Big Picture Big Sound

History Lessened

For the seven or so people who have yet to read the book, Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's wildly successfully "The Da Vinci Code" isn't likely to sway you. All the pieces are still in place for a top-notch page turner. A mysterious murder, exotic locales, an attractive male-female team on the run from the police, clues hidden throughout history. If you were going to read it, you still probably will. If not, there's nothing here that will change your mind. In fact, you'll probably come away saying, "so what's all the fuss about?" Or worse, "this is just like 'National Treasure'." But unlike last year's blatant, ham-handed attempt to cash in on "Code's" success, there are some pleasures to be had here.

Mr. Howard is, after all, a gifted if somewhat obvious filmmaker. He films most scenes in "Da Vinci" exactly as any of us would, but there are some vivid and downright beautiful historical recreations which are a feast for the eyes. He also has the clout to get more or less any actor he wants, which means we have Tom Hanks playing Mr. Brown's symbologist hero Robert Langdon. Since Langdon is described in the novel as "Harrison Ford in Harris tweed", we'll have to take the casting of Mr. Hanks over Mr. Ford as an opportunity missed. Ian McKellen is also on hand to play one of Mr. Brown's many well-monikered characters, Leigh Teabing, an eccentric gazillionaire Grail historian. You know, the type who says "anno domini" when the rest of us would say, well, nothing.

Jean Reno, Alfred Molina (always a pleasure to see him) and Paul Bettany round out the solid cast. Mr. Bettany plays the much-derided murderous, self-flagellating albino monk Silas. Though, with blue eyes and shorter hair than in the novel, this Silas looks closer to Roy Batty from "Blade Runner" than any albino. Which is fine because: an albino monk, Dan? Come on.

Kudos to Hollywood go-to screenwriter Akiva Goldsman for his heroic attempt at turning pages and pages of flat dialogue into something resembling an actual conversation. Of course, in order to do that, he needs to have Mr. Hanks and Mr. McKellen believably get into a heated debate over the Council of Nicea, while the wonderful Audrey Tautou ( Amélie, A Very Long Engagement) is constantly made to say, "wait, I don't get it." Mr. Goldsman even gives Langdon the Hitchcockian tic of claustrophobia, apparently for no other reason than to give Mr. Hanks something to do.

Of course, like any adaptation, a film can never go into the depth that a novel can. And by skimming the surface of Mr. Brown's plot, the film reveals its inherent flimsiness. When we're reading "Da Vinci", Mr. Brown is able to bludgeon us with dense passages of hokum until we submit to his version of reality. Mr. Howard and Mr. Goldsman don't have that luxury. In the film, they must rush to conclusions that it takes the book pages to reveal, which leaves the audience thinking, "Yeah, right." As the film draws, at last, to a close in a conclusion that, like the book, contains one of its weakest mysteries, you just want to grab the characters and yell, "Just figure it out already! We did!"

At worst Mr. Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" could be taken as historical fact. At best, it could force the otherwise uninterested to take a trip to the library or at least do some obsessive historical Googling. It might even make you plan that trip to the Louvre you've been putting off.

Where Mr. Brown struck gold with "Da Vinci" (lest we forget he attempted virtually the same plot two years earlier to lesser success in "Angels & Demons", making him the Peter Benchley of the religious conspiracy genre), was taking facts from the pages of Christian history, twisting them to his needs, and creating one of those conspiracies which, to paraphrase Fox Mulder, you want to believe. And, of course you want to believe it. The world would be much simpler if we could unravel its mysteries like, well, Harrison Ford in Harris tweed.

But as a film, it turns out, "The Da Vinci Code" makes a great novel.