How Dull the Con of Dan -- But Ron Made It Better!

"Ron, if you make another 'Lt. Dan' crack again, I swear..."

Saw the "Da Vinci Code" film last night, and came to this verdict: Ron, Akiva, Tom, and the rest of the gang did the best they could with what they had. Let's face it: the DVC book doesn't WANT to be made into a movie. All of the important plot points are long conversations between pontificating academics (Langdon and Teabing) and their Socratic interlocutor, Sophie. The action sequences (chases, fights) take place between conversations, and serve little purpose beyond giving our heroes time to collect their thoughts for another gab marathon. So the DVC movie gang had their work cut out for them from the start.

Things the Film Made Better:

1. Less Talk -- The movie's still pretty darn chatty, but not nearly so much as the book. This change affects Langdon most: in the book, Robert L. just won't shut up -- he fixes Sophie with his glittering eye, and drones on and on and on. (My gut sense is that Dan Brown didn't want ANYTHING he found in his background research to go to waste, so it all ended up in Langdon's dialogue.) The movie is smarter: Hanks's Langdon typically only speaks when he's spoken to, and his statements are typically direct and succinct. Moreover, the dialogue is better -- more like actual conversation, less like Plato's "Gorgias". Genuine questions are asked, getting genuine answers. Also, many plot points arrived at in the book through pages of conversation are delivered quickly through simple actions or special effects: the "decoding" sequences, flashbacks, etc. The big exception: Teabing. But his pontifical monologues become part of his personality, a good choice by Akiva and Sir Ian.

2. More Personality -- Hanks conveys what Langdon lacks: a human personality. While Tom spends most of the movie with a harried look on his face (I kept thinking "constipation"), that's more realistic, I think. Langdon's an ACADEMIC, not an action hero. Hanks's Langdon seems genuinely unsettled by all that's happening, and knows he's out of his element. Langdon's uncomfortable tension connects with the audience, I think. The "action scenes" in the film -- car chases, murderous assaults, etc. -- are bland compared to all the other thrillers and action films the audience has seen, but the hero is clearly no intrepid Bruce Willis, and that creates more suspense than these scenes might normally warrant. Also, the book's Langdon is a Mulder -- he's gung-ho about all this conspiracy stuff, eats it up with a spoon, and spews it back out again. Dan Brown's Langdon is a firm believer in the MST3K John Agar credo: "Make something up -- state it firmly, even arrogantly." Akiva Goldsman's Langdon is a Scully: he doubts, he questions, he tries to maitain his skepticism and objectivity. Instead of the conspiracy theorist love-in of the book, the movie presents Langdon and Teabing's discussion of the Grail stuff as a heated argument, with Langdon the defender of something close to historical orthodoxy (!). All this works to the story's betterment.

3. Less Crap -- Don't get me wrong: the movie's still got Dan Brown's "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" conspiracy gunk. Just not so full as the book is, and not so sincere and credulous as the book is. As I already mentioned, the movie's Langdon is a Scully, not a Mulder. That in itself helps a lot, since practically every time Teabing goes off on a manic rant, Langdon offers a skeptical rejoinder. Also, Sir Ian's Teabing is obviously a few scones short of an afternoon tea. He raves, he grins madly, his mood spins on a bipolar carousel, and he's clearly unhappy with Langdon's frequent injections of sanity into his fantasy world. This is a bit of genius on Akiva and Sir Ian's part, I think. Teabing becomes an Unreliable Narrator, so everything he says is in question. Again, the movie's got a whole lot of crap in it, but its heart isn't really in it the way Dan Brown's is.

4. More Action -- In the book, action has an obligatory feel to it. Let's imagine Dan Brown in the process of writing, shall we?

Dan: Hmm. So Rob and Sophie need to get from location A to location B, and, frankly, I could keep writing this conversation FOR EVER, I love it so much. But they need to be at location B so they can talk about this other thing I have pages of material on. So they get interrupted... by the police... who chase them to location B. Good. Right. So... "Rob was just about to say something else, but then the police pulled up, sirens blaring! 'Oh no!' screamed Sophie. Rob looked grim. 'We'd better race to location B, Sophie...'"

It's a bit better than that, granted, but I think I've made my point. Dan cares about the conversations, but not so much about the action. Ron clearly cares more about the action, and it shows. There's still not much of it, but it's done well. The most important way Ron shows he cares is through the casting. Jean Reno is THE action hero of France. He walks onto the screen and you expect someone to buy the farm. Jurgen Prochnow also has a certain smarmy menace to him; ditto Alfred Molina. I'd never seen Paul Bettany in anything, but he was pretty darn creepy (Rumor: He's Joker in the next Batman movie. UPDATE: it's Heath Ledger, instead. Still, I think my point stands!). My point: even if there's not much action, convincing villains make what action there is count for more.

Conclusion -- So, the movie's better than the book. As a movie, it's decent, with some good performances by top drawer talent. But it's STILL full of crap. That's my biggest problem with it, really: it violates the rules of a good conspiracy fiction. Good conspiracies don't overtly contradict empirical and historical facts. Instead, they invent connections between established facts that undercut conventional interpretations. A good conspiracy is a reinterpretation of the facts -- a new story told with the same events and characters -- not a wholesale jettisoning of all the facts. That's what Dan Brown does, and it's sloppy. If you want a good conspiracy, read Eco's Foucalt's Pendulum or Tim Powers's Declare.