The Da Vinci Code

They say The Da Vinci Code sold more copies than any book since the Bible. Good thing it has a different ending. Dan Brown’s novel is very outrageous. Ron Howard’s 2006 movie is outrageously entertaining. Both have accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be shocking if anyone of level-headedness could possibly entertain them. Roger Ebert said in his review, “I know there are people who believe Brown’s fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene.” This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.

We can start by agreeing that The Da Vince Code is a work of fiction. Ebert said, “And that since everyone has read the novel, I need only give away one secret — that the movie follows the book religiously. While the book is a potboiler written with little grace and style, it does supply an intriguing plot. Luckily, Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Dan Brown is a novelist; he follows Brown’s formula (exotic location, startling revelation, desperate chase scene, repeat as needed) and elevates it into a superior entertainment, with Tom Hanks as a theo-intellectual Indiana Jones.”

Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a Harvard symbologist in Paris for a lecture when Inspector Fache (Jean Reno) tells him of the murder of museum curator Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Mariell). This poor man has been shot and will die late at night inside the Louvre. His damage, despite mortal, fortunately leave him with enough time to hide a safe deposit key, strip himself, cover his body with symbols written in his own blood, place his body in a pose and within a design by Da Vinci, and write out, also in blood, an encrypted message, a messy numerical sequence and a footnote to Sophie Neveu, played by Audrey Tautou, the pretty French policewoman whom he raised after the death of her parents. Most people are fine with a dying word or two. Jacques leaves us with a film treatment.

For those who have read the novel, we know what happens then. Sophie warns Robert he is in danger from Fache, and they escape capture in the Louvre and go off on a journey that leads them to the vault of a private bank, to the French villa of Sir Leigh Teabing, played by Ian McKellen, to the Temple Church in London, to an isolated Templar church in the British countryside, to a hidden crypt and then back to the Louvre again. Both the French and British police are one step behind them all of this time, but Sophie and Robert are shallow, inventive, and daring. They might also have God on their side.

These series of chases, discoveries, and escapes in alternated with another story, involving an albino named Silas, played by Paul Bettany, who works under the command of the Teacher, a mysterious person at the center of a conspiracy to hide the location of the Holy Grail, what it really is, and what that implies. Ebert said, “The conspiracy involves members of Opus Dei, a society of Catholics who in real life (I learn from a recent issue of the Spectator) are rather conventionally devout and prayerful. Although the movie describes their practices as “maso-chastity,” not all of them are chaste and hardly any practice self-flagellation. In the months ahead, I would advise Opus Dei to carefully scrutinize membership applications.”

Opus Dei works inside but not with the church, which also has a secret cell of cardinals who are in on the conspiracy (Ebert noted, “the pope and most other Catholics apparently don’t have backstage passes”).

These men keep a secret that, if disclosed, could destroy the church. That’s why they keep it. Ebert admitted, “If I were their adviser, I would point out that by preserving the secret, they preserve the threat to the church, and the wisest strategy would have been to destroy the secret, say, 1,000 years ago.”

However, one of the fascinations of the Catholic Church is that it is the oldest continuously surviving organization in the world, and that’s why movies like “The Da Vinci Code” are more fascinating than thrillers about religions founded, for example, by a science-fiction author in the 1950s. Ebert said, “All of the places in “The Da Vinci Code” really exist, though the last time I visited the Temple Church I was disappointed to find it closed for “repairs.”.” A likely story.

Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, and Jean Reno do a good job of not overplaying their roles, and Sir Ian McKellen overplays his in the right way, making Sir Leigh into an extreme whose study just happens to include all the materials for an audio-visual presentation that briefs his visitors on the secrets of Da Vinci’s “The Last Summer” and other matters. Apparently, he keeps in close touch with other recruits. Ebert said, “On the one hand, we have a conspiracy that lasts 2,000 years and threatens the very foundations of Christianity, and on the other hand a network of rich dilettantes who resemble a theological branch of the Baker Street Irregulars.”

Yes, the plot is insane, but then most movie plots are insane. That’s what we pay to see. What Ron Howard brings to the material is tone and style, and a feeling of mystery that is undeniable. He begins right at the beginning. Ebert said, “Columbia Pictures logo falls into shadow as Hans Zimmer’s music sounds simultaneously liturgical and ominous. The murder scene in the Louvre is creepy in a ritualistic way, and it’s clever the way Langdon is able to look at letters, numbers and symbols and mentally rearrange them to yield their secrets. He’s like the Flora Cross character in “Bee Season,” who used kabbalistic magic to visualize spelling words floating before her in the air.”

The movie works. It’s involving, intriguing, and constantly feels on the edge of surprising revelations. Ebert notes, “After it’s over and we’re back on the street, we wonder why this crucial secret needed to be protected by the equivalent of a brain-twister puzzle crossed with a scavenger hunt.” The trail that Robert and Sophie follow is so difficult and complicated that it looks impossible that anyone, including them, could ever follow it. The secret needs to be protected to a certain extent. Beyond that is absolutely lost, and the whole point of protecting it is beside the point. Here’s another question: Considering where the trail begins, isn’t it sort of curious where it leads? Ebert noted, “Still, as T.S. Eliot wrote, “In my beginning is my end.”” Maybe he was on to something.

If you want to see this film, it is currently streaming on Pluto TV, Netflix, and Philo. I knew of the book, but I have never read it. I think I saw parts of this movie, but then decided to see this one day as a rental and watch it while exercising. I like the religious symbolism they put in this film and all the other historical stuff they put in it. You should see this because it is very interesting and I think people will enjoy this film a lot. If you’re a Tom Hanks fan, you should see this. I don’t think this is bad, like the critics made it out to be, but I thought this was a good film that everyone should watch.

This film started a trilogy. With a good start, how is the next installment? Stay tuned next week when we continue “Tom Hanks/Ron Howard Month.”