Â
Mary Milan and I just woke up from seeing The Da Boring Code this weekend. As a populist entertainment, The Da Vinci Code fails miserably mainly because it’s, well…boring.   Ian McKellan (or as Carmen Santa Rosa puts it, Ian McExposition) and his portrayal of wingnut Holy Grail scholar Lee Teabing perks up the middle of the movie, much in the same way a splash of lemon brightens up the flavors of a drab dish. But MecKellan’s little dash of lemon is about all the movie’s got going for it.Â
I have three theories:
1) Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman tried to make it too populist and therefore were too reverent to the details of the source material, which are cookie cutter and I could care less for. While I haven’t read the book, I’d venture to say that a search for the holy bloodline and self flagellating albinos from Opus Dei could be in any airport fiction. Shit, I can solve anagrams in my newspaper comics page. What is interesting is when The Da Vinci Code becomes a story about power, religion as control, and gaining the power to free the world from the shackles of religion. It’s not a new idea but how many of the millions who have read the book or seen the movie have read Nietzche? That’s where I think The Da Vinci Code could have been really subversive. But alas, ho hum. I blame Dan Brown for this as well.
2) This movie takes place mostly in Paris and Tcheky Karyo is nowhere to be found? That’s absolutely ridiculous and obviously Ron Howard’s fatal mistake. Mr. Karyo’s absence from the Paris landscapes makes the entire film unbelieveable. I was holding out hope that Karyo would pop out at the end as the real baby Jesus, but again, the movie disappoints. If the name puzzles you, then you don’t know and you better axe someone, or better yet, get yourself a copy of Addicted to Love and Bad Boys. (full disclosure: I once quit a script because the producer didn’t think the actor I wrote it for - Tcheky Karyo – could carry the film. Thierry Lhermitte got attached and the film was never made).Â
3) You know the old legend that Orson Welles watched Stagecoach 39 times to prepare for Citizen Kane? Well it’s obvious that Ron Howard didn’t put his time in and watch Hudson Hawk, the O.G. Da Vinci code, however many times he needed to. If he had, I guarantee that we’d be talking about a landmark, watershed film. Â
Still, a comparison between Hudson Hawk (HH) and The Da Vinci Code (TDVC) should be made because while it’s accepted that Dan Brown took his main inspiration from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, where did he get his inspiration for plot points and characters? I say he got it from the Bruce Willis, Michael Lehmann, Steven E. de Souza, Joel Silver masterpiece:
- In HH, we have a main character who sings songs to rob museums; In TDVC, we have a main character who solves puzzles in museums;
- In HH, we have a female lead who is in a secret order of nuns and may be able to talk to dolphins; in TDVC, we have a female lead who may be part of a secret order of elders and is able to talk in code;
- In the same vein, in HH, there is a shadowy group of protectors that take shape in a secret order of nuns; In TDVC, there is a shadowy group of protectors that take shape in a secret order of elders;
- In HH, there is a fey English character played by Ian McKellan; In TDVC, there is a fey English character played by Richard E. Grant;
- In HH, the nasty henchman is a butler with knives under his sleeves and cuts his own head off; In TDVC, the nasty henchman is a monk with spiked bands under his robes and self-flagellates;Â
- In HH, decoding Da Vinci’s code will bring down the world economy; In TDVC, decoding Da Vinci’s code will bring down The Church (or the Vatican City’s economy); Â
- In HH, the Holy Grail is a cappuccino; In TDVC code, the Holy Grail is an apple.Â