sympathetic groups in Spain, and I think also from Portugal, to fight against the Soviets. I'm not condoning anything Soviet-related ( i.e. Gulags), but I"m certainly not sympathetic to Nazi views either ( and I think we all know enough about how disregarding the Nazis were to life, liberty, and freedom. Especially life for the Roma, people whom the Nazis considered 'mental invalids', Jews as well, black people, and anyone else they described as 'non-Aryan' even though they completely misunderstood what the term 'Aryan' actually means and to whom it actually refers to ).

There have been some claims that Opus Dei had members that were quite conservative as well as political. And if political and those accusations of having forwarded some of it's own members to Nazi-sympathetic groups are correct then IMHO, this film having a sympathetic portrayal isn't informing any viewer of the realities and controversial positions which the Opus Dei group is said to have positioned itself into. It is in fact more so exploiting a sympathetic view of Catholicism. In other words, that it's all good and godly, instead.
There probably stand controversies behind just about every major organization in history. I'm sure that Opus Dei isn't excluded.

[slikrapid]

though they completely misunderstood what the term 'Aryan' actually means and to whom it actually refers to

i wouldn't be so sure about the understanding of the term, it is likely that it was within their (higher levels of the organization) grasp, though that info wasn't available for the general public in its true form, but rather as a propagandist tool using/distorting a familiar concept for own purposes

a similar way of manipulation can be found in the so-called abrahamic religions, where earlier concepts have been re-written and re-interpreted for a particular purpose (hidden from the general public)

another subverted term is 'semitic', commonly thought as representing jewish people, whereas it actually includes people from the northern africa and middle east (including arabs!), meaning some characteristic common to these people (like the semitic languages)

some informative views on what the term 'aryan' means:

http://www.truthcontrol.com/node/aryans

notice also the correlation with the movie title 'There Be Dragons', where the term 'dragon' is used to depict people of 'noble' qualities (like wisdom and such), though in this case the revolutionary fanaticism is equated with nobility, yet another falsification

this film having a sympathetic portrayal isn't informing any viewer of the realities and controversial positions which the Opus Dei group is said to have positioned itself into.

the holly-wood wizards are not exactly known for their willingness to spread valid information, the tool-of-choice would be deception

as for opus dei, apart from being very secretive, they have connections with the highest levels of society (elitist circles) and a high position within the church as well, a hierarchical structure based on obedience, etc. - these elements alone (without any further controversies) should be sufficient to realize how such an organization is not trustworthy and that they are primarily interested in acquiring power across the secular & religious spectrum

[SealLion]

There might be some semblance of truth to what your saying; however, with respect to the term Aryan, it isn't used to describe ethnic superiority as many racial groups have bastardized and have everyone believe, but is rather more correctly thought to refer language or linguistic elements.

Let me explain.

That term supposedly describes an older and archaic language that Indo-European people spoke. From what I understand people in pre-historic times, in this case, people from Northern India as well as Central Asia (In both pre-historic and pre-Islamic times, Central Asia was predominantly Iran ) who invaded other areas of India, had not just a social influence on the conquered but also a linguistic influence. Not just Indian literature, religion, and social organization were influenced but also linguistic elements.

The term, Aryan, from a Sanskrit perspective means 'noble'. It's root word is 'arya'
The invaders were from a linguistic branch that supposedly came from the Indo-Aryan languages group, which is itself a branch from the Indo-European languages.
It's just that somewhere along the line of time in the mid 1800's, two historical figures decided that anyone who is of Nordic origin and spoke the Indo-European language is Aryan. A falsification, of course. This falsification was eventually trumped-up by some deranged and demonically-possessed individual from Austria. It is the Indo-Aryan language that the Sanskrit root term 'Arya' refers to. If we were to Anglicize it a bit more, we get 'Aryan'

I don't believe it is this:

.....Aryan therefore means “the noble race.”....

that's from the link above. I think that article is misrepresenting some information because not only does it suggest that Aryan means 'noble race' but is not elaborating on the truth of the Sanskrit root-word 'arya', again, it's meaning is "noble” or “distinguished”. In the context of the previously supplied information, the word 'arya' has a linguistic element. Neither racial superiority nor noble race is inferred. It is recognizing the linguistic influence that people from the Indo-Aryan language group had on the linguistic influence on areas of South Asia. In this case, we can include India.


So when you mention:

....though that info wasn't available for the general public in its true form, but rather as a propagandist tool using/distorting a familiar concept for own purposes ....

