More Blank than Frank

Rating: 6/10 (3 January 2007)

The Da Vinci Code is a decent film that could have been a great one, but it has some problems. In what follows, I'm going to focus on the problems, as a bit of constructive criticism.
Unlike many viewers, I don't believe that the problems are related to the film's subject matter or "thesis". I also don't believe that the problems lie with the book-to-film "translation". I don't take this film as anything other than fiction, and I like my fiction to have strong fantastical elements. For me, there is no taboo subject matter, and there are no taboo ways of fictionalizing the actual world to create interesting artworks. As for book-to-film translations, in my view it is a mistake amounting to a category error to try to compare books and films--they're two very different mediums. It's not only fine for films to be very different from their corresponding books and vice versa, it's unavoidable.
Rather, the problems with The Da Vinci Code all stem from one fact that requires much caution when storytelling--it's plot-heavy. The story here (and keep in mind in what follows that I'm talking about this as fiction, relative to the film's world) is a very complex one that necessitates explaining and then tying together a wide variety of historical and other "academic" material. The main character, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), has to solve something of a puzzle, and another character, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) accompanies him. At one point they're assisted by yet another character, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen). They each know things that the others need to know in order for the puzzle to be solved, and the entire film involves them explaining and to some extent figuring out these things as they go along--which functions to also explain the "thesis" to the audience. Of course this requires a lot of dialogue, and because of the subject matter, it tends to involve "telling" rather than "showing".
Now, the kind of film explained above isn't inherently problematic. It can be done with finesse in a very exciting way--a prime example is National Treasure (2004). Director Jon Turtletaub made that film work as a suspenseful action-adventure flick as well as any James Bond or Mission: Impossible film, while still retaining an intriguingly complex mythology along with the intellectual pleasures of puzzle solving. For The Da Vinci Code, helmer Ron Howard doesn't completely abandon action and adventure, but he too often forgets about it, and it's rare that it becomes very suspenseful. It's a shame, because when Howard remembers to keep those elements present, The Da Vinci Code shows how great it could have been. At a couple points, Howard takes another angle--making the film play like more of a fictional documentary. That approach worked, too, but it's also left by the wayside much of the time, and the end result is inconsistent. There are too many stretches where it's just Langdon or Neveu or Teabing explaining and helping each other figure out the story, and everything else--all of the mise en scène--functions just as decoration.
There are other aspects of the film hurt by this approach, especially characterization. For example, there are villains in this story, and the villains seem to be involved in complex (somewhat) conspiratorial relationships with one another. But only one villain is developed as a character, with a few others functioning more like movable props. And those others are meant to be the primary source of suspense. We just don't know them well enough--what they're capable of and why they're doing what they are--for the suspense scenes to work; they're more faceless than suspenseful.
Another problem is that the storytelling mechanics are too transparent. I'm usually awful at guessing plot twists. Here, I guessed them all almost immediately (without reading the book first, although I knew the gist of the "thesis", as probably everyone at this point does). At the same time, too much is left a bit vague--again especially when it comes to the villains. For example, I never did quite understand what Captain Bezu Fache's (Jean Reno) position and role in the events was, especially with respect to his relationship with Bishop Manuel Aringarosa (Alfred Molina). I suspect that was better explained in the book, but films shouldn't have prerequisites.
(And another problem suggesting that maybe prerequisites were suggested was given in the DVD extras--there are references to the "thesis" worked into the film symbolically--for example, references to supposed members of the Priory of Sion. The only way to catch the significance is to be versed in the mythology already. While some references for "insiders" can be fun, how much more interesting would it have been for the film as an artwork to create more robust internal, self-contained puzzles and references on this level instead? There is a bit of that--for example, the "forest for the trees" reconceptualization theme, and that's one of the film's highlights, but most of the subtextual puzzle-like references are to outside information from the relevant mythology.)
So that's focusing on the problems. But The Da Vinci Code isn't exactly a horrible film. I enjoyed watching it enough to watch it again in the future. Although the tone of the film is a bit inconsistent, most other aspects of Howard's direction are good, the performances are fine, and the technical aspects are very good. It's definitely worth a watch if you're interested in the relevant genres, and if you're intrigued by the relation of the "thesis" to the actual world--as many folks are, both pro and con--then you just may love it . . . or love to hate it.