Moody Review: The Da Vinci Code

   351  
  If you’ve read the reviews, you know as well as anyone: The Da Vinci Code is the new thing everyone loves to hate. Along with Paris Hilton, the Ron Howard film (I think it was based on some novel – have you read it?) has become the latest proof that the phenomenon of ‘Cultural Backlash’ is alive and well and roosting somewhere out there in the media landscape. So, what’s all the fuss about? Why has this poor, ‘small’ film suffered so?   First off is the egregious error that was spotted long before the film even came out – that, of course, of casting Tom Hanks as the suave genius Robert Langdon. I love Tom Hanks – really, who doesn’t – but one thing I would never call him is suave. The multi-dimensional character actor that he is, Mr. Hanks has evident trouble finding the right pitch for a decidedly undimensional character: Robert Langdon is smart, sexy and uncomplicated, a role destined for a pleasant and less compelling actor with more apparent good looks (even George Clooney would have been a better choice). It’s not necessarily a bad thing that Langdon should be simple; this leaves room for the highly stuffy, uber-complex plot, which can be considered a character itself.   Because of Hanks’ onscreen lumbering, any potential awkwardness that might have come through in French Audrey Tautou’s performance is dissolved in her simple and innocent beauty. Her incorporation into this very American film is almost seamless, and she is generally comfortable. But alas, the French actors are quite wasted in The Da Vinci Code, the city of Paris included. One of my favorite (and one of the few amusing) parts of the book is at the very beginning, when Langdon has a barbed conversation with a cab driver on the way to the Louvre about the Pyramids. In the film, this exchange is gleaned over, insipidly, by Jean Reno, a veteran French actor who should have a lot more assurance in his performance, simply because he has been in countless American films before. But the point is that nowhere in the film does Howard take time to mine a very rich and nuanced field; that being the delicate and multi-faceted relationship that France and America share. I know this film has a lot to cover (everything from secret apples to Jesus’ granddaughter), but a mention, reference, or even joke somewhere would have been welcome.   The fact is this film could have taken place anywhere, since the treatment it gives to Parisian landmarks feels abridged and decidedly like a tourist guide. The exception is the scene filmed in Saint Sulpice, which is chilling by sheer force of the haunting and historic location (it might have something to do with the murderous masochistic albino Monk, too).   Since my expectations were duly lowered before sitting down to view the film, I did manage to have a good time – Ian McKellen is always a hoot, and the adventure aspect of the film is sufficiently distracting. Maybe the reason the film has been so poorly received, then, has more to do with everything that came before the film itself. Everyone (and I mean everyone, including you and me) has read this book, and haven’t you wondered: ‘Why?’ The actual book is good, but no better than a slew of other summer page-turners I’ve read. The only thing that gave it an edge above the rest was its dynamic cultural location, pitted between ‘my’ two countries. And maybe it was slightly more intellectual than your average bestseller. But surely no one could have predicted The Da Vinci Code’s unprecedented and unparalleled success. Why did it explode into the phenomenon it has become? Still today there is no clear answer. And perhaps the film version is taking the brunt of the backlash for lack of that very answer.   Dan Heching  
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • ALREADY SUBSCRIBED?
Previous Article Who Are These People?
Next Article Hotel? Apartment? The Luxury Vacationer’s Accommodation Quiz