Dan Brown's publishing miracle, "The Da Vinci Code"

[jazzbo]

I don't see that anyone has started a topic on this one yet.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but will when I can; I have other priorities I'm afraid and wish I didn't.

I read the book, I reluctantly bought the darned thing and I'm glad I did. I was astonished at how he made a thriller out of the subject material, and impressed at how well structured and written it was. I think it had less "truth" to it than it sort of claims, and more "truth" to it than its detractors are proclaiming. But it is after all a novel, and a work of fiction and really doesn't claim to be otherwise.

Has anyone read the book AND seen the movie? The movie looks promising to me, good cast, good director and apparently a decent screenplay. . . .

[John Tapscott]

I've read the book; am going to see the movie tomorrow. (It's a Canadian holiday and way too cold to do much outside). I thought the book was a good read, but actually delivered less in the end than it seemed to promise. From a historcal perpsective it sort of turns history on it's head, but of course, that twist is what makes the novel possible.

[WD45]

I saw the movie today. The wife read the book, but I haven't. I liked the film, she really liked it.

It felt like it was going to end 4 or 5 times in the last half hour. I don't know how they could have done that better.

[jazzbo]

Well, I find it so interesting this "history." The assertion about Jesus' "humanity" certainly neither shocks nor unnerves me. Some of the gnostic material I've read for years has made similar assertions, and I may even be convinced that the earliest followers of Jesus may have had this view.

I've read years back the books that Brown is being sued over, outlinging the "history" of the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar et al. I wasn't convinced that the story was as stated, and apparently now there is quite a bit of belief that the "Dossiers Secretes" were fabrications, along with the whole concept of the Priory, etc. Something was up with the Templars who were a fascinating group, but they didn't have to be safeguarding this particular secret. I think the lawsuit is going to be fascinating when concluded: the authors suing Brown had been defending their work as "history" vehemently, and you can't copywrite "history". . . . Their case would be solid if they were not claiming "history". . . !

I can sure see why they are pissed though, since on top of using their research for main plot material, he used the first name of one of the authors for the first name of one important character, and an anagram of the surname for the same character's surname!

I've never been too terribly interested in Da Vinci before and so don't have much information on whether there are so many secrets coded into his work.

Brown is apparently quite the fan of puzzles and codes and he sure put that love into the book. Didn't particularly care that much about these but I did enjoy the material used!

[Harold_Z]

I enjoyed the book and will definitly see the flick first chance.

I think the law suit in Great Britain was settled in Dan Brown's favor.

The book stores are loaded with with related "Da Vinci" material, but I haven't so far latched on to any.

For those of you who read "Angels And Demons"......(also a fascinating read)...the same template, but different subject matter.

[jazzbo]

I'm going to need to read "Angels and Demons" at some point. Yeah, interesting. . . Illuminati are the bad guys in this one!

The English lawsuit was a little weaker and it's not surprising that Brown won; different situation entirely, not the same authour(s).

Interestingly, the US suitors want Brown to pay then 100 G which is small change. . . but they also want the book to be stopped publication-wise which is going to HURT a bright future.

[Dmitry]

I'll be a voice of dissent here, read the book, quite disliked it [nothing to do with subject matter]. It was some lame writing and the plot sucked. In short, it had all the makings of a Holywood thriller.

[Jazzmoose]

I haven't read it, but a freind has read it and seen the movie. Said the book was " a good idea poorly executed" but the film was much better. I'll probably pass on both.

[brownie]

I have not read the book and don't think I will...

I have not seen the movie and don't think I will until it shows up on cable TV (probably next year).

That Da Vinci craze is ruining my visits to the Louvre museum. I go there pretty often and used to stop by Da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' to see how the old girl was doing but nowadays this has become impossible what with the crowds massing in front of the painting.

Most of those people manning small cameras to show their friends back home they went there and went past La Gioconda!

The same crowds that flock to the Saint-Sulpice church on the Left Bank for the past few years since the church is another landmark that is part of the story. The church was an island of tranquility until that damn Code came into existence.

Personal memory of the Saint-Sulpice church: it was the place I saw Duke Ellington and his orchestra for the last time when the Duke performed one of his Sacred Concert there in 1969.

