IS THIS WHAT DA VINCI HAD IN MIND?
It’s hard not to have noticed all the hoopla surrounding The Da Vinci Code; the novel has been prominent for the last three years or so, and the movie was recently released. I thought it would be interesting to review both the book and the movie in order to understand the movie’s impact. Here are some comments about the two.
First, the book:
The Da Vinci Code has earned Dan Brown millions of dollars, a fact which underscores the truth in the old adage that truly worthwhile things tend not to be valued, while popular things are often mediocre. Despite its popularity, the book does have a few strengths:
On the Positive Side:
1. Ease of reading: Dan Brown is in tune with our frenetic lifestyle and understands what has happened to the American attention span. After decades of conditioning by television programs divided into six-minute segments punctuated by commercial breaks, many of us don’t want to read anything that goes on for too many pages. Brown obligingly provides us with short, easy-to-process mini-chapters that allow us to read for a few minutes and then get up and do something else.
2. Style: Brown is an accomplished stylist with a good command of English sentence structure and vocabulary.
3. Pace and interest: Brown is a master at thriller writing and keeping the reader’s attention. The Da Vinci Code is a page-turner that’s hard to put down once you’ve gotten into it.
On the negative side:
The negatives far outweigh the positives. It’s too bad that a book whose plot is so compelling isn’t really a worthwhile read.
1. Lack of character development: One of the reasons to read is to learn about others and, in so doing, about ourselves. Unfortunately, there’s really no character development here. No one really changes, not even Sophie Neveu, the French cryptologist who is supposedly a descendant of Jesus.
2. Lack of intellectual challenge: There’s virtually none here. I don’t mean this to sound snobbish, but The Da Vinci Code reminds me more than anything of an adult version of a Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys novel combined with a lot of James Bondish improbabilities. In their investigation of Da Vinci’s painting of Mona Lisa, the two principal characters, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu, uncover a series of clues to the “real” meaning of the Holy Grail, each leading more improbably to the next.
3. Heretical content: Make no mistake about it: The Da Vinci Code is heresy. How can a believer in Jesus Christ, who is fully human and fully divine, accept the contention that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that the church has tried mightily to suppress this terrible secret?
4. Mistakes: Dan Brown has the audacity to say at the beginning of his novel that it is “factual.” There are several books out on the market that debunk Brown’s “facts,” among which is Josh McDowell’s The Da Vinci Code, a Quest for Answers. Here are just four of the errors McDowell points out:
a. Anagrams. One key plot element involves Professor of Symbology Robert Langdon’s statement that “Amon L’ Isa, a clue he and Sophie discover, is really an anagram for “Mona Lisa,” the modern title of Leonardo’s most famous painting. The words “amon” and “lisa” supposedly refer to the Egyptian gods Amon and Isis. However, the title “Mona Lisa” was not used until the nineteenth century. Most scholars have traditionally referred to the painting as “La Gioconda.” Leonardo, who painted the work from 1503 to 1506, didn’t use the term “Mona Lisa” at all.
b. The Council of Nicea vote: Brown has Leigh Teabing, his humanist scholar, say that the vote in which the Council of Nicea voted on the divinity of Jesus was “relatively close,” with all the drama of a U.S. presidential election and its network-projected winner. The actual vote was 300 to 2 and was simply an affirmation of what had come to be accepted throughout Europe.
c. The number of glass panes in the Louvre pyramid: According to the novel, French President Mitterand directed that the modern glass pyramid being constructed in the Louvre courtyard have 666 glass panes. This is a convenient number because it links with the supposed “number of the beast, Satan.” The number of glass panes is actually 673.
d. No monks in Opus Dei: One of the chief characters is an albino monk named Silas. According to McDowell, however, Opus Dei has no monks.
Second, the movie:
The movie is at best a pale imitation of the book. It has a few strengths and plenty of weaknesses:
Strengths:
Unity: The film has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Appearance: Director Ron Howard’s effort looks pretty and feels stylish.
Two good acting performances: Ian McKellen, who plays humanist Leigh Teabing, is a standout. Paul Bettany does a good job in the role of Silas, the villainous albino monk in the employ of Opus Dei.
Weaknesses:
Plot: At 149 minutes, the film is so telescoped that anyone who hasn’t read the novel will probably have a difficult time figuring out what’s going on.
Mostly mediocre acting: Ton Hanks gives an absolutely flat performance as Robert Langdon. Audrey Tautou, in the role of Sophie, has little to do except look pretty. There’s no real chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, and most of the other actors didn’t impress me either.
Heretical content: This is as in the novel. There’s one absurd scene in which Sophie Neveu, who has been “revealed” as a descendant of Jesus, jokingly pretends to walk on water.
Third, the bottom line:
Humanism is the belief in human-based morality and holds that the achievements of humanity are the highest possible. It stands in strict opposition to theism. The Da Vinci Code, book and movie, is slick humanism at its worst. On a television interview a Filipino Christian was asked whether he thought the film would or could have a harmful effect on people’s faith. He replied that he thought it might if one’s faith was weak. Those with weak faith or no faith at all are the ones we need to worry about. Intentionally or not, The Da Vinci Code sows the seeds of doubt, and it behooves us to be able to counter those seeds.
Film Rating: PG-13
My Rating: 2 ¼ stars
No comments:
Post a Comment