Code broken and found wanting

I finally got to watch the Ron Howard/Tom Hanks billed "Da Vinci Code," and boy, was I so right in feeling more than a year ago not to read the novel until I see the movie. I was with eon last Saturday when I saw it, and he admitted that it would seem that it was better seen without having to have read the novel.

I enjoyed it a bit, save for the clumsiness of some dialogue and scenes. Then I remembered reading somewhere how the filmmakers were proud to say that they were almost faithful to the novel's narrative. Uh-oh, I thought then, I remembered one Harry Potter movie having had the same sales pitch. Now, I can read the novel. I bought an illustrated version of the novel more than a year ago, just about the same time that it was announced that it was going to be made into a movie. I held off the reading then.

I found the movie funny when sometimes the dialogue seemed to spoonfeed viewers, very much like how children's shows are (think Blue's Clues or Sesame Street). In particular, I giggled at Sophie Neveu's/Audrey Tatou's lines about the Mona Lisa and the Madonna of the Rocks while inside the Louvre with Robert Langdon/Tom Hanks. And the persistent addressing of "Professor" (or maybe some other title) when she spoke with Langdon. I read somewhere that one of the curious characteristics of a B-grade movie is the persistent addressing of characters' names in dialogue like "Professor, don't you know blah-blah-blah" then "We have to blah-blah-blah, Professor..." then "Professor, what do you blah-blah-blah..." It was also bothersome to keep on hearing some musical scoring swell for emotional heightening or mood setting. Very Pinoy, I thought, si Jimmy Fabregas ba ang scorer? Viva Films ba ito? As for some stunt sequences, I think Bruckheimer could have orchestrated better, he he.

But surely, as one review I read on Newsweek, some guy who essentially trashed the whole film (which I really think is unfair - in fairness), the movie picked up for the better with impeccable Sir Ian McKellen. He was more engaging in the background talk than any other character.

The delight that I had for the movie must probably be due to witnessing how Dan Brown has cleverly put together different legends and theories into one stacked up conspiracy story. He sifted, weighed and threaded different snippets into "play" as fictive truths then putting more of probably his own. It's clearly fiction, all the hullaballoo that Catholic leaders and groups raised about this are baseless and unnecessary, I think. (This I still believe, despite what Brown had allegedly insisted as fact.) Of those who raised issue about this film, I think the most valid now would be from the albino community - the misfit stereotype characterization of Silas/Paul Bettany is unfair and stigmatizing to albinos.

As I watched, I was also looking for some visual clues that would later have to explain its own relevance in the story. It's the Hollywood formula for mystery/thriller. I had four theories: (1) this is about Sophie Neveu; (2) the code will be a very simple but relevant word, phrase or sentence; (3) the Catholic faith will not be revolutionized (this is Hollywood, there must be some kind of convenient closure!); and (4) the story will resolve back into the Louvre (don't disregard Langdon's harping on the I.M. Pei glass pyramid at the start!). The fourth one, I particularly held at the back of my mind, it's classic mystery writing, Agatha Christie legacy: the best way to keep something hidden is to keep it where it's most obvious.

In consideration of the novel/film for its significance overall, I think the most revealing article I read was also from that same Newsweek magazine (which I bought the same night, when eon and I went for "nightcap" snacks at 7-Eleven near our place). The magazine's main feature was on Mary Magdalene or the "Inconvenient Woman." The article believes that Da Vinci Code's treatment of Mary Magdalene was not revolutionary at all, in fact, very old fashioned. Catholics have grown up to regard the Magdalene as prostitute. Da Vinci Code claims to have revolutionized Magdalene as bride/mother. Yet the character "has continued to be defined by sex.... important for her body more than her mind." The article quotes Karen King, the author of "The Gospel of Mary of Magdala":

"Why do we feel we need to re-sexualize Mary? We've gotten rid of the myth of the prostitute. Now there's this move to see her as wife and mother. Why isn't it adequate to see her as disciple and perhaps apostle?"