chefranden Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Don't ya just love it when your opinion is seconded by the New Yorker? HEAVEN CAN WAIT “The Da Vinci Code.” by ANTHONY LANE Issue of 2006-05-29 Posted 2006-05-22 The story of “The Da Vinci Code” goes like this. A dead Frenchman is found laid out on the floor of the Louvre. His final act was to carve a number of bloody markings into his own flesh, indicating, to the expert eye, that he was preparing to roll in fresh herbs and sear himself in olive oil for three minutes on each side. This, however, is not the conclusion reached by Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a professor of symbology at Harvard, who happens to be in Paris. Questioned by Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), the investigating policeman at the scene, Langdon starts rabbiting about pentacles and pagans and God knows what. But what does God know, exactly? And can He keep His mouth shut? Help arrives in the shape of Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a police cryptographer. She turns out to be the granddaughter of the deceased, and a dab hand at reversing down Paris streets in a car the size of a pissoir. This is useful, since she and Langdon are soon on the run, convinced that Fache is about to nail the professor on a murder charge—the blaming of Americans, on any pretext, being a much loved Gallic sport. Our hero, needing somebody to trust, does the same dumb thing that every fleeing innocent has done since Robert Donat in “The Thirty-nine Steps.” He and Sophie visit a cheery old duffer in the countryside and spill every possible bean. In this case, the duffer is Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), who lectures them on the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D. We get a flashback to the council in question, and I must say that, though I have recited the Nicene Creed throughout my adult life, I never realized that it was originally formulated in the middle of a Beastie Boys concert. Fache is not the only hunter on Langdon’s scent. There is also Silas (Paul Bettany), a cowled albino monk whose hobbies include self-flagellation, multiple homicide, and irregular Latin verbs. He works for Opus Dei, the Catholic organization so intensely secretive that its American headquarters are tucked away in a seventeen-story building on Lexington Avenue. Silas answers to Bishop Aringarosa (Alfred Molina), who in turn answers to his cell phone, his Creator, and not much else. Between them, they track Langdon and Sophie to England, where a new villain, hitherto suspected by nobody except the audience, is prevented from shooting his quarry because, unusual for London, there is a gaggle of nuns in the way—God’s Work if ever I saw it, although I wouldn’t say so to a member of Opus Dei. The task of the Bishop and his hit man is to thwart the unveiling of what Teabing modestly calls “the greatest secret in modern history,” so powerful that, “if revealed, it would devastate the very foundations of Christianity.” Later, realizing that this sounds a little meek and mild, he stretches it to “the greatest coverup in human history.” As a rule, you should beware of any movie in which characters utter lines of dialogue whose proper place is on the advertising poster. (Just imagine Sigourney Weaver, halfway through “Alien,” turning to John Hurt and explaining, “In space, no one can hear you scream.”) There is a nasty sense in “The Da Vinci Code” that, not unlike Langdon, we are being bullied into taking its pronouncements at face value. Such nagging has a double effect. First, any chance to enjoy the proceedings as hokum—as a whip-cracking quest along the lines of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”—is rapidly stifled and stilled. Second, one’s natural reaction to arm-twisters of any description is to wriggle free, turn around, and kick them in the pentacles. So here goes. There has been much debate over Dan Brown’s novel ever since it was published, in 2003, but no question has been more contentious than this: if a person of sound mind begins reading the book at ten o’clock in the morning, at what time will he or she come to the realization that it is unmitigated junk? The answer, in my case, was 10:00.03, shortly after I read the opening sentence: “Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery.” With that one word, “renowned,” Brown proves that he hails from the school of elbow-joggers—nervy, worrisome authors who can’t stop shoving us along with jabs of information and opinion that we don’t yet require. (Buried far below this tic is an author’s fear that his command of basic, unadorned English will not do the job; in the case of Brown, he’s right.) You could dismiss that first stumble as a blip, but consider this, discovered on a random skim through the book: “Prominent New York editor Jonas Faukman tugged nervously at his goatee.” What is more, he does so over “a half-eaten power lunch,” one of the saddest phrases I have ever heard. Should we mind that forty million readers—or, to use the technical term, “lemmings”—have followed one another over the cliff of this long and laughable text? I am aware of the argument that, if a tale has enough grip, one can for a while forget, if not forgive, the crumbling coarseness of the style; otherwise, why would I still read “The Day of the Jackal” once a year? With “The Da Vinci Code,” there can be no such excuse. Even as you clear away the rubble of the prose, what shows through is the folly of the central conceit, and, worse still, the pride that the author seems to take in his theological presumption. How timid—how undefended in their powers of reason—must people be in order to yield to such preening? Are they reading “The Da Vinci Code” because everybody on the subway is doing the same, and, if so, why, when they reach their stop, do they not realize their mistake and leave it on the seat, to be gathered up by the next sucker? Despite repeated attempts, I have never managed to crawl past page 100. As I sat down to watch “The Da Vinci Code,” therefore, I was in the lonely, if enviable, position of not actually knowing what happens. Stumbling out from the final