Da Vinci : Code Kyun Kahaan?
Imagine Ron Howard’s problem. He has to make a movie based on a novel. A novel, which has had the highest recorded sales in publication history, next only to the Bible.
So every viewer turning in to see the movie knows what the next line or the next scene will be. If the scene is skipped by Ron-jee then he’s criticized, and if the scene plays as per what the viewer expects, then it isn’t upto the mark of what the viewer had visualized while reading Dan Brown’s numero uno.
In short you are destined to be fucked from both ends. Critically.
From a commercial stand point there was no better subject to choose from. Controversial. Wide read. Free publicity. Welcome the incoming rush on Friday. Cha Ching.
And with $77 million sales in tickets over the weekend in the U.S. alone, the decision to make Da Vinci Code into a movie was bang on target. Success from a critic’s standpoint is highly debatable.
To begin with the novel is a B grade biryani sprinkled with A grade spices. I have not been a big fan of Dan Brown right from his “Angels and Demons” days. Fiction writers and Movie Makers in the West these days seem to be too influenced by Bollywood masala. The indigestible escapism, license to do the abnormal, unnatural, incongruence are among the many other traits seen in the recent works of the west, which many Bollywood movies have long suffered from.
In order to hook the audience, that is familiar with each nook and corner of the story, Ron Howard uses:
1) Camera placements & movements
2) Background music
3) Sudden movements in an almost statically moving scene eg. Man jumping/pouncing into the frame etc. etc.
Now if someone can tell me what an amateur movie student with an average intelligence would have done anything less (to bind the audience) from what Mr. Howard-jee did, then you are invited to a round of free Darjeeling tea with ginger and masala at my place.
The gimmicks or rather the attempts to bind the audience are nothing out of the ordinary and one expected Howard-jee to come up with better creative ideas that are many a notch above what a film making student would have come out with.
For those who still haven’t read the plot, the movie’s about Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) who follow clues left by Neveu’s murdered father/guardian. The clues revolve around a secret society that has been guarding a secret for centuries, a secret connected to Jesus Christ.
The screenplay is way average and the execution reeks of boredom. Was this movie made because the crew had nothing better to do? Is this what quality means to the people on the team of the Da Vinci Code, the people who have once been the proud recipients of the Oscar awards?
C Plus. An uninspiring project that would need flashlights to search for traces of any non-existent energy.
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
I agree Oz
The movie is boring. But look at the business it did.
Lesson learnt. Sell a shity product with a good advertisement and the product sells.
Punds
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Audrey’s smile in the last few scenes makes it a bit paisa-vasool.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:02 pm
The dialogues in the movie were totally inane…..very amateurish. But after reading the book you HAD to see the movie!!!
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:11 pm
This movie has already run into a lot of controversy in India. Was expected to release last Friday, but was called off at the last minute. As for the book, I personally don’t like Dan Brown’s style of writing. It has too many details and sounds more like a technical book than a novel.
I want to see this movie though for Audrey Tautou’s performance. I was fascinated by her work in Amelie.
~Manoj~
May 25th, 2006 at 6:32 am
Oz,
The book had a good plot and was well researched but the movie seems way of the mark.
They have not even utilised the abilities of Tom Hanks.
TC