Yes. I'm here to bring down a beast. I know. I don't know how this post is going to be... constructed, hopefully the disappointment and... rage will let it have some kind of sense. (If you don't want to read this whole thing, just scroll down and find the capitalized sentence) (I needed a mystery too).
I read the illustrated version of The Da Vinci Code, of course, after all the hype, I wasn't just going to imagine all the things mentioned in the book, when they were all real (and by real I mean the places, the paintings and artifacts) (and by real I also mean that I may or may not believe what is written on the book, that is of little importance, I'm here to talk about the mechanics of the book and the movie, and, of course, there is no way of eluding the contents and the contexts).
I'll start again. I read the illustrated version of The Da Vinci Code to understand better what the places and paintings this story talks about. I knew some of them art works, that happens when you finish school in an art high school. Also, I want to make clear, that, even when I'm not an expert in creative writing, I'm aware of some writing techniques as I read a book.
So, I'll have to start again. I read the illustrated version of the before mentioned book, and believe me, the design of the book, and the pictures are the best part of it. I was trying to give this book some slack, but after watching the movie, I can only see the flaws of the book (and the horrendous mistakes of the movie). The book is not a complete waste. There is an enthraling mystery: an old man is dead, in the ultrasecure Louvre museum, and is found in a very freaky state: naked and with a series of symbols and codes over and around his body that are meant to be deciphered by the right (or "worthy") people. Catchy, I know. So we're good for now. Quick paced action and description; strong, almost gorey scenes... Raunchy, I know. Then, the tension starts building (and remember this is the book): as Robert Langdon (mastermind hero) is called by a cryptologist Sophie Neveu (clueless educated girl) as Langdon is talking with Captain Fache (brutally sanctified French police) and she is right there giving Langdon the phone for him to call her. Get it? Well, it gets more complicated. Langdon calls and Sophie's recorded message answers: "You are in grave danger, don't tell Fache" (and in my head I could hear the hypertesitive music of a movie) (hypertensitive, gosh, what a word). And then, they escape by throwing a tracer out the window and fell on a truck. The police had secretly put in Langdon's clothes. Why? Because he is prime suspect. Why? Because of the balls of Fache. So here there. There's tension, as the police realizes Langdon and Sophie are still in the Louvre museum.
The book keeps on and on, with near misses from the police at catching Langdon and Sophie, which is actually what KEEPS the narrative going, or, better said, it is about the only action that there is in the movie: them running away from the police as they try to solve the puzzle. And then, there's is the history text. Gosh! There are so many unimportant details of things, and they're not memorable details either, poetry-filled or beautifully described, no. They are actual details of, let's say, an ice pick: "it is s long narrow object with a diamond point made to break large blocks of ice in the Alaskan coast, in the 1930" (I just made that up, bytheway, just to illustrate the verbose-ity of the history in the book). So, that slows the book. Still, there was the mystery. And that helped. But, don't try to find something literary in this book, there are almost no metaphors or hyperboles or any other figures of speech that are not literal or plain visual. That's not totally bad, but sometimes it can be just plain boring.
So, book, I give it a B. For interesting mystery, for heavy plot, an interesting character (the albino monk, which, for me was the best character in the book, and to whom I was the most fond of, even though he was the main villain) (but villains are always the best, aren't they?) (and he was the only one I really cared for in the book) (sad that he dies in the end...) (oops, I ruined it). B, for lengthy historical babble, which in the end IS the book.
Now to the movie.
DO NOT WATCH THE MOVIE. PLEASE!
Do not. It is the stupidest movie I have seen in the theater since... "In The Bedroom" (I have to say, though, I must watch "In the bedroom" again). There is nothing, nothing going on. I read the book a year ago, and I watched the movie last night. I was confused in the movie. Just imagine how a non-reader was. The scene I just recounted above has more tension than the movie (and note that I wasn't trying to give any tension to it). EVERY scene that I read in the book and said: "oooooh, this would make and interesting movie scene", was obscured, omitted, dimmed, toned down, or down right cut. The editing is nasty. In movies there is something called (well, I don't remember how it is called, but you'll see what I mean) which is when someone cuts scene 1 to scene 2 to scene 1 to make known that two things are happening and/or to make some entralling tension. None of it happened in the movie. NONE. The book has Sooooooooooooo many. Not even the soundtrack had a spark of tension in it. I'm sure that if they had put some JAWS music in it it would have been so much better. Seriously. The movies is two hours and a half of endless texty/testamental (or testamentical) dialogs, and unsuccessful "car chases". The Amazing Race (read previous post) had better editing, music and "pedestrian chases" than The Da Vinci Code movie. God!
The script only cared for the content of the book (which I already said was meaningless, because it is fiction, despite what I (or you) may or may not believe). And when the script only cared for the content it forgot about the rest of what comprises a movie. First the tension, there was none, none in soundtrack, nor editing, not even in what the characters say, because they discovered and they said it, they didn't keep anything in. Second, there was a hugely underused of settings slash backgrounds, which were many; as a result, we see mostly headshots and cliché tilts or pans of whatever church or monument the characters entered. Third, the movie didn't grasp a constant tone slash atmosphere, at times it felt like a film noir who-done-it, at other times it went all Sixth Sense on you (I'm a ghost), at other times it went really deep into things: extreme close-ups à la CSI, or then it went epic, like the Lord of the Rings, with some very interesting flashbacks (which actually looked awesome) (but awesome for 10 second is not enough). And forth, and most importantly, there was no symbiotic/ecologic relationship between the character and me (or the audience for that matter, except Sir Ian Mackellen's character, and it still falls short on how much you can love him (as a good guy or villain) (yes, he's a villain, and I said I loved villains) (the albino was a very interesting character, though underused/underdeveloped, and, what's up with an albino with blue eyes? aren't they supposed to be red?) I never once cared for Langdon or Sophie, or the albino or anyone, and that's bad. It reminds me of The Talented Mr. Ripley, where Ripley the protagonist villain, at the end of the movie wins after all he put his victims through, he wins; we cared for his victims, that's why we (I) liked the movie. But that doens't happen in DaVinci Code. Again. Nothing happens, or nothing exciting for that matter.
Well, I've grown tired of bringing down such a box office smash hit movie, but it's true, it was 6.50 dollars wrongly spent. I should have kept it for the X-MEN tomorrow, even if it is a bad movie, Mystique is going to be there, and The Angel, and Magneto, their only presence is just worth it.
bye.
1 comment:
Que chavienda! Mis expectativas no son llenadas nuevamente! Porqueria de pelicula.
Post a Comment