Queen of the Castle

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

The real secret behind The DaVinci Code...

Is that Audrey Tautou's real hair? I have to say, I'm going with wig.

Anyway, I finally managed to get Matthew to accompany me to what he refers to as 'The DaVinci Crap', given that we went on 'Cheapy Tuesday', and that while out and out raucous laughter was banned, he would be allowed a muted chuckle. Anyway, potential spoliers, yadda yadda.

Now I don't mind the book. It's great for long waits at airports or, you know, if you have a Latin exam to revise for (although had I known there would be Latin spoken in the film I'd have gone to see it before the exam, and counted it as revision). I'd recommend anyone who hasn't read it to try and get hold of the Illustrated Edition (they also do an Angels & Demons Illustrated too), as it's much nicer to read it when you can see the pictures and buildings mentioned (and it helps you to skip over some of the more turgid prose).

The main reason why I wanted to watch the film was to see what they'd done to the monk character, played by Paul Bettany. Now I really don't understand why people keep getting their knickers in a twist with regards to the whole 'Dan Brown is TRUE/ Dan Brown's book is a LIE' controversy. It is quite clear that the man has done this much research --> <-- using only books which support his argument. Warning bells were sounding for me after the two mentions of the word 'Wicca', both in completely the wrong context. But did I get antsy over it? Nope. Because before the mention of Wicca, before the mention of the Holy Grail, Dan Brown describes the albino monk as having red eyes. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

That would be albino RATS, Dan Brown, rats. Albino people have blue eyes.

In my opinion, the only people who should get upset about the events depicted in the novel are the Albino Association.

In the film (disappointingly I must say ;) ) Paul Bettany has blue/grey eyes. And contrary to suggestions given by the billboard poster, they hadn't just covered him in talcum powder either.

However, this, in essence, encapsulates the attitude to the film towards the book. The film makers appear to have made some effort at placating any potential organisation who had a beef with the book. Well, except maybe the church.

So, instead of agreeing wholeheartedly with Leigh Teabing (can't believe I can bring myself to type such a dreadful name) as he does in the book, the Robert Langdon character actually provides half-attempt at a lot of the counter arguments against the ideas of the Holy Grail Holy Blood idea. This leads to many shots of Tom Hanks looking scornful and rolling his eyes. But you never know, he may just have caught sight of his mullet in a mirror and be thinking bad thoughts towards his hairdresser.

The film makers may have tried to balance the film one way, but they tipped the scales in another. In the book the Sophie character, being a Cryologist an' all, is actually quite swotty and works out many of the clues herself. In the film Audrey Tautou is just along for the ride, a pretty accompanyment to Hanks' puzzle-solver - she doesn't work out anything for herself, not even the clues which in the book her grandfather had been training her to solve. Maybe they spent too much of Audrey's 'how to learn English phonetically' on that wig.

And in the film the Vatican and Opus Dei are complicit in all the murders, and the attempt to destroy the grail. Even the character of the police captain becomes an Opus Dei fanatic, whereas I think in the book the suggestion is more that he is a Priory menber. And his relationship with his Lieutenant is not a good one, again, contrary to the book.

In fact - especially in the last half hour (man, the last hour really really drags. I had to stop Matthew from eating his own hand), the film has managed to make itself worse than the book. I seriously didn't think that could ever happen. Usually when a book is changed so drastically it's to make it more filmable, shorter, etc. While I can understand only having the one cryptex, I don't see why they changed the ending so drastically. I feel the book's ending would have been - dare I say it - shorter and snappier.

According to director Ron Howard, it's much better on a second viewing, which sounds to me like a suspicious ploy to make people pay twice to see a film they weren't overly enamoured with. It wasn't the worst film I've seen and I'm sure when it comes on channel 5 I'll watch it again, though I wouldn't be devastated if we had a power cut just after they solve the cryptex.

2 Comments:

  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger Seven Star Hand said…

    Greetings Queen Debbi-Rah,

    You may not initially agree with everything I reveal, but be a little patient with my long-winded presentation of what I have waited a very long time to be able to say. I promise to amaze and enlighten.

    Contrary to those who strive to assert that the DaVinci Code created the term, symbology is an ancient philosophical technology and I am a real life symbologist. Likewise, the upper-level members of secret societies such as Freemasons, Rosicrusians, Illumanti, and the Vatican are symbologists. Keeping their "craft" secretive and misunderstood is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth about ancient wisdom and the symbology used to model, encapsulate, and encode it. The title "mason" is itself a symbolic allusion to those who work with the "Philosophers' Stone" which is the symbolic name given to an ancient body of symbology, hence "Masons" are workers of "stone."