Edited May 22, 2006 by brownie

[Shawn]

Haven't read the book or any of the related subject matter (I've got organized religion phobia), but I will go see the film. The hype machine around this is interesting, quite a word of mouth deal. One of the entertainment magazines said this film could have probably saved all it's advertising budget because it would have been a monstrous hit just from the people who read the book.

The people who are "outraged" over this must be the same bunch who tried to get "The Last Temptation of Christ" banned. I was living in Georgia when that movie came out and it was only allowed to play in one theater in Atlanta...nowhere else in the entire state. Plus we had to walk through a picket line of bible-thumping wackos just to get into the theater.

Odd side note: The Knights Templar were used as the main characters in a string of cheap Spanish horror films from the seventies that started with "Tombs Of The Blind Dead". I never made it past the first 15 minutes of that one!

[Pete B]

I read the book and thought it was ill-written, even by today's rather low standards for pop literature. A.O. Scott, the movie reviewer for the NY Time, called the book "best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence". I like that. He proceeded to savage the film.

[jazzbo]

I'll be a voice of dissent here, read the book, quite disliked it [nothing to do with subject matter]. It was some lame writing and the plot sucked. In short, it had all the makings of a Holywood thriller.

Weird. I found the writing fascinating because it was stripped down to the bone, nearly a shorthand, and that helped propel the adventure/chase aspects. And I found it fascinating that he used this particular plot material and the way he constructed it and presented it was nearly genius, as I've been reading material like that he was using for source and background material for decades and had never thought anyone would be able to create an international bestseller thriller out of it!

To each their own, as always.

[jazzbo]

I read the book and thought it was ill-written, even by today's rather low standards for pop literature. A.O. Scott, the movie reviewer for the NY Time, called the book "best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence". I like that. He proceeded to savage the film.

Well again, I marvel at how successful the writing was in drawing such a huge audience. I think this was a RECORD publishing event. And I didn't have the same problem with the writing (I sort of liked the maverickness of it, especially considering the education and situation of the writer).

[JohnS]

Thanks for all the above comments. I've not read the book m,ainly because of the poor reviews. Some friends loved it though. I'll be seeing the movie (my wife wants to go). Who knows I may even try the book.

[7/4]

I read it, borrowed from a friend a few years ago. I really enjoyed it. I don't think I'll rush out and see the movie, but eventually I guess I'll check it out. I also read Angels and Demons, but it wasn't as good.

Edited May 22, 2006 by 7/4

[Dave James]

I've read the book but I haven't seen the movie. No use battling the crowds on the first weekend the film is in full release. I quite liked the book. I thought the writing was fine for what it is...a mass market thriller.

The most interesting element of the whole DaVinci episode is the overreaction of the Christian community. For cryin' out loud guys, this is a work of fiction. Yeah, I know Brown makes some assertions about the reality of some of his documentation that may not be accurate, but so what? If all these folks are so sure of their beliefs and so certain in their faith, then why do they get so excercised over something like this?

BTW, for those who get The New Yorker, there's an interesting article in this week's issue having to do with Sony's rather odd, upside down marketing strategy for this picture.

Up over and out.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Dave James

[7/4]

I must say, I could watch Audrey Tatou paint a wall.

Now there's a reason to run out and see the movie.

[Daniel A]

I read the book and I admit I fount it rather absorbing, while it's perhaps not a great piece of litterature, though. I read "Digital Fortress" and found it pretty weak. The film has gotten a lot of bad reviews over here; not sure I'll want to see it.

[Jim R]

Didn't read the book, but saw the film. I can see how the book might have been quite appealing, but to me the film was too hurried, too frantic. I know there are good reasons why it wouldn't be so, but I thought this was one of those films that would have been better had it been significantly longer. Too little time for character development, and for the mind to digest the development of the story. Also, I thought it was pretty awkward in terms of how much of the dialog involved characters overtly explaining both the historical backdrop (real or fictional) as well as various aspects of the plot. It was probably necessary for the sake of making it all coherent (especially for those of us who hadn't read the book), but at times I felt like I was watching Scooby Doo (apologies to those who don't have kids... or maybe some of you are young enough to have watched that yourselves ). Maybe it was partly due to the frantic pacing, but I had trouble believing that Langdon (Hanks) was capable of solving so many riddles so rapidly.

