Mark Lawson finds that nothing is left to chance in Dan Brown's ludicrous but gripping bestseller, The Da Vinci Code. THE DA VINCI CODE, for all its success, is simply a poorly written thriller with a controversial hypothesis about the life of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. The characters are two-dimensional and the plot is boilerplate suspense novel stuff. Dan Brown has villains, chase scenes, and some moments of genuine tension.
Dan Brown's controversial best-selling novel about a powerful secret that's been kept under wraps for thousands of years comes to the screen in this suspense thriller from Director Ron Howard. The stately silence of Paris' Louvre museum is broken when one of the gallery's leading curators is found dead on the grounds, with strange symbols carved into his body and left around the spot where he died. Hoping to learn the significance of the symbols, police bring in Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a gifted cryptographer who is also the victim's granddaughter. Needing help, Sophie calls on Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a leading symbolized from the United States. As Sophie and Robert dig deeper into the case, they discover the victim's involvement in the Priory of Sion, a secret society whose members have been privy to forbidden knowledge dating back to the birth of Christianity. In their search, Sophie and Robert happen upon evidence that could lead to the final resting place of the Holy.
Goofs(at around 1h 12 mins) Teabing says that knowledge that Christ was human would bring down the Church by proving that 'the greatest story ever told is a lie.' However the Church has always held that Christ is simultaneously fully human and fully divine. Further, the Bible nowhere says that Christ was not married, it only doesn't say that he was. Although extremely unlikely after 2,000 years, if it were discovered that Christ had married and had children it wouldn't have any effect on the Faith.
Alternate VersionsThe film was originally shown to the UK censors in an unfinished form, with a temp score and sound mix. The BBFC advised Sony Pictures that sound levels during some acts of violence may be too impactful for the requested '12A' rating, so the film was likely to receive a 15 classification. When formally submitted, the final levels of sound effects on the completed soundtrack had reduced the strength of some acts of violence to an extent which made the film able to get a '12A' rating.
This movie is becoming as controversial as the book. Since the day it was announced that it's gonna be made, there were protests against it being done, and it has escalated to calls for boycotting, or banning the movie altogether. I'll not waste time and go into its controversies, nor discuss what's real and what's not. Neither will I explain in detail the plot, as I believe most of you readers would already have some vague idea of what it's about, or have read the book, since it's on the bestsellers list for months. Rather, I'll evaluate the movie as it is, on how well it entertains. Those who wish to preach in my comment box, prepare to have those comments deleted, at my discretion.
This is the stand I shall take, that this movie is entirely fictional, based on events which are used loosely, for the sole purpose of weaving a storyline that tries to be believable. I think some have already mentioned it's too successful in doing that, and may mislead people into thinking its theories presented, are real.
However, don't take it too seriously, and if you wish to, use another proper platform to debunk the myths, not my movie review blog. The structure of the movie, is exactly the same as the book. There is no change to the ending, despite some rumours that it will be different. Naturally, some of the detailed explanation that's given in the book, especially many three-way dialogue between Sophie- Robert-Leigh, have to be summarized in order to pace this movie into 2 1/2 hours. Herein lies the challenges.
For those who've read the book, the movie offers nothing new, other than the gratification of watching events and characters play out on the big screen. For those who haven't read the book, the movie version should be decent enough to make you want to pick up the novel and read more into the controversial theories explained. However, having being familiar with the plot and how the story unfolds, red herrings, character motivations, twists and all, it may leave those who've read the novel, a page-turner in every sense of the word, a bit wanting, that the pace could've been improved. Undoubtedly the pacing sags when it's time for some dialogue heavy moments, but I suppose that is unavoidable when you're revisiting material.
However, its presentation of these controversial dialogue moments coupled with special effects, that will make you go wow. Truly, the technique is nothing original, and some of the visuals used looked like Return of the King and Kingdom of Heaven rejects, but as a whole, combined with the narrative, it helps to present the controversies in a more palatable manner. Casting, I felt, was spot on.
Tom Hanks makes Robert Langdon pretty accessible, given Hanks' everyman demeanor, and Audrey Tautou makes a believable Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen, probably THE actor with 2 summer blockbusters back to back (the other being X- Men 3), is convincing as the rich grail hunter Sir Leigh Teabing. Paul Bettany is chilling as the albino killer Silas, and Jean Reno and Alfred Molina round up the star studded cast as the detective Captain Fache and Bishop Aringarosa.
Much is said about the haunting soundtrack, but as far as I'm aware, there's nothing scary about it. Silas, in his scene of self-cleansing, is horrid enough though, as are some scenes of unexpected on screen violence that hit like a sack of potatoes falling from the sky. In the end, in spite of all the controversies, perhaps Robert Langdon's line is poignant - if given a chance, would you rather destroy faith, or renew it?
