The Da Vinci Code...

[fajrdrako]

I went to see The Da Vinci Code with Harry and Sheila today.

As I expected, it worked better than the book - the absurdities were nicely smoothed over, Langdon didn't seem quite so clueless, and it was easier to overlook the holes in the logic. And unhistorical though it is, I must admit that I got a kick out of seeing the historical sequences of the Templars, Mary Magdalene, whatever. I guess I'm such a history junkie I'll take my thrills anywhere I find them.... Well, not quite anywhere. Yesterday Lyn phoned me to tell me there was a show on TV about Robin Hood. My century. Okay, I turned it on, and couldn't stand more than five or ten minutes of it.

Fiction is a different matter. The Da Vinci Code had in that way a bit of the feel of episodes of Highlander, the flavour of history without the substance; history as a background to fantasy.

Sheila and Harry both thought Tom Hanks was excellent. I can't see it. He always seems boring and bland to me. No personality. I did like Ian McKellen - of course - and for once I liked Paul Bettany. Usually I avoid his movies - I find him creepy. Since Silas was supposed to be creepy, he was perfect and I loved his performance. Silas was my favourite character in the book, too. Not that this is saying much.

I wouldn't want to see the movie again, but I was neither bored nor annoyed. And this time, I understood the end of the story - what exactly was buried in or under the Louvre.

Comments

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Fiction is a different matter. The Da Vinci Code had in that way a bit of the feel of episodes of Highlander, the flavour of history without the substance; history as a background to fantasy.

I think they would have been wiser to market the whole thing as fantasy in that way. The problem, of course, was Brown claiming in the preface that all the historical material in the story was factual.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

From my point of view, the Da Vinci Code had more than one problem - the implied historicity being one of them, coupled by Brown's defense when challenged on any historical point - "it's only fiction". When, of course, it is fantasy. But I was just as annoyed by the style as the content: the elementary-school vocablary in which it was written, the unvarying pattern of the chapters, the transparency of the clues (which the 'expert' characters were struggling with) and so on.

So it's a book I love to revile. And yet zillions of people (and many of my dearest friends) loved it and Dan Brown can laugh all the way to the bank. I may not respect his writing, his integrity, or his probity, but I can sure admire his bold and brazen success.

And it gives me a little perk. When a friend comes to me to ask about some historical non-fact from the books, starting out "is it really true that..." I get a chance to tell them my views on the history - an opportunity not to be missed!

[renka54.livejournal.com]

If you haven't seen A Knight's Tale yet, do rent it! Paul Bettany is a total delight in it, and completely non-creepy. He plays Chaucer, actually. And he's hysterical.

Bettany is also not creepy (IMO, anyway) in Master and Commander, which is an outstandingly excellent film anyway and he's wonderful in it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I have seen A Knight's Tale - it was the first thing I saw Paul Bettany in. I didn't like it much, and I certainly didn't like Bettany in it, though I know everyone else in the world loved him as Chaucer. Until that movie, I'd been quite a fan of Heath Ledger, from Roar, but that one put me off him. The actors I did love in it were Rufus Sewell and James Purfoy - it was the first time I'd seen Purfoy, and he was great.

I didn't like Bettany in Master and Commander either, which was a great disappointment. I can't help finding him creepy - I don't know why I do. It's just the way it is.

I haven't seen him in anything else, except The Da Vinci Code.