Everybody wants to break the Da Vinci code!
But the attempt by the Discovery Channel has been much more successful (at least more interesting) than that by the National Geographic Channel. In fact, the whole 'Secret Bible' series produced by the latter was painfully boring. I gave up after the first episode which, I think, was about the rivals of Jesus. Too academic for me.
Tonight's 'Da Vinci Declassified' by the Dicovery Channel was so much better. And do you know something? It is actually incorrect and silly, if you will, to refer to Leonardo Da Vinci as Da Vinci because 'Vinci' was actually (is still probably still) the name of a town in France where Leonardo Da Vinci came from. So if you call him Da Vinci, it actually means 'the Vinci' or 'from Vinci', neither of which makes sense.
I sidetracked a little. Okay, so why was DC's handling of the issue better than NGC's?
1) It was all presented in a fun and 'interactive way'. By that I really mean more graphics. Oh they actually had someone to create a cryptex and explain to the viewers how it really worked. And guess what? Vinegar does not actually dissolve the papyrus, as suggested by Mr Dan Brown. In fact, the papyrus remains intact even after being placed in a vial of vinegar for a month! So it is either that Leonardo used something else other than vinegar or he never invented such a thing at all. It might be helpful to note that no manuscript on the cryptex was ever found amongst Leonardo's collections.
2) They did not interview Dan Brown unlike what NGC did because they knew if they were going to clear up the mystery of something, it would be stupid to invite someone who came up with the mystery in the first place. Like you would expect him or her to admit it was actually a joke or a farce? Get real!
3) They sought the expertise of a gorgeous art historian whose surname actually had the word 'sex' in it (It was actually 'Sexton' in full) How arousing for a documentary! And she did not seem to be thrilled with Dan Brown and his predecessors' interpretation of Leonardo's works at all. She claimed, for example, that it was common for painters of 'that era' to portray young apostles as effeminate in order to show them being of a lower status than Jesus. Yeah, so John was a victim in a way. He could possibly have been more macho in real life. But considering he was 'very close' to Jesus, wouldn't it leave more room for imagination if he was kinda sissy-looking like Leonardo decided he should be? Yeah I thought so too.
Other shocking facts I got from the documentary:
1). The earliest symbol of Jesus was - guess what?- a fish! That didn't surprise you?
2). Legend has it that the first Merovingian king was fathered by a fish (C'mon, really get real!) And remember what was said about the symbol of Jesus being a fish? Yeah... so the logical conclusion became: Jesus' bloodline found its way into the Merovingians and the Knights Templar was set up to protect this bloodline of his. Of course everyone knows by now that the Holy Grail is possibly not a cup, but something more darrrkkk and siiiinnnniiissssttteeerr! (Background music: something borrowed from 'Dracula')
3). Leonardo Da Vinci could not quite possibly have been the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion because his personality would not have allowed him to do so. In fact, it was speculated, he might actually have had ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). He never finished anything he started out to do. So God help any organisation that he might have led in his lifetime.
4). The Priory of Sion might not even have existed for thousands of years as again suggested by Mr Brown. In fact, it could well have been a creation of three very mischievous little boys. One of them, the mastermind actually, was someone named Plantard who lived in a French town of - guess what again? - Sion! By a stroke of ingenuity, he decided to set up and register an organisation by the name of (oh you are getting so good at this already, aren't you?) the Priory of Sion! As for the Dossier Secrets (which contained the names of all Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion among other things), they could have been a creation of Plantard's partners in crime. Actually, if you will, Plantard was kind of a megalomaniac who thought he was someone special, possibly of royal descent. So he drew up a family tree linking himself to the Merovingians! These parchments were later mentioned in the Dossier Secrets (translation: Secret Documents). And since we have established that the secret documents were in fact made up by Plantard's accomplice, his claim to the throne was just crap.
5). The funny thing is: Plantard, being a megalomaniac as he was, never claimed to be descended from Jesus. Later authors, namely those who wrote the book 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail', made the connection between the Merovingian dynasty and Jesus. In fact, Plantard openly denied being a descendant of Jesus' because he saw it as a sacrilege, him being suggested as such. So I guess the joke backfired a little there.
6). Plantard's acomplices, Philippe de Cherisey and Gérard de Sede, were surrealists. And surrealists are people focused on the attainment of a state different from, "more than", and ultimately "truer" than everyday reality: the "sur-real", or "more than real". Does it spell trouble for you? Yeah I thought so too. It might also be interesting to note that the last Grand Master listed was an artist named Jean Cocteau. A surrealist too! Guess they were paying tribute to their idol. Oh, by the way, Jean Cocteau was gay. Thought you might be interested to know that =P
7. Remember the space between Jesus and John/Mary Magdalene in the 'Last Supper'? Some say it resembles the letter 'V' which is also a symbol of the female. Others say it is really a 'M' which - guess who? - really refers to Mary Magdalene. Our pretty art historian thought the space was just 'a matter of composition'. Also, to the claim that the second apostle from the right was really a self-portrait of Leonardo himself, our pretty art historian thought it was unlikely that Leonardo would have done something so risky because painters then were just a little more respected than menial workers. But perhaps, Leonardo was different since he was already a master painter by the time he was commissioned to do the mural?
