You can spin a lot of tales around religion and catholicism in general. Let's face it, a lot of the Church's movements are still shrouded in mystery and many writers have been trying to either expose some of it or use several of the myths into a tale of their own. I've read tons of books about all sorts of conspiracy theories surrounding Jesus, his disciples or the men of the cloth who are serving Him, the machinations of what once was the single mightiest organisation in the world, the ways it got to the top and its rapid descent in influence, though still important in many societies. The power the Catholic Church still exudes leads to all sorts of stories and, just like the CIA and KGB their secrecies remain fascinating for the general public and a large, easy base for writers to build their premises on.
Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code (and its more impressive predecessor Angels & Demons) does bring up a set of revelations that are quite sensationalistic but for me that was not the main importance of the book. Its subject is the chase for the Holy Grail through a set of puzzles. Brown has a knack for anagrams and riddles which dictate the pace of the tale; it's in fact the revelations themselves that deter from making this a full blood pacey thriller. The fact that he embedded in several of his books clues that led to a location, an Ellery Queen-like 'challenge to the reader' to solve the mystery is proof that next to the theories he unfolded the puzzle-element was at least equally as important.
To transfer this to a screen would be tough. As much as the puzzles are vital to the book, it would take out the pace of the thriller Ron Howard was set to make. As a result the film became more about the conspiracies. The speed in which those had to be fed to the public was breathtaking. As controlled as Dan Brown surfaced revelation after revelation, so rushed did they came up in the film. It was most notable in the scene where Neveu and Langdon visit Leigh Teabing in chateau Villette and get the whole story dished up so fast, including an interactive slideshow on a screen that was already set up for the occasion. The whole conspiracy was brought so rushed and muddy it undermined the credibility of the story.
Naturally while scripting a reasonably detailed book as Brown's it means making sacrifices to the storyline. While for the most part the book's remained intact, the biggest crime the scriptwriters have made is to spoil the revelation of the Teacher's identity the way they did; in the book Langdon and Neveu are lured to Westminster Abbey after Teabing's kidnapper summons them there; the film skips that part and reveals the kidnapper earlier in the story. Shame, it was well worked out and would have worked nicely in the film too, making the revelation more of a shock.
The film portrays Langdon much cleverer than he is in the book- there he reaches some of his conclusions through bumbling and fumbling along which renders his character more believable and more sympathetic. Which lays bare the main gripe I have- Tom Hanks (complete with hideous hairstyle) portrays Langdon so robot-like you just wonder if it wouldn't be the same if this was an episode of Star Trek and commander Data was the main character. Ian McKellen and Jean Reno are much better but have more expressive roles to begin with, Audrey Tautou's character only comes to life through the flashbacks in which she doesn't appear.
And those conspiracy theories? I've always been a believer of the dogma that the more you know the less fantastic the real truth becomes...religion has thrived for so long on the mysteries of faith which in itself is an enigma considering the restless inquisitiveness of humankind. I am a sucker for a good story but that's all that The Da Vinci Code means to me.
**1/2
No comments:
Post a Comment