I took a jaunt up to Maine this weekend to spend some well overdue time with my Aunt. We've had a tradition of going out to eat around the holidays since I was a small child, however life has gotten in the way these past couple years. I needed to make a point to make up for that as best as I could. We had dinner a local Lewiston Auburn Mom & Pop restaurant called Youly's. I had a lobster roll with clam chowder, my Aunt Virginia (Gigi) had haddock stuffed with crab meat and scallops. It was quite delicious.
I went to my parents house and spent the night there. I caught SNL before dozing off. Kevin Spacey was pretty good as host, Nelly Furtado was AWFUL as the musical guest... her old cheesy pop was almost tolerable, but she has adopted that run of the mill scantily clad diva style. Her time on stage was spent warbling about how slutty she is while some gangster wanna be occasionally steps in to make some grunting noises. The single is even aptly titled promiscuous. If it wasn't the real deal, it would have made a great comedy sketch. Needless to say I spent most of the musical number channel surfing.
Sunday my father and I caught the Da Vinci code. This movie, despite mediocre to bad critical reviews, I felt was quite good. Some of the reviews are so bad they are unbelievable. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might even say that the church had paid some off to write bad things. A couple of reports were that people geered the movie at the Cannes film festival... actually that reeks of the church sending people to attend. There was nothing campy about the film, at least not any more campy than the average thriller... and despite what I've read, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. This movie was not mediocre. It was above average, and I kind of expect that it will have a fairly high shelf life, and that people will see it and pass their own judgment. Critics called it stodgy and dull, I think they must of seen a different film than I saw. Now there were a couple of people who reviewed it who must have been bent out of shape atheists (they could have been one of the various bad guys in the film) because they seemed to think that the movie should have apparently been offensive instead of simply a little controversial.
Another point to make, was that the same critic that mentioned jeers and boos at the Cannes film festival mentioned laughter... which they claimed was because it was so bad. Any laughter brought on by this film in the audience I watched it with, was laughter that Ron Howard intended to get. Apparently that reviewer was either out of touch with reality, or more than likely they were abusing the truth of things (Going with the theme of the film) to support their own agenda.
The critics attacked the ease at which Sophie and Langdon figured out clues in the movie, which honestly... How on earth could they ruminate for hours in a movie that is only a couple hours long.
One area I did agree with is that in the movie Sophie's character is muted. Dan Brown's work is a feminist work. Much of the premise of the novel is based on how Constantine and Roman councils demonized women, their role in the church, their role in society, and selected and rewrote gospels that best fit their ideals. Although much of what Brown writes is based on speculation, these councils on doctoring Christian beliefs to make them acceptable for the Roman masses are known & historically recorded events. The Gnostic gospels, which tend to humanize Christ more, are those "rejected gospels". One of which was even speculated to have been written by Mary Magdalene herself. The book writes that Magdalene was not the prostitute that Romans depicted her as but the wife of Christ who bears his child. (Which in my opinion, if it were true, does not take any legitimacy from Christ as a prophet). Anyway... I'm getting side tracked, so in the book, while Langdon is sharp, Sophie is not only smart, but often is the action hero and leader when the pair get into jams. In the movie, she's become more of the standard damsel, all though she can drive a tiny car through Paris like mad, and can her touch has an almost healing influence upon Langdon's various anxieties.
I thought I'd throw some related links up:
The Gnostic Gospels, info and links
An article on the dismay and disbelief of some Polish Catholics over the uproar occurring in the rest of the world.
'Da Vinci Code' Seen As Cursory and Rushed
The above review points something about the film that I was especially impressed by. Tom Hank's character, Robert Langdon, has claustrophobia. The reason for this, Howard chose to keep a mystery until the end of the film, and his delivery, I felt was particularly powerful. Langdon tells how he treaded water for hours, and he almost drowned, but the only thing that kept him alive was the faith that Jesus was there with him helping him out, he proceeds to say: "What matters is what you believe". Langdon's faith in Christ remained undiluted despite all that he learned. The critic says this is Ron Howard's way of appeasing the public, however I would not completely agree.. Because it is set on the premise that it was not part of the book. This very much was a premise of the Da Vinci Code. That what you do, what you believe is more important than what any book, or institution tells you. All the death and fighting that occurs in this story was a consequence useless debate over petty details. It is very much a reflection over much of the escalating problems in this world today. How we live our lives is what really matters, not what organization or story we structure our morals upon. Langdon's well story is contained in the novel, just not at the end. For Howard's choice to move it, I applaud him. It is exactly moves such as this that make him one of the greatest popular culture film directors of our era.
You Are 7 Up |
 Understated and subtle, people warm up to you slowly. But once they're hooked, they can't imagine going back to anyone else! Your best soda match: Diet Coke Stay away from: Mountain Dew |
No comments:
Post a Comment