Movies I Will Never See: The Da Vinci Code
Filed under: Drama
Despite the fact that my family members should have owned stock in Dan Brown's bibliography given how much of it they read, and of course the rest of the world devoted years to discussing the historical possibilities of his fiction, I never read The Da Vinci Code. Quite frankly, I'm not much of a reader, owing primarily to the amount of time I spend writing, but the last book I curled up with was one about the diminishing intelligence of the American people, although for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.
In any case, I had no particular feelings about the fact that Ron Howard was adapting Brown's best seller into a feature film, with the possible exception of my superficial determination that Tom Hanks' hair was simply terrible. But when I didn't have to review or cover it professionally, I decided not only that I would save my money for something more worthwhile (I mean, Poseidon came out two weeks prior), but that The Da Vinci Code was going to be a movie that I would never, ever see.
Admittedly one of my pet peeves as a critic is seeing films that maintain even the vaguest pretense of historical accuracy; movies like The Last King of Scotland and Miracle at St. Anna are infuriating because they suggest that their story is based in reality, or at least don't devote much attention to clarifying that it's completely fictional. The Da Vinci Code was pretty quickly debunked even before it was adapted into a film, so I wasn't especially concerned that it was positing an authentic portrayal of history or Catholicism or anything else. But I was nevertheless annoyed by folks who wondered, almost always aloud and within earshot, whether or not some of it could possibly be true.
But the main reason I elected never to see the film is simple: I had no interest in its subject matter whatsoever. I don't care about a murder mystery, I don't care about Catholic corruption, and I don't care about albinos, at least not cinematically. Moreover as an entertainment journalist, there are so many different things that I'm assigned to cover whether I like them or not, and that responsibility kind of forces you to familiarize yourself with all of these properties and franchises that you may or may not care about. As such, it's a little bit refreshing to recuse oneself from participating in something that qualifies as a bona fide cultural phenomenon, and so even if the movie's terrific or terrible, controversial or hopelessly conventional, I enjoy the fact that I'll never see it, and with any luck, will never have to.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-15-2009 @ 5:25PM
Jaded said...
As a person who not only loves to read but enjoys film, I have to disagree with you on this one.
The DaVinci Code was a work of fiction, if you were to meander down to the book store or check on a book selling website it would be found in the fiction section. No one except the writers of Holy Blood Holy Grail were trying to claim that the book or film were based on historical fact, although the fact that the church came out and made a comment gave it more controversy than it deserved. Yes, it used elements of history and made a them into a murder mystery, but how many movies or books have done that. It would be like saying that the National Treasure series was based on true stories. Yes, the main historical people did exist, but I highly doubt they hid a treasure inside of a church in New York or that Mt. Rushmore is hiding some mythical Indian golden city.
I could understand if you were saying this about a movie where they are claiming it's true, but there is no way of knowing like Open Water or The Perfect Storm where everyone died so no one knows what actually happened. These films actually claim to be based on a true story, that no one was left around to tell, but the DaVinci Code never claimed to be true.
You don't want to see it because you don't like Hanks or Howard, or you aren't interested in the subject matter... fine. Reason enough, but to say that you won't see it because they are lying about it being based on a true story, means you only bothered to read the controversy and listened to those same people that you were bitching about.
I'm not sure you can call that entertainment journalism as much as tabloid fodder.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 5:36PM
Michael said...
I can't believe you're still running this ridiculous column even after all the negative feedback from the previous ones. The fact of the matter is, you can't possibly know what you'll think about a movie until you watch it, and claiming otherwise just makes you look ignorant and closed-minded. Sometimes the best movie-going experiences are the times when you're sure you're not going to like a film, and then it surprises you.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 5:49PM
brasstacks said...
Agreed. Not only did the last column have 60+ comments, most of them being extremely negative, but your job is a film critic. You critique film. To say you won't watch a film for whatever ridiculous reason is stubborn and chilidsh. Do your job, review the film, and then you can use up site space to complain about what you didn't like about the movie. At least you'll have seen it, instead of making blind assumptions due to subject matter, trailers and other reviews. There is a lot of room for creative columns when it comes to a movie blog. Don't be lazy.
