Film Review
The Da Vinci Code
Dir. Ron HowardScr. Akiva Goldsman (screenplay); Dan Brown (novel)
Tom Hanks
Audrey Tautou
Ian McKellen
Paul Bettany
Jean Reno
Official Site - www.sodarktheconofman.com
Does anyone else think it is absurd that professors and Christian 'experts' have come out of the woodwork to offer a rebuttal to a novel? You can purchase the DVD resource kit for yourself and see all the places that Dan Brown wrestled with historical accuracy.
If you listen to Dan Brown, he wrote the novel in order to begin discussions about the whole notion of historical accuracy (and to make bucket loads of money!). He is personally and narratively questioning our ability to accept our inherited history as fact. Without understanding this point, many Christians jumped at the bait and started debating the book point by historical point. Not one of the rebuttals has been as interesting to read as the novel itself.
Maybe why people have so much fear about this work of fiction is that they understand at a deep level that story has the power to influence a person's perceptions. I think that the reason a story like the Da Vinci Code is so compelling is because there is an absence of truly compelling works of narrative that capture the historical Christian version of history.
There have been some attempts - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Lord of the Rings. Aside from the fact that both of those mythic stories were written almost 60 years ago, both read as an escape into an mythic other-world and therefore don't have the kind of connection to everyday life that the Da Vinci Code uses to great effect.
There are some notable differences between the book and the movie. With all of the controversy about the book being presented as fact, I expected the movie to open with a Blair Witch Project disclaimer. The pacing of the novel was a rush that didn't translate as well to the film. You get the feeling that things are moving too fast. Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon, is much smarter and more "Christian" than Dan Brown's original. I found this strange. The strongest scene in the book where Langdon and Teabing lay out the whole "Jesus was married and had kids" version of history, is reframed in a much broader perspective for the film. I wonder if this was an intentional way of sidestepping more controversy?
There are still quite a few things that may ruffle some feathers but all in the entire movie was entertaining. The book was so widely read that this was a difficult movie to make. It was written in a way that lent itself to the visuals of film-making but the plot relies heavily on the fact that you don't know what will happen next. So when you do know what will happen next it?s not nearly as thrilling. People like Dan Brown, Tom Hanks and Ron Howard know this fact but also saw the huge potential to make more money, so they couldn't refuse. They played around with the ending enough to show that they were at least tying to offer blockbuster entertainment.
I figured that if I could sit through M:i:III then I could sit through the Da Vinci Code. I quite liked the book--a pot-boiler of the first order with enough provocative material and conspiracy theory to make it a compelling read in spite of some pretty dodgy dialogue and writing. The movie? Well, it's not as bad as most of the critics make it out to be, although I seldom pay attention to them anyway.
It is not Ron Howard's, nor Tom Hank's best moment in film. Ron Howard's movies are always a challenge for me--interesting but somehow a bit clinical (Beautiful Mind, The Missing), and I am not sure he was the best choice here, but what do I know.
Hanks feels like an MC--forced into the position of giving away necessary information to the audience so that we can all follow along--perhaps that was the challenge of bringing a book like this to the screen. A friend of mine who did some work on the soundtrack told me that one of the continual discussions with many people involved was the difficulty of translating so much info into a screenplay worthy of the book and the screen.
The plot seemed much more hokey on the big screen than it did in print--but for me the storyline was always the least interesting part of the book. All those Christians with their knickers-in-a-twist over the 'threat' the book posed missed the boat as far as I am concerned. It is not the conspiracy theory and 'heretical' idea at the heart of the tale (Jesus got married to Mary Magdalene and had family--the bloodline exists to this day--and was covered up by the church etc.) that is the threat--it is the redefining of concepts on the very nature of the relationship between the human and the divine, between transcendence and sacredness, that the book only hints at towards the end. The last couple of scenes in the film are where this idea comes out most clearly and I think it was the strongest moment--there is less to 'attack' with this point, and it is obvious that few in the church have much of a clue about how best to broach it--people don't believe the way they used--different criteria, different contexts--that is what needs to be addressed.
I can't believe that there are so many people taking it all so seriously, we all look like dicks--unable to take a jab and come back with anything the same old bullshit. The film is far from anti-Christian, and there are some moments where faith and the challenge of belief are held in high regard.
I think people buy into conspiracy theories because they no longer trust institutions to tell them the truth and they suspect that compromise and self-protection is at the heart of many decisions and choices made by the particular outfit--it's hard to refute that given the somewhat sketchy history of most institutions on some level or another.
Anyway, the movie will probably make boatloads of cash and the church will look defensive and archaic, holding onto a bunch of things that no longer resonate, and arguing points that long ago lost their ability to connect with the broader culture. The challenge and opportunity for the Church here is to reframe its conversation with culture and stop trying to prove that it is right and everyone else is wrong.
