‘In the Hand of Dante’ May Be Entertaining, But Ultimately Not So Divine
(REVIEW) This has been quite a year for doing creative reimaginings of literary classics. So far we’ve had Emerald Fennell’s sexy rendition of “Wuthering Heights,” Maggie Gyllenhaal’s feminist Frankenstein retelling “The Bride!” and Christopher Nolan’s massively popular “The Odyssey.” This is not surprising. With religion declining and superhero movies puttering out of dominance, our culture needs to pull from whatever myths we have to interpret our lives.
No film quite captures this, weirdly enough, like the new Netflix movie “In the Hand of Dante.” Based on the 2002 novel of the same name, it doesn’t adapt any of Dante’s poetic masterpiece “The Divine Comedy.” Instead, the film cuts back and forth between Dante himself and “In the Hand of Dante” author Nick Tosches on an adventure to secure an original manuscript of said poem. Unfortunately, while the film constantly speaks of the poem’s importance and quotes from it, its engagement with its ideas and themes is depressingly trivial.
“In the Hand of Dante” follows parallel stories of legendary medieval Italian poet Dante and modern author Nick Tosches (both played by Oscar Isaac) as their lives are shaped by Dante’s life and masterwork. Dante goes on a spiritual quest to finish his poem after he is banished by Pope Boniface VIII (Gerard Butler) from his native Italy. In the modern day, struggling author Nick is commissioned by a mob boss (John Malkovich) to authenticate a copy of Dante’s “Divine Comedy.” It's a journey that ends up accumulating multiple dead bodies and forcing Nick to go on his own journey of survival and self-discovery.
Real People. Real Reporting. Donate to Religion Unplugged now through August 17, and your gift will be doubled.
“The Divine Comedy” follows the poet Dante as he gets a tour of hell and purgatory from his literary hero Virgil (author of “The Aeneid”) and Heaven from his old crush Beatrice. It’s hard to overemphasize the influence of Dante and “The Divine Comedy” on Christian and Western thought. T.S. Elliot said of Dante: “Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. There is no third.” He defined the Italian language. His picture of hell became the standard we think of today.
His creative reinterpretation of ancient Greek myths through the eyes of Christianity (such as putting The Odyssey’s Odysseus in hell) set the stage for such integration and reinterpretation in the Renaissance. His emphasis on faith in Christ and reason being the pathway to heaven set the stage for the Reformation.
“In the Hand of Dante” often talks about the greatness of what Dante accomplished. But it mostly uses Dante to spin off and do its own thing, arguably in the same way Dante did with his literary influences. But the result doesn’t always work. The film is an odd mix of things.
It tries to be both a spiritual odyssey and a modern Quentin Tarantino-esque crime thriller. In the modern scenes, the characters ramble aimlessly on, jumping from high-minded quotes of great literature and mindless trivialities. In the historical scenes, they speak in elevated dialogue throughout, but often feel like they are saying nothing — or at the very least trite cliches.
Despite this, the movie is consistently entertaining from start to finish. The stacked and eclectic ensemble cast that includes prestige players and the joy and passion in the script - flawed though it is — is evident throughout. The movie moves along at a fast pace, with twists that keep us from staying in one place too long.
The film is aesthetically ambitious. The modern scenes are shot in black and white and with the standard U.S. theatrical release 1:85 aspect ratio. Meanwhile, the past scenes are shot in color, but with a 4:3 aspect ratio that was standard for TV back in the day. Filmmakers often use them to represent the past or a feeling of being oppressed and boxed in.
The camera in the flashbacks is also kept relatively still (like those old films) while the camera in the modern day constantly moves. The intended effect is a kind of back and forth between a slick but soulless modernity and a sacred past we long to connect with.
However, it's the film’s shallowness that’s ultimately the biggest weakness. When all is said and done, all the high-minded literary allusions, transcendental style, the theology and philosophy, all the supposed character development, all amount in the end to… a generic (and ludicrously implausible) Hollywood happy ending. The protagonist does evil and gets away with it. He ends up rich and happy with the girl of his dreams. There are no great insights. No great reckoning of the soul.
The filmmakers have nothing to add to the conversation of any of what Dante actually wrote. This is sad because we are desperately in need today to engage with what writers in the past actually said. In a world where we are struggling to find answers, the instinct to look to past writers and engage with the answers they found — whether we agree with them or not — can help us build on them and have better answers today. But we only do that if we actually engage with what they really thought rather than something far shallower that we made up.
“In The Hand of Dante” should be praised for its ambition and creativity in combining the neo-noir and spiritual history genres and aesthetics. And those looking for an entertaining escape with great performances will find plenty to enjoy. If the filmmakers had been able to dig deeper in themselves to put that depth onscreen, the results could have been really divine.
“In the Hand of Dante” is streaming now on Netflix.
Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York. He is co-host of the podcast “The Overthinkers” and its companion website theoverthinkersjournal.world, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers. His other work and contact info can be found at josephholmesstudios.com.