Well, so it was pretty much established that the Priory of Sion was a hoax. Perhaps, the Holy Grail was a cup after all.
Tonight's 'Da Vinci Declassified' by the Dicovery Channel was so much better. And do you know something? It is actually incorrect and silly, if you will, to refer to Leonardo Da Vinci as Da Vinci because 'Vinci' was actually (is still probably still) the name of a town in France where Leonardo Da Vinci came from. So if you call him Da Vinci, it actually means 'the Vinci' or 'from Vinci', neither of which makes sense.
I sidetracked a little. Okay, so why was DC's handling of the issue better than NGC's?
1) It was all presented in a fun and 'interactive way'. By that I really mean more graphics. Oh they actually had someone to create a cryptex and explain to the viewers how it really worked. And guess what? Vinegar does not actually dissolve the papyrus, as suggested by Mr Dan Brown. In fact, the papyrus remains intact even after being placed in a vial of vinegar for a month! So it is either that Leonardo used something else other than vinegar or he never invented such a thing at all. It might be helpful to note that no manuscript on the cryptex was ever found amongst Leonardo's collections.
2) They did not interview Dan Brown unlike what NGC did because they knew if they were going to clear up the mystery of something, it would be stupid to invite someone who came up with the mystery in the first place. Like you would expect him or her to admit it was actually a joke or a farce? Get real!
3) They sought the expertise of a gorgeous art historian whose surname actually had the word 'sex' in it (It was actually 'Sexton' in full) How arousing for a documentary! And she did not seem to be thrilled with Dan Brown and his predecessors' interpretation of Leonardo's works at all. She claimed, for example, that it was common for painters of 'that era' to portray young apostles as effeminate in order to show them being of a lower status than Jesus. Yeah, so John was a victim in a way. He could possibly have been more macho in real life. But considering he was 'very close' to Jesus, wouldn't it leave more room for imagination if he was kinda sissy-looking like Leonardo decided he should be? Yeah I thought so too.
Other shocking facts I got from the documentary:
1). The earliest symbol of Jesus was - guess what?- a fish! That didn't surprise you?
2). Legend has it that the first Merovingian king was fathered by a fish (C'mon, really get real!) And remember what was said about the symbol of Jesus being a fish? Yeah... so the logical conclusion became: Jesus' bloodline found its way into the Merovingians and the Knights Templar was set up to protect this bloodline of his. Of course everyone knows by now that the Holy Grail is possibly not a cup, but something more darrrkkk and siiiinnnniiissssttteeerr! (Background music: something borrowed from 'Dracula')
3). Leonardo Da Vinci could not quite possibly have been the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion because his personality would not have allowed him to do so. In fact, it was speculated, he might actually have had ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). He never finished anything he started out to do. So God help any organisation that he might have led in his lifetime.
4). The Priory of Sion might not even have existed for thousands of years as again suggested by Mr Brown. In fact, it could well have been a creation of three very mischievous little boys. One of them, the mastermind actually, was someone named Plantard who lived in a French town of - guess what again? - Sion! By a stroke of ingenuity, he decided to set up and register an organisation by the name of (oh you are getting so good at this already, aren't you?) the Priory of Sion! As for the Dossier Secrets (which contained the names of all Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion among other things), they could have been a creation of Plantard's partners in crime. Actually, if you will, Plantard was kind of a megalomaniac who thought he was someone special, possibly of royal descent. So he drew up a family tree linking himself to the Merovingians! These parchments were later mentioned in the Dossier Secrets (translation: Secret Documents). And since we have established that the secret documents were in fact made up by Plantard's accomplice, his claim to the throne was just crap.
5). The funny thing is: Plantard, being a megalomaniac as he was, never claimed to be descended from Jesus. Later authors, namely those who wrote the book 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail', made the connection between the Merovingian dynasty and Jesus. In fact, Plantard openly denied being a descendant of Jesus' because he saw it as a sacrilege, him being suggested as such. So I guess the joke backfired a little there.
6). Plantard's acomplices, Philippe de Cherisey and Gérard de Sede, were surrealists. And surrealists are people focused on the attainment of a state different from, "more than", and ultimately "truer" than everyday reality: the "sur-real", or "more than real". Does it spell trouble for you? Yeah I thought so too. It might also be interesting to note that the last Grand Master listed was an artist named Jean Cocteau. A surrealist too! Guess they were paying tribute to their idol. Oh, by the way, Jean Cocteau was gay. Thought you might be interested to know that =P
7. Remember the space between Jesus and John/Mary Magdalene in the 'Last Supper'? Some say it resembles the letter 'V' which is also a symbol of the female. Others say it is really a 'M' which - guess who? - really refers to Mary Magdalene. Our pretty art historian thought the space was just 'a matter of composition'. Also, to the claim that the second apostle from the right was really a self-portrait of Leonardo himself, our pretty art historian thought it was unlikely that Leonardo would have done something so risky because painters then were just a little more respected than menial workers. But perhaps, Leonardo was different since he was already a master painter by the time he was commissioned to do the mural?
Well, so it was pretty much established that the Priory of Sion was a hoax. Perhaps, the Holy Grail was a cup after all.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home