THE DA VINCI CODE (**)
If you’ve been vacationing away from Earth for the past two months or so, you might have missed the hubbub surrounding the release THE DA VINCI CODE in theaters this past week. Called blasphemous and misleading, Christians around the world have been calling for bans and boycotts. Though I myself believe in God but not in religion, I understand the Church’s desires to defend their creeds. But isn’t calling for suppression of Dan Brown’s ideas odd, when religious groups have been calling for the free expression of their own beliefs in places where they’ve been suppressed?
As you can see, I’m against the film’s censorship. But I hope you understand why I must now tell you to avoid it if you can. Not because it is false, but because it is faulty. It contains historical information that must have been laboriously researched, but its two mistakes, which are its 1st and 3rd acts, are as equally arduous. How ironic that a movie that relies heavily on a Passover image, must itself be passed over.
Now, to inform you illiterate vacationers from Mars, the movie involves Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a renowned Harvard Professor of Religious Symbology who comes upon and is asked to solve the murder of Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle), a curator of the Louvre who is found murdered and sprawled naked in the position of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man.” Along the way he gains the help of Jacques’s granddaughter and cryptographer Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), along with his old colleague Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), an authority on the Holy Grail.
Naturally, this being a murder mystery, our three protagonists uncover who murdered whom and why. But as every reader by now well knows, the whodunit is a clothesline on which Dan Brown hangs his controversial claims on. I need not go over what these assertions are, as everyone else already has (including yours truly), but they really are interesting even if they do sound ludicrous, as they represent the underlying concerns (e.g. gender inequality, religious politics, and Christ’s dual nature) of the Church in contemporary times.
Yet it is that very meat of the story that is undercooked. With its languid buildup and unfocused priorities, the movie nearly loses us, with initial clues that lack urgency, character backgrounds that are incoherently introduced, and exotic locales without wonder. Could it be the drab lighting? The drawn out pacing? A prior knowledge of what to expect? Tom Hanks’s mane? Whatever it is, it only inspires annoyance and ennui.
Thankfully, the film’s 2nd act is nearly its saving grace, and is bookmarked by the entrance of Ian McKellen. His exuberance and charm wake us up as his character gets straight to the point. His royal diction and rhythmic delivery interlaced with fascinating historical renderings feel like National Geographic at its best. A particular depiction that stands out is the (1st ) Council of Nicaea, as it has always evaded my imagination. No one of course can say for sure what it must have really been like, but it was nice of director Ron Howard to try.
The movie maintains this middle ground quite nicely with an extremist priest Silas (Paul Bettany), a scheming bishop (Alfred Molina), and a relentless police captain (Jean Reno, who seems to have wandered here from RONIN). And right up to its climax, with its twists and revelations, it seems ready to redeem itself. But it commits the same mistake, protracting more tract than was thought possible. With even more elucidations and information, it’s as if it falls on its own dagger after careful removal, bleeding whatever life it has left.
To counter such criticism, fans will say the movie is merely being faithful to the text. Friends, what works for a book will not necessarily work for a film. Some of the greatest films (e.g. THE GODFATHER, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, JAWS) deviate significantly from their sources, and surpass them. Though there are others that are true to a fault when adapted, regardless of how well known their material is before being brought to the big screen (e.g. The HARRY POTTER and LORD OF THE RINGS series), such films rely on visualizing what was once deemed unfilmable; on creating new images to feed our imagination. When it comes to Dan Brown’s work, the visual scope is not as large, the locales not too distant, and its participants all-too-human.
Tom Hanks is gold when his characters’ motivations are clear. Robert Langdon is not one of those characters. Aside from being claustrophobic, there is little personal substance behind his vast encyclopedic knowledge. Aside from being told of a trauma in his youth, any glimpse of it or its effect is never on the film’s mind. Audrey Tautou can be the queen of subtle whimsy and vulnerability, but here she’s totally miscast when more direct and varied emotions are required of her character (Juliette Binoche might have been the perfect fit). And Ron Howard is a fine filmmaker who can direct any genre with bouts of inspiration (e.g. APOLLO 13, PARENTHOOD), but cracks are showing in his armor, as his torpid pacing and missed moments become all too obvious here.
Groups who are concerned about how they might be depicted shouldn’t be concerned, as the film even points out the very aberrations and key debating points that they mention. But the main reason why they have little to worry about is because the film shoots itself in the foot. Twice. For all the good Ian McKellen brings it, THE DA VINCI CODE is a bore.
Posted by FLIPCRITIC at May 22, 2006 03:08 AM