credits, tugging nervously at my goatee, I was none the wiser. The film is directed by Ron Howard and written by Akiva Goldsman, the master wordsmith who brought us “Batman & Robin.” I assumed that such an achievement would result in Goldsman’s being legally banned from any of the verbal professions, but, no, here he is yet again. As far as I am qualified to judge, the film remains unswervingly loyal to the book, displaying an obedience that Silas could not hope to match. I welcome this fidelity, because it allows us to propose a syllogism. The movie is baloney; the movie is an accurate representation of the book; therefore, the book is also baloney, although it takes even longer to consume. Movie history is awash, of course, with fine pictures that have been made from daft or unreadable books; indeed, you are statistically more likely to squeeze a decent movie out of a potboiler than you are out of a novel of high repute. The trouble with Howard’s film is that it is far too dense and talkative to function efficiently as a thriller, while also being too credulous and childish to bear more than a second’s scrutiny as an exploration of religious history or spiritual strife. There is plenty going on here, from gunfights to masked orgiastic rituals and mini-scenes of knights besieging Jerusalem, yet the outcome feels at once ponderous and vacant, like a damp and deconsecrated Victorian church. This is grim news for Tom Hanks, who has served Howard gamely in the past. How does the genial mermaid-lover of “Splash,” or the jockish team player of “Apollo 13,” feel about being stranded in this humorless grind? Apart from Paul Bettany, who finds a leached and pale-eyed terror in his avenging angel, the other players seem bereft. Molina, so violently vulnerable in “Spider-Man 2,” is given no room to breathe, and, as for Audrey Tautou, it is surely no coincidence that Howard sought out and hired almost the only young French actress who emits not a hint of sexual radiation. “The Da Vinci Code” may ask us to believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that she bore him a child, and that the Catholic Church has spent two thousand years not merely concealing this but enforcing its distaste for the feminine (and thus for all bodily delight), but did the movie have to be quite so pallid and prudish about breaking the news? Whose side is it on, anyway? Behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, except at Columbia Pictures, where the power lunches won’t even be half-started. The Catholic Church has nothing to fear from this film. It is not just tripe. It is self-evident, spirit-lowering tripe that could not conceivably cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith. Meanwhile, art historians can sleep easy once more, while fans of the book, which has finally been exposed for the pompous fraud that it is, will be shaken from their trance. In fact, the sole beneficiaries of the entire fiasco will be members of Opus Dei, some of whom practice mortification of the flesh. From now on, such penance will be simple—no lashings, no spiked cuff around the thigh. Just the price of a movie ticket, and two and a half hours of pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Faery Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Ugh, I'm so happy I didn't go see the da vinci code this weekend. It is as bad as it sounds. I'll just rent it from Netflix when it comes out on dvd. The thing is, the novel was huge, Brown is a multimillionaire many times over, I don't understand why Ron Howard tried to make it a pc movie. It sounds like he wanted to appeal to both the xians and skeptics, whereas in the book, the plot and characters favor questioning xianity and are in favor of the sacred feminine. I don't understand, if the novel made so much money, then why didn't Howard make the movie for those of us who read it? After all controversy is what made the novel sell millions of copies. I mean didn't Ron Howard think about this? Ugh. What a disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 The film is directed by Ron Howard and written by Akiva Goldsman, the master wordsmith who brought us “Batman & Robin.” I assumed that such an achievement would result in Goldsman’s being legally banned from any of the verbal professions, but, no, here he is yet again. I wonder if Mr. Anthony Lane delivered his critique of Batman and Robin with such biting sarcasm? I'm no fan of the book, and I haven't seen the movie. But unless this critic gives the same amount of attention to other fiction writings, why would he go so overboard to smear the Code? He wouldn't happen to be a christian, would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entgegen Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Ugh, I'm so happy I didn't go see the da vinci code this weekend. It is as bad as it sounds. My philosophy on these kinda' things is critics can go fuck themselves; see it (or read it) for yourself and make up your own mind. I personaly think it's a shame that people rely on the incredibly subjective opinions of others to dictate how they feel about/act towards things. If you like it, then it's a good movie/book, damnit (by the way, I feel this way about everything, not just the Da Vinci Code). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted May 27, 2006 Author Share Posted May 27, 2006 Ugh, I'm so happy I didn't go see the da vinci code this weekend. It is as bad as it sounds. My philosophy on these kinda' things is critics can go fuck themselves; see it (or read it) for yourself and make up your own mind. I personaly think it's a shame that people rely on the incredibly subjective opinions of others to dictate how they feel about/act towards things. If you like it, then it's a good movie/book, damnit (by the way, I feel this way about everything, not just the Da Vinci Code). The purpose of a critic is to help you not waste money and especially time on crap. Ya find 3 critics that you usually agree with, then when 2 of them pan something you don't bother with it. If all three pan it then you are justified in burning the venue in which the offending art piece appears. See how that