So Dark the Con of Man

Zzzzzzziiippppppppppppppppppp.....Thats how the two and a half hours went by me.

Sprinkling of anagrams, dollops of suspense, a pinch of blasphemy and two measures of history, served by Ron Howard, made up for a good treat on a lovely Sunday afternoon. Really fast paced, the movie sprints through the book. The film covers the entire story in the book, but falls short of the details, which is only to be expected. I liked the book for the detailed description of the symbolisms and the discussion on the importance given to and the role of the sacred feminine in most ancient religions and civilizations. The film doesnt go into any of these except for a passing mention. A mention of these and what the Church tarnished as pagan practices in its proselytising past would, I suppose, have been more unpalatable to some people than the mere claim that Jesus actually married and his bloodline existed to which the film owes its controverial nature.

Tom Hanks as usual has acted very well. Jean Reno also does full justice to his considerable reputation. The film opens, as does the book, with the dying curator in the Louvre leaving clues and puzzles strewn all over. Then there begins a chase for the legendary and exotic Holy Grail, with the astute symbologist and his beautiful and intelligent (does God make them in enough number?) French policewoman played by Audrey 'whatever'. A chase that takes them across Europe and different churches and graveyards and crisscrossing interesting meridians. Hanks's brains work faster than Chacha Choudhary's to decipher complex anagrams in real-time finally leading to the startling discovery about the Grail. Langdon shows remarkable wisdom at the end - the author's conciliatory ending. The director refrains from giving any romantic angle to the lead-pair in deference perhaps to the hero's greying temples or maybe to avoid any distraction from the suspense in the plot. This, I thought, was the only deviation from the book. The way Director uses the special effects in the Mona Lisa painting in Teabing's study to illustrate his point is quite facinating.

Where the book lacked in the skills of the author, the film compensates through the director's talent. All in all an enjoyable movie, worth the seven and a half bucks that I paid for it.

As for the charges of historical inaccuracies and blasphemy levelled against the book, well history is after all His Story, the story of mankind. The story of mankind is the story of struggles through the ages, a story crafted and narrated by the victors, the dominants, flavoured over time by various influences. To seek complete objectivity in it or to claim the same is not an act of reason. And religion is a doctrine, a way of life and principles, shaped by men through the ages not the prophets who originally expounded the principles. So rather than live in a state of denial, its better to accept this very basic premise and understand that a religion is but any doctrine that makes a person a better human being. The moment religion starts dictating one's life to the extent that he stops being human, you violate this basic tenet.

I sure want to see the Louvre !!