    Read Proverbs 9:1 below to better understand this allusion.

    Wisdom has built Her house. She has carved out Her seven pillars.

    Notice that "wisdom" is referred to as "Her" and "She", as in Sophia and Miriam (the Magdala), and that "She" has "hewn" "Her" "seven pillars" (of stone)? Read my Home Page to see what those seven pillars of "stone" have always referred to, contrary to what religions and mysticism have said for millennia.

    Peace...

    Here is the key to understanding what the Vatican and Papacy truly fear...

    Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness...

    Here's a real hot potato! Eat it up, digest it, and then feed it's bones to the hungry...

    There's much more to the story of the Vatican's recent machinations than meets the eye. It's not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se, but the fact that people have now been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear. These recent controversies are spurring people to reevaluate the Vatican/Papacy and the religions that Rome spawned, at the worst possible time for them.

    Remember, "I come as a thief..." ?

    The DaVinci Code novel and movie are no more inaccurate as literal versions of history than the New Testament. The primary sub-plot involved purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts. In other words, none of these stories represent the literal truth. This is the common and pivotal fact of all such narratives about ancient Hebrew and Christian history. Debating whether the DaVinci Code, Gnostic texts, or the Bible are accurate history is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth by directing your inquiry away from the heart of the matter.

    There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions. It also proves why we can no longer let the Vatican tell us what to think about ancient history or much else. It is the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have been targets of Rome’s ire and evil machinations. The Vatican and its secret society cohorts don’t want you to understand that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them. Furthermore, the structure of ancient wisdom symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. This is what they most fear you will discover.

    If the Bible represented the literal truth or even accurate history, there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk. It is undeniable the New Testament is awash with ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory. The same is evidenced in the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, biblical apocrypha, Quran, DaVinci Code, and other related sources. All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason: The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity. How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries? To recast an often-used political adage: It’s [the] symbology, stupid!

    It is beyond amazing that the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are the literal truth. Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity. This is part of the secret knowledge held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, Cathars, and others, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code. None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the literal truth. This fact is the key to unraveling many ages-old mysteries and exposing the truth about the Vatican's long-term deceptions.

    Moreover, the following Washington Post article (The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful. When you combine proof that the New Testament Gospels are not wholly literal with proof that these texts were heavily reworked in the early years of Christianity, you are left with only one possible conclusion. The Vatican has long lied to everyone about the central tenets and history of Christianity. This revelation also proves they are not the Creator’s representatives but Her long-time opponents. The recent hoopla over the Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code demonstrates they are still desperately trying to deceive the world and obfuscate their true nature and activities.

    It's no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else. As further proof of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia. What then is the purpose of "faith" but to keep good people from seeking to understand the truth?

    Now comes justice, hot on its heels... (symbolism...)

    Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk...
    Here is Wisdom!!

    Revelations from the Apocalypse

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger DMK said…

    Okaaaaaay.

    I'm not quite sure of the relevance of the above comment to the post on which it was commenting. Yes, I mentioned the Da Vinci Code, but in the context of a film review only.

    From a brief search for other users, I notice that I am the only person who has add a similar comment appended to their blog who is a) not Christian and b) has discussed the film/book solely from a critical point of view. All other bloggers appear to be Christians, mainly Catholics, concerned about the role of the film and book in their faith. Seven Star Hand - did you actually read my post? I shall be utterly devastated if you didn't, since you'll have missed out on my sparkling prose.

    Oh yeah. And I'm Pagan. You might have realised that had you actually read what I wrote, and picked up on the fact that I used the word 'Wicca'. Twice, in fact (just like Dan Brown, ooooooooooh spooky).

    Anyway, the point about me being Pagan is that I don't give a rat's bottom about whether Mary Magdalene did you know what with you know who - because it's not my religion!

    And the other point about me being Pagan is (come on, if you think long enough you can figure it out...) is that I already believe in the Goddess. This is the main thing that really really pisses me off about Dan Brown, that he suggests the only way one can worship a Goddess is by worshipping some female form of Christ hidden by the Christian Church.

    Hmmmmm... no.

    The Goddess is all around us, and always has been. She doesn't need a messiah (sorry, Seven Star Hand, I know from your other comments you were hoping to be that), and she doesn't need to be unpicked from the Bible, the Da Vinci Code or 'symbology' (which Dan Brown may or may not have invented. Again with the not caring. Although given that I have a book published in 1997 called 'Interpreting Signs & Symbols' I assume that he didn't. I doubt Harvard have a professor in it though).

    Anyway. This has proved a good exercise in practising the length of time for which I can type pain-free!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home