"When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be a subject of interest" -- William Hazlitt, English essayist (1830).
In today's politically correct world, it's tough to find anyone who courts controversy, at least among those falling somewhere in or near the middle of the socio-political range. Sure, there are wildcards and idiots on the fringes of both sides, but for the most part, people nowadays -- especially mainstream politicians nervous about getting elected or reelected, and businesses only looking at the bottom dollar -- try not to stir up any sort of unrest.
That is, except in the entertainment world where what most would consider bad press is acceptable if downright desired (Michael Jackson notwithstanding). After all, look at how various celebrities have not only survived, but also thrived after the release of so-called "bedroom tapes" showing them in their private and sometimes not so private moments.
And if controversy is handled -- or yes, even crafted and manipulated -- just the right way, the resultant uproar -- whether from many or just a few -- can mean big financial returns. After all, the claims of anti-Semitism in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" got that film (that most everyone figured would be a flop) a ton of free publicity and it went on to reap big box office numbers.
Now another religious flick -- or at least one about religion -- is stirring up the polemics once again. Yet, whereas Gibson's film was an unproven commodity before its release, "The Da Vinci Code" is about as well-known as any non-sequel film can get. After all, it's based on the best-selling novel by author Dan Brown, has been read by tens of millions of readers, and has been a source of concern for the Catholic Church and other Christians since the novel's release back in 2003.
That's because its basic premise was that the Church had been covering up a religious conspiracy for thousands of years, most notably that Christ fathered a child with Mary Magdalene and that their descendents have lived on through today. Despite its obvious fictional trappings, the novel and now, by default, the movie adaptation, has some worked up into a lather. To which all I can say -- and to quote the ads from horror films back in the '60s and '70s -- "Keep repeating to yourself -- it's only a movie. It's only a movie..."
And a rather dull one at that. Putting aside the controversy and not attempting to compare it to the source novel (which, no, I have not read, but always remember that a film should stand on its own regardless of its origins), let's examine the filmed final product. Working from an adaptation by occasional collaborating screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, director Ron Howard ("Cinderella Man," "Apollo 13") has fashioned a dramatic thriller that unfortunately isn't terribly thrilling (or engaging for that matter).
On the surface it's the European cousin to "National Treasure," another film filled with historical clues leading to a secret society protecting some valuable information. That film may have been dumb and about as implausible as they get, but at least it moved along at a fairly good clip, with some decent action interspersed with all the historical mumbo jumbo.
The same is present here, but the fact that it takes itself far too seriously puts a damper on any sort of fun being had. Regardless of the material, this sort of tale -- where the characters try to elude the bad guys while following the clues to the "truth" -- should be compelling, exciting or at least thought-provoking.
By its very nature, it obviously contains some of the latter qualities, but more from a "how could they neuter a page-turning best-seller" rather than the raised questions and allegations it generates. In fact, in making the story's case, the filmmakers are guilty of dumping far too much exposition and explanation into what happened in the past rather than making what's occurring in the present interesting.
The result is that all of that material bogs down the film's forward momentum. Howard seems to realize this and thus inserts an ungodly amount of flashbacks to show us visual representations of what's being discussed (presumably to spice things up), but that gives the film something of a cheesy, spoon-fed quality that does it no favors.
He also uses the same technique in showing past events that apparently helped mold the main characters into who they are today (a car crash, spousal abuse and retribution, being trapped in a well, etc. all involving the characters in pre-adult stages). While that's a tactic often deployed in novels (where it usually works to some degree), it only piles on the flashback material to the point that all of it starts to feel a bit goofy.
Howard also keeps up with the spoon-feeding by showing us how things have just occurred, or pointing out obvious points via onscreen visuals (highlighting parts of symbol, how letters are being interpreted by characters, etc.). While that may have worked in "A Beautiful Mind," there's no related mental brilliance & illness at play here, all of which means all of the special effects only add to the overload of unnecessary material.
Of course, the filmmakers don't seem to mind the numerous instances of implausibility and/or convenient developments that occasionally run rampant through the film. Perhaps a third act revelation is supposed to explain some of them, but it doesn't make any difference since any time a viewer is removed from the proceedings to question what's occurred, engagement is lessened or lost altogether. It doesn't help that said revelation is about as predictable as they come (again, I never read the novel and didn't know its "big" secret), mainly because it's simply too easy to figure out due to a lack of other choices.
Then there's the fact that the protagonist -- both as written and portrayed by Tom Hanks -- doesn't engage us as much as he should in dragging the audience along for the ride. Those expecting an Indiana Jones type character (the parallels are there) will surely be disappointed as Langdon is about as boring as the film turns out to be.
Some comic relief might have helped in making him more sympathetic, but we simply don't care about the man or his quest (regardless of the goodwill Hanks' reputation brings to him). "Amelie's" Audrey Tautou fares a little better, but not a great deal, while Jean Reno is pretty much wasted as a government agent on their trail (with a special agenda, but always one step behind), and Alfred Molina seems to be in a different movie since he barely interacts with any of them.
Far more interesting is Paul Bettany as a tortured albino monk who's killing in the name of religion but is so tormented he regularly self-flagellates himself. The portrayal is creepy and the actor brings a certain degree of depth to the character that may or may not have been in the script. Ian McKellen is terrific in his performance as a Holy Grail historian, but a third act plot contrivance regarding him (and a predictable one at that) steals some of his thunder and cheapens the portrayal.
That also applies to the overall effort, as what seems like might be a highly controversial and provocative movie in concept turns out to be rather tame in execution. Reiterating the mostly safe approach, the film has Hanks' character tell Tautou's - not once, but twice at the end - that "the only thing that matters is what you believe." It's a rather transparent attempt to placate those who might be offended by the premise (but at least it's more aesthetically clean than adding the disclaimer that some have been clamoring for).
The quote that stuck more with yours truly, however, is when McKellen's character tells them "you two are anything but dull." Alas, the same can't be said about the film. "The Da Vinci Code" rates as a 4.5 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