8-16-2009 @ 6:30AM
mcginty said...
for christ sake i think the negative comments have gone a bit far havent they? to say someone is closeminded simply because they decided one film wasnt worth their time because the subject matter and the source wasnt to their taste is ridiculous. as for the argument that they should watch anything that comes their way because they are critics, that is only the case when said film has broken new ground or contributes to the art of filmmaking. perhaps if someone was saying they would never watch citizen kane or casablanca there would be space for that argument. personally i find this an interesting column as i often find myself avoiding films for no reason i can put my finger on. keep up the good work cinematical and know that not all your readers are bitter fanboys.
8-15-2009 @ 5:51PM
Scott K said...
Someone please put a stop to these.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 6:01PM
Cray said...
Ignorance isn't something this blog should be showcasing. Stop embarrassing yourselves. End this column, more importantly go see the movies you haven't seen before can call yourselves film critics.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 8:32PM
Jason said...
Do you honestly want to read a review of a movie from three years ago? Is that of any relevance to you and your moviegoing outings?
It's the internet, people. This isn't a think-tank for Armond White and his cronies. It's a blog. A BLOG. And everyone's a little closed-minded sometimes. Would you rather he doesn't approve of Capitalism and the American Flag, or of a silly, fluff-filled Tom Hanks adventure movie?
Pick your battles, people, and if you want intense, intellectual, and unbiased criticism of EVERY film that comes out, go find some Northwestern University film journal and get off the internet.
8-15-2009 @ 6:03PM
Chris said...
troll cinematical are trolling
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 6:08PM
Jaded said...
Hey I have an idea for you, since clearly this series is here because there are only so many new movies you can review before running out of them, why don't you do a series of columns about movies that you haven't seen in years and have recently revisited. How about doing a review about the difference between seeing 16 Candles, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Ghostbusters, or some other blockbuster from the past when you were in your teens (or whenever you saw it the first time) and seeing them now when you are a grown-up. At least then you can say you saw the movie, more than once, and the reasons why it's better/worse, funnier/less funny, whatever now. Talk about the differences in filmmaking styles over the years, how different this movie would be if it was made today. A column like that culd go on for years, and still have as much controversy.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 6:48PM
Michael Byng said...
Sorry but, i dont think we care about what you dont care about.
Columns I Will Never Read: Movies I Will Never See
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 8:13PM
Oz said...
Thank You for putting in print what I said when this came out. I think Christianity is being treated unfairly by the media and this government also. There are many uniformed people out there that will see this movie or read the book and believe there is a conspiracy about this subject. Lets see Brown write a book about the conspiracy behind Islam and Mohammed and see how many people object to that.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 8:40PM
Linda said...
Kinda too bad people can't take a negative take. So far, I like this series.
I will never see The DaVinci Code because I adored the book and the film got crap reviews. Yes, I trust movie reviewers. As a rule, I never like the film as much as I liked the book, that I know about myself. Thus, if I don't like a film based on a book I liked, I blame myself for ignoring the rule. As much as I love film, there is no competition for the human imagination. For me, this film holds no interest.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 9:19PM
MrMannix said...
Last comment I make on here. Then I am never coming to this site again. KILL THIS SECTION
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 11:28PM
MagisterJW said...
Then how will you know if they killed this column?
Seriously, go read the Editor's Lament. I love this column because I understand this column.
We all have some kind of movie we will never see. The vitriol this column inspires is so entertaining that they should run it every day!
8-15-2009 @ 10:06PM
james said...
Todd, If you haven't seen the film, and havent read the book (indeed, havent even the slightest inclination to do either), why on earth are you writing columns on this subject? If you haven't read or watched either, don't comment. It just goes to show that you as a middle of the road 'typical' journalist, believes the whole world should agree on your unjustified opinion. Get your head out of your backside and atleast try and write about something for which you actually bother to do your homework.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 11:27PM
mike said...
"...I enjoy the fact that I'll never see it, and with any luck, will never have to."
Did you just say the same thing twice in one run-on sentence? Otherwise, I was unaware those could be mutually exclusive.
Reply
8-16-2009 @ 6:10AM
Is said...
ok. I am beyond not the commenting type, but here's a thought people:
You don't like the column, DON'T READ THE COLUMN. Skip along to the columns that you actually want to read. No one is forcing you to read Movies I Will Never See.
