Monday, February 9, 2015

The Da Vinci Code: A Series of Terrible Decisions - Part 2.

Robert Langdon is not a man known for having the best judgment as outlined in my previous post about the first 30mins of The Da Vinci Code. From purposefully incriminating himself, endangering priceless paintings and civilian lives on the streets of Paris, to blindly following the every whim of a woman he just met, because he's Robert Langdon.

The average person would most likely draw the line probably somewhere between becoming a foreign fugitive and getting chased by the cops through the tiniest little alleys in Paris, but not Robert Langdon. 

                              I'm starting to think that Sophie's not really into me. 
                                     
No, Robert Langdon is not deterred by all of this, even when taken through a lesser-traveled part of Paris, rife with open prostitution and drug abuse. Sure, the cops aren't going to come look for them here, but shit, if one of the abundant crackheads decide to take a knife to them, the cops aren't going to be on their way to help either. 

But I suppose that when you're France's No. 1 fugitive, the police are the last friends you need. You need a friend that can help you, preferably one that is close by and happens to be incredibly wealthy and coincidentally the most knowledgeable person about this particular topic on the planet.  

You need a friend like Gandalf


Well, not actually Gandalf, but Sir Ian McKellen's character, Sir Leigh Teabing, who in some weird way, is the Gandalf of The Da Vinci Code. 

And this is where I start veering off track from Robert Langdon for a bit and want to start addressing some inaccuracies in the movie, so let me just get down to Sir Teabing's analysis.



And in case the video doesn't embed properly, see the Youtube link here.

Now, that's a wonderful interpretation, but it's missing one important fact being that there were 12 disciples/apostles and if Mary Magdalene  had been one, that would mean that the painting's depiction of the Last Supper was incorrect. 

But for the sake of this, let's continue with your interpretation, Gandalf. 

During the contrast of the painting, where he isolates Jesus and "Mary", Teabing shows that the negative space between them represents a chalice. He then further drives his point home by pointing out that there is in fact, no grail on the table and negative space between them itself is the chalice. Which is all good for the film's purposes, but it's missing something crucial.

The Holy Grail is not necessarily a chalice/cup. It's also widely known as a plate or saucer, which would throw all of Mr. Teabing's CSI-like detective work out of the window. In fact, the earliest mentions of the Holy Grail derive from a 12th century French poet named Chrétien de Troyes, who describes the grail as being a decorated chalice which he saw being transported (along with many other wonderful objects) while dining in the abode of Fisher King. He makes no mention of Holy implications or being the vessel in The Last Supper.

No, The Holy Grail being a divine object used in The Last Supper originates from another 12th Century French poet named Robert de Boron who tied the Holy Grail to Christianity. Prior to this, the Grail was never mentioned in Eastern Christian sources. Not once. Ever. 

                                      Yeah, that's just a random cup, Indy. 

Furthermore, there is no book called "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene", It's actually just The Gospel of Mary which is a very controversial "book" in itself as scholars still cannot agree whether it referenced Mary, wife of Joseph or Mary Magdalene. The Gospel of Mary is also an incomplete set of texts and thus not recognized as canonical. 

All facts considered, without these inaccuracies, there probably wouldn't have been any grounds for Mr. Dan Brown to base his book, so let's continue taking a look at Robert Langdon's own inaccuracies in symbolism. 

Langdon's presentation about symbolism is a misinterpreted clusterfuck, particularly the images shown of the Peace Sign/Witch's Foot/Crow's Foot which is supposed to be a representation of Christ hanging upside down on a crucifix. 


While it's nifty concept, it's also completely wrong. Firstly, because the peace symbol is in fact a two initials representing the flag semaphore signals for "N" and "D", which are the initials for Nuclear Disarmament. You can see the signals here.

So, where does the Crow/Witch's foot come from? 

Well, for that answer, we'll have to delve into a bit American history regarding the Vietnam war. During the war, the peace sign was not seen favorably due its liberal use among hippies and protesters against the war itself. With war being as profitable as it is, an effort was made to discredit the Peace Symbol and tie in to communism, satanism and Nazism. Basically, anything that the American populace feared was tied into the Peace Sign. The first mention of this is in Peace Symbols: The Truth about Those Strange Designs, published in a 1970 issue of American Opinion , by The John Birch Society, a radical right fundamental Christian Political group.

This is why we can't have nice things. 

Next post will tackle more Robert Langdon and the terrible decisions he makes in The Da Vinci Code. 

No comments:

Post a Comment