works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entgegen Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 I realize the purpose of a critic, I just don't agree with it. Maybe it's me, but I don't much care for the fact that people are so easily swayed by the opinions of others...but then I guess that's a fault of those being swayed rather than those doing the swaying. Sadly, the world we live in is not one in which people form their own informed, unbiased opinions on things. But my point still stands. I saw the movie, and I thought it was great. Had I listened to the critics, I wouldn't have discovered a movie that I really liked. But just for the record, I'm not just a Da Vinci Code "fanboy" trying to push the movie, it's just that this isn't the first time I've gone against the grain and found something I enjoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcissist Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 It doesn't bode well when a review is more compelling and entertaining than the thing it is reviewing. I was worried that I'd have to see this movie with a friend of mine, but now that he's got himself a girlfriend, I have been released from that obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I just have to say "To each his own." I enjoyed the book immensely. I don't CARE that it isn't true. It was an interesting read. The movie on the other hand, while remaining relatively true to the book, left much to be desired. Sofie was not what I had pictured. Hanks was most DEFINITELY not suited for the part of Langdon. Sir Ian fit the part of the villain pretty well. The actor who played Silas...no...not really it either. I pictured Silas much larger. The guy was a good actor, and if he had been the right size, then sure...he would have been good. Anyway. Movie not so great, book very good...IMNSVHO. And by the way...after reading that entire article...the guy is most definitely a pissed off Christian. How pathetic is it to use your position as a film critic to lambast something based merely on the fact that it speaks out against your religion. Satanic Verses anyone? Should Dan Brown begin watching his back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 And by the way...after reading that entire article...the guy is most definitely a pissed off Christian. How pathetic is it to use your position as a film critic to lambast something based merely on the fact that it speaks out against your religion. Satanic Verses anyone? Should Dan Brown begin watching his back? I read the whole review and found nothing in it to suggest to me that the critic was a christian! I thought it was a GREAT review, very entertaining. I'll still see the movie, but movies never live up to their books. I've seen the movie The Relic and the book was SO much better! This is just the way things are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Even as you clear away the rubble of the prose, what shows through is the folly of the central conceit, and, worse still, the pride that the author seems to take in his theological presumption. This statement alone makes the author's own "theological presumption" clear. Who else but a believer in the god of the bible is going to pound Brown saying that his writing is "folly" and that he shows "pride" in it? I've read the book. There is no "pride" evident in what he's writing. The only reason to call it "folly" is if you adamantly believe that Jesus existed and even the idea that he had anything other than a platonic relationship with Mary Magdalene is blasphemous. He's writing a damned work of FICTION, not a doctoral thesis on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. It's ENTERTAINMENT for christ's sake (pun intended)! This guy is so obviously a pissed off christian attempting to belittle the author. If he doesn't like Brown's writing style, fine. He should critique Brown's writing style. If he thinks the movie was crap, fine, he should critique the actors, the screenplay, the directing. But he shouldn't try to mask his own "theological presumption" behind a critique of Brown's work. Typical of christians. I'd like to read this guy's critiques of some other authors and films and see exactly how harsh he is with them. Let's see if he calls Mel Gibson's "theological presumptions" "folly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Some people hate the book/movie simply because it is doing so well and is so popular...though they would never admit it. Gotta be "different", ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 Some people hate the book/movie simply because it is doing so well and is so popular...though they would never admit it. Gotta be "different", ya know? I admit that it is popular, and I don't care. Gilligan's Island was popular too for Pete sake! That doesn't make it good. Christianity is popular too. Does that make it good? Blah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Some people hate the book/movie simply because it is doing so well and is so popular...though they would never admit it. Gotta be "different", ya know? I admit that it is popular, and I don't care. Gilligan's Island was popular too for Pete sake! That doesn't make it good. Christianity is popular too. Does that make it good? Blah! I don't think anyone is saying it should be liked because it is popular. I admit the book has some cheesy dialogue, but overall, I enjoyed it...and not because everyone else read it. I enjoyed it because it dealt with a subject in which I was interested and I was able to look beyond the shortcomings. To each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Some people hate the book/movie simply because it is doing so well and is so popular...though they would never admit it. Gotta be "different", ya know? I admit that it is popular, and I don't care. Gilligan's Island was popular too for Pete sake! That doesn't make it good. Christianity is popular too. Does that make it good? Blah! How dare you. Gilligan's Island was awesome. Good day, sir. Good day. Lol...i watched an episode of GI about a year ago and I couldnt believe that I ever watched it. The fake background laughing was driving me nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts