The DaVinci-Esque Code

Okay, so like most people, I read The DaVinci Code. And like most people, I enjoyed it.

Now, like most people, I like Tom Hanks. I also like Ron Howard. I think they make good movies.

When the critics panned the film version of The DaVinci Code, I was sad. "Oh, they don't know what they're talking about! It's Tom Hanks! It's Ron Howard! It's Audrey Tatou! It's Dan Brown! It can't be that bad!"

Well, having now seen it myself I can honestly tell you, darling readers -- If you have read the book, don't see the movie. If you have seen the movie and not read the book yet, don't read the book. You'll be too confused and ultimately sad because the two are so different that the only conclusion is Dan Brown had to lie down like a bitch on railroad tracks while the screenplay writers watered down his work to the point of it being a translucent blur, like raindrops on sidewalk chalk drawings. Details get messy and pieces of the story are all but cut out completely. People who are related in the book aren't related in the movie. People who are alive in the book are dead in the movie. It makes no sense.

And don't even get me started on the pile of crapola which was the wishy-washy stance on Christianity they were trying to sell! In the book, Robert Langdon, Tom Hanks' character, is incredibly critical of the Catholic church and a staunch advocate of sacred feminine paganistic dogma. But in the movie, because the book caused such a stir and America is currently in the clutches of the Conservative Christian fundamentalists, Robert Langdon becomes a nay-sayer, a skeptic, and a huge fan of Jesus Christ himself. Irony, thy name is Status Quo.

In the opening credits, the words "Based Upon The Novel By Dan Brown" flashes across the screen. Okay, great. In my unconsidered opinion, that should give the screenplay adapters some leeway to change a few locations, tighten some dialogue, and maybe even use some flashbacks for exposition's sake. But that phrase does not give them carte blanche to rewrite the entire story, complete with alternate endings, killing off characters who don't really die and mixed-up family trees! Hell, if you're going to do that, call it "The DaVinci Code-ish Movie Made By Folks Who Just Want to Put Their Own Mark On The Story" -- uh, not unlike the ancient allies of Emporer Constantine who, according to scholars, REWROTE The Bible!

Maybe that is what Ron Howard was going for -- to explain to each person who read the book that movies -- and history -- are easily re-writeable, whether it's a novel by Dan Brown or a widely-accepted religious text. Which brings me to my next point, and a horrific one at that -- how in the name of Mary Magdelene could Dan Brown bring himself to sign off on such a terribly bastardized piece of dreck as that script?! He was an executive producer, for God's sake! He KNEW that they had fiddled with the story to the point of ruining the context! True, he doesn't need to earn any more money, so he may figure "What the hell? I'm getting paid," but that says nothing for artistic intergrity.

I'm sorry, maybe it's because I'm a writer myself, but I don't think I could go down without a fight if someone tried to monopoloize my work in such a way. That's my art! That's my soul! That's my baby! That's like my editor, who the other day told me I should take the race issue out of my story on race relations in America. Um, sorry buddy, no can do. I can't take the point out of the story because it's an uncomfortable truth. That's like making out with a cardboard cut-out of a person. It's flat and flimsy and doesn't taste very good.

I could go further, but I don't want to spoil either the book or the movie for anyone who hasn't read or seen it yet. Draw your own conclusions and see what you come up with. Just don't forget the heaping helping of salt.