[7/4]

Louvre Story

Hanks and Howard turn bestselling Christian skullduggery into long-winded History Channel special

by Michael Atkinson, Village Voice

May 18th, 2006 4:54 PM

Stuffed with book learnin', worshipful of scholarship, queasy about violent action, and motored by anagrams and Riddler-style brainteasers, the obligatory film incarnation of The Da Vinci Code is something of a locker-stuffed nerd in Blockbuster High School. Studiously faithful to the ubiquitous bestseller, Ron Howard's film is uniquely clotted with history and mythology for a bankrolling summer movie, a form virtually defined by a gape-mouthed ignorance of both.

If only it were allowed to be merely a cheesy romp, an Indy Jones movie with more sophisticated stereotypes and far less humor. But apparently this is no mere pop novel-turned-high-hat megaplex product. Even satisfied readers of Dan Brown's Christian skullduggery may be surprised by the gravitas with which this franchise is being regarded—in the week rolling up to its release, newspapers dissected the book's high-flying theses yet again as if they were historical assertions in need of debunking. Advance reviews burst early like hand-jobbed teenagers, and incredulous BBC commentators broke the story of the film's "ordinariness"—as if they thought it was destined to be a genuine revelation. Concerns about sectarian violence may keep the film from many Arab theaters, and cries of sacrilege have been renewed, as if by command of Brown's publicity team. Da Vinci Code coffee table volumes, board games, spin-offs, retorts, T-shirts, and coffee mugs continue to clutter bookstores, while the Vatican called for a boycott sight unseen, lending Brown's conspiracy theories cultural weight he couldn't buy for a billion bucks.

The resulting irony is thick as a brick, as we're faced with a populace, ordinarily disinterested in historical matters, who are suddenly paying far too much serious attention to the cryptology of the deep Christian past. Even star/coif victim Tom Hanks is cynically sensible about the hubbub—or is he brownnosing the devout?—when he told The Evening Standard that the film's story "is filled with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense." Brown might quibble, but Hanks is right—the Da Vinci Code movie is old-school skylarking, pulling monk-chant tropes out of The Omen and talking up theories of symbology, Jesus biography, and Crusades espionage that have loitered in fringe academia for decades. (Robert Graves's

The White Goddess danced over and disposed of this pagan vs. apostolic material in 1948.) For the first hour, at least, it's the sort of movie in which the hero is told by a stranger, "You're in grave danger." It may've been the 80th or 90th time I've heard that line, and I succumbed to a pang of matinee joy. It didn't last.

A plot synopsis would be redundant for many and scandalous for some; let's leave it with Hanks's semiotic historian being confronted by a Parisian cop (during a book signing!) to help uncode messages left beside a murdered body in the Louvre. From there, he careens (in a single day, mind you) through a nefarious plot involving Opus Dei, the Crusades, the significance of the Star of David, the secret legacy of Mary Magdalene, and a psychotic, self-flagellating albino monk (Paul Bettany) whose idea of being inconspicuous is to stalk the banks of the Seine in a cowl.

Jungians will be snoring by the second act, such are the elementary-grade explanations for religious signs and occult motifs. As a thriller, Howard's movie is 2.5 hours of clue-finding, plus explanation, plus police pulling up outside. Hanks's rather testy bookworm has absolutely no third dimension, but Audrey Tautou's nurturing, code-experienced civilian has too much baggage—helpful flashbacks pop in at the drop of a gospel and often digitally occupy space with the contemporary characters. (A half-remembered glimpse of cabalistic sex ritual scans like an outtake from Eyes Wide Shut.) The juice that made Brown a magnate doesn't begin to flow until Ian McKellen, as an eccentric academic on a Grail quest, shows up with his capable jowls packed with exposition. The book may've magnetized readers with explications of Christian lore that draws too much uninterrogated devotion as it is, but the movie ends up feeling like a long-winded History Channel special with movie stars and car chases.

