Posted on 07/18/2005 3:09:09 PM PDT by siunevada
'Da Vinci Code' film may soften the novel's themes to avoid an almighty religious ruckus
In Hollywood, as the old adage goes, bad books often make great movies. In fact, the pulpier the fiction, the better the final result (think "The Bourne Identity" or "The Bridgesof Madison County"), because then the movie adapters feel no qualms about making significant improvements.
So it'll be fascinating to see how closely the team behind the 1995 smash "Apollo 13" - star Tom Hanks, director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer - will hew to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code," which started production in Paris on Wednesday.
The phenomenally popular novel has remained on the U.S. best-seller list for 117 weeks and sold over 25 million copies in 44 languages.
"It's the 'Harry Potter' of adult fiction," says ICM book agent Ron Bernstein. "We haven't seen anything like this since 'The Godfather.'"
Columbia Pictures bought the rights to the book four months after its publication in June 2003, when it was already making inroads into popular culture.
The question is, will the studio and the filmmakers (who include producer John Calley) follow the tried-and-true approach used to adapt J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books and J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," whose worlds were slavishly re-created on the screen? Or will they take a few liberties?
BESIEGED BY STARS
For example, the Catholic organization Opus Dei will not play a significant role in the movie, according to one of the select few who have read one of the carefully numbered scripts. "They're not out to make a religious movie," he says.
Howard and Grazer kept mum on the topic during their recent "Cinderella Man" press tour. Howard held off an onslaught of interest from name actors who wanted to star in the movie, he told reporters. He settled on Hanks to play Robert Langdon, the Harvard professor of religious symbolism, along with an international cast that includes French stars Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno and Brits Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina and Paul Bettany (who plays the albino killer Silas).
While the Louvre in Paris, home of Leonardo's Mona Lisa, is allowing Howard to film inside its galleries (it's good for tourism, after all), Westminster Abbey refused permission, calling the book "theologically unsound."
Grazer has expressed his hope that this potential blockbuster could start a movie franchise - Hollywood's holy grail. Brown's "Angels and Demons," the forerunner to "The Da Vinci Code," also features Langdon; his follow-up book is due this year.
Already, the Catholic Church has been on a campaign to debunk "The Da Vinci Code," which suggests that Jesus Christ was not divine. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop of Genoa and a protégé of the new Pope, has told Roman Catholics not to read the book, which, he said, is "shameful and unfounded" (see "Vatican's Dilemma," above right).
But when the Catholic Church attacked J.K. Rowling's hugely entertaining Harry Potter books for promoting pagan sorcery, it had little impact on the books' 250 million in sales or the film adaptations' $970 million global box office.
After Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was criticized by sections of the media before it was screened last year, Gibson cleverly stirred up controversy by reaching out to the Christian right. That sparked a huge groundswell of support. Gibson took advantage of Fox News and such right-wing advocates as ABC Radio's Sean Hannity to sell his message to the faithful. It worked, to the tune of over $609 million worldwide.
"People felt that 'The Passion' was the expression of deeply held religious belief," says "No one is saying that about [this] movie. It's an entertaining what-if thriller."
Controlling that controversy will be the key for Columbia in protecting its investment. That's why its team of PR experts are sending the message that it will be an enjoyable "popcorn" fiction.
THREAT TO CHRISTIANITY
The filmmakers are distancing themselves from Dan Brown's much-vaunted "research" into a private sect that has supposedly kept a 2,000-year-old secret that would undermine traditional Christianity.
This conspiracy theory has fueled the book's tremendous success: It suggests that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that their child fostered a line of French kings. After the early Christian Church covered this up, the secret sect planted clues about "the truth" inside great works of art.
Brown tried to make his novel seem as if it were based on historical reporting. "All of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact," he has said.
Now, in the face of many investigations into the accuracy of his claims, he has backed off some of the book's supposed authenticity.
It turns out that many of these ideas come from a 1982 nonfiction treatise by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (which Brown cited as a source).
