The film opens with a view of one of the most famous museums in the world: the Louvre. And within this world-renowned museum is the stereotypical old, distinguished, male curator – except this time he is running for his life. Not so typical, but I have noticed that if there are fiction novels or films that take place within a museum, they are more often than not the scenes of murders or other scary scenarios. The depiction of the actual museum was accurate, as the movie was filmed within the Louvre museum itself. It also captured the security on the art and displays, one of which the curator pulls off of the wall to trigger the security system to keep his fanatic murderer (Paul Bettany) at bay (although it did not save him.) This is a common stereotype of museums – that the works that they keep are so valuable that they are untouchable to the public. This is often part of the deterrent for the common public to engage with the past. While preservation is important, it is equally important for museums and other historic institutions to allow the public to interact with the pieces on a real level either by creating digital copies or reproductions for handling by the public.
While many of the images of the Louvre reinforce stereotypes about museums, it did have the astounding affect of getting people interested in it. The Da Vinci Code instigated a huge influx of visitors to the Louvre and the works of Leonardo da Vinci, which on the one hand was bad, as Louvre employees had to deal with Dan Brown zealots determined to prove or disprove his novel; but it was also good as it got people interested in the museum and the histories it represented. The grandeur of the museum, and the renown of the character of John Langdon, reinforces the image of museums as centres of higher learning and education. I think the filmmakers (and Dan Brown) chose to create the scenes in a museum setting not only because such a setting lent a degree of authenticity and authority to the works of art and history being presented in the story, but also because the architecture of the Louvre itself is a very dramatic setting. The Louvre has dominated central Paris since the late 12th century, and has been a central piece to the history of the city itself. There was a lot of controversy over the architecture of the building – there is even a line on the film spoken by police Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) to the effect that the Louvre Pyramid was a “blight” on the city of Paris. This sort of familiarity makes the museum all the more “real” for moviegoer enthusiasts.
The film not only played on the stereotypes of museums, but of history as well. The overall storyline is about how history was manipulated, changed, and misrepresented to serve the needs of those in power, mainly the Christian Church. The role of Sir Leigh Teabing, played by Ian McKellen, perpetuated the stereotype of historians as privately wealthy, eccentric, academics that can spend all of their time pursuing their personal interests. At one point our hero, John Langdon, spouts the ever-so-popular history jib: “you are interpreting facts to support your own conclusions” at Teabing when he dares to suggest history was manipulated to cover the truth. There is a very clear message here that the truth in history can set mankind free; as if there were a sort of latent power instilled in history that can be attained and that is waiting to be discovered. Museums are popularly believed to fulfill this role of authority and that everything a museum tells the public is true. The central problem around such a contingency is the point that every history student is beaten over the head with: that history is conjecture, subjective, and fluid, with no absolutes, and essentially no master organiser. One good point that the movie makes about history, in relative contrast to its other ones, is that history is made by those who write it, and those people (whether it be the Christian Church or not) are pursuing their own agendas.
While I have serious issue with the research Dan Brown produced and passed off as fact, I believe that as a Hollywood fictitious movie, it was successful in getting people interested in museums, despite how they played on a great many stereotypes and conspiracy theories to do so. It was a successful attempt to get people engaged with the topic, as it brought up many issues concerning faith versus science versus history. And after all that, the story ended where it began – at the museum.
It is at the Louvre that it is revealed that the final and most important piece of evidence has been hidden. It re-enforces the idea that the museum and its staff are keepers of knowledge, for good or evil, for seemingly many purposes. This is not a negative image, but it is an overdramatic one. I think in the end, museums are seen as keepers and protectors, but to make that work for Hollywood, they needed to add the dramatics to overcome the stereotype that museums are dull and static. There is more to the museum than the murder scene.