The book and the movie have provided an opportunity for the faith to renew itself, to debunk the myths and theories (which were developed loosely to make the story flow of course), and to generally point the curious to the direction and light the faith wants to show. Otherwise, this Ron Howard movie makes a good summer popcorn flick, with the usual thrills and spills you'd come to expect with its superb production values.
Link Copied.A few minutes after 4 p.m., Jack Bauer is summoned from his office atthe Los Angeles branch of the Counter Terrorism Unit to investigate themurder of a curator at the Getty Museum. The man's body has beenhorribly deformed by contamination with an unknown virus, but beforedying he was able to use one of his open pustules to paint a series ofcoded phrases on the museum floor. Jack cracks the code by consultingVan Gogh's painting Irises, and discovers that the virus derivesfrom a legendary flower-based compound last used against the Catharsduring the Albigensian Crusade. Jack traces the compound to a rogueoperation being run out of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, usingevidence he acquired by torturing an albino assassin sent after him byan overzealous undersecretary for ecumenical affairs. It's now 6 a.m.the next morning and Jack, accompanied by a pretty biologist from theCenters for Disease Control and a grandfatherly ex-spook (who may or maynot be what he seems), is on a private jet headed for Washington, DC.Unless he can get to the bottom of the conspiracy by afternoon, millionsof innocent Americans will die horribly in a Biblical plague.
Blip blip blip. Joel Surnow, the creator of '24,' reportedly tried to acquire the rights to The Da Vinci Codeto serve as the plot for the show's third season.
Of course, therearen't enough advertiser dollars in the universe to get the bestsellingnovel of all time to settle for network television treatment. But it's ashame, because despite the obvious challenges of adapting a medievaltheological conspiracy to a show about contemporary counterterrorism,'24' has a mood that would have well suited The Da Vinci Code-shamelesslypulpy, compulsively entertaining, and far more interested in heedlessforward motion than in having anything remotely thoughtful to say. (Notthat that's stopped both right and left from trying to appropriate the 'message' of '24.' Instead, we got a Major Motion Picture directed by Ron Howard,perhaps the single director least likely to rescue this material fromitself. The novel, despite some truly appalling prose on the part ofauthor Dan Brown, works pretty well as a potboiler: The pages go byquickly (though there are far too many of them), and the constantriddles and reversals are diverting enough if one doesn't contemplatethem too closely. The problem is that this resolutely silly bookactually takes itself rather seriously-and, worse, somehow managed topersuade millions of people who ought to have known better to do thesame. Enter Howard who, with a couple of notable exceptions (the 1982'Little Opie Cunningham' sketch from SNL, the too-marvelous-not-to-be-cancelled ),has devoted his adult life to making Frank Capra look like an ironist.The word 'earnest' is not itself earnest enough to convey theearnestness of Howard's filmmaking.
That this would be a problem wasevident even before The Da Vinci Code began shooting, when Howardlet it be known that he would try to alter the story to make it lessoffensive to Catholics. The idea itself was preposterous: This is, afterall, a book whose entire premise is that there is a millennia-oldconspiracy by the Catholic Church to hide the truth about Jesus'marriage to Mary Magdalene and thereby oppress women. (Not to mentionthe numerous murders committed by Church agents through the course ofthe story.) Moreover, Howard's eagerness to understand and mitigate theconcerns of those whom his film might offend essentially meant embracingthe moral gravity of a project that shouldn't have any moral gravity. Howard's alterations were generally minor: The hero, Robert Langdon(Tom Hanks), who in the book is a great enthusiast of the Magdaleneconspiracy theory, is in the film something of a skeptic. Of course,this is really a second-tier issue given that, regardless of the extentto which Langdon believes in the conspiracy, it turns out to be true.Howard also tones down Brown's insistence in the non-divinity ofChrist, suggesting that he might have been both the Son of God andthe husband of Mary. (Sadly, the film offers no speculation on whatkind of father-in-law the Almighty might make.) There are a smatteringof smaller tinkers, as well: In an apparent effort to assuage the albinoanti-defamation lobby, Silas the killer monk (Paul Bettany) isimplicitly rendered as a non-albino (albeit one with white hair andskin), his 'frightening, disembodied' red eyes replaced by Bettany's ownAqua Velva blues.
