Go to Old News (The Unbearable Lightness Of Blogging)
- Add a comment
- Go to Key Question Regarding The DaVinci Code
I would urge everyone to rent and watch (with an open mind) ...
"The Last Temptation of Christ", which is the most powerful film I've
ever seen, and one that reaffirms (
not destroys) the faith.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 9:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Good point, and now you have me thinking
I am not sure of anything, and its strange that they have suddenly come up with a different version after all of these years. I have heard that Jesus was just a normal man like any other man, and if that is true then sex would have been part of the deal. After all, I cannot think of any man that does not have sex on the brain. Geez! I am probably gonna get struck by lightning now.
posted by
Sherri_G
on May 21, 2006 at 7:02 PM
| link to this | reply
FYI:
I'm going to post about the movie itself in a little bit. I have to wait for my boyfriend to leave (i.e. the Yankee game to end) first ... cause I'm going to, like, totally badmouth him behind his back.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 6:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Burly:
I'm not sure. I don't really see him in the painting though.
(Joke.)
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:49 PM
| link to this | reply
R.I.:
I agree ...
up to a point.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:47 PM
| link to this | reply
That likely speaks more to your taste in women, Scriber ...
than anything else.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:46 PM
| link to this | reply
SillySoul88:
The Passion was, more or less, just a literal retelling of the Gospels.
This film's veracity is far more debatable.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:44 PM
| link to this | reply
m--in my opinion, the more likely woman is first left of V. Next to Jesus
At least the figure is most attractive to me.
posted by
scriber
on May 21, 2006 at 5:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Um, that would be:
regarding the depiction possessing the most femininity.
Jeez, maybe