the moment the movie ended, i heard my father said: "i am confused", and my mother saying: "i am not convinced". welp, i otherwise believe that the movie does not intend either way. it's a movie, it's commercial, it's hollywood, etcetera, etcetera...what do you expect? so, to start with this blogging about my movie experience, i shall first talk about the movie- it's formal elements, it's artistic nature, it's creative pursuit, its production, blah, blah,blah...huh...spoken like a true critic! i have always loved ron howard's direction and this time, i think he really did a great job in finally giving life to dan brown's pop-culturally disturbing book. i'd read the book almost more than a year ago, primarily out of social dictation and a little bit of curiosity, and tom hanks never crossed my mind to personify the robert langdon i met in the book (but audrey tautou seems appropriate to be the sophie neauveau). but, I do love the way tom hanks performed in the movie, wow, so unexpected. of course, take that from r. howard's direction. hmm, i would not want to dwell in this formal critique- one could get a lot of that from websites, from professional critics themselves, or from laymen who have enthusiastically watched the film.
it's a funny thing though that the movie board rated the film R-18. they are idiots! they make people idiots, and the more they restrain idiotic people from viewing the film, the more they appear to more idiotic, ha, far more idiotic indeed. what are they so afraid of anyway? let me guess... ecclesiastic contradictions, doctrinal fallacy, outright blasphemy...name it... bottom line, they are afraid that it may d-i-s-t-u-r-b our faith. anyone who've read the book must notice that in dan brown's foreword, though the organizations (e.g. priory of zion) included in the book is deemed realistic based on his personal researches, he on the other hand explicitly stated that the story (including plot and characters) is but a fiction. so any sane person who understand the word "fiction" should right away take the author's word for it. is it that hard to understand?
on the way back home, my parents seemed a little bit affected with the movie. my mother said that whether or not jesus married somebody, it wouldn't matter because like what sophie said in the movie, he could still make miracles and be a messiah. but i told my mother that even though such argument seems right and sound and rational, still there is a problem with it- it contradicts the biblical account about the identity of jesus. she agreed. but the truth is i am not really trying to argue or defend faith. NOT at this time, not against the movie, because like what i said, it is pointless to argue about it when the author himself pointed out that it is but a fiction. so, enough with religious arguments! one who thinks right would instead think about what one could get from the film (of course, aside from entertainment, things like great thoughts).
for me, the book and the movie presents to us NOT a big-world dilemma on religious doctrines, nor a da vinci code quest, nor some mysterious, metaphysical quest for the grail, nor debate on jesus' divinity-versus-humanity, nor issues with the vatican and opus dei, nor some exaggerated battle between good and evil or truth and myth. no! it requires from us a good understanding of what we have come to believe in, probably in life as a whole or more specifically in our beliefs or principles or in whatever aspect. i noticed that the end of the movie suggests to us a different perspective towards the entire film. we have journeyed with robert langdon and have come to a conclusion that sophie turns out to be a descendant of jesus. but, at the very end of the film, something happens. langdon found another interpretation of the map of the grail, which then leads him to the louvre as the burial site of magdalene and not the rosslyn church where they have previously found out about sophie's lineage. a little bit confusing maybe, but i could think otherwise.
so, my movie experience ends with the timeless principle by socrates- that indeed, the unexamined life is not worth living. to examine our lives, our beliefs, our faith, our journey, just as how Langdon may have come to discover the da vinci code... maybe, this is what i could get from the movie. like what has always been repeated in the entire film, the eyes chooses what it wants to see. so, let my eyes then choose what i want to see. but, i would not want to elaborate more in what i have come to see or examine in my life. that would be my own personal story. and you, maybe, may have a different one. in whatever aspect it may be, nothing bits a good thinking about life.
------------
"The prospect of death is such a strong motivation."
-spoken by Silas, The Da Vinci Code
(Written 20 May 2006)
