Smoking Gun / Po Goryachim Sledam

Last week I was in a benevolent enough mood to watch “The DaVinci Code.”  Everybody was trashing it – critics and viewers alike – but I figured:  whatta heck, what am I losing, $7 for a matinee show?  And so I saw it.  Risking everyone’s displeasure, I will say right off the bat:  I LIKE THIS MOVIE!  And yes, I did read the book.  I like the book and I like the movie.  I don’t go haywire over either of them, thinking they are worthy of the Nobel Prize or the Oscar, respectively, but I like them both.  I think the movie does book justice.  It holds very close to it, preserving the plot but not getting into historical/philosophical/religious details that would have looked burdensome on screen. 

I am a firm believer that cinema and literature are two different genres and should not completely mimic one another (those of you who have read my “Master & Margarita” series review are aware of it already).  Yes, the movie simply outlines all the major ideas of the bestselling book, without going into proofs, and I thank the scriptwriter and the director for that.  If you want to explore the proofs of these “sacrilegious” ideas (Mary Magdalene being Jesus’ wife, them having a child and a bloodline that carries into our day, and the Church’s conspiracy to protect the true nature of Jesus and Mary) deeper, then read the book (or any one of the hundreds of books on the subject).  The movie carries some underlining philosophical context, but, first and foremost, it’s an action thriller, featuring some of the biggest stars of today’s cinema.

So, let’s start with it being a thriller.  Well, it was hard for me to stay on the edge of my seat, considering that I’ve read the book and knew exactly “who the killer is” and all twists and turns of the intricate plot.  But it was intense enough for me and should be intense enough for anybody, to an extent which a two-and-a-half-hours film allows.  The script streamlines some of the book events (again, I am grateful for that) and makes them more coherent.  The ending is changed slightly (Sophie is no longer the granddaughter of Jacques Saunier) and a family reunion takes place for all but two seconds, decreasing the “cheese” factor.  Again, thank you for that!

The actors are perfectly cast.  Yes, perfectly cast.  For about a year now I was cursing Sony for picking Tom Hanks for the main role, but, after seeing the movie, I agree:  he is a good choice for Robert Langdon.  I still believe this is a role for a young, unknown, aspiring actor who wants to prove himself as the next Indiana Jones.  But, honestly, Robert Langdon in the book is not exactly Indiana Jones either!  He may be closer to it in “Angels & Demons” (a much better book, btw), but in “The DaVinci Code” he is simply going through the motions, following the unwinding plot, which he unwillingly and unexpectedly became a part of.  And this is exactly what Tom Hanks is doing.  A younger actor could have been more energetic, more fierce, and more charismatic, but it would not have been the “Robert Langdon of the book.”  And Hanks is just that:  Robert Landon of the book.  Same goes for Audrie Tautou.  She is the “Sophie of the book.”  Cute, slow, gullible, indecisive (except when she informs Langdon of the danger and rescues him from police), not particularly bright (especially for an expert criminologist), and easily influenced.  No, she is not the fireball that we saw in “Amelie” or “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not.”   But she is the “Sophie of the book.”  She is cute and has this French charm that Hollywood hasn’t given us since… well, “Chocolate” doesn’t count.  The book does not offer any character developments or crises of consciousness for Hanks and Tautou to sink their teeth and talents into, so the movie does not artificially create them for these two to shine.  Could it?  Probably.  But it doesn’t, so let’s not blame the actors.  Ian McLellan is absolutely perfect as Lea Teabing:  sharp, witty, energetic, and extremely likeable.  The rest of the characters is equally well cast:  albino killer Silas, bishop Aringarossa, and Captain Fache are exactly like I pictured them.

Finally, The Big Controversy.  The movie does its best to smooth it down, and I can’t help but scorn it.  Tom Hanks, once described as “the last symbol of American decency” is as pleasant and non-offensive as they come, and his casting was a clear indication that the studio intends to steer as far away from… what?  The book’s success lies exactly within its controversy.  Toning it down and offering a “please-all” explanation at the end (says Langdon:  “But does it matter if Jesus had a wife if he’s done all these great things?”) will certainly not appease religious fanatics, but will indeed puzzle people that did not read the book.  “Is this what the fuss is all about?” they’ll ask and will be right.  The edge and the controversy sell, and now, because of Sony’s lack of balls, the movie would only make a fraction of what it otherwise would.  I would have enjoyed a more radical approach, because, when Vatican expresses its displeasure with this movie, it is only too easy to shut them down with the question:  “Where was your outrage with pedophile priests?” and such controversies are always fun.  The way it stands now, “Harry Potter” stirred more controversy (ah, those evil British witches!).  But the movie was still enjoyable.  Now, all of you, good Christians, instead of being angry with Dan Brown and Sony, you can be angry with me, because I actually enjoyed their product.  Rating:  **** (out of 5)