Your correct.
The truth wasn't made available to the general public and hence the propagandists all the way from the mid 1800's to today have only bastardized the term for their own purpose and having others believe falsified information such as listed below. Here's what I mean. While reading some of the information from the link you gave, I found both partial truths and errors:

.....This migration of a superior race, coming from Central Asia, is correct,....

It isn't the race that is superior, it's the linguistic influence that is more correct. Yes, they did come from Central Asia, which in ancient times was mostly Iran; however, it's the 'race'-thing that is disagreeable as mentioned in the article.

I think what probably happened is that when we get to the mid 1800's we find two people who, for some deranged reason, felt that anyone who spoke the Indo-European language were of Aryan descent. They completely left out the fact that Indo-Aryan language, as I've already mentioned is a sub-group of Indo-European language and that it had a linguistic influence on people in Southern Asia in ancient times.

very much like what you say is correct.

...the holly-wood wizards are not exactly known for their willingness to spread valid information, the tool-of-choice would be deception...

and this here:

another subverted term is 'semitic', commonly thought as representing jewish people, whereas it actually includes people from the northern africa and middle east (including arabs!)

totally correct.

Antisemitism it is a misnomer.
It basically implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites. ....So much for the racial segregationalists.
It isn't widely known but Adolf did have relations with the Arabs during WWII. I wonder if he even fully understood what Semitic meant.

notice also the correlation with the movie title 'There Be Dragons', where the term 'dragon' is used to depict people of 'noble' qualities (like wisdom and such), though in this case the revolutionary fanaticism is equated with nobility, yet another falsification

That's for sure.

No where in either Japan, China, or anywhere else in Asia is a dragon symbolized as having nobility. If we were to look at dragons from China, for example, you'd find out that dragons symbolized some kind of potent and auspicious power and even strength and having good luck.

Dragons from Japan symbolized pretty much the same thing as Chinese dragons, considering their proximity to one another.
Now, since this film is supposed to be taking place in Europe, you'd find that dragons from Europe are associated with evil and having a 'serpent'-like trait. A serpent, from a Western perspective is thought to be a liar or a deceiver.

Opus Dei is deceptive??
I wouldn't put it past 'em.

I've said enough.

[slikrapid]

That term supposedly describes an older and archaic language that Indo-European people spoke.

it describes more than that - the term alone means 'noble' or 'exalted' and it can be used to describe many things having such a characteristic, fi. language (who wold use a noble language? most likely noble ones), birth/title (do aristocrats think of themselves as noble?), status (is a king considered noble?), skill (is a master of some trade exalted above others in that regard?), way of life (see the indian quote), etc. - so obviously it cannot be simply limited to the description of the language itself and the historical evidence of its usage proves that in many instances over a wide range of cultures:

The title Arya, Englished into "Aryan" ...literally means in both the Indian Sanskrit, the old classic language of India, and in the Ancient Persian language "the exalted or noble one;" and it is derived as I have shown from the Sumerian Ar, Ara "exalt, lofty, shining, glory;" which is also disclosed as the remote Sumerian root of our modern word "Aristocrat" or "noblest or most excellent governor"

...central Asia was predominantly Iran ) who invaded other areas of India, had not just a social influence on the conquered but also a linguistic influence.

actually, the iranian & indian languages have the same (or similar enough) origin, and they had a very close geographical location as well, so i wouldn't go so far as to say any one of them was the first or the dominant influence - this influence stems either from an older common civilization/origin and/or from 'noble' external visitors (and/or 'noble' internal 'gurus') that initiated a civilization bringing critical knowledge - this period of human history is quite controversial as the information about it is being heavily falsified (dating, events, evidence, interpretation) to keep the current mainstream theories of the historical developments intact

No where in either Japan, China, or anywhere else in Asia is a dragon symbolized as having nobility.

would you say wisdom is a noble characteristic?

To this day,
serpents or dragons signify divine heritage and
royalty in many Asian countries, while in the West the
serpent represents wisdom and knowledge…Among
nearly all ancient peoples the serpent was accepted
as the ultimate symbol of wisdom or salvation - Tony
Bushby (The Secret in the Bible)

A serpent, from a Western perspective is thought to be a liar or a deceiver.

obviously an intentional falsification, the re-writing/re-interpretation mentioned above, the goal being, among others, to steer away from understanding the symbolism - even the bible gives away some hints:
NT: 'be ye as wise as serpents'
OT: the serpent tempted with the apple that brings knowledge

[anon]

I don't know about you (OK, I do), but I thought of this when I saw the title.

Just though I'd post that, keep the great discussion work up.