The other interesting thing about the film is that it seemed to draw a very broad audience--all the demographics were present in the theatre, which says a lot I think.
If you listen to Dan Brown, he wrote the novel in order to begin discussions about the whole notion of historical accuracy (and to make bucket loads of money!). He is personally and narratively questioning our ability to accept our inherited history as fact. Without understanding this point, many Christians jumped at the bait and started debating the book point by historical point. Not one of the rebuttals has been as interesting to read as the novel itself.
Maybe why people have so much fear about this work of fiction is that they understand at a deep level that story has the power to influence a person's perceptions. I think that the reason a story like the Da Vinci Code is so compelling is because there is an absence of truly compelling works of narrative that capture the historical Christian version of history.
There have been some attempts - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Lord of the Rings. Aside from the fact that both of those mythic stories were written almost 60 years ago, both read as an escape into an mythic other-world and therefore don't have the kind of connection to everyday life that the Da Vinci Code uses to great effect.
There are some notable differences between the book and the movie. With all of the controversy about the book being presented as fact, I expected the movie to open with a Blair Witch Project disclaimer. The pacing of the novel was a rush that didn't translate as well to the film. You get the feeling that things are moving too fast. Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon, is much smarter and more "Christian" than Dan Brown's original. I found this strange. The strongest scene in the book where Langdon and Teabing lay out the whole "Jesus was married and had kids" version of history, is reframed in a much broader perspective for the film. I wonder if this was an intentional way of sidestepping more controversy?
There are still quite a few things that may ruffle some feathers but all in the entire movie was entertaining. The book was so widely read that this was a difficult movie to make. It was written in a way that lent itself to the visuals of film-making but the plot relies heavily on the fact that you don't know what will happen next. So when you do know what will happen next it?s not nearly as thrilling. People like Dan Brown, Tom Hanks and Ron Howard know this fact but also saw the huge potential to make more money, so they couldn't refuse. They played around with the ending enough to show that they were at least tying to offer blockbuster entertainment.
I figured that if I could sit through M:i:III then I could sit through the Da Vinci Code. I quite liked the book--a pot-boiler of the first order with enough provocative material and conspiracy theory to make it a compelling read in spite of some pretty dodgy dialogue and writing. The movie? Well, it's not as bad as most of the critics make it out to be, although I seldom pay attention to them anyway.
It is not Ron Howard's, nor Tom Hank's best moment in film. Ron Howard's movies are always a challenge for me--interesting but somehow a bit clinical (Beautiful Mind, The Missing), and I am not sure he was the best choice here, but what do I know.
Hanks feels like an MC--forced into the position of giving away necessary information to the audience so that we can all follow along--perhaps that was the challenge of bringing a book like this to the screen. A friend of mine who did some work on the soundtrack told me that one of the continual discussions with many people involved was the difficulty of translating so much info into a screenplay worthy of the book and the screen.
The plot seemed much more hokey on the big screen than it did in print--but for me the storyline was always the least interesting part of the book. All those Christians with their knickers-in-a-twist over the 'threat' the book posed missed the boat as far as I am concerned. It is not the conspiracy theory and 'heretical' idea at the heart of the tale (Jesus got married to Mary Magdalene and had family--the bloodline exists to this day--and was covered up by the church etc.) that is the threat--it is the redefining of concepts on the very nature of the relationship between the human and the divine, between transcendence and sacredness, that the book only hints at towards the end. The last couple of scenes in the film are where this idea comes out most clearly and I think it was the strongest moment--there is less to 'attack' with this point, and it is obvious that few in the church have much of a clue about how best to broach it--people don't believe the way they used--different criteria, different contexts--that is what needs to be addressed.
I can't believe that there are so many people taking it all so seriously, we all look like dicks--unable to take a jab and come back with anything the same old bullshit. The film is far from anti-Christian, and there are some moments where faith and the challenge of belief are held in high regard.
I think people buy into conspiracy theories because they no longer trust institutions to tell them the truth and they suspect that compromise and self-protection is at the heart of many decisions and choices made by the particular outfit--it's hard to refute that given the somewhat sketchy history of most institutions on some level or another.
Anyway, the movie will probably make boatloads of cash and the church will look defensive and archaic, holding onto a bunch of things that no longer resonate, and arguing points that long ago lost their ability to connect with the broader culture. The challenge and opportunity for the Church here is to reframe its conversation with culture and stop trying to prove that it is right and everyone else is wrong.
The other interesting thing about the film is that it seemed to draw a very broad audience--all the demographics were present in the theatre, which says a lot I think.