The Da Vinci Dilemma

Why the Da Vinci Code is Meaningful
by Nick van der Leek

Now that the hype and hysteria of the Da Vinci Code is subsiding, perhaps it’s time to find simple and sober reasons why this book has had such a powerful impact on the masses.

Personal truth – which includes our beliefs – is always subjective. Any idea we have is like the top of a table, and it needs legs, pillars, beliefs, to hold it up. These beliefs are not always real, but based on our perceptions, based on second hand evidence, hearsay, history. Sometimes, of course, our beliefs are based on hard evidence, on reality, and sometimes they are based on a combination of reality and idealism. The degree and the nature of how we combine our instincts, our beliefs and our perceptions is what makes each of us different. While each of us has a different truth, gravity affects all of us, whatever we believe. Thus how we respond to the book, The Da Vinci Code, ought to be different, because each of us extracts a different quality and quantity of personal truth from it.

The world once believed that the world was flat, and people who didn’t buy into this conspiracy were called witches or worse and condemned to death. This was a world where thinking, and being scientific, and asking questions, was seen as evil. The church controlled thought, and banished science, and there was not much light (in terms of enlightenment) in the world. Fortunately things have changed, although some argue that they have changed too much, that we have become obsessed with facts, fascinated by science. Perhaps.

But today the world is different. It is round. And, apparently, the church has less power over our minds (because today power follows wealth, not vice versa, as was the case in the churches heyday). But the church has not lost its influence over our hearts. People buy with their hearts, and often, believe with their hearts too. But not all.

The Da Vinci Code is meaningful. It must be because it is the number 1 (film tie-in) and 2 fiction bestseller (Sunday Times Top 10, based on Nielsen Bookscan), and has been on top for months. I read the book, found it provocative and compelling – but not perfect – but my interest has become somewhat jaundiced by the hysteria that surrounded the film release. Why so little hysteria about the book, but so much fuss about the film?

Because film is the most popular and accessible medium today. Many people who didn’t read the book, went to the movie. My guess is many who watched the movie without reading the book would have found it disappointing – no sex, no car chases (well, one), and lots of long hypothetical conversations. I found the film deep, artistically out of the ordinary and moving.

If an actor of the caliber of Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, and Philadelphia) was prepared to take this part, one has to wonder why. As Langdon he does convey a certain kind of truth – he takes a role that second guesses the assertive and dogmatic agnostic Teabing, and contrasts with the passionate, rash and strictly conservative Catholic, Silas. But Langdon doesn’t espouse a particular belief as much as he pursues truth, his own truth, and searches for answers. So does his counterpart, Sophie. This lies at the heart of the story – a search for the truth, for balance and understanding: both for oneself and others.

It is not so much about proposing the truth, as about searching and uncovering possibilities, and going, ‘what if this?’, and ‘if that were the case, how would it change the world, how would it change me and how I see the world?’ It places us in a new context. It’s a clarification of a (possible) distortion. These paradigm shifts are important. These are valuable questions, and ones we need to find the answers to. Why, because it’s not a perfect world, and some self examination, especially a reexamination of our core beliefs, may be a good start to setting ourselves on a better path.

Yes the movie does start on a disturbing note. Yes, Silas displays a disturbing and unconventional devotion to God. Teabing makes some claims that are perhaps hard to swallow. Both end up dead which suggests that their ideas need some work. In the movie, Hanks as Langdon is less supportive of Teabing’s apocryphal assertions than he is in the book. Both book and movie make clever use of suggestion, to get us thinking, and the movie is brilliantly artistic. When last did Hollywood take us through Paris, present us with art and history and a deep topic so beautifully to absorb ourselves with?

When I bought my ticket, my two devoutly Christian companions went to watch Failure to Launch instead. I’m not sure what they got from that except forgettable entertainment, and pleasant happy fluttery movie moments. My girlfriend also declared that she is unwilling to watch the movie for fear of becoming confused. Life, as I see it, is a quest to find answers for ourselves.

Hanks, as Langdon, makes a brilliant point near the end. Does it make a difference if we human beings are divine creatures? Yes it does. Does our belief (in that divinity) guarantee that we can be virtuous, and live meaningful lives? The existence of divineness does not presuppose that, but belief in divinity does.

Christians believe that Christs’ blood has (figuratively) washed them clean. What if there are people in the world who have Christs’ blood in their veins. Would that knowledge, if we knew them as individuals, enhance or detract from our beliefs. If Christ’s blood were in our veins, how would we live? Here, in my view, the figurative and the literal seem to fuse into one, because long term beliefs, especially in metaphors, and reality, are not so far apart.

In the end, what we ascribe meaning to, becomes meaningful, but gravity affects all of us, whatever our beliefs. Gravity is another word for seriousness, or ‘coming down to Earth’. The Da Vinci Code is a challenge for many of us to do just that.