Da Vinci Code
I'm not entirely sure what the critics were expecting? Apparently the Da Vinci code got a very lukewarm reception at the Cannes Film Festival, and other media critics were also laying into it. I saw it last night.
I didn't think it was dull, weary or overly long at all. Whilst there were no Oscar winning performances, Hanks did a effective job of portraying the academic type. As usual,Ian McKellen was sparkling. He really brought some effervescence to the screen. Jean Reno was rather subdued in this. Paul Bettany was truy frightening in his role as Silas - an excellent performance, I thought.
The film was not a fast paced thriller - but did include the obligatory car-chase scenes. However, I felt it was more thematically powerful. Religious politics aside, the reverence for history and the "Grail" was powerfully portrayed. And I thought the last scene (Langdon kneeling at the inverted Pyramid in Paris) was fantastic.
In fact generally, the cinematography was captivating, particularly with the famous locations they had to work with. And Ron Howard (the director) was able to move effectively between framing the personal interactions, and framing the grandeur of the location. The score (Hans Zimmerman), whils not being a John Williams epic, I though was very evocative and effective.
The Da Vinci Code is not a mind-blowingly awesome movie. But then, who was expecting that. It was, however, and excellent implementation of the novel into film form. I enjoyed it, and would highly recommend seeing it.
4 Hail Mary (Magdalene)'s out of 5
It has been a while since I read the book, but I felt in movie form, the film promoted faith and reverence for the past. I see this as an excellent thing, where we should attempt to clear away the dogma and imposed "rules" of religion, and seek a true faith. Another key theme of the Da Vinci Code was the repression of women's power in society. And in fact, in many ancient societies, women always have a equal if not more powerful role to men - for example, ancient Hindus, many of the South American societies, and our own Aboriginal societies. I don't think its a bad thing to try and re-empower women in a religious context. And I think the Catholic Church would do well to address some of its past wrongs. As the biggest institutional religion, it would be fantastic if the church could shed the dogmas that have been built into the church for political reasons over 100's of years, and re-embrace what true faith is about. Finding and bringing out the best in humanity.
I would be very interested if people have any comments about this. (Click Comment link below)
The church will be very slow to change. Its dogma is rooted in history and power. However, I believe that even the dogmatic religions can be conducive to 'true faith'. At least, if they themselves are based on principles of love and faith.
The Catholic church still sees Jesus Christ as central in its teachings. To this extent, followers are exposed to his principles of compassion, sacrifice and selfless love. It is my belief that the person who truly seeks God will find Him. They will have an earnest desire to discover the truth. And, if this desire is true, they will find Him even if they have to sift through a pile politically motivated dogma first.
Indeed, such is the power of God's message.
I agree with all that you have said. Still, I believe that the Catholic church deserves some credit for at least making available, on a wide scale, the opportunity to hear God's message. At the very least, in an increasingly secular world, the church has kept religion (and hence faith) somewhat afloat.
Of course, one may argue, that the Catholic church has turned more people away from faith than it has drawn. The answer to such a statement is moot and essentially unknowable. I think this is where faith in the power and divine purpose of a higher being comes in...
So it's interesting that the Catholic church should be so critical of the Code. It's got people talking about, and perhaps loking for, faith. In this respect, the Code seems to be doing an excellent job, dare I say, an even better job than the Catholic church has been doing recently...
Peace out.
I've been thinking a lot about the movie since I had the opportunity to watch it with you.
I loved the book and I love the movie. I wasn't expecting it to be a blockbuster - who was? One review even suggested that it was "nothing like Mission Impossible III", as if that was to cast upon the movie some negative connotation.
In reality, the movie was everything the book allowed it to be. A vibrant drama and thriller, with powerful historical references, and discussions about religious ideology. You are meant to leave with your mind massaged, not with your body pumping with adrenaline at the fast cars and beautiful women.
I think perhaps the cleverest device employed in the movie was where Tom Hanks had a discussion saying that religion is what you make it, and that whether or not the Grail myth was true, the Church could manipulate it to encourage more discussion of religious affairs.
It was almost a response to the criticism Brown has copped since the book was released, and it is a noble response. He is essentially saying "use the publicity I provide, and don't be fearful of people believing too much".
I also have a lot of highly religious Catholic friends who tell me that the reason they believe that God lets bad things happen to good people is to test their faith. Surely such reasoning can be used to show acceptance of a book that's premise, if people believe it as true, tests the faith of millions worldwide.