The Da Vinci Code

I first heard about “The Da Vinci Code” novel after my return from missionary service in the Philippines. I remember seeing the first trailer for the film and I was very excited because of the names I was seeing: Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen and Jean Reno. I view the film “The Da Vinci Code” as “National Treasure” for adults. Years after the film’s release, I read Dan Brown’s original novel and was impressed at how well the film was adapted from it. I imagine that this is due to the fact that Brown is the executive producer of the film. The music, acting, use of exposition and suspenseful mood are the best qualities of the film. I am well aware of the controversial nature of the story and I will address that, being a Christian. Even though this review is meant to critique the film, I must mention themes and story elements from the novel so as to better explain why the film works so well. I wish to note that I am writing this after watching the Blu-ray extended version.

I support the decision of the filmmakers to pretend that the events of “Angels & Demons” had not yet happened. Keeping the story as simple as possible is the better decision rather than hint at a past adventure. The character of Robert Langdon becomes more relatable as a result. The opening title sequence works extremely well with Hans Zimmer’s score. The mood of the film is perfectly established. The opening scene of Langdon is well adapted from the book in terms of its theme. This scene is a good one in illustrating who Langdon is and it needed to be in the film. To be able to film in the Louvre gives the film so much reality. It must have been so cool for Brown to have seen his book being played out in the actual place he set the story in and not a film set. I like the way that the two pyramids in the Louvre are pointed out by Langdon. It is done so casually that the payoff at the end is surprising. I also enjoy the use of montage in the film such as concerning the Knights Templar and especially during the scenes at Château Villette. To have them narrated by Hanks and especially by McKellen was so enchanting. As we have come to understand from “The Lord of the Rings”, Sir Ian McKellen is a master of delivering exposition. Once Teabing is introduced in the film, things really get fun. I love the test of honor to enter Château Villette for example thanks to McKellen. I often quote the line “Your heart is true. You may pass.” To reveal Teabing at the top of the stairs is a wonderful choice also. Silas’ attack on Langdon was perfect timing; the audience had forgotten all about him. In addition to the wonderful use of montage, I love the use of special effects to show Sir Isaac Newton’s funeral. It is great that the filmmakers had permission to film outside Westminster Abby. Again, we have a sense of realism. I like the use of cinematography in the first shot inside the Open Dei house in London. Silas has just finished torturing himself and in the reflection of the mirror, we just barely make out the police car arriving outside. The film has some nice editing as well. I enjoy the crosscutting at the start of the film as we watch Jacques Saunière’s death and Langdon’s lecture. Another good example of this kind of editing is towards the end as we cut from the Opus Dei house to Westminster Abby. I could tell who the Teacher was from the get-go because of what I saw in the trailer. The book was able to hide this plot twist very well. The filmmakers should have made the Teacher's on the cell phones more inaudible because that confirmed my suspicions going into the theatre. One thing I guessed without help from the trailer or the book was who Sophie was. This seemed logical to me from Château Villette onward. I like how even though the police are no longer pursuing Langdon and Sophie, Howard keeps us on edge by showing people arrive at Rosslyn Chapel and the gate being locked behind them. It creates a relieving payoff. The final scene of the movie does what the book did: create resolution. I enjoy many of the new scenes in the extended Blu-ray version because they are from the book. It fleshes out the original film. I like the scene back at Château Villette because we discover the surveillance equipment. Due to its place in the film, it really sells the idea as the book did that Remy is the Teacher. The truth therefore becomes even more of a surprise. In the scene with Remy next to the river, we find out who the Teacher is. I think it would have been more dramatic to not show who was making the phone call using Remy’s phone and for the Teacher to be revealed to the audience at Newton’s tomb like in the book. It wouldn’t have been that hard. I also think it wouldn't have to be hard to have Remy die because of his peanut allergy as he did in the book. My favorite new scene is the one towards the end that resolves the conflicts between Sophie, Langdon and Fache.

As mentioned, the cast of the film is what first attracted me to this movie. Tom Hanks is the best “everyman” in film history and that made Robert Langdon such a relatable hero. Making Hanks’ hair straight sets him apart from his other personas. He also plays suspense very well. One of my favorite moments of his is when he throws the cryptex in the air. He doesn’t look up as he tosses the cryptex but instead keeps his focus on the others. The only fast movement he makes is with his arm and even as the cryptex falls & hits the floor, he stands in basically the same place and shape. It is a great contrast from the action of that moment. Hanks and Audrey Tautou work well together. I like the plutonic friendship their characters have instead of the romantic one in the book. I enjoy the scene for example in the armored truck after Langdon and Sophie escape Vernet. Langdon understands that Sophie is hiding something and that the relationship between her & Saunière is anything but ordinary. It is well acted out by both Hanks and Tautou. Another good example of chemistry is that between Hanks and McKellen. Their exchanges and playfulness feel direct from the pages of the novel. As previously stated, once McKellen shows up in the film, the story becomes a lot of fun. He makes Teabing so enjoyable to watch; like a professor that you wish you could have had in university. The same could be said for Hanks and his portrayal of Langdon. I love for example how McKellen pronounces Leonardo’s name with an Italian accent. I also liked Alfred Molina in “The Da Vinci Code”. This movie showed me his acting range and it led to my discovery that he was in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Maverick”. Why is it that Paul Bethany always seems to be naked on camera? Actually, the only other time was in “A Knight’s Tale” but that is what I thought when I first saw the film. Seriously though, Bethany looks like he really is in pain in the self-flagellation scene. The shot showing his feet is quite dramatic and Bethany’s performance in the whole movie was great. When writing the book, Brown saw actor Jean Reno in his mind as Bezu Fache. I bet that Brown never imagined that the book would become a movie and so in the film, we are seeing Fache exactly as the author intended. That is such a treat. When reading the novel, I could hear the voices of Hanks, Mckellen, Reno and others so vividly in my head. Even when I read “The Lost Symbol” and "Inferno", I could hear Hanks in my mind and that is a testament to the acting in this film.

