Film of The Da Vinci Code illuminates and eviscerates the book

Admittedly, I struggled through The Da Vinci Code (Amazon, Audible Author’s site¹). It was definitely a page turner: I found myself burning through the short chapters, each of which ended on a dramatic precipice. The codes and riddles make you want to puzzle your way along with the characters to the very end.

Dan Brown’s writing, however, stinks. Perhaps I’ve been spoiled by my English background, forced to hone my diction and dazzled by the complex and real characters that reach through the page, grab you by the collar, and pull you into their worlds. Brown’s characters, although coming from myriad socioeconomic backgrounds, cultures and professions, all react to situations the way I imagine an American who had never studied history or been to Europe might react (which may account for its wild success amongst that demographic).

In seeing the film (IMDB), I hoped that removing Brown’s language from the story might ease a barrier to the story. Indeed, just as the illustrated version of the novel adds depth that the paperback cannot, seeing Paris lit by night or exploring the dank effigies of Temple Church bring the story to life. Anyone who has read the book will enjoy to see each of the settings.

In trying to cram the weaving plot into a film, however, Ron Howard was forced to truly slice and dice. Howard included many of the flashbacks the Brown describes, but shot them so quickly and with such lack of detail that anyone having not read the book would have no idea what was going on. Howard also eviscerates the backstory on most of the characters, changing the complex and deluded Catholic clergy into careless monsters.

Howard also attempted to weave new plots into the story, changing much of the ending and adding several dialogues that do not occur in the novel. All of these are heavy-handed and poorly delivered. They exist to either very quickly portray a character with a certain trait without having to show it develop over time, or to make a puzzle in the story easier to describe.

Brown’s puzzles were actually artful in their subtlety. Even those who know what to look for needed to discover the solution. Howard’s puzzles, on the other hand, were a matter of following obvious markers that were easy to see. The points where the plot diverts from Brown’s story only detract from it.

Howard does do one thing well, however. Brown portrays Robert Langdon as part of a grail cognoscente—a converted believer in the sacred feminine, the cover-ups and conspiracies. Yet the “evidence” cited by Langdon in the novel are very tenuous, and in general rejected by the academic community. Langdon’s skepticism in the film offers a more realistic scholar’s view. That said, it also appears that Langdon’s arguments with fellow scholar Sir Lee Teabing are a thinly-veiled attempt to placate protesting Christians, who are taking this work of speculative fiction way too seriously.

While those who enjoy the book may be tempted to see the film (and Tom Hanks’ horrible hair), in this writer’s opinion it’s not worth the $9.50 ticket. Wait for it to come out on video. Also, If you haven’t read the book first, do so or risk spending three hours never truly sure what is going on.

Note

Interestingly, Dan Brown’s website offer’s two versions of his Da Vinci Code book pages—one titled “The Da Vinci Code”, the other “The Da Vinci Code - IE”. While the fact that Brown’s site snubs IE by relegating it to a wholly different site makes me smile, I doubt the efficacy of such a tactic. Anyone still using IE is probably so used to a poor Internet experience that they won’t notice the difference. ↩