By: Rianne Hill Soriano
Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen
Directed by: Ron Howard
Other than the theme exploring the inscrutable code about Jesus’ heretical bloodline, the film ‘Da Vinci Code’ is ironically conservative in presentation compared to what its detractors is condemning it for. In condemning a clear work of fiction as this even before its release mainly by staging boycotts and protests, it does become parallel to Jesus being condemned without thorough trial and investigation. In fact, the media hype has really worked out well for the producers’ income generation. But to the audience, it turns out to be an honest audio-visual counterpart to the book and yet too play safe in execution that it tends to become quite bland and disappointing just to get a PG-13 (and its film rating counterparts around the world) rating.
'Da Vinci Code’ seems to be a rehash of worn out themes explored in writing and various forms of art for decades and even centuries – only better, more creative and intellectually challenging this time with the genius of Dan Brown. And with his ‘fetish’ on art, codes, cryptology, symbols, anagrams, conspiracy theories, mysteries, and the like, the phenomenal success of his novel is naturally struck by worldwide protests – those who stand high have many blasts to shake them.
The film overtly tries to balance things out. Apart from it trying to clear itself by rendering no factual theological claims to alter historical chronicling (just pure combination of art, suspense and imagination), it presents a fictional story about ‘the blank supposition that Jesus and Mary Magdalene got married in par with the Jewish culture and that Leonardo Da Vinci inserting Mary Magdalene into his painting “The Last Supper” and representing the Grail bloodline by dichotomizing Jesus and Mary Magdalene with a V-contour boils down to one thing: to manifest the Grail as a womb.’
The film follows the book as written - which is rare in Hollywood. But this film version, as compared to the book, is quite a disappointment after all the hype it has gotten even before its release. The makers of the film have clearly become too cautious of the religious groups’ breakout that the film suffers tremendously. The impressive special effects including the creative presentation of the figuring out of the anagrams and the codes as extension of Robert Langdon’s mind and the ingeniously placed flashbacks make the film seamless in terms of visuals; but the film still looks too contrived in terms of emotional space and execution. The audience doesn’t get involved unlike with the book where the reader becomes part of Langdon’s mind, his search and his decoding. In the book, the reader is a part of the quest, of the action and of the emotion; but in the film, the viewer is just a mere spectator in the moviehouse. The viewer mostly watches Langdon’s back, his reactions and the seamless extension of his mind where the moving planets and well-lit letters are seen. He interprets the clues. He decodes. The audience watches. The audience is not anymore a part of the quest. Even the suspense and thrill of knowing what’s next is lost. Ron Howard carefully treats the visuals with tight and intimate shots and yet the audience can’t dig deeper than the superficial.
The story from the book is no doubt engaging: While in Paris on business, famed Harvard symbologist Professor Robert Langdon is summoned to the Louvre by the French version of the FBI, led by Captain Bezu Fache (Reno). With his own survival at stake, Langdon, together with French police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), solves the enigmatic riddle in reference to the death of Louvre gallery’s elderly curator who is scarred by unfathomable symbols drawn into his anatomy. Behind the mysterious trails of symbols and anagrams, clues on a series of stunning secrets ingeniously disguised in the works of Da Vinci lead to a covert society guarding an ancient secret that if unveiled shall shake the very foundations of the Catholic Church. All these set Langdon and Neveu off an adventure as they attempt to unravel such an ancient code to uncover the greatest mystery of all time in a breathless race through the Parisian landscape and across England.
It is quite understandable that the full glory of the novel cannot fit the two-hour requirement of this film version. But this is not an excuse for having poor layers and dimensions in its characterization and conflict. An issue as big as the unveiling of the truth behind the Holy Grail and stalking shadows of clues latent in the works of Da Vinci could have been an exciting, heart-pounding, creative and intellectual journey for the viewers while on their seats. But looks like the suspense-filled quest offered by a film like ‘National Treasure’ achieves this more than this one.
Acting-wise, Audrey Tautou (from the critically-acclaimed French film Amelie) validates her Sophie Neveu character. Sir Ian McKellen as Leigh Teabing gives effective layers for his character. Paul Bettany as Silas keeps a dose of sympathy for the viewers to evoke and a heart for the film’s emotional content more than anything and anybody else in the film. Alfred Molina gives nothing but a bland portrayal for his character as Bishop Aringarosa. At least, the bishop’s fellow Opus Dei (a clandestine, Vatican-sanctioned Catholic organization believed to have long plotted to seize the Priory’s secret – note: Opus Dei really exists but not much in the same fashion as in the novel) member Captain Bezu Fache gives justifiable dimension and color to the story as played by Jean Reno. Tom Hanks physically fits his role as Robert Langdon. On the surface, he exudes that Langdon presented in the book. However, the treatment for his character is substantially lacking depth that the audience doesn’t anymore become part of his quest.
For Columbia Pictures, the edge of making the novel into a ‘dream-come-true celluloid opus’ can obviously mean big box office and film history – feeding the public frenzy and cashing in good profitability and publicity stunts. For the followers of the book and those who want to feed their inquisitive and critical minds, and for the fans of Ron Howard or any of the cast, watching a famed novel in the big screen is a form of entertainment or something to exercise their creative minds to ponder and/or analyze things. Either you get inspired in things like delving into art history, cryptology and decoding or get disappointed with how the film has been done intellectually and artistically.
Having read the supposed prequel of this book entitled ‘Angels and Demons,’ it could have been better that the first book has been made into a film so that it doesn’t need to be too play safe on big screen (With the trend of Hollywood filmmaking nowadays… who knows… it could be next and it’s surely more grand in terms of plot and setting than the Da Vinci Code’). A brief background about ‘Angels and Demons,’ this novel introduces Robert Langdon in a suspense-thrilled quest filled with anagrams, art works and treasure hunting – a quest that tries to unite religion and science in an effective fictional story set during the Conclave times of the Vatican.
The ‘Da Vinci Code’ sparks fiery debates situated within the thin line of freedom of expression and religious sensitivity. How comparable is this issue with the Danish cartoon fiasco a few months ago? On a personal note, I would have to yield to the ‘Da Vinci Code’ undoubtedly expressing its creation as a story of clear fiction. But with the Danish cartoon issue that has been seen in a public daily, it goes beyond what fiction can bring.
For those who seek for complete entertainment, this film does not satisfy those seeking in-depth plot and character development. For those who seek for the truth, there wouldn’t be new answers to old questions. Perhaps, this film version is an interesting side-piece to those already fanatical about the book. But don’t expect to feel the same way with how the book has struck your heart and intellect as this considerably weak film adaptation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment