As I walked out of the theatre, I had just one question for Ron Howard – “How in the world do you make a mess out of a book, which was written in form of a movie screenplay!â€
I had been waiting for Da Vinci Code since a long time now – having enjoyed the book thoroughly, I was hoping that with Tom Hanks at the helm, the movie would be nothing short of classic. However the choice of director had always bothered me; Ron Howard is not exactly a man with golden egg – his Apollo 13 was a great movie, however none of his movies like Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, were movies that you would consider repeat-watch material. All his movies since Apollo 13 have had good subjects, however dully executed. Though it must be said that each of his movies always boasted of excellent performances by its lead characters though.
Its sad however, even that is sorely missing from The Da Vinci Code. For most part of the movie, Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon looks totally miscast and out of place – his acting is wooden and listless even if I may so. The supporting cast does no better; Audrey Tatou as Sophie Neveu is just about adequate – she smiles at the right points, displays some amount of intelligence in others, displays sadness when necessary, and for most part plays the deer in headlights very well, as for the most part she is just an audience to Robert Langdon’s “Did you know?!†quiz cards.
Hence, coming back to Ron Howard, I always had my premonition about how good this movie could turn out to be – what I didn’t expect was how bad Ron Howard ended up making it.
Talking about the plot of the movie is pretty much pointless – everyone’s grandmother has heard of “The Da Vinci Code†by now. And in any case, as the subject deals with solving puzzles and discovering hidden mysteries, it is always a plus if you have read the book before you saw this movie; unlike other movies where the movie might suffice, and provide an alternative to those who don’t read novellas, the case with “The Da Vinci Code†is different. Which perhaps, is also its biggest problem as while when translating it into a movie – for there is no conclusive way you can throw up a puzzle on screen and expect the audience to get involved and rack their brains, when its very well expected that the characters are going to solve the puzzle in the very next scene.
Having Dan Brown as the producer of the movie pretty much ensured that Ron Howard would not be given the one most important thing he needed: a pair of scissors. And editing services were never even considered I presume. Which, pretty much shows up in the movie – the movie is languishingly long at 2 hours 30 minutes, and often if I may say, boring! There were several times I was actually checking out my watch to calculate the remaining time; While the part in the middle about Priory of Sion and its real motive for existence and protection of Mary Magdalene’s family tree is dealt with superb control, drama and thrill in the book, the same part in the movie lacks any drama, thrill or the “wow†factor, thereby exposing the very flaws that were very much present in the book as well, but we as readers chose to ignore it over the thrill element – for how in the world can 3 people whose lives are in grave danger actually get into a theological debate about history 2000 years ago? In the book it makes sense – unfortunately in the movie, it looks whacked out.
Sequences like above are a plenty in the movie, where sequences in the book served as good pit stops for quick puzzles, history and hidden mysteries, sadly the same does not come across in the movie very well. The flashback scenes of Sophie seemed forced, so were the scenes of Opus Dei’s Ascetic inflicting pain on himself.
Characterization is also perhaps another weak point of the movie for which an audience cannot really connect to the mysteries being solved – Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) or Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou) never comes across as a pair whose life is in grave danger, but instead come across a globe-trotting participants in an episode of “The Amazing Raceâ€. Also, Ron Howard in his attempt to “Offend no one†by making his characters milder, and appropriately changing a couple of dialogues and smoothening them out, ends up “Entertaining no oneâ€. St Peter in Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper†painting is not even addressed, nor is the mystery behind “Madonna on the rocks†– perhaps he didn’t want to take too many chances.
Controversies usually help a movie of such subject very well – why it helped the book tremendously! But controversy generates hype, and too much hype can lead too many expectations, and ultimately unfulfilled expectations. Same is the case with “The Da Vinci Code†– the movie ultimately becomes a victim of its own hype.
The movie is not as bad as critics claim it to be, and its content cannot be dismissed as an altogether ridiculous as well. The subject matter of the book has always been point of debate. Its definitely a one time watch, no doubts, and perhaps a few who didn’t read the book may also find it interesting enough to pick up the book itself. But at the end of it, given the subject matter and amount of information Ron Howard had in his hands to play, the movie could have easily become an instant classic, as the book is edging towards being one.
Coming to the controversies and Church / Opus Dei and all that connection – as Robert Langdon says in the end (now I am sure this was added to the movie), why is it a problem if Christ had married Mary and they bore a child? Would that fact make Christ any lesser god or mortal? If Christ was a man, would it make him any less divine than he is? After all religion is a matter of faith and nothing else. However that debates in itself a point of another post.
All in all, Da Vinci Code, is well, quite a mess of a movie. Even Da Vinci would’ve preferred redrawing his paintings after watching the movie.