In fact, late last year Baigent and Leigh filed a breach of copyright lawsuit against Brown in the U.K. Now there are several books that sift through the fact and fiction of Brown's novel, including "Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind the Da Vinci Code."
Moving full steam ahead, Columbia released a "teaser" trailer in theaters a full year before the $100 million movie opens on May 19.
As a tiny camera dives deep into the cracks in the Mona Lisa, a narrator intones, "What if the world's greatest works of art held a secret that could change the course of mankind forever? No matter what you have read, no matter what you believe, the journey has just begun."
And if Columbia Pictures plays its cards right, it could be a journey to box-office heaven.
Bonfire Of The Vanities Redux? Gotta have a good villain or it's gonna be pretty dull.
one of several high-powered publicity consultants who have been hired by Columbia to help manipulate the expected "Da Vinci Code" controversy.
Somebody will be fanning the flames. If only they can get some ignition.
The Christian faith will continue to roll on long after every last one of Dan Brown's books has turned to dust.
It's a void between covers, a cliched mess.
Other than that, it was great. ;)
I was about to post something, but that sums it up perfectly.
I read the book myself & thought it was too similar to other "Modern" mysteries.
Plus, some of Dan Brown's presented ideas: (that Jesus's "blood-line" would be "threatened & hunted down" by Catholics, that Jesus would actuallyNEED to be married to be "legitimate" to Hebrew Society, etc.)...
...were WAAAAAYYYYY out there...where He, Mr. Brown, Obviously is also.
Fact, were the copy I read not my Human Resource Director's copy, I woulda got me sume matches & incinerated the "Book of LIES".
I have to admit, unfairly or not, when I see people reading that book on the train I think about the anti-Christian streak in many people.
Doc, I've never read the book but when I heard the premise I recalled all the shows Art Bell did with the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It always sounded like a straight rip-off of the basic premise.
And I've heard opinions that it is not very well written and boring to some readers.
Of course, other people find it a good read.
My opinion: the movie could be a real dog if they start to water it down too much. One of the big stinkers. They've got to have a plausible villain or the conflict won't be believable.
People who like bestseller thriller type stuff seem to love it, as do people who claim to have more high-minded tastes who enjoy the Catholic bashing. Crap is crap, and crap wrapped up as some "expose of FACTS about the church" makes for a bestseller for all the Christian-bashers out there. They can read and enjoy their little fantasy and claim they are reading it because it has a lot of factual info, almost all of which has been completely disproven by the New York Times, even. Brown not only gets his theology wrong, but the head of some art institute wrote a piece for the NYT that showed Brown to not have a clue about what he was writing about in terms of the artworks he discussed.
My favorite error: Brown claims one of the figures in the painting is a woman, when someone who's taken the most basic art class knows that DaVinci and other artists commonly painted men with long hair. I mean, come on!
Too bad...I usually enjoy Tom Hanks and Ron Howard movies. For them to be participants in this tripe knocks them down quite a few pegs in my estimation.
Amen! We are not threatened by a fiction writer whose research amounts to 2 hours in front his local library's microfiche.
I am always, always cynical about any mass hysteria. I assume the masses are docile and far too easily entertained and fooled. That's why I haven't picked up a Harry Potter book, watched Survivor, or even attempted to read Dan Brown's books. Family members have given me the Reader's Digest version and only someone who has never read even page 1 of the Bible would be fooled - I hope.
Good point about the painting.
I'm with you, Samwise. I shy away from the latest "fad." Anything that people go goofy over is usually something worthless, at minimum.
It could just be something hardwired in yours and my brains. :) I have been wrong. I didn't watch Seinfeld until it went into syndication and I actually find it quite entertaining. Who knows. Maybe I would like Survivor if I could get through the first 5 minutes without flipping the channel to find something else.
Neither did I. LOL. Fortunately, it's on TBS about every evening. Now I'm "hep" to Newman, the Festivas Pole, the Soup Nazi, only about ten years late.
We'll just pretend we are re-discovering Seinfeld like the rest - about 3 different channels have the re-runs every day. Cheers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.