The Da Vinci Code

— Overview
— Cast and Crew
— Photo Pages

The Da Vinci Disappointment

OK, we all know that this is a Christian web site, and that I, of course, am a Christian. And for sure, according to men like Robert Langdon, I have no ability to remain unbiased about my view of this movie. Let the reader beware.

Ah, maybe that's true; but certainly any amateur historian can tell that the "facts" in this movie are, er, well, even more skewed than in Dan Brown's novel. All that aside (and I swear there will be no mention from here on in regarding the theology and fictional nature of this movie), it was a huge disappointment nonetheless. I should have known a movie with this much hype would have failed to deliver. Still, I wasn't really that surprised.

What really surprised me was how the book became such a bestseller in the first place. It was severely preachy (in a way that prevented you from drawing your own conclusions, or even thinking for yourself) and dull, with limited action. I have said all along that Brown's Angels and Demons would have made for a better movie.

In spite of the talents of one of our nation's premiere actors (Tom Hanks) and directors (Ron Howard), this movie is choppy and rushed, yet still too long (with awkward dialogue reminicsent of The Omega Code and Left Behind). I had a similar feeling reading the book, which was 100 pages too long. So I don’t really think that the problem was completely with Howard or Hanks. There simply wasn’t enough legitimate storyline in the book to make it a go. Hanks' and Howard's biggest faux pas is the fact that they took the gig in the first place.

I did feel, however, that Ian McKellen was convincing as Leigh Teabing. (I guess when you hate the Church as much as he does, it’s easy to play a guy that hates the Church?) What I don’t get is how the famed Roger Ebert can say, "The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations." What "startling revelations" did he see? Was he high? This movie is severely enslaved to the obvious. The alleged "startling revelations" have long been drawn out in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Tomb of God and The Jesus Mysteries. There are no new startling revelations—just old revelations made far more concrete and unengaging. The only thing startling is the fact that this movie will gross millions.

I was disappointed the most because I actually expected Howard and Hanks to make this movie better than the book, and had heard that there were some plot twists that would "blow my mind." Well, they did clean up a few inaccuracies—like, Silas the homicidal, albino monk has blue eyes instead of red like in the book. We can thank NOAH (National Organization of Albinism and Hypo-pigmentation) for that, and Howard even made Langdon a spokesman for some of the counter arguments of Teabing's rant in regard to Christianity being a fabrication based on pagan religions.

That lasts for, oh, about two minutes, until even Langdon is rescued from the miry clay of Christianity's dirt and becomes a true believer in the grail legend.

The one thing the movie did reveal to me was the absurdity of that legend's claims. It made National Treasure look like a documentary. As a matter of fact, I think the comparison is very valid. National Treasure was entertaining, and The Da Vinci Code was, well, read above. Both movies had a conspiracy theory as the main story, but one preached and the other showed. They both found their treasures at the end, but one was worth something and the other was dissatisfying. They both were supposed to be intriguing, and one was and the other wasn’t.

Instead of continuing my rant, I will attempt to make two observations that underlie this movie. The first of these is a positive look at Sophie's rise from skepticism to belief. The book conveys the impression that it's more important that Sophie find her family than that she find the Holy Grail. But in the movie, family issues are wholly secondary (her brother is even written out of the script), and it is revealed that Sophie is indeed the last remaining descendent of Jesus Christ. In a scene at the end of the movie, Langdon (Hanks) asks Sophie (Audrey Tatou) if knowing that she was from the line of Jesus would change her view in regards to faith and her place on earth. You got a sense that she has been struggling with her identity, and what to do with it. In spite of Hanks' New Age lines “It only matters what you believe,” and “What's divine? Maybe the divine is in all of us,” we do feel that maybe her struggle is similar to the universal struggle of coming to terms with an identity in Christ.

We all struggle with or against faith (one way or another) and what we should do as a result—and Sophie, at least, matures into her role as a descendent of Jesus Christ. She is a stark contrast to Silas, who seeks redemption through self-flagellation, while never coming to a knowledge of the truth. But Sophie comes to saving knowledge, of a sort, by realizing her identity is in Him and not herself.

My second observation ends with a whimper. Teabing fights hard to reveal the heinous coverup of the Church, one that made Jesus Christ a god who died for our sins while vitiating the "sacred feminine" in its path. He mouths the skeptic's mantra that "a belief in one true god means killing in his name." It's important for Teabing to reveal the truth, so that the world can find out that the "greatest story ever told is a lie."

I am trying to analyze that as a believer, trying to objectively think through its ramifications. Is it better to make Jesus a man who got married and did some decent things (and even that’s debatable) and then dies, or to portray Him as the God/Man who, because of His great love for His Father and His creation, came to earth to put His life down for the sake of others so that His justice could prevail in a very unjust land, bringing hope to millions in an otherwise meaningless existence? Maybe the divine is in all of us, and we have killed millions in our own name!

Whether the biblical story is true or not is certainly up for debate, as the movie weakly demonstrates. But it is still the greatest story ever told. There is no greater story than love conquering hate through sacrifice. And this is ultimately the movie’s greatest flaw. Though the ending of Dan Brown's book was equally non-redemptive, it was at least open-ended and embraced a sense of mystery. But the movie changes the ending and reveals the physical hiding place of the Holy Grail.

But in spite of the glorious music that accompanies the find, I found myself saying, "So what! Where's the hope? Is this startling revelation all you have?"

Unfortunately, the answer is "yes."