My Looking Glass

So Dark the Con of Man

I did something Friday I rarely do, I went to a movie on opening day. I caught a midafternoon showing of The Da Vinci Code amid a packed theater and an actual smattering of applause at the end. Not rip-roaring hoots of approval, just a couple claps here and there. And I can probably summarize my critique in one word: Perspective.

It's no secret the critics in Cannes have had a field day shredding this film. I had actually read a single favorable review from a preview that took place before the Cannes hate-fest. At this juncture, however, I don't think a single critic is going to go on record as enjoying the film for fear that s/he would be laughed out of his/her profession.

Perspective, people.

The Da Vinci Code (the book) was a runaway blockbuster, and don't quote me here, but it has achieved some status like the #1 best-selling book in the history of the universe. Or something like that. That is to say, it was big. Huge. Pam Anderson-breast enormous. Tom Cruise-ego humongous. But guess what. Sales status does not equal literary quality.

Yes, I read The Da Vinci Code. I read it in a single, rainy day while on vacation. It was purely plot-driven, a real page-turner, a good thriller. Chapters were 3-5 pages long and always ended with enough of a cliffhanger that I continued reading. It wasn't art. It wasn't the finest piece of literature I'd ever read, hell no, but it was without question entertaining. I have since read a few other books by Dan Brown and was disappointed but not surprised to discover that he is strictly a formula writer.

So with this in mind, let's segue now to the film. Did it deserve the trashing and abuse the critics are giving it? No, I don't think so. Is it a great film? No, but it's good. Like the book, it's entertaining. And the reason it was released in mid-May and not mid-December is because it is meant for entertainment, not Academy Award consideration.

For me, there were three highlights. First on that list is Ron Howard's direction. If you've read The Da Vinci Code, and chances are you have, you know that this film had high potential to be cheesier than Velveeta. Howard made sure it didn't slide down what could have been the very slippery slope of over-the-top melodrama, and for that, he should be commended.

Another stand-out was the supporting cast. Paul Bettany and Sir Ian McKellen in particular were worth the price of admission, I loved both of their portrayals. Jean Reno's role of Captain Fache was lessened somewhat than in the book, but he played it spot-on. And you can always depend on Alfred Molino to turn in a solid performance, which he did yet again. All four of these actors transcended themselves beautifully.

The movie also did something really interesting with what were long narratives in the book. Ron Howard actually portrayed the "history lessons" (for lack of a better word). When Hanks' or McKellen's characters are describing historical events in Jerusalem, Rome, etc., we are effectively transported there through some amazing use of cinematography. And speaking of cinematography, Paris, London, the Louvre, everything was beautifully shot. Serious props to the director of photography.

The negatives? For me, the movie wasn't as exciting as reading the book, but I've talked to a couple people who didn't read it, and they said it was absolutely thrilling for them. So perhaps knowing the plot ahead of time is somewhat of a disadvantage in viewing The Da Vinci Code. I also didn't think that Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou had much chemistry. Their dialogue was a bit flat, but it was insipid in the book, so I'm not holding them responsible for that. Both were perfectly adequate. I would have preferred someone less well-known than Tom Hanks in the role of Langdon. Not that Langdon is a particularly dynamic character - he's actually pretty vanilla - but Hanks was Hanks, not Langdon. An unknown or barely-known actor would have been my choice, but don't get me wrong, it's not like Hanks lessened the pleasure for me. He was perfectly fine.

I can't help but compare The Da Vinci Code to The Firm. Both were huge best selling novels made into highly anticipated summer action films. I even liked Tom Cruise back in the days of The Firm, and Gene Hackman was great in it. But I still have to give the edge to The Da Vinci Code. It's simply more entertaining.

As for the critics? Perspective. Face it, critics are writers. Maybe some of them have been suffering The Great American Novel, only to have fame and fortune elude them, mock them even. I gotta wonder if some of the spanking the movie is taking is really meant for the book and the author, Dan Brown; you know, a bit of professional jealousy. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my running theory.

So do this. You want summer entertainment? Skip MI:3 and go see Da Vinci.

posted by LA @ 11:28 AM