The Da Vinci Code - Film Review

Listen to an interview with David Hilborn talking about the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code (10.5MB) 

"Same suspense, same success, same errors – but with a small concession to orthodoxy"

SPOILER ALERT: Note that the following review includes extensive story details, including surprises that come along late in the plot. Readers who would like to experience the film as a thriller are advised to only read this review after seeing the film.

Ron Howard’s film version of The Da Vinci Code follows Dan Brown’s novel with near slavish accuracy. This means that the same plot-driven, suspenseful whirl of the book is largely maintained in a movie which takes a little while to hit its stride, but packs an undeniably strong narrative punch thereafter. Whole scenes, and whole swathes of dialogue, are reproduced almost verbatim; overall, in fact, very little is changed from Brown’s mega-selling source material.

Same historical errors

For mainstream, orthodox Christians this is, of course, vexing. The closeness of the film to the book means that most of the same distortions about church doctrine and practice peddled by Brown are simply repeated on screen. So once again the story turns on the ‘revelation’ that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and that the legendary Holy Grail is their continuing bloodline, rather than any vessel used at the Last Supper. Once again Mary is said to represent the ‘sacred feminine’ – a vital dimension to Christianity soon suppressed by a patriarchal church fearful of its echoes of fertility rites and goddess-worship. Once again this secret, feminised gospel is said to have been guarded by the medieval Knights Templar, and by their clandestine successor, the Priory of Sion. Once again Jesus is presented as a mere man who was later hyped into divinity by a pagan Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in AD 325, to consolidate and extend that same Emperor’s power-base. Once again Constantine is said to have manipulated and fixed the canon of Scripture to suit his own political purposes. Once again the so-called Apocryphal Gospels are vaunted as more authentic guides to the real Jesus than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These and related religious arguments are dealt with in the various critiques of the book which appear elsewhere on this website¹, and since the screenplay sticks so closely to the novel there is no need to repeat them here - except to emphasise that they all grossly distort the facts in the service of Brown’s fiction, while being passed off by Brown himself as historically true.

Reflecting criticism

Despite all this, the screenplay does make one significant concession to the rebuttals of Brown’s theories which have emerged from various parts of the Church and the academy since the novel was published. In Chapter 55 of the book, the aristocratic grail hunter Sir Leigh Teabing serves as the mouthpiece for Brown’s fanciful take on Jesus as he explains to cryptologist heroine Sophie Neveu the ‘secret’ origins of Christianity – Magdalene, Constantine, canon and all. In the novel, Teabing’s exposition enjoys the willing concurrence of Brown’s hero, the Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon. But in the corresponding scene of the film, Langdon is given new lines which present him as actively questioning Teabing’s theories. Indeed, he challenges those theories by counter-quoting the orthodox line – especially with regard to the deity of Christ, which he rightly points out was promulgated by the Church and its leading theologians well before the fourth century. Here, at least, Ron Howard and script writer Akiva Goldsman have sought to reflect both widespread scholarly criticism of Brown’s research, and mainline Christian understanding of Christ.

Doctrinal errors

Much more could have been done in this vein, however. For instance, the movie never once casts doubt on the frequently-made claim that the Apocryphal Gospels were stifled because they stressed Jesus’ humanity at the expense of his divinity, when the reverse is overwhelmingly the case. Indeed, as the film hurtles towards its climax. Langdon becomes ever more convinced of the key conspiracy theory of The Da Vinci Code – that the Church has colluded in ‘the greatest cover-up in history’ by systematically concealing the true role of Mary Magdalene. Eventually, indeed, we see him crack the Code, locate Mary’s tomb, and pay her homage on bended knee. Actually, while the book leaves somewhat open the question of whether Mary’s sarcophagus is in fact where Langdon believes it to be, the film pans deep below street level to offer visual confirmation that he is right.

Watching the film

Theologically and historically, then, the film version of Da Vinci is hardly better than the novel. Cinematically, on the other hand, it is as well crafted and well shot as we have come to expect a Ron Howard film to be. At times it suffers from a surfeit of explanation – not least in a series of unnecessarily detailed historical flashbacks. But the multiple locations are skilfully used and the lighting is deftly done.

None of Dan Brown’s characters are especially rounded, but among the cast Sir Ian McKellen stands out as an eccentric, obsessive and finally sinister Teabing. His appearance marks the point at which the film shifts gear from workmanlike thriller to bona fide action blockbuster, and the increase in tempo owes much to the verve and brio he brings to the role. There are moments, too, when he seems almost to throw a salutary nod and wink to the audience, as if to say ‘Don’t take it too seriously; it’s just a yarn.’ Audrey Tatou does the best that could possibly be expected of her in the role of Sophie – a woman to whom things tend to happen, rather than one who strongly shapes events. Tom Hanks as Langdon is suitably analytical and enigmatic, but for periods these qualities shade off into a strangely muted performance. In the supporting roles, Jean Reno’s wonderfully expressive features imbue the police chief Bezu with real moral tension; Paul Bettany is genuinely menacing as the albino monk assassin Silas, and Alfred Molina brings the manipulative Archbishop Aringarosa effectively to life.

Responding to the film

Make no mistake about it: this film is set to be a big summer hit. It may be historically ludicrous and doctrinally false, but millions will find it massively entertaining, and it’s not hard to see why. All the more reason, then, for churches to regard the movie not so much as a threat, but as an opportunity to present those who flock to see it with the true gospel and the authentic Jesus. Here is a film which will prompt many to ask serious questions about the Christian faith: it is up to us to ensure that the answers they absorb are not those offered by the film itself, but by the Scriptures.

Rev Dr David Hilborn, Head of Theology, Evangelical Alliance