How is the movie different from the novel?

I've been meaning to write a bit on this question, but have been spared some of the time and effort by Greg Wright, who wrote this short but insightful review of TDVC movie when it first came out (oh so many days ago). Wright (who is not a Catholic, btw) observed the following:

Earlier today, MSNBC carried an AP story which reported that Ron Howard's movie "subtly softens" the material of Dan Brown's book. The Associated Press couldn't have it more wrong.

Yes, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon does find some new dialogue in his mouth courtesy of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, words that at least play devil's advocate with Ian McKellen's Leigh Teabing. But in the end, the cinematic Langdon becomes much more of a true believer than does his literary counterpart.

Three major innovations introduced by Howard's movie:

First, his film portrays Opus Dei and the "shadow council" of the Vatican as really being in cahoots, really conspiring to kill people in the name of God, really trying to supress intellectual inquiry, really turning its back on truth and righteousness. In short, Ron Howard turns the Catholic Church into a genuine villain. Shameful.

Second, the movie further fabricates ancient history, making the charge that history is unclear whether the Roman Empire or the Christians were the first agressors. Please!

Third, and most importantly, the film invests significant energy in validating the Magdalene myth. While in Brown's book Marie Chauvel basically leaves the existence of the Sangreal documents and Magdalene's bones to the world's imagination, Howard has Langdon and Neveu discover plenty of material evidence to back up the claim.

Where's the mystery that feeds the soul? Where's the adventure? You'll have to find it in the book, I'm afraid. There's no codebreaking here, just polemic.

These are excellent points — but they were missed (or ignored) by most other reviewers of the movie. For many reviewers, the unforgiveable sin of Howard's flick is that it is ponderous, boring, silly. But Wright is absolutely correct that movie, just like the novel, is much more about polemics than storytelling. Which is one reason the storytelling is so ponderous, boring, silly. Which, happily, blunts some of the polemics, but hardly exonerates the filmmakers from going to such lengths to disdainfully (or is it "dis-Dan-fully"?) attack the Catholicism, historical fact, and commonsense.

Comments

[Cristina A. Montes]

"For many reviewers, the unforgiveable sin of Howard's flick is that it is ponderous, boring, silly."

The fact that Ron Howard took the movie too seriously shows that he did not intend it to be "just fiction".

[Greg Wright]

Carl,

Thanks for the kind words. To a certain extent, Howard's movie really justifies the hard line that the Catholic community took in the lead-up to the movie. I was offended by the movie on the behalf of all Christians, and Catholics in particular.

But still -- I do think we Christians handed the filmmakers the roadmap for offense. They knew exactly what aspects to play up in order to fan the flames of controversy.

[Greg Wright]

Carl,

Thanks for the kind words. To a certain extent, Howard's movie really justifies the hard line that the Catholic community took in the lead-up to the movie. I was offended by the movie on the behalf of all Christians, and Catholics in particular.

But still -- I do think we Christians handed the filmmakers the roadmap for offense. They knew exactly what aspects to play up in order to fan the flames of controversy.

[James]

The Da Vinci Code

Dan Browns book The Da Vinci Code is a compelling read a rare novel that you have to continue to read and are unable to put down. The story and the characters draw you in and you believe in them, you are transposed into them so you become a part of the action and you care about what happens to them.

The devilishly clever plot takes you on a journey of discovery through the past and present and the fact that there are elements within the book that are real; such as the places, the art and the organisations leads the reader to believe in the story. You are constantly on the edge of your seat from the very beginning to the very end and never once do you think you know what the outcome will be as the plot twists and turns are so expertly written. The thoroughly enjoyable and compelling read.

The Film

The film was a big disappointment after reading the book, after only 30 minutes I had become disheartened with the calibre of the film. As with a lot of today’s films it was dark and you felt you missed a lot. Tom Hanks was not a great choice for Robert Langdon he often looked uncomfortable and out of his depth. He was not convincing as a professor in the subject. The colourful descriptions used in the book failed to be applied to the film and it lost a lot of its excitement in the translation from book to screen. http://theo.submit-4-free.com/