Review of The Da Vinci Code (2006) by Chezlyn A — 04 Jun 2011

Review circa 2006: Little love.

I havent read The Da Vinci Code. I dont really want to. I read one page of Angels and Demons and was appalled by this horrible style of prose that has somehow garnered countless millions. Understanding that though, I can conceive how people enjoyed a book like The Da Vinci Code. A page-turner of action sensibilities. A book that reads like a script to a film. Im not quite sure what the real hook is though. A liberating feeling about religion and secret societies? A puzzle master type euphoria as you solve contrived puzzles and dubiously meaningful riddles together with the author? Something exists I am sure. But I smile when even Brown fans suggest his other books are superior. A type of elitism of a very odd kind.

That said, the film itself Let me state I envisioned the book as a source material that could be adapted to film in a grand thriller-like atmosphere. What was arrived at however, was what appears to be an extremely literal interpretation of the material rather than any re-imagining. By this I mean hideously contrived plot points, which could perhaps be forgiven once, maybe twice, in any given film, appear multiple times in this film. One feels the film format is completely wrong for this type of affair. Its like watching a big screen version of Lost, trying to trump itself again and again, until such is meaningless and undesirable.

I can imagine such a tale working much better in The Golden Age of Television. Producers of 24 were apparently very interested in purchasing rights to Dan Browns novel. In fact this would have been the perfect way to showcase twist after twist, until a startling revelation becomes apparent. It would have also been much more mysterious and brooding with Jack unaware of the events occurring around him. The timeline also fits near perfectly as Browns novel occurs needlessly over perhaps a 2-day period.

Think about the timeline for a second. Beyond cheap thrills what was the point of creating a timeline over such a short period? Character arcs are minimal over such a small timeframe and more importantly, the idea that something of untold importance to mankind is revealed within such a small time seems absurd. That is to say the ease at which the characters find clue after clue, which have been undisclosed for centuries, does not ring true in the slightest. I will term this genre of film an epic thriller. A cacophony between a film that strives to be held in epic regard, yet also wants to push for the sensibilities of a thriller. Surely in many ways that creates somewhat of a paradox.

Other problems I had with the film were when suspicion was cast upon The Chauffeur as being The Teacher. Such an actor of little regard or screen presence could ever be thought of as a likelihood of a candidate for being a central villain. Why not recast or avoid that plot thread completely? All it created was a ridiculous scene where The Chauffeur talks to the camera not showing who he is talking to during a startling revelation. This scene is easy to imagine in a novel, a method many novels employ, but is generally sloppy in film unless handled very well. The problem here was The Teacher was never seen as a mysterious person overseeing the events of the film prior to his appearance. Then he suddenly makes an appearance only to be unmasked in the same scene. That really makes tension skyrocket doesnt it.

Then we move to Robert Langdons character. I guess the only problem I had here was the bizarre fear of claustrophobia he exhibited. What purpose did this serve? Initially it made him look like more of a suspect to the policeman in charge of the investigation when he was forced to answer pertinent questions in a lift. However, where can such a trait lead? Beyond a cheap Batman impersonation, the reasoning behind this fear was hardly a revelation that would shake the foundations of the modern church, let alone any casual film viewer.