Although personally, I like the column. We all do it, its entertaining to hear someones opinion on why they will never watch *insert movie here*, and for the record Todd, those were my reasons for never wanting to see The DaVinci Code. But then I got really bored and caved. Oh how I wish I hadn't. That's two hours of my life I'm never going to get back.
Reply
8-16-2009 @ 7:31AM
Kell said...
Ok, I haven't been keeping track of this column or how many articles have been posted under this theme (I only noticed it after the editor article).
All I can do is agree with the quiet minority - PLEASE KEEP THIS COLUMN. There is something more important than empirically based critical analysis or even-handed interpretations at stake here. The backlash seems to be based on a reaction against the idea that people shouldn't talk about what they won't see and why. Some posts even seem to imply that the blogger is violating some rule of journalistic integrity by voicing their opinion.
The important reason to keep this column is that people should be allowed to discuss movies without being coerced into complying with someone else's standards of what should be written, and how someone reaches an opinion. Can you decide you won't see a movie and have reasons for doing so? Yes. Would other people want to hear and discuss those reasons? I know I do. Do I want to hear someone else say "your decision doesn't count, you have to watch it first before you know what you're talking about?" That's the last thing I want to hear.
So keep the column and keep OUT the snobs.
Reply
8-16-2009 @ 11:17PM
Unferth said...
How insufferably precious!
Interesting you should finish by citing "responsibility" while blithely opining on something you seem almost proud to admit to know nothing about.
Exactly when did willful ignorance become a merit-badge?
I can *sort* of understand the fun or "reason" behind a thread of posts on things we variously choose to avoid - but you cross an unforgivable line here when you state:
" ...it was positing an authentic portrayal... "
That is neither true - nor could you know so, not having seen (or read) it.
That you are not keen on mystery/thrillers is fair enough - and I whole-heartedly agree with you on "revisionist history" being a shoddy and despicable format (like, say, Fried Green Tomatoes) - but Dan Brown is NOT "positing" truth - he's no more serious in his books than the screenplays of the National Treasure movies. Would you really take the time to mention those as "pretty quickly debunked"...?
The books aren't very well-written (I *do* like mystery/thrillers, and could list several better authors) - and the movies weren't great either... both fair reason to not-watch them - but to call it "responsibility" while speaking erroneously of your subject, is no less a fault than you "blame" it for.
Perhaps that writing ascribing responsbility to "you" belies your own lacking it - or maybe it was just a grammatical error... ;)
Life's too short to see everything, and we all make choices, and I couldn't care less if you ever see/read Dan Brown(!!) - but to say you won't "because" it's historically inaccurate is like saying Watchmen is no good because it has Nixon as President past 1974...
...AND you claim to *know* what it's about without ever reading it... just like some Fox News follower!
Disinterest is fine, but you can't dislike something you know nothing about, and nobody is "entitled" to wrong, uninformed opinions.
Reply
8-16-2009 @ 11:46PM
Todd Gilchrist said...
Wow - for somebody ladling on the condescension you obviously aren't much for reading something thoroughly, or reading comprehension. At no point do I say I thought it was "trying" to be historically accurate; quite the contrary.
The bottom line for everyone who thinks I have no idea what I'm talking about, that I'm celebrating ignorance, whatever else people like to call these columns in order to exercise their sense of self-righteousness and superiority, is that because I cover almost every movie released, and because this book was a cultural phenomenon, I'm vaguely familiar with the plot, the controversy surrounding the book, and its basic elements. The number one reason I haven't and hopefully won't see The Da Vinci Code is that I am just not interested in the story or characters based on that. There's nothing else at work except my apathy towards material I know enough about to know I'm not motivated to spend time watching. No hate, no animosity, no judgment, just NO INTEREST.
And as far as reader interest goes for this column, whoever said it above is right: if you don't like this, don't read it. The absence of readership and traffic will communicate your distaste or disinterest in this content; leaving comments only indicates that this material generates traffic, and further discussion and debate, and that's what we're trying to do. We aren't condemning these movies, and in my case, I don't have any personal criticisms of the movies, because you're right, I haven't seen them; but we all have certain genres or films or things that we are not interested in, and that's all we're talking about.