Without the 40 million books already sold, this overpuzzled hogwash—which, it should be rationally said, is no less risible than the Christian dogma it disputes—might've commanded the presence of Scott Bakula and gone straight to video. Overshadowed by its own marketing hurricane and popular rage, Code struggles for significance as a movie experience and flies a weak flag as a provocation.

Edited May 22, 2006 by 7/4

[Shawn]

The pacing is understandable in a film that has to explain so much to the audience, each page of a novel equates to about 1 minute of screentime. So every film would last for hours and hours and hours if they didn't condense.

[RDK]

The pacing is understandable in a film that has to explain so much to the audience, each page of a novel equates to about 1 minute of screentime. So every film would last for hours and hours and hours if they didn't condense.

No no no no no. Each page of a screenplay equates to roughly one minute of screen time (but even this isn't exact). For a novel there are no rules about page length and screen time. There are so many factors involved, such as writing style, story content, amount of dialogue vs. amount of action, etc. Have neither read nor seen D-Code yet, but you are correct in that the story is heavy with exposition - not usually a good thing in a visual medium like film. But unless you're Harry Potter ( ) the condensing of a novel to the screen is usually a neccessary and good thing.

[P.L.M]

I'll be a voice of dissent here, read the book, quite disliked it [nothing to do with subject matter]. It was some lame writing and the plot sucked. In short, it had all the makings of a Holywood thriller.

Can't agree more on every aspect (the subject is old moon).

And it gets very funny when you know PARIS.

The description the writer is doing of the travel that the caracter plays by HANKS in the movie does when he goes from Le Sacré-Coeur to the LOUVRES is absolutely hilarious.

Seems than BROWN has never visited PARIS or LE LOUVRES before he writes the book.

For the rest, like the famous list of the "protectors" (from this absurd "prieuré de Sion") of the secret tomb of Marie Magdalena, who is suppose to start with LEONARDO DA VINCI and going to... COCTEAU, it was a hoax made up by three people in the fifties, one of them claiming that he was from the direct lineage of CHRIST and, because the CHRIST's daughter was married to the first of the MEROVINGIEN king, the true heir of the throne of France.

I won't tell you the whole story, you just have to do a little GOOGLE to find it in all its details and in every possible langage.

Edited May 22, 2006 by P.L.M

[Joe G]

Oh my GOD! Get a grip, people!

Da Vinci Code: Calls for fatal hunger strikes in India

09 May 2006

Mumbai, India

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=.../breaking_new...

A Catholic group on Tuesday called on Christians to starve themselves to death in protest at the release of The Da Vinci Code at cinemas in India, as others burned copies of the novel.

The Catholic Secular Forum said it hoped thousand of people would attend a protest on Wednesday in Mumbai to burn effigies of Dan Brown, the author of the best-selling novel.

"It's to show the extent that our feelings have been hurt," said the group's general secretary, Joseph Dias, speaking of the "fast-unto-death" call if the government fails to take action.

He denied the hunger strike was irresponsible. "It's a more Christian way of doing things, rather than pulling down things and tearing them up," he said.

The film, scheduled for global release on May 19, will be dubbed into four languages and will be distributed across India, a spokesperson for Sony Pictures said.

About 100 people gathered for a protest on Tuesday in Mumbai and burnt pages of the book, but were prevented by police from burning an effigy of Brown, an Agence France-Presse photographer said.

The controversial film stars Tom Hanks and is based on Brown's best-selling novel. It explores the idea that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had children whose descendants are alive today.

Christian churches have condemned The Da Vinci Code as an attack on their faith and an aide of Pope Benedict XVI has called it a "perversely anti-Christian novel".

About 2% of India's 1,1-billion people are Christians.

The Catholic group also called for a second film, Tickle My Funny Bone, to be banned saying it told the story of a "sexy nun," according to reports.

[Shawn]

The pacing is understandable in a film that has to explain so much to the audience, each page of a novel equates to about 1 minute of screentime. So every film would last for hours and hours and hours if they didn't condense.

No no no no no. Each page of a screenplay equates to roughly one minute of screen time (but even this isn't exact).

That's right, my bad...not enough coffee today....