Just saw the Moviemissed the book. Actually saw it with my son who helped me understand the Catholic stuff; he being raised Catholic and soon to graduate from a private Roman Catholic, Augustinian university and all. He read the book toosecretly under the covers of his dorm room bed. I like that about him, that urge to rebel and challenge from time to time, in his own quiet way. And I think that is exactly what Ron Howard was up to with this Movie, something you could secretly mull over under the covers and privacy of theater darkness.
I cant say I knew what to expect going into the Film. I was acutely aware of the critics cool reception to the Movie. Even Tom Hanks was hedging his bets, mumbling warnings that the Film may not live up to expectations; that you cant always hit a home run. I was also mindful of the early lukewarm response of Dan Browns faithful, predicting an outbreak of scratching heads for those who had not read the book and therefore were ill prepared for the intricate complexities of a first rate murder mystery.
Taking all this into account, I pieced together my going-in position. Professional Film critics seemed cautious for what I could only imagine were self-serving reasons. Christians of all stripes, both leadership and led, were understandably defensive, thus mindlessly spewing the usual party line. Dan Brown fans were annoyed by the number of plot changes they believed were purposely engineered to leave protagonist , symbologist Robert Langdon, nuanced enough not to offend anyonesomething they secretly wished upon unsuspecting born-again and moral-majority types sprinkled among the audience.
As I cozied up into my stadium seat, I thought about how Ron Howard so far had pretty much managed to disappoint everyone. I was certain to follow, making me glad I had only paid afternoon reduced prices for the tickets. But a short while later, when my eyes rolled up, my lids closed down and my head dropped to the side involuntarily, I began to think they were all wrong; the plot was just plain slow moving and the reduced priced tickets were box office thievery.
The Movie seemed inevitably headed for a one-eye open rating, possibly a two eyes shut (not good). That is until the questions about Jesus began to percolate. And no differently than the aroma of fresh brewed coffee beckoning me from morning sleep, I suddenly came to, awake and ready to take on the remaining two hours of Film. Specifically, it was that first suggestion that Mary Magdalene might have been Christs companion, someone he loved more than all others; that maybe they had an offspring; that maybe he was simply human. It was all something I had occasionally suspected, given those romance-novel-cover good looks and David Blaine magic skills to attract chicks. And what about those lost scrolls and missing gospels? What about the orchestrated biblical suppression of women? What about the potential loss of power over believers by the church if any of this was true? What about all those big juicy questions nicely wrapped up inside this whats-goin-on, whose-that, whodunit package of a plot.
By the time the final credits rolled, my brain swirled with new thoughts, new perspectives, and challenging possibilities.
As we ma de our way to the car, my son confirmed that Ron Howard had indeed smoothed out Robert Langdon, using him as a question man rather than an in-your-face answer man. I concluded Howard purposely softened the message not out of fear of offending but out of hope of reaching an audience who might otherwise be vaccinated to a hard-hitting strain of ideas, thus quick to dispel and dismiss, avoiding the risk of dangerous reflection. In other words, Ron Howard gave us a cold rather than the flu. He knows we are willing to work through the unpleasantness of a cold but downright inoculated against the flu.
I have to imagine that moderately religious folk who watch this Film will stop for a moment to ponder, to challenge their beliefs, to open their minds to other possibilities regarding Jesus Christ and the scriptur es. And in the wake of those thoughts, they may return to business as usual or may not but at least they have thought about it. Theyve kicked the tires again. Theyve chewed on it until it was either too sour to swallow or too sweet to spit out.
That is why Ron Howard chose this interpretation of the novel. He wasnt interested in reaching folks like me. He wasnt interested in disturbing Pat Robertsons flocks. He wasnt interested in appeasing Dan Browns legions. He was interested in touching those who just needed a little nudge, a little reason, a little safety in which to open up to a few interesting ideas.
I liked this Movie. I liked it a lot. My son liked it too, although he liked the book much moreit had to do with all the codes and cryptology; you know, puzzles. I gave this Movie a one-and-a-half eyes open. It was a little too long for my liking, but very thought provoking, not to mention a twisty whodunit once it got going. I may even read the book now.
This article was written by Humorist Robert Crane. Author of Still Living in the Sixties and The Single Adventure of Inlin Freebosh, Robert also writes a popular blog of casual observations and polical commentary, almost always unfair and never balanced, all of which can be freely read at his website located in the outer edges of the internets:
http://www.cranelegs.com
Author:: Robert Crane
Keywords:: da vinci, ron howard, Movies, Reviews, Humor, dan brown, tom hanks, Movie, Films, Film
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips
No comments:
Post a Comment