Film Review of
The Da Vinci Code
Director: Ron Howard
(2006)
Distributor: Sony Pictures Releasing
Certificate:
12A
Reviewed by Andrew Wooding
Spoiler notice: If you read on will become aware
of some of the content of the film.
|
|
Main Characters:
|
So, after all the anticipation, controversy and endless media hype, the two-and-a-half hour movie version of Dan Brown’s thriller The Da Vinci Code is finally here. Was it worth the wait? Well, sort of. Apart from disagreeing with some of the historical conclusions in The Da Vinci Code, I enjoyed the novel very much and definitely wanted to keep reading to the end. The film version, it seems, improves on the book in some ways but also exposes its shortcomings … shortcomings I hadn’t noticed at the time because I was so caught up in the plot and desperate to get to the last page to discover the outcome.
The film improves on the book by streamlining the plot and keeping it cracking along at a fair pace. Little seems to have been lost, although the pace took a little getting used to. Much of the early part of the book focused on Robert Langdon’s and Sophie Neveu’s mystery-solving in the Louvre and I was convinced this would amount to at least half an hour of film time, yet it was all over in a matter of minutes. Some characters have been dropped, a vital piece of evidence pointing to the identity of the Teacher isn’t mentioned, plus it turns out that Jacques Sauniere is no longer Sophie’s real grandfather. I can see no reason for changing this other than maybe cutting out the necessity of explaining some of his actions to Sophie at the end.
Unfortunately, the shortcomings of the novel when shown on film are that much more obvious. There are the many coincidences involving people just happening to be in the right place at the right time (Captain Fache being a member of Opus Dei for example), but the main shortcoming is this: the characterisation. In short, there isn’t any! Robert Langdon has no personality, other than the fact that he is claustrophobic. Sophie Neveu has no personality. Captain Fache has no personality. Bishop Aringarosa has no personality. (I could go on.) Cardboard characters caught up in a situation that could change history as we know it. The only person who has any spark of life in the whole film is Sir Leigh Teabing, played by Ian McKellen who always gives his all (whether acting in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the X-Men movies or even Coronation Street!).
This says to me that Dan Brown is a hack writer. A very good hack, an entertaining
hack, but a hack nevertheless – one who is more interested in presenting
his research and moving the plot along than creating living, breathing, flesh
and blood characters. As for the names of his characters, Aringarosa reminded
me of a nursery song (Ring-a-ring-a-roses!), and surely it can’t be a
coincidence that the great comedian Peter Cook had a recurring character called
Sir Grebe-Streebling. Sound familiar?
On the plus side, I was gobsmacked by some of the historical imagery, especially the recreation of the bustling Council of Nicaea. This scene brought that historical council to life for me. I also liked the fact that while Sir Leigh Teabing was denouncing many Christian essentials, Robert Langdon seemed to be standing up for the Christian side of things, making the story a little more balanced. I also found the thoughtful, spiritual ending very moving.
I guess what I’m saying is that if you want to see the film, then enjoy it for what it is. But in the end, all Ron Howard’s adaptation proves is that you can’t take an above average potboiler (the novel) and turn it into the cinematic equivalent of a Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece.
THROUGH THE LENS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH
Some key themes:
- Does the church need to be renewed or destroyed?
- How does the church need to change and adapt at the start of the third millennium?
"Look at the new thing I am going to do. It is already happening. Don't you see it? I will make a road in the desert and rivers in the dry land" (Isaiah 43 v 19).
Those words in the Old Testament book of Isaiah were a promise to the nation of Israel, but I wouldn't be surprised if God might want to say the same thing to us today. In our rapidly changing world, God is always wanting to surprise us and do "new" things, including the re-"new"-al of his church.
A key moment in the movie version of The Da Vinci Code is when the evil mastermind behind the plot (the person who is finally revealed to be the mysterious Teacher) shouts at Robert Langdon that the church needs to be destroyed. All of the Teacher’s scheming and evildoing has been because he wants to see an end to Christianity, particularly its power and its male bias, not only in its leadership but also in its understanding of God. Interesting, then, that some people have criticised Dan Brown of wanting the same as the Teacher – to overthrow Christianity. If so, then why did he make this the motivation of his villain?
By contrast, Dan Brown’s hero Robert Langdon calls for a renewal of Christianity rather than its destruction. This is after Robert Langdon confesses that as a boy he prayed to Jesus while trapped down a well, and his prayer was answered. This ties in with comments that Dan Brown has made on his website about whether he set out to attack Christianity: “No. This book is not anti-anything. It’s a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate.”
There is much talk these days about the changing face of church, with terms flying about such as “New Forms of Church”, “Mission Shaped Church”, “Fresh Expressions of Church” and so on. I know very little about the real-life organisation, Opus Dei, but in The Da Vinci Code, their fictional version seems to want to hang on desperately to the old ways, whatever the cost. So, in The Da Vinci Code movie you have three alternatives:
- Get rid of the church and Christianity completely. (Sir Leigh Teabing)
- Keep it the same, no matter how much society is changing around us. (The fictional version of Opus Dei in the book and the film)
- Let it grow, evolve and develop – renew it and make it fresh. (Robert Langdon)
I agree with Robert Langdon – I want to see Christianity renewed. We are now living in a post-Christian, postmodern culture, so while the basic essentials of Christianity remain the same, the way they are communicated and celebrated needs to change - just as it has changed many times over the last 2,000 years, and just as missionaries have had to adapt their methods as they seek to bring Christ to cultures that think in different ways to the west.
The danger, of course, is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We have 2,000 years of rich Christian heritage to draw from – it would be a shame to ditch all this and lose the wisdom, poetry and spirituality of our predecessors. At the same time, we need to be free to explore new ways of worship, new ways of being church and even new ways of doing theology.
We are now at the start of the third millennium of Christianity. Time to sit down, think and take stock. Where is Christianity heading in the next 1,000 years? And what does the success of stories like The Da Vinci Code say to us about the general public’s appetite and perception of spiritual matters? How can we as a church meet their needs?
Discussion questions . . .
- Which was better: the book or the film?
- Were certain Christians right to make a fuss about the story? What was your reaction to The Da Vinci Code?
- How would you redesign Christianity for the 21st century? What would you keep, what would you throw away and what would you add?
To discuss this further why not leave a message in the discussion forum.
RSS Feed