Expect a provocative and intelligent thriller!

Rating: 7/10 (20 May 2006)

A man runs through the Louvre museum in Paris, France past paintings as a dark figure pursues him. He falls while attempting to remove a large painting only to meet his death at gunpoint by a robed, albino assailant. Forced to reveal a secret before his demise, with his body later pentangled in the pose of Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, this smart and intriguing film begins. Did the dying man, with his last ounce of energy, draw a pentangle on himself in his own blood and finally die in this Vitruvian pose (notable for Da Vinci's attempt to correlate the material with the spiritual aspects of human existence) in order to leave a material clue or evidence that leads to a spiritual revelation? After viewing the film, I think yes.
This movie was not what I thought it would be. It was more. Although fiction, it weaved a tale of theatrical suspense, drama, and excitement driven by an intelligent theme without delving into gratuitous violence or substitution of literary substance with the distraction of superficial action meant as filler. This is what I really enjoyed, thickening plot, interesting characters, dueling motives, the unexpected, and of course literary drama based on historical perspective. Scholarly Robert Langdon (actor Tom Hanks) and Paris police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (actress Audrey Tautou) initially form an uneasy team based on mutual motives to discover the identity of her grandfather's murderer, which later builds into a close and mutually inter-dependent alliance. The benefit of this alliance, each with their own open-minded contributions, is that their individual strengths support the other's weaknesses as they unlock the multi-faceted code.
The film's premise is that Mary Magdalene was not only the apostle believed to be John to Jesus' right in Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper, but also was his wife who, after the crucifixion, bore Jesus a daughter named Sarah. Artful and intelligent, coded elements are designed to connect finally ending with the answer regarding the holy bloodline of Jesus. This cannot be revealed to the general public, as it would likely bring into question the credibility and legitimacy of Christianity based on the divinity of Christ. So there exists a rogue Christian sect that must ensure its secrecy and preserve the continuity of the belief that Jesus was divine and not just a man; for the revelation of even the possibility that Jesus sired a child would have indicated that he was indeed just a man and not divine (in the face of the immaculate conception), directly challenging the concept of the trinity. Additionally, does the aspect of apostolic gender jealousy enter into the equation? Suffice to say that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus could have sired a child.
Ron Howard did a fine job directing the audience to rely on examination of evidence in front of them. This combined with the fast pace forced the two main characters, and by extension the audience, to think on their toes and not just blindly and dogmatically follow what has been told what to believe. Look what the church had been doing for decades regarding pedophilia, which was protected by the clergy only to repeat itself. Its results are ethical, moral and financial bankruptcy.
One thing that I learned from established artist friends is that one never leaves the center of a painting empty (the masters would never do this). This artistic no-no came into distinct focus while reviewing Da Vinci's Last Supper. Da Vinci was a brilliant man and for him to inadvertently leave the center of an important painting empty I believe is unlikely. The patrons who commissioned it were furious at his four-year delay (1495 - 1498) but he refused to go faster. The empty space is there for a reason. Da Vinci was known at the time to dislike the direction of the Roman Catholic Church and was also known to be heretical. With obvious motive, and the fact that his main focus was his love for science and anatomy (artistry a bit of a sideline), since he only made 27 paintings (most incomplete) to approach these select few paintings with the embodiment of cryptic symbolism is not a surprising activity.
An interesting character development scene is when Sophie exhibits a proclivity for coolness under fire during the Parisian street escape lending credibility to the secret she and the audience were later to discover. This demonstration of a natural affinity for confidence and leadership in taking matters into her own protective hands while under physical danger underlined the feminine aspect early in the movie. This personal tendency would later inherently support the film's central revelation. Film notables include the saying "The mind sees what it wants to see," laughter by the women in the audience when Sophie tapped her sole on a pond, and the final scene leaving the distinct possibility of a sequel open.
Again, like the furor over the Last Temptation of Christ, The Passion of the Christ, faith was not shaken or stirred. I was excited at the thought of watching the film knowing it would be controversial & provocative. My personal faith remains well intact as I continue to respect the authority of God while questioning the intentions of people and their misinterpretations of the Bible for personal gain. The Bible does not state Jesus married; however it does not state that he didn't either. But if you ask me, in a world so corrupt, insolent, unforgiving, arrogantly contemptuous, meaninglessly violent, sometimes seemingly headed towards some no good place, it would be a nice thought that the sacred bloodline perpetuated over millennia for salvation in our time. So my questions are these: What if the Sangre Real bloodline still endured today? Could it have survived to contemporary times in secrecy? And if it did, would that be a silent test for us as individuals and the public at large? Finally, what if this blood is within you? What would you do?