My big question going in was how the timeline would play out. Angels & Demons was published prior to The Da Vinci Code, and so I wondered if the "A&D" film would take place before "DVC," or if they would adjust the script to fall after "DVC." The answer is, "A&D" takes place after the events of "DVC." It works; the events of either one didn't shape Robert Langdon so much that he couldn't reverse his experiences and still be believable.
But this is one problem with translating a series from one medium into another. I had the same kind of fear when Dennis Lehane's Gone, Baby, Gone was optioned. I loved that series of books, and I was glad to hear that Ben Affleck was putting his name behind a movie adaptation. There were just two problems: it was unrealistic for the movie to take place in the late '90s. Too many errors come up in backdating, the little things like an anachronistic license plate or building. The other problem is that the book was the fourth in a series of five. Now, do you go back and create three back-dated movies to cover the prior storyline? Do you adapt the story to make them fit in a new chronology? Those books in particular followed an evolution in the personal and professional relationship between Patrick Kenzie and Angie Gennaro; you can't tell their story and gloss over that. To turn the first three books into sequels would do just that. To go back and create them as "prequel" movies could be chronologically awkward. And besides, we know neither of them risks dying. There's already a future for them, right?
That said, there were a couple subplots I hoped would surface in the film that did not. A few character changes, too. I suppose that's the nature of any adaptation, though. The late Michael Crichton had done a piece before his death on how the average 500-page fiction novel shrinks to fit a movie script, and that to condense a novel to fit two hours of screen time is quite difficult. You also lose the option of exposition, which results in characters talking about obvious things to keep the audience from being in the dark. After all, not everyone has read the book, or knew that an awareness of particle physics would be necessary to understand part of the story.
The matter of exposition was pointed out in some Fark posts that were rather critical of the book and movie. For that matter, among the Farkers, Dan Brown hate is close to Republican hate. I don't really get why. They paint him as a crappy author of predictable books written for idiots who cling to religion as a crutch. You know what? I find his books entertaining. It's no different from "National Treasure." I'm sure there's no secret treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence. But what if there were? Wouldn't that be the ultimate scavenger hunt, using your scholarly expertise to find clues in works preserved for centuries without a second glance? Sure, it's far-fetched at times, but it's fiction. Sentient alien robots that transform into functioning cars are far-fetched, too.
The Farkers (who clearly found some urinary infusion in their breakfast cereal) also whine about Brown "presenting legend and rumor as research." That's half of the intrigue. Maybe it inspires people to go out and educate themselves on a subject like the Illuminati or the Priory of Sion. After reading DVC, my father ordered a copy of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the academic book that Dan Brown admitted was a foundation for the fictional DVC. The book is boring as hell for the first two-thirds, but it makes you question what you were indoctrinated to believe. It's healthy to question. An open mind is a good thing.
On one casting-related note, my mom might be right. She enjoyed both books, but she never watched "DVC," and her excuse was that she didn't feel Tom Hanks made a good Robert Langdon. I wasn't bothered by Tom Hanks in the role either time around. But at the same time, I wouldn't have minded a younger actor in the role. Langdon is part academic, part playboy — I wouldn't see Hanks fitting that element. I'm thinking along the lines of Aaron Eckhart of "Thank You For Smoking" and "The Dark Knight" fame. That's still not quite a perfect casting, but Langdon carries a bit more charisma than Hanks can deliver.
I might hit on the Holy Blood, Holy Grail thing another night, but it's technically morning already, and I've got to work tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment