Reading the Da Vinci Code movie, through Lacanian and Freudian theories on cinema by combining with Scopophilia and Voyeurism
Introduction
The Da Vinci Code novel published in 2003 and the novel adapted into film, released in 2006. All characters; Robert Langdon(Tom Hanks), Sophie Neveu(Audrey Tautou), Leigh Teabing(Ian Mckellen), Silas(Paul Bettany), Beautiful Fache(Jean Reno). These all characters, read in the novel, are portrayed in the film. The film is said to have themes, based on religionism, institutionalized belief system, and a specific culture, followed by the descendants of Mary Magdalene(Who believed to be belonging to the royal bloodline of Merovingian king).
Abstract
Here we concern to read the Da Vinci Code movie, where all the characters seems to be immersed into the only matter, that is called the code, 'Da Vinci'. Let's see how the film is operating, applying various theories.
Reading any movie, requires many theories and methods to be kept in mind. It won't only suffice by keeping those theories in mind, but how you can apply those theories, while reading any of the movies. Those theories would lent you an insight towards experiencing the movie. Through which you would be able to penetrate yourself in deep, visualizing the matter distantly and coming close to, reflecting to yourself and accordingly serving the space of filtering in and filtering out.
This paper aims to see how by reading through all the applicable theories, it lent out a further point to ponder upon, only in minute form.
Keywords
The Da Vinci Code, Movie Reading, Lacan, Freud, Scopophilia, Voyeurism.
MOVIE READING
The movie starts from the murder of Jacques Sauniere in museum Louvre. Where as in suspicion area, Religious symbologist is about to go to bed, taken accommodation in Ritz Hotel. The scene seems to be more gloomy, gradually transforming into sombreness, from there into light of the revealing scene, when it is conveyed: Jacques Sauniere is died, one of the members of Priory Sion, with his three Senechuax. As seen Robert Langdon's name in calendar, he is approached by DCPJ Fache. To the same organization, Sophie belongs, by being a cryptographer.
Gradually the entire story opens up as being blindfolded to audience, which serves the reason, to arouse curiosity in audience, sitting in their comfort zone and impels them to think, 'what happens next'. And what is this figure, named "Mary Magdelene" who keeps history for herself. The novel as well as the film adapted upon on the same novel are claimed to have fictionalized the story by fusing into.
By unraveling one after another symbols, the entire movie is getting opened infront of the audience, and eventually ending by finding the main character, on whom the entire movie is based upon.
Movie : Social Context
Socially the movie is very high in retaining its texture. All are normal in the movie, until and unless, the villain playing behind isn't revealed. As happening in one of the scenes, where "Leigh Teabing" is only known by his good behavior, maintains with both; Sophie and Robert Langdon, but noone knows the actual murderer of the Priory Sion. Silas himself was hired by Leigh Teabing to kill Jacques Sauneire and three Senechaux, similarly Aringarosa is also connected, and these all are the persons, who somewhere are connected to the institution, Opus Dei. Where differences regarding sexuality, surfaces. Considering this, men considered to be superior, while women as insignificant being. Who don't have desires, emotions, feelings, inclinations, only mere a puppet of handheld men being, utilizing as they want. While Saint Sulpice promotes altogether a different institution, where women are adored and given deserved respect, and so in one of the scenes, when getting call from Opus Die as someone wants to come to Saint Sulpice, only to see Sandrine sister, the sister is disturbed but normalize herself, prepared to confront the person, going to pay visit. In contrast only one can decipher the actual frame of embodiment important for further uplifting of concerned society.
Movie : Political Context
In movie we see basing on various religions, policies are formulated and accordingly kept for functioning and regulation. The quality of religion voices the played policy by each religion. In one of the scenes, when Robert Langdon is enquiring about the code, scrambled beside Sauniere's body, with Fache. Fache speaks of Leonardo Da Vinci, as against catholic religion, while indeed, it wasn't so. He believed in paganism, approves when found some evidences based of aforementioned institution. On part of Fache, it wasn't the case but seemed as intentedly trying to inflict him with false abuses, and tainting him considering his religion to be superior.
Movie : Cultural Context
A Christian culture is seen, who has conflict with Paganism. If one is to see from the point of view of Mary Magdelene, who is absent in this novel. All characters in one or the other way trying to promote their own cultures. Mary wants to convey, I had a very rich bloodline, but I wasn't predicting the generation of this very ancestry would be as such, following their ways of believing. If following, but trying to impose on others the same, not happening so, there is rivalry among them or then at extreme level, the person is murdered/killed. While she herself wasn't wanting for her generation this, so a particle of Mary Magdalene is still there to run the show, but Sophie herself seems to be trapped in the same entrapping net and not able to realize, what she herself has played, actually is faux than nothing else. Ultimately it only seems as one has fulfilled some required companionship. What one was trying to found outside, actually had been lying inside, since times. But still she isn't able to recognize the inner call, and treading ahead unprecedented.
In last supper scene, Mary Magdelene is explicitly displayed sitting beside Jesus, representing as one of his thirteen apostles.
Left Impression on Spectator
The two kinds of Apparatus theories are connected by the idea that the cinema stimulates or causes archaic regression, but while the first emphasizes the 'inner' aspect of this process, the retreat of the subject into a boundary undifferentiates state.
The latter emphasizes the impact of archaic desire on how and what we see. Since archaic desire characteristically manifests itself in adult life through perversions, psychoanalytic film theorists proposed that the cinema is distinctive in mobilizing a whole range of perverse pleasures.
Concerning these two apparatus theories. When anyone watches, what does the cinema do; if it stimulates or causes archaic regression.
When one is watching this film, there may be some feeling like, how it would have been good, if I were Audrey Tautou! How smartly she is working as a cryptographer, how a handsome here, she has! As everything is in her lap and the spectator is abandoned of(A kind of craving with which not you, but someone is blessed). And when it is more liked by anyone, the character is worn out by the concerned person, where Lacanian theory comes into being: 'Looking that informed by desire, is defined by gaze'. Which isn't giving you self-assurance but making you paranoid, which is away from what you have perceived. Here is where your unconscious come into being. You only know how good looking someone is, and how gifted she/he is but you won't have the same experience they had gone through. You would only see, how you used to see your own life. This is how the utilization and usefulness differs from one another. They have utilized you must only have imitated and subsequently stimulated the world of appearances.
Due to the theory of mirror-misrecognition by Lacan himself, you can watch the movie and imaginatively see yourself functioning, but you can't see yourself in the movie, as mirror shows you your real picture. It is only the product of your representation system. It is also happening sometimes, when you watch any movie, you don't have any way than seeing yourself in this way. This is how you're stimulating yourself, this is how you feel yourself to be resisting. At such times such approaches seem to be reliable. In a way each and every approaches, one or another way, reflecting the lives people lived.
Likewise theory of Voyeurism and Scopophelia came into being. One makes you aware of the presence of stimulus, another won't make you realize as sexual pleasure has found its way in your own self. You see yourself under someone, whom the unconscious being is desiring, ready to abandon owned self, denoting your own personality.
Thus the impression that is left on spectators, varied in many ways, and it is through the representation system, the spectator reflects upon and accordingly watches the movie, if found appropriate but not so worthy to reflect upon, is hurled by retreating the subject into boundary undifferentiates state and this is how filtering in filtering out processes are moderated.
If it is stimulating again by some incident/occurring situation and this is how one incident is postponed and later on resumed, remaining to be seen. If it is recurring in this way, does this suggest, that once the person was unable to but now have some ability to fight with the circumstances, confronted. Or is it something, that until and unless, not solved out, keeps on surfacing? Like revenging and avenging work.
Conclusion
Hence by reading the movie, one or the other way, one reflects oneself but not able to see oneself as mirror dares to show. She/he is only seen as a shadow in river, when glimpsed on and found weird, unwanted, not crucial in anyway, attempts to run away from the situation. With others, it happens otherwise.
Works Cited
Brown, Dan., "The Da Vinci Code." Published in 2003.
"FILM: The Da Vinci Code. Released in 2006.
Allen, Richard., "Psychoanalytic Film Theory." Published in 2004, Blackwell Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment