Subject: Da Vinci Code; a Deconstruction
The film was an intrigue…at first. Da Vinci Code wrecked havoc in the international box office since Dan Brown’s publication of the interesting paperback. Brown’s book, the Da Vinci Code threatened to outdo the Bible in terms of sales and popularity. The book seemed to be an alternative, a deconstruction, per se, of the most used and most printed book since the third century, the Bible. It appealed to almost all audiences—from the religious Christian population to the atheists and the agnostics—which, may we say, the two classifications of people in the world. Of course, there are people in between the classification—the not so religious but not agnostics type of people. Point is, the market of Da Vinci Code extends to all. Statistics proved the popularity of the said book.
T
he film, on the other hand, didn’t prove as interesting as it was on the advertisements and promotions. As audiences, the film was a bit a bore. Just like all other religious films made. There is ,of course, an exception on Mel Gibson’s, highly sensationalized Passion of the Christ, with its brutally literal and direct use of the film element—blood (which too much we might add) and violence. Gibson used the popularity of Jesus Christ, and had it extended to the makings of Passion.
Why was it a bit of a bore?
First, you land on the big question, “How did Da Vinci portrayed the mis-divinity of Jesus Christ?” “Could it be the ‘real’ truth?” then it’ll be followed by a self-contemplating question,”Am I supposed to belive it?” Many questions arose and these are just some ar the restatements of it. The point is, there was already an intrigue and you want to know the answer.
Then you watch the film. You were looking for answer. The characters too, in the film are doing that. The thing is, the audiences had to wait until the middle of the film to finally get a glimpse of the ‘answer’ they were looking for. There was a rise of expectation. Then it dragged. It took the whole film to end to find the answer.
Secondly, the film relied heavily on dialogue. It wasn’t the first film to rely heavily on dialogue. There are in fact many films patterned on this kind of presentation. In fact, some received honors, like Vanilla Sky, staring Tom Cruise. Films are a combination of audio and video media. The challenge for a director in the modern era, with all the technologies available for use, is to tell a story using images more than the auditory aspect of the film. Audios are to reinforce those images. Enhancers.
What happened in the film was, the audio was reinforced by the images. You had to focus on the dialogue while being bombarded with confusing images of the deconstruction of Da Vinci’s Paintings. This was the scene on Robert Langdon’s visit to his older associate’s mansion, together with Sophie. We specifically critiqued that part, because, it was, as we gauged, the climax of the film. It was confusing.
Dan Brown’s book was better than it’s rendering on film. In the book, the visual aspect of that media was words. You read. When you couldn’t understand a thing or two about a chapter, you could always turn back to that page and reread it. It’s conveniently easier to control than the movie. The film, on the other hand is a passing image, which you wouldn’t want to fast forward or rewind every time you get confused about something, without giving you a headache.
The book gave a detailed description and explanation to the key questions posted above. That way, one could understand it more than watching it. The strength of the book was the downfall of the movie.
Thirdly, as opposed to other films which are competition of the Da Vinci Code, it didn’t have the technological edge of science fiction film like Harry Potter. The new audience nowadays are more fascinated with fast-paced, mtv-like gaping of scenes with all its visually stimulating effects.
Da Vinci Code isn’t the film you would want to watch if you want to relax.
Now, the other Big question, “Is it to be treated as religious material?”
Da Vinci Code versus The Bible…interesting!
Dan Brown, a man born during the Computer Age claims to have acquired proper and enough historical evidences to overthrow the Christian religion and the Bible. He incorporated signs and Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, Madonna and the Child and the Last Supper paintings to deconstruct a long been established religion and belief among many populations around the world. He also integrated historical situations to reinforce his story. That way it would seem ‘more real.’
Da Vinci code was a novelty.
Maybe Brown was a feminist. He incorporated the power of women in his story. He tried to overthrow the existing patriarchal religion and give power to women “who should be dominating the Church because it was it them that the key of the Kingdom was given.” It’s an interesting thought. Who wouldn’t want power anyway? But the thing is, there is such thing as the Bible. It tells otherwise. It’s not a question of power but subjectivity and obedience, not of man and woman but the law.
He also incorporated a love story similar to that of Romeo and Juliet’s. He said that Jesus Christ actually had fallen in love and had sexual relations with Mary Magdalene and she conceived Christ’s child. Whew! Scandalous isn’t it? Imagine how broad a novelist mind could go.
But religion or its deconstruction requires more than just paintings and signs and explanations. Maybe it requires another kind of divinity…a negation of that of Jesus Christ’s divinity. We do not know. But all we could say is that signs of painting interpretations cannot negate faith.
Semiotics alone, does not comprise a proper basis of the Bible’s deconstruction. Semiotics, as Nick Lacey said, a contemporary cultural thinker said that signs do not have a definite denotation. The meanings of sign alone are relative and cannot have a definite meaning. Different historical and cultural background, environment, class, race and other affiliations can affect one’s interpretation of signs. The inverted “V” sign couldn’t mean a woman’s womb alone. For other’s it could mean a pyramid or an arrow or for others, it doesn’t have meaning at all. Their could be millions of variations. Dan Brown is one man alone versus 5 billion people in the whole world. Interpretation of signs could go up to that number. Who knows?
Moreover, Da Vinci is one of the Renaissance and Reformation artists during the 15th century. During this time, there was a movement towards individualism and humanism. It was high time for the “self.” Aesthetics and most form of arts in Europe that time focused on the subject of the self…of humans. It was a reaction from the tribulations and hardships of the Christian Religion, specifically the Roman Catholic Religion, because the State (or government) and the Church that time was one. There were movements to separate the two and thus gave rise to the the hippest subject that time which is the individual as opposed to that of God. Philosophy focused on the secular part of the social or the society, exclusive of the church. And during that time, when the what was ‘hip’ was the human subject,. Came Da Vinci. He painted Mona Lisa, Madonna and Child and The Last Supper during Renaissance Period. He was a ‘humanist’ not a religious person. Therefore his canvases shouldn’t even be basis of faith.
Dan Brown only derived meaning from those paintings, studied semiotics and structured an intriguing story about the Christian religion. It’s a fiction book, not a basis for something transcendal like God.
It’s a wonder why many people believed otherwise. They believed on the constructs of Dan Brown, popularized by the media. It’s interesting how media influences people. Is it because they don’t really know their God? Is it because they didn’t stop and be critical? Is it because trip lang nila? Who knows?
Dan Brown indeed made a remarkable book. But that’s it. It’s another aesthetic product of the mind. It’s a book. Plain and simple. Not factual, but fictional.
Christianity is not about some human construct and semiotics. It’s not about the material, tangible things. It’s not about Dan Brown or his interpretations nor Da Vinci and his paintings. It’s not about some historical and ideological research. Its about Beliving in the immaterial, God. It’s about obedience and the Bible.
Christianity is about faith.
Written by a Bible student.-END-
