I have read the book The Da Vinci Code many years ago, thanks to a colleague at my new job, who noticed that I like books. He said why don't I try this author, who was just starting to get attention and that his latest book just joined the New York Times bestsellers list. So I gave in and he lent me this huge book titled 'The Da Vinci Code' (it was not yet printed in paperback then). I probably spent a couple of nights with not much sleep pouring over the riveting story; I searched the net over the Priory of Scion; I've downloaded pictures of Leonardo's paintings and frescoes -- even of Caravaggio; I googled the Holy Grail; but not for once was my religious belief shaken (I knew of Opus Dei when I was only a teen). I knew that Catholicism was founded in bloodshed -- it was but governed by men, and that man can falter. Did I for one bit believed that Mary Magdalene was a partner of Christ? No. For all we know she could just be one obsessive fan who stalked Jesus throughout his evangelization and claimed that she carries his child. It could happen; Jesus was a popular figure during his time; he is what some may call in our time: a pop idol.
So much for that, and now let's tackle the movie that is creating so much stir months before its release; the religious sector was clamouring for the followers of Christ not to watch the movie and that theatre owners not to show it on their cinemas. Protestations only attracted more attention and publicity led the movie to total blockbuster hit. I was looking forward to this movie adaptation after I read the book for the first time, as rumours were already spreading then that some Hollywood people had bought the rights. With so much hype surrounding the film, I went to the theatre with a lot of expectations and went home disappointed.
The Da Vinci Code was a work of fiction -- written with intrigues making Dan Brown's novel a religious conspiracy thriller; but when it was transported into another medium, it seemed to have lost its punch. It was a meticulous literal book-to-film translation. They struggled to cram everything from the book into this two and a half hour movie, leaving it both overstuffed and underwhelming. The filmmakers should have taken into consideration that this is a popular novel and that millions of people have read it at least once before going to the theatre, and that these same people compose most of their audience.
I know that there is much historical background that needs to be explained, but the film came out as far too talky and pretentious -- everything was explained twice. Filmmakers should follow the footsteps of Peter Jackson whenever they need to turn a book into a movie -- by using the language of film to tell the story: with images. Gandalf told much of the history of the ring in a long narrative dialogue, but we saw it in the beginning of the film with a voiceover not saying what we can obviously see in the images. I even winced when Sophie (Audrey Tatou) finally met her grandmother and the old woman said that she has so much to tell about their family; I felt like we were in for another five-minute monologue.
Tom Hanks depicted Robert Langdon as a wooden character and too reactive and contemplative to be a hero. Sophie Neveu, who was supposed to be a police cryptologist, didn't even break any codes except for the Fibonacci sequence. Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) has no plausible reason (as shown in the movie) to believe Langdon to be the killer. Lt. Collet was reduced to just an ordinary cop when, in fact, he was the one to broke the case in the novel. And why must the viewer be subjected to Silas' (Paul Bettany), the angel of death albino-monk, self-flagellation more than once? The movie only got interesting when Ian McKellen finally appeared at Sir Leigh Teabing; here we saw an actor having fun with his character.
After all the broken codes and all the chasing through famous locations, it all boiled down on what you, as a viewer, believe. Ron Howard did not even dared to irk the Roman Catholic Church -- he played it safe; the book's theories were all thrown into the gutter, for the raving, lunatic Lord Teabing uttered them. I am not sure if Dan Brown is happy with the film, because it took away the book's little credibility and made the flaws more obvious. This is not the movie that could shake neither one’s faith nor the very foundation of mankind.
No comments:
Post a Comment