The Trouble with The Da Vinci Code

Sita dragged me to see this one last Thursday. I would like to plead the following mitigating circumstances:

A full-on tropical thunderstorm that forced me to unplug the telly and broadband in case we got a direct hit. Intermittent power cuts meaning no light to play scrabble or whatever it is people did in the days before telly and internets… Anyroad, what the hey, we’d end up seeing it eventually on a bus or plane, so we drove the 5 blocks to the cinema through flooded streets thick with cars and non-functioning traffic lights and found a parking spot deep in the bowels of the Centro Magno.

Here’s my review of the book almost 2 years ago to the day, which I still stand by.

29-May-04 The Da Vinci Code- Dan Brown

Really didn’t expect much from this one… priests, artists and French police… but my mate Roberto lent it to me and it was pretty hard to put down. It leads you by the hand through a murder mystery with clues full of classical allusions fully explained at every step. There’s little room to ponder what’s coming next and puzzles and conundrums are solved within pages of their occurring. Which is fine, and along the way there’s plenty of heavy-handed conjecture about Opus Dei and the cult of Mary Magdelene. It’s no Name of the Rose (4 1/2 Lulus). top

/ 5

Here’s the rub: while the book keeps you wanting to read more to find out what happens next, if you know what’s coming there is nothing, nada, rien to keep you interested. The acting from everyone is below par, which is problematic as the characters are barely two-dimensional to start with. The locations are dingy and framed in the least imaginative ways- close ups of statues of knights, souls in torment in stained glass etc establish the shot before pulling back to Tom Hanks and Amelie staring at some clue. Trite, hackneyed crap.

The visual effects are clichéd and only serve to drive home the patronising way the story is told. I’ve come to expect this from director Ron Howard whose workmanlike films come out with alarming regularity and do exactly ‘what it says on the tin” and nothing more. All the faults of the book are painstakingly recreated in the film; There is no suspense whatsoever, as the minute a puzzle arises it’s solved by either Sofie or Langdon in a scene like the following… If it’s an anagram, for example, first one of them will explain what an anagram is in words of two syllables or less, then the other will say, but what does it mean? The other will stare into the middle distance as the special effects department phones in some kind of graphic representation of the thought process for solving such conundrums. Then the answer will be said aloud. Slowly. Then the other will say, but what does it mean… and the whole process starts again. There’s more depth to your average episode of Scooby Doo when they try and piece together what the canister of fluorescent paint and ripped white blankets have to do with the ghost scaring people away from the fairground. It’s toe-curlingly bad.

So what has Ron Howard added to the book? Well if my memory serves me correctly (and it rarely does) the only divergence from the book is that Langdon now has claustrophobia resulting from a childhood accident when he fell down a well. Presumably this is to enhance the character’s backstory and means that whenever Tom Hanks travels in a lift he gets to make his ‘uncomfortable face”. For Christ’s sake. That’s not improving characterization, it’s just embarrassing for all concerned. The film starts with Langdon lecturing on symbology in some French university or other. I can’t remember if that was in the book or not, but it sets the film up for its fictional basis as he asks a question to the student audience and five Erasmus students pipe up with answers immediately. Maybe French students are different but in my experience, no one answers questions in a lecture like that. Especially the obvious ‘trick questions” he’s spouting at the time. Also in his PowerPoint demo going on behind him he’s showing them that symbols can change their meanings as if this is news of the most shocking nature. Arse more like.

The only good thing to come out of this movie is Sir Ian McKellan mentioning in an interview that he always felt the bible should come with a ‘disclaimer that it’s fiction” to the growing horror of Mr. Howard and friends who were trying to play down the blasphemous side of it all.

So should you see it? If you’ve read the book, then the answer’s definitely not. If you enjoyed the book this film brings nothing new to the table and if you hated the book, then why put yourself through it twice. Newcomers to this whole nonsense might as well see it just to find out what all the fuss is about, but bear in mind that there are much better things in the cinemas right now. Hell, there’s better things on YouTube right now. Skateboarding dogs for example…

* / 5

* see comment # 5…

In other news, Sita’s just pocketed herself yet another award for sociomological brilliance in the line of duty. I’ve learnt that pommegranite licor is best left to trained professionals. The renters have moved out of Adenmore in L.A.. Had a lovely chat with Anne in NZ and Jesse in MA last night. And life continues to treat us with the very best it has to offer and we’ve a weekend of parties to attend. Just wanted to clarify that despite the occasional bad film, life is good.

Also I rushed off another review today, this time for a podcast /5. What’s a podcast you ask? Well they’re regularly produced radio type programs that you can download the mp3s of and shove on your mp3 player/ipod. There’s some links to my faves on the right (or very bottom right if your using Internet Explorer on an 800×600 monitor). Anyway search for Total Podcastrophe on iTunes and see where it gets you. Also Top of the Pods is back with intermittant broadcasts. One of the presenters is off working or somesuch so they had a couple of guest presenters. They both coped admirably, but the California girl, who was obviously very nice, had something of an uptalking habit? Where all sentences are phrased as questions? Which is irking? Especially after you’ve worked in a Californian high school for two years… ? like y’know? Bless her though. It’s meant to be a sign of insecurity, but all the girls who speak like that have more confidence than I could muster even after a few pints. Ah the Californian conundrum.