[SealLion]

I found a similar article on this topic, or more so, related more directly to the film. It's from Wikipedia and I know that Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable place to get information from. What with it's constant vandalism and the idea that the editors believe that they are 'experts' in the topic that they are writing?? Ya right.
A place like Scholarpedia has at least it's articles peer-reviewed; however, Scholarpedia isn't as full blown as Wikipedia is. So I"ll have to contend with what I've got there. Nevertheless, what doesn't surprise me in the least is seeing that 2 persons, having a direct association with Opus Dei, were being used as producers:

.....Ignacio G. Sancha, and Ignacio Núñez are also producers. The last two are members of Opus Dei.

LINK

Read about where all the funding came from as well from the link provided.


No doubt, the film would probably give a favorable outlook for the Roman Catholic Church. Is the RC Church looking to win over more members over to it's congregations or something??
Must be looking to lure more people to it's local churches to give funding/tithing. Maybe, but I don't know for sure, but perhaps the RC Church is loosing money. What with all the different sex abuse scandals that the RC Church is widely known for in places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and a host of countries in Europe, Latin America and even Asia.

From what I remember reading, somewhere from the 1950"s to around 2002, there were about 10.000 cases that were reported of sexual abuse. With that were over 4000 priests that were accused of this abuse.
Not too entirely something to be proud of, I'd say. So is this one of the reasons that Opus Dei and the rest of the Catholic Church are having members of Opus Dei on as producers for the film so as to give it a more positive light for the general public??
Who knows??
There are also defrockings, retirements, and resignations by the priests. It's probably quite embarrassing that after all these years, the priest gets caught. So you can imagine the image that this church is having to deal with.

Apparently, there is also a lot of criticism of the Church's response at both the Vatican and Bishop levels. For example, critique on the proceedings to remove or hear out the allegations are more secretive and lengthening the time that's required to address the allegations.

Other criticisms centers on the church's insistence on confidentiality in its treatment of priestly sexual abuse.

When an organization of any size, even on a personal level, it's normal behavior for the person or the organization to limit the 'damage-control' if not too also find ways to reverse the damage.

Think on that for a moment.

What ways would a huge church with millions of followers around the world do to somehow reverse the negative perspective of the church by people around the world??

How about make a movie that has this quasy sect of the Catholic church be presented in a positive light to say and show all kinds of nice things about it?
Oh, ..and don't forget to have a couple of Opus Dei members in there as producers.

But also think of this. Having all these reported abuse cases and subsequent prosecutions being brought to court, all those abuse allegations may have heralded the end of a long-term endemic problem found that is found throughout any number of institutions. Those being of course both secular and religious.

But that's my opinion on one of the reasons why this film was made.
I might be wrong, but it's my hypothesis on one of the reasons for the making of this film. Other than financial rewards.

Another reason that is similar to my above expressed reason for the films production is not just for propaganda reasons for the RC church but other reasons is to cause propaganda for Opus Dei.

[slikrapid]

Read about where all the funding came from as well from the link provided.
No doubt, the film would probably give a favorable outlook for the Roman Catholic Church.

no doubt about that, the financial angle speaks for itself
for the opus dei as well ofc

Is the RC Church looking to win over more members over to it's congregations or something??
perhaps the RC Church is loosing money.

sure, its their constant goal, though by having already a billion followers or so, its currently probably not a high priority one
as for loosing money, i wouldn't bet on it - they were never in a financial tight-spot to begin with, nor will they ever be, not only because of their connections to the elite, but because of the sheer size of the followers/believers 'flock', ready to support them as needed, almost no questions asked - the scandals are a mere temporary & limited inconvenience, for, in the end, eternal forgiveness is guaranteed

So is this one of the reasons that Opus Dei and the rest of the Catholic Church are having members of Opus Dei on as producers for the film so as to give it a more positive light for the general public??

its a matter of controlled balance between perceptibly favorable & perceptibly unfavorable material, as the former reinforces belief/support and the latter does the opposite, however, those choosing the latter have already been 'taken care of' since there are a number of other religious (or non-religious) options available to them, many of which were created for that sole purpose (controlled pre-planned option), fi. other abrahamic religions

Having all these reported abuse cases and subsequent prosecutions being brought to court, all those abuse allegations may have heralded the end of a long-term endemic problem found that is found throughout any number of institutions.

don't count on it, the problem will not end, perhaps not even diminish, but likely only change methods & ways in which it gets conducted - the abuse itself is rooted in the societal psychology (society as whole) and will not change significantly (overall occurrence) until the mental state of the society does