In the end, though, the primary impact of Howard's alterations is tomake an already absurdly self-important project even more so. Thehigh-mindedness of his theological compromises is almost enough to makeone nostalgic for the fierce, if idiotic, anti-clericalism of the novel.The result is a tepid, ponderous movie that behaves as if it hassomething important to say but is too nervous to tell us what it is. Noone in the cast seems to have much idea what the point of the film is(beyond making a billion dollars, of course), so they wander aimlesslythrough the proceedings. Hanks's performance as a superstar symbologist(who knew there was such a thing?) is far less interesting than hishairdo, which would not be out of place on someone who cooks muskrat fordinner. As policewoman/cryptologist Sophie Neveu, theglows at about 40 watts, well shy of her usual 100. And Jean Reno andAlfred Molina seem almost embarrassed at the obviousness of theircasting as a French policeman and scheming Opus Dei bishop,respectively.
A partial exception to the mass listlessness is Sir IanMcKellan, who brings a hint of randy old goat to the role of conspiracyhistorian Leigh Teabing. (Minus, of course, any actual randiness, whichwould be unseemly in so noble an endeavor as this: When he informsRobert and Sophie that, by bringing him along on their adventure,they've given him 'the best night of his life,' one feels something akinto pity.). I somehow managed to miss The Da Vinci Code when it was intheatres (I'm sure I must've been very, very busy), and my firstexposure to the film actually took place in my local video store. As Iwas perusing the shelves, I overheard snatches of dialogue from the(unseen) movie playing on the store television-something about a murky,diabolical conspiracy that had changed the course of human history.Perhaps mis-hearing 'Sion' as 'Cylon,' I thought for a moment it mightbe an episode of 'Battlestar Galactica.' In any case, it sounded like afun, clever B-grade entertainment about science fiction or the occult.It was, of course, none of those things.But all hope is not lost. Brian Grazer, who produced The Da Vinci Code,is also one of the executive producers of '24.'
And if there's anythingfor which Hollywood has shown considerable enthusiasm, it's therepackaging of proven moneymakers. Someday, perhaps, Jack Bauer will gethis shot at cracking 'The Van Gogh Cipher.' If nothing else, at leasthis hair will be less distracting. The Home Movies List: AdaptableThe Third Man (1949).
One of the greatest alterationsin cinematic history created one of the greatest endings. In GrahamGreene's original treatment, the last scene has Anna and Holly(actually, 'Rollo' in Greene's telling, another mistake) walking offtogether. Director Carol Reed won a fight with both Greene and producerDavid O. Selznick for his crueler, more beautiful conclusion. And thankgoodness.
The Name of the Rose (1986).Jean-Jacques Annaud's adaptation of the Umberto Eco bestseller wiselydownplayed the theology and concentrated on the detective story. Theproblem for The Da Vinci Code is that, apart from the riddles and pseudo-revelations, there really isn't any story. (Also, though it's become a cliche to describe Eco's subsequent book, Foucault's Pendulum, as a smarter Da Vinci Code,it is in fact true. The 1988 novel begins where Brown's book ends, withthe Magdalene coverup, before spinning out into a variety of ever moreoutlandish conspiracies. Though exponentially more erudite than The Da Vinci Code,the novel takes itself less seriously and concludes with a far subtlerobservation: that people will go to remarkable lengths even for thoseconspiracies that turn out not to be true.)L.A. Confidential (1997).The screenplay, by Brian Helgeland and director Curtis Hanson, is amasterpiece of compression, lopping off half a dozen or so of the manicsubplots of the James Ellroy novel-a child-murdering serial killer, apartnership between Exley's (still living) father and a character basedon Walt Disney, etc.
If only Helgeland and Hanson had come up with amore compelling finish than the shootout at the Victory Motel.Out of Sight (1998). Confidential is a case study in subtraction, Out of Sightdemonstrates the virtue of careful addition-in this case, a finalscene tacked onto the original Elmore Leonard story that brilliantfinesses its downbeat ending. The result is one of the most underratedfilms of the 1990s and still the best performance to date by justre-throned 'Sexiest Man Alive' George Clooney.Layer Cake (2004). Those who are eager for another helping of the rough-hewn charisma of new Bond Daniel Craig (or who are waiting for Casino Royale toarrive on video) can find him in this Guy Ritchie-esque gangster flick.But be forewarned: Though Craig is good, this is a plot that could haveused the Helgeland-Hanson treatment. The initial screenplay, adapted byJ.J. Connolly from his own novel, ran to over 400 pages-or long enoughfor a six-plus-hour film. Even in 105-minute final cut, a number ofclumsily amputated subplots still wave like phantom limbs.This post originally appeared at TNR.com.We want to hear what you think about this article.
To the editor or write to [email protected].
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |