There. Finally I saw it too. I managed to avoid the initial suicidal rush so as to experience the movie without lineup or being stuck in the last row next to the snoring virtual technician and young couples desperate for some privacy whatever the show. The movie brought some ambivalent feelings to me.
The fuss. This movie is a good fast-pace thriller based on a vague speculation, namely that Jesus sired a bloodline, which itself is based on some other people's vague speculations (lawsuit pending despite judge Smith's cryptic verdict). Many people are up in arms about the movie and the book from which it was made as they supposedly attack faith and are heretic. Some countries even banned the movie from showing. Makes for great publicity.
Let me add my two cents worth to the plethora of opinions on the subject. This movie and the book are fiction, not statements of doctrine or historical facts, even if presented in that fashion. (I am not even sure I'd turn to Dan Brown or Ron Howard for enlightenment on any contentious topic of Christian doctrine or unbiased accounts of medieval history, anyway.) Still, a great number of people take it that way. I believe one does not go to the books of Poe, Doyle, Christie, Carr, Queen, Simenone, or Grisham for historical facts or theological truths but for some light entertainment and a good thrill. Dan Brown, a talented writer of some excellent suspense-thrillers (Deception Point, Digital Fortress) is simply riding the now popular anti-catholic, antichurch, anti-institutionalized-religion, anti-whatever media wave. Bluntly stated, he simply wants to sell his books. And he's doing a darn good job at it, too (40 million copies worldwide and counting).
Let's not confuse the ambitions of an author of conspiracy thrillers with the truths of one's belief. Faith is a transpersonal relationship with God or a higher power. It is an internalized hope about something awaiting us all after our deaths, and a realization of this conviction into the conduct of our daily lives. Faith is based in thousands of years of tradition and the teachings of enlightened individuals whose minds and charisma shine through countless generations. Faith is well beyond the reach of a thriller, however well written it might be.
Acting. I am sorry to report that the best acting was not exhibited by Tom Hanks (Langdon) or Audrey Tautou (Neveu). Not even by Jean Reno (Fache). But by Ian McKellen (Teabing) and Paul Bettany (Silas). No sparks are flying between Langdon and the beautiful Neveu. It appears Dab Brown has some issues with describing one of humankind's most natural phenomena, the falling in love of a man and a woman. Fache is overtormented and overacted. Teabing, however, is excellent. Shows the joviality and the deep obsession leading to horror expected based on the book's character. Silas, though I find the director is overemphasizing the role of self flagellation, is portrayed magnificently.
Directing I very much wanted to see what Ron Howard did with the story that I quite enjoyed reading. Well, he followed the story fairly closely (to the extent possible within the confines of a two-hour movie) but this ended up in a film with so much dialogue that if you didn't read the book, would be hell boring. This indeed was the case for my wife who confessed having hard time to keep her eyes open at some points during the movie.
The fuss. This movie is a good fast-pace thriller based on a vague speculation, namely that Jesus sired a bloodline, which itself is based on some other people's vague speculations (lawsuit pending despite judge Smith's cryptic verdict). Many people are up in arms about the movie and the book from which it was made as they supposedly attack faith and are heretic. Some countries even banned the movie from showing. Makes for great publicity.
Let me add my two cents worth to the plethora of opinions on the subject. This movie and the book are fiction, not statements of doctrine or historical facts, even if presented in that fashion. (I am not even sure I'd turn to Dan Brown or Ron Howard for enlightenment on any contentious topic of Christian doctrine or unbiased accounts of medieval history, anyway.) Still, a great number of people take it that way. I believe one does not go to the books of Poe, Doyle, Christie, Carr, Queen, Simenone, or Grisham for historical facts or theological truths but for some light entertainment and a good thrill. Dan Brown, a talented writer of some excellent suspense-thrillers (Deception Point, Digital Fortress) is simply riding the now popular anti-catholic, antichurch, anti-institutionalized-religion, anti-whatever media wave. Bluntly stated, he simply wants to sell his books. And he's doing a darn good job at it, too (40 million copies worldwide and counting).
Let's not confuse the ambitions of an author of conspiracy thrillers with the truths of one's belief. Faith is a transpersonal relationship with God or a higher power. It is an internalized hope about something awaiting us all after our deaths, and a realization of this conviction into the conduct of our daily lives. Faith is based in thousands of years of tradition and the teachings of enlightened individuals whose minds and charisma shine through countless generations. Faith is well beyond the reach of a thriller, however well written it might be.
Acting. I am sorry to report that the best acting was not exhibited by Tom Hanks (Langdon) or Audrey Tautou (Neveu). Not even by Jean Reno (Fache). But by Ian McKellen (Teabing) and Paul Bettany (Silas). No sparks are flying between Langdon and the beautiful Neveu. It appears Dab Brown has some issues with describing one of humankind's most natural phenomena, the falling in love of a man and a woman. Fache is overtormented and overacted. Teabing, however, is excellent. Shows the joviality and the deep obsession leading to horror expected based on the book's character. Silas, though I find the director is overemphasizing the role of self flagellation, is portrayed magnificently.
Directing I very much wanted to see what Ron Howard did with the story that I quite enjoyed reading. Well, he followed the story fairly closely (to the extent possible within the confines of a two-hour movie) but this ended up in a film with so much dialogue that if you didn't read the book, would be hell boring. This indeed was the case for my wife who confessed having hard time to keep her eyes open at some points during the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment