What Did $13.50 Buy Me?
04
June
I got home at about 11:30pm last night. I was pissed off. How pissed off? Like when you lose to a bullshit, lucky-arsed fullhouse on an all-in bet holding pocket kings. And I hate it when pocket cowboys get beat. So, why the anger?
Six months ago I sat down and read The DaVinci Code. Two months for the first hundred pages (like watching paint dry), two nights for the last five hundred. Great story, ignoring a few historical liberties. It only seemed natural I should look forward to the movie. I knew the viewing wouldn’t quite live up to the reading. It couldn’t be that disappointing, could it?
For those of you who have read the book and have not ventured off to the big screen, I have this to say: APOLOGETIC, SANITISED PIECE OF SHIT, CANDY-COATED FOR A DUMBASS MARKET. It was like being given a beautifully wrapped present, only to find a description of the present on the outside, complete with bargain basement price tag.
What the book does so well is the natural, progressive unfolding of thought that reveals each interperetive gem. The stepping stone clues that eventually lead to a little island of knowledge are half the fun of discovery. Plot altering revelations are just dumped on the viewer without so much as an acknowledgement of historical and symbological markers. I realise there are time constraints with viewing, but after two hours (and a numb arse) I would still gladly have added another thirty minutes - just to see the cryptex discussion on the plane unfold (which it never did).
I save my greatest vitriol for the last twenty minutes. The tomb of Isaac Newton was a joke (since when were there a whole heap of tourists during this scene?) while the ‘pathway to treasure’ at Rosslyn (which NEVER HAPPENED) was disgraceful. To imagine the Priory of Sion would have their ancient archive so easily accessed is just insulting. I won’t even dwell on the watering down of Agent Neveau’s unrealised family bloodline and the rendering of Jaques Saunniere to just a bodyguard.
And finally the ending. If you want to insult your audience by assuming they are incapable of intelligent thought, as if every mystery has to be seen to be believed, then go right ahead. Do we need to see the tomb of Mary Magdalene below the Pyramid Inversee? FUCK NO!
So, what did my $13.50 buy me? A sixty second teaser for Casino Royale, the first film for our new Bond, Daniel Craig. Sixty seconds well worth the price of admission.
1. The Idle Thoughts Of A DayDreamer | June 4th, 2006 at 14:13
Am I feeling very smug and self satisfied right now? You better believe it! Still haven’t gotten around to starting the book yet…
2. Oz | June 4th, 2006 at 14:28
Don’t be - it’s not becoming of you. This film could have been so much better but Ron Howard took the soft option and played to the populist dumbass market. Anyone who had read the book would have been able to follow the movie had it been done in a more accurate fashion. Don’t understand the movie? READ THE FREAKING BOOK!!!
3. Dee | June 5th, 2006 at 18:39
Why so disappointed? You sound so shocked!?! I would expect from what I have read (re: your posts) that you are infact no “dumbass” (as you so eloquently put it).
How many movies, in acutal fact reflect the brilliance of one’s writing into the visual world that we know as movies? Remember “The Power of One”? One I doubt you have read is Virginia Andrews “Flowers in the Attic” (please excuse my assumption if you have read this novel!…). To mention a recent release, “Memoirs of a Geisha”. Not highly publicised for viewing like “The Da Vinci Code” but albeit still disappointing compared to the novel.
From experience…sometimes it pays to watch the movie first…and then read the book.
4. Oz | June 5th, 2006 at 21:57
Show me a more eloquent way to convey the concept encapsulated by the word ‘dumbass’ and I will gladly use it.
Regarding adaptations of books, I point towards ‘The Neverending Story’ for one that was done brilliantly. Yes, parts of the story were missing but it was so strikingly conveyed, and compellingly told, you could forgive the odd hole.
While a lack of suspense is partly due to prior knowledge of the plot, a great deal can be attributed to poor storytelling, in my opinion. My greatest problem lies with that which could be alluded to rather than spelt out with flashing neon lights.
And no, I have not read ‘Flowers in the Attic’. How old do you think I am? ; )
5. Dee | June 14th, 2006 at 19:35
Oz…the irony of it all! Ask anyone who knows me and I am infact very far from “eloquent”, so unfortunately I cannot help you in that department!
As for your age…one does not ask these questions of another, lady or not!?!
6. Oz | June 14th, 2006 at 20:03
I just remember my mum read ‘Flowers in the Atiic’ in THE LATE EIGHTIES. Just makes it an old book and last time I checked, it wasn’t held in the same degree of reverence as ‘The Lord of the Rings’.
So many inappropriate jokes to make about age, especially to do with the law, but I think I might quit while I think I’m ahead.
7. Dee | June 14th, 2006 at 22:13
It was through my mother infact, that I too came upon “Flowers In The Attic”. I can assure you that I am infact no sheep…I like what I like for my own personal pleasure and reasons…if something “pleases me” or “relates to me” it makes me appreciate something more - both in a literary sense, cinematically or life in genreal. Would not one interpret “degree of reverence” from a personal sense which would indeed differ from one individual to another…?
The eye is in fact, that of the beholder…just because certain individuals deem something as old, doesn’t render the “…” as useless. Does this not make us all individuals and much more interesting to one another? I would think so, but as we know the beauty of “freedom of speech” dictates otherwise and makes life, my life…much more interesting… ;) Never quit…life is a game…and a good one at that :)
Having said that…I shall finish on - one of my favourite novels of all time is “To Kill A Mockingbird”. This novel was a reading when my parents were at school, and again something that was a reading in my high school years. Is this not proof that age is irrelevant to good literacy and the test of time?
8. Oz | June 15th, 2006 at 00:10
‘To Kill a Mockingbird’… enough said. There are novels to be revered throughout literary history and this is one. I believe in reverence… and the occasional false idol. Only on weekedns though.
In the eye of this beholder: do you read Jackie Collins? I withdraw my last comment your honour. Our parents are our greatest source of inspiration and exploration. I would never view you to be a sheep just because you followed a recommendation and in the same vein, some of our greatest works and references come from the past.
You chose a book I have zero interest in and a cheeky comment certainly has sparked some discourse. But discourse is what I want. Alternate viewpoints are what I want. Our individuality is indeed our greatest fascination. Be satisfied in the knowledge that I have satisfied grin on my face. Not out of conceit but out of appreciation.
9. BillyGoatEric | June 17th, 2006 at 14:00
One simple point from me - A great book should never be turned into a movie period. Despite the fact that Hollywood seems to be the main culprit for “dumb-ass” simplification; literary wonders should be off limits. That includes Tarantino as well.