Movie Reviews
There was a moment, when reading The DaVinci Code, when I suddenly realized how utterly ridiculous everything I had read up to that point had been. It was as if my senses had just kicked in at that moment.
For all the people not included in the roughly forty-two million readers of Dan Brown�s massive bestseller, The DaVinci Code is the story of Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor of symbology and archeology. He�s accused of killing a curator in the Louvre in Paris, and in the twenty-four hours that follow we try to keep up as we�re thrown oodles of information about art, history, and Jesus. Brown�s novel is controversial because it � along with its characters � claims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that they had a child, and that the lineage of Jesus Christ reaches into our generation. Along the way, Brown is sure to undermine the foundation of most everything Christian.
But, to me, the book is so over-the-top that any person serious about their faith shouldn�t have a problem shaking off Brown�s statements.
With the release of �The DaVinci Code� in movie form, I was anxious to see how the countless facts and figures would make it to the screen. For the most part, Akiva Goldsmith�s screenplay is successful in presenting the history behind each claim. That said, we do have instances where a character might randomly spout information about a given art work or historical figure, all of which bring the narrative to an audibly screeching halt.
Brown�s novel is not particularly well-written. It most certainly lacks style. So it was a more-than-wise decision to have Ron Howard direct the film. Howard�s interpretation of the book is visually dynamic, containing wild, often colorful, lighting. Howard�s use of the camera hints a profound understanding of style, and not only where to use it, but how to use it.
No where is this all more appreciated than in the characterization. The book gave us relatively flat characters whose backgrounds were presented through series� of random, convenient flashbacks. These flashbacks are present in the movie, but at least they�re seen. Flashbacks are much more effective in film form, and realistic.
I heard that Tom Hanks got the starring role in �The DaVinci Code� as Robert Langdon without knowing who Dan Brown was or what his book was about. He had no preconception about the movie, to my knowledge, and because of this, Hanks successfully pulls off a plausible character. That says a lot about Hanks as an actor; the whole of �The DaVinci Code� is anything but plausible.
Hanks� Langdon is layered and genuine.
Of all the differences between the movie and the book (story wise, there are very few), the most defining is the character of Robert Langdon. In the book, Langdon not only knows the �true story of Jesus,� he believes it. In the film, Langdon knows the story, but is inherently skeptical. This works on a level the book never reached. You see, the book was so void of characters who felt different about the Holy Grail that it all seemed like Brown himself was preaching. It was like he couldn�t decide whether he was telling us a story of fact or fiction, when it is obviously, historically fiction.
On the totally other hand, Ron Howard�s film knows exactly what it is. It�s an absorbing, stylish, well-acted piece of fiction. Could the ending have been better? Sure, but I�d still rather watch the movie than read the book. ***