Despite the protests and bad reviews, The Da Vinci Code performed very well at the box office this past weekend. But as the closing credits of The Da Vinci Code slowly crawled up the Port Chester movie screen Friday night, my friend and I found ourselves asking the same question: did Ron Howard actually read the book? And if so, how did he manage to adapt the book into an unbearably slow and plodding film? The Oscar-winning director has simply failed miserably in re-creating the puzzle-solving, cat and mouse game scenes which are the heart of the novel's appeal (see Wikipedia's long list of differences between the book and film). The Da Vinci Code should have been fast, light, and filled with quick-witted code breaking. It should have been fun. Instead, the film moves at a snails pace, and leaves the viewer cold from start to finish. Compared with the book, there's less da Vinci, and even less 'Code' in this dark, brooding film. The zombie-like acting of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou, along with the the ever-present bombastic score, makes this film almost unbearable to sit though, especially if you've read the novel. The only relief comes in the form of Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing.
One of the most important aspects of Sophie Neveu's relationship with her grandfather, Jacques Sauniere, is her memory of accidentally walking in on a Priory of Sion ritual involving her grandfather who was being penetrated by a woman playing the male role to his female. Yet, in the film, this traumatic event is given barely passing reference. The audience doesn't even know that it's the main reason she hadn't spoken with him for ten years. In the novel, Langdon and Neveu start an intimate relationship at the end of the story. But in the film, Langdon kisses Sophie on the forehead after she reunites with her family and heads back to Paris without her. Perhaps Howard changed the ending when it became clear to him that Hanks and Tautou had zero chemistry on the screen. So, what the went wrong? Ron Howard ended up making a heavy drama, not a conspiracy thriller. Perhaps he just didn't understand how to pace this film because of the dialog. Perhaps he forgot what made Raiders of the Lost Ark such a joyride of a film. In a perfect world the novel would have been written by Umberto Eco, and the film would be directed by Peter Jackson, or M. Night Shyamalan. But, alas, we live in a fallen world. Maybe someday a director will have an opportunity to get it right.
Meanwhile the Catholic faithful continue to protest the film even though they are probably helping the film's box office performance. The photo above shows people protesting the film by the main entrance of the new Lowes multiplex in Port Chester. I spoke with them about the poor reviews, but they don't see bad reviews lessening the film's dire impact on Christianity. One woman explained that the movie will cause many to doubt the New Testament, and the authority of the Catholic Church, and that's why they were all going to be back next weekend to protest the film again. I didn't have the nerve to tell them I thought it was a good thing for people to question long-held beliefs, especially since they were saying the rosary for all us sinners passing by.
Update: Here are some of the differences between the book and film listed on Wikipedia:
There is no second cryptex inside the first. The solution to the cryptex (and the mirrored writing found on the panel behind the rose logo on the box) is the same as the second one in the book. This is one that annoyed me the most. The reader is excited as the first cryptex is solved with Sophie's name as the five letter password (Sofia). However, instead of finding the map, there is a smaller cryptex inside the larger one which protects the final clue to the location of the holy grail. Sophie mentions in the novel that it was just like her grandfather to create "codes within codes" in order to test the puzzle solver.
In the book, the fact that Sophie was a cryptologist was used to solve puzzles, whereas in the movie, it was only mentioned once at the Louvre. Code breaking is really at the heart of this book, and what saves it from being a cookie-cutter thriller. By almost ignoring this fact, Howard creates a Sophie Neveu character much less dynamic and pro-active than in the novel.
In the movie, Langdon counsels Sophie that it may not necessarily be important or right to prove the bloodline; that it will have to be largely her choice, and that it could be a matter of faith and of deciding which set of beliefs to promote; asking if the proof really matters, anyway. In the book, an explanation is given earlier that the "two" versions of history are merely different, not necessarily making one totally correct over the other, an explanation missing from the movie. This is another crucial point that the film misses: the Code simply presents another version of the greatest story ever told.
Since the recent death of Swedish director Igmar Bergman, I’ve been thinking of his many films I’ve seen over the years. The one that still haunts me today is his 1961 Academy Award winner, The Virgin Spring. I first saw it twelve years ago, shortly after being laid off from my print shop assistant job. One day I decided to borrow a few movies from the local library. In my melancholy state, I was naturally drawn to the small foreign film section. Later that night, I was transported to a much simpler time where the young virgin daughter of a devout Christian farmer rides horseback for miles to bring candles to the nearest church. I didn’t know what to make of the film at first, but it made me forget my unemployment woes for a little while.
Recent Comments