I know what you are thinking: How can I like this movie so much and still be a Christian, let alone LDS? Here is the answer: I can separate fact from fiction. To those who protest the book & this film, I understand your feelings but let your strong faith be your foundation and not fiction. My testimony of Jesus as the Son of God is strong enough that a work of fiction cannot permanently shake my faith. I may get offended but I can get over it because of the foundation that my testimony is based on. “The Da Vinci Code” doesn’t offend me however because the story is not a serious attack on Christianity. I don’t feel that whatsoever. The book and the film feel like entertainment and nothing more. Dan Brown took a past conspiracy theory and made it come to life insomuch that the public went nuts over it. Some people have taken it too seriously. I enjoy how themes from the book found their way nicely into the film. In the scriptures for example, prophecies have multiple fulfillments. Some prophecies in the Bible apply to the meridian of time and the last days. Symbols can mean more than one thing and the “map” found in the cryptex also has a double meaning. In addition, I find it fascinating that the idea of worshiping Mary may have come from the pagan tradition of worshiping the sacred feminine. In order for the people in Constantine’s empire to worship peaceably, some pagan traditions may have been adapted for Christianity like Christmas and worshiping Mary. I side with Langdon in that Constantine “simply sanctioned an already widely held idea” that Jesus was the Son of God. The problem was that men without God’s authority were trying to interpreting Jesus’ pure gospel. Without living apostles and/or prophets, there was confusion and this led to the idea that Jesus was only a prophet & not the Son of God. “Constantine did not create Jesus’ divinity” because Jesus is the Son of God. Another theme that the film explores is concerning Fache's mistake. I like how it is revealed that he is pursuing Langdon for religious reasons. He does have honor however and once he finds out that Aringarosa has used him, he sets things right and arrests The Teacher (By the way, I love how the bishop’s name sounds like the nursery rhyme). Acting on faith is a good thing but we must also think for ourselves. That way, we can tell whether that which we have faith in is true and right. Fache represents, as do many characters in the film, the dangers of blind obedience. That is not true faith. As Langdon points out in the extended version, we study history so as to strengthen our faith. Blind obedience caused the killings, not faith. Now onto the conspiracy theory of Jesus’ wife. I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Because the Bible is centuries old and because it has been translated numerous times, we have to be careful how it is interpreted. I will say this however: Jesus is our perfect example and because baptism for instance is necessary for our salvation, He was baptized. If exaltation therefore can only be achieved through marriage and having children, did Christ as the perfect example for us remain single? Having said that, I want to make it clear that the knowledge of whether Jesus had a wife is not necessary for my salvation. The truth about Jesus’ wife and bloodline, if any, will be revealed after the Second Coming when the world is ready. Until then, it is not an essential part of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the world is not ready for information like that anyways. As a final note on the controversial nature of this film, I believe it was Leonardo Da Vinci himself that said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” If he really meant that, then the conspiracy theories about his art such as “The Last Supper” are probably false. This film is entertainment and should be viewed upon as such. As a comparison, I am a Star Wars fan but I know that the Force is not real.

I think the best quality of the movie among those mentioned at the start is the musical score by Hans Zimmer. It is one of my favorite movie scores. I will say again: the musical score plays such a huge part of portraying this film’s mood. Zimmer adds a European touch to the score with the violin solos throughout the film. I love how we hear one such solo for example when Sophie sends the junkie to get something to eat. The use of the violin hints at her true identity. There is a religious feeling to the score as well. I felt that Akiva Goldsman did an amazing job in adapting Brown’s book. Some of my favorite lines in the movie came right from the book. I can see why he is an Oscar winner, even though he has also written some less critically reviewed movies like the last two Batman films of the 90’s. One little thing that I would like to point out here at the end is that if I am not mistaken, Langdon is wearing a Mickey Mouse watch like in the book. It is not necessary for the story but it shows the faithfulness to the source material. Nice touch.

I don’t understand what critics have against this film. Maybe they are afraid to like it because of the controversy. I hope that I have adequately explained why I like this film despite its “attacks” on Christianity. The score, performances, use of exposition and enthralling mood are the best characteristics of “The Da Vinci Code”. The use of location should not be overlooked either. The book was faithfully followed. I am glad that a franchise sprang up out of all this.

4.5 Stars