So I went to see The DaVinci Code on Saturday afternoon. After over two years of resistance (it just seemed so overhyped), I broke down and read the book this past January. It was certainly gripping and intriguing, though the writing was cliched and simplistic. I would also give it credit for being the kind of story that has, at least, inspired people to go and do a little resarch of their own to find out more about the theories it is based on. The notion that Jesus was married to/having a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene has been around for a while, and is not even new to mainstream cinema (remember the Last Temptation of Christ?). I was more intrigued by the theory that the figure to the left of Jesus in DaVinci's "Last Supper" fresco is Mary Magdalene instead of John the Baptist, as it is usually identified. However, it seems that art historians have pretty universally rejected that notion.
WARNING! Spoilers ahead.
Anyway, after reading the reviews, my expectations of the film weren't that high, which, as it turns out, was a good thing. I thought it was entertaining, but not particularly memorable. According to a local review, one of the best things about it was its faithfulness to the original novel, but I noticed a number of significant departures from the original plot. Some, like the fact that in the movie there was only one cryptex while the novel had two, are understandable when you consider the need for the filmmakers to keep the plot moving quickly and the running time limited. Others make less sense to me. In the novel, you find out at the end that Sophie Neveu's grandmother and brother are alive and well, the caretakers of Rosslyn Chapel. After the death of Sophie's parents in a suspicious accident, her grandparents had reluctantly agreed, for the protection of the children, to separate, her grandmother taking her brother and Sauniere taking Sophie, and to let the rest of the world believe the children had been killed along with their parents in the accident. Mystifyingly, in the movie version, Robert Langdon reveals that Sauneire was not actually Sophie's grandfather but was just acting as her guardian. It seems to me that the original plotline is much more dramatic, with the element of tragedy provided by the forced separation of lovers. I would also think that the "hieros gamos" sex ritual (though significantly downplayed in the movie as it is) would be more palatable to people when they find out the participants were actually husband and wife.
There is one difference between the book and the movie which bugs me a lot though it is insignificant to the plot. In the book, the two protagonists need the help of a professional librarian to search databases for the meaning of one of the clues they find. At one point In the movie, although Robert Landon breathlessly exclaims, "I have to get to a library -- fast!" (this line will go down as one of the classic library references in the movies, I'm sure), they never make it that far. Instead, they search said databases using an Internet browser-equipped cell phone, and when they get stuck, they are bailed out by a random dude on the bus rather than a librarian. I suppose the filmmakers didn't think anyone would need the help of a professional in this situation. After all, anyone with half an education can find anything they want using Google and a couple of well-chosen keywords, right?
Honestly, I can understand why they'd want to cut the library scene. I suppose they thought going from an exciting chase and a hostage-taking to a scene of hard core information-seeking in the library wouldn't hold the attention of the audience for some reason (plus they needed to save time and money by cutting another scene from the book). But couldn't they have at least made the dude on the bus a librarian?
Ironically, we went to the movie directly from the grand opening of the new Minneapolis Public LIbrary central branch. To the latter, if not the former, I can give an enthusiastic "thumbs up."
Posted by ldfs at May 22, 2006 11:10 AM | TrackBack