Top Ten Surprises in "The Da Vinci Code"
Moira de Swardt
By Dave Tippett
10. In Last Supper painting, Da Vinci drew himself in background as
waiter
preparing the bill
9. In the painting, James seen listening to iPod in background
8. In movie, TV in background has old "Andy of Mayberry" episode on,
the one
where Aunt Bea warns Opie to not be involved in no heresy
7. One disciple at Last Supper table seems to have Nike swoosh on
his sandal
6. Da Vinciąs "Mona Lisa" revealed to have been first wife of that
American
Gothic farmer guy with the pitch fork
5. Was discovered that Da Vinci was insanely jealous of the ancient
ancestor of
Thomas Kincaide and their better-selling "The Soft Lighting Last
Supper"
painting
4. Da Vinci's followup painting was first velveteen Elvis
3. The Books of Judas and Mary Magdalene traced to goofy teens on
MySpace.com
2. "Code" actually just Da Vinciąs ATM card pin
1. Closer examination of Last Supperąs tablecloth reveals food
strains that map
out who shot JFK
Copyright 2006 Dave Tippett (djti...@yahoo.com). Permission is
granted to send
this to others, with attribution, but not for commercial purposes.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>:-) TOP TEN SURPRISES IN "THE DA VINCI CODE"
Now you've gone and wook up sportsfan.
--
Terms and conditions apply.
Steve Hayes
haye...@yahoo.com
Skokkie
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qejt62hgd3fanmug9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 07:12:03 +0200, "Moira de Swardt" <moir...@wol.co.za>
> wrote:
>
>>:-) TOP TEN SURPRISES IN "THE DA VINCI CODE"
>
> Now you've gone and wook up sportsfan.
>
Van der Merwe read 'The Bible Code' and decided to run a backwards reading
computer skip code on Irving Wallace' thirty year old book called 'The Word'
It came back with the statement "Dan Brown is a Plagiarist"
"It works" maintains Van "Trust me I am a fiction writer"
Peter H.M. Brooks
da Vinci code is no exception.
I don't usually read popular books, but I decided to read this a while
back and enjoyed the way that the story jogged along - even though it
did have some particularly silly nonsense, like knights in the UK
having special cards that allow them access to places other people
can't enter.
We went to see the film this weekend - there really wasn't anything
better on, it was wet and we were both feeling a bit miserable from
colds that have been hanging on for a couple of weeks (you needn't
point out how wicked it is to go abroad in public with a cold - at work
and around Cape Town just now, there is a constant background of coughs
and sneezes - we'll all be gonners if Avian 'flu arrives down here!).
I was expecting it to be dreadful, the reviews were bad and the trailer
didn't look good. I was pleasantly surprised. I certainly wouldn't go a
far as to say that it was good - but it was bad in a more charming way
than I'd expected. Some nonsense like the card had been excised. The
girl acting as JC's descendent was pleasant enough.
The essential point of the controversy isn't, of course, whether Opus
Dei are a bunch of nutters - we all knew that. The point, that I think
was rather cleverly explained for a general audience, was the divinity
of children of mixed unions between mortals and immortals.
Achilles, one such, wasn't imortal, but he was a sort of godlet, with
divine attributes - only his heel rendered him mortal. The same is true
of most mixed offspring. So the question of the divinity of JC is
similar. If he left descendents would they also be little godlets who
could wander across ponds (a point nicely and charmingly made by the
girl in the film, as it happens) or, since JC was mortal himself, would
they be mortal in the usual way?
It is amazing, really, that anybody, me in particular, should bother to
go and see a film on the subject so utterly silly as whether or not
people are people and not godlets. As I've said before, films that
include supernatural stuff are more than usually silly. It was, as I
say, though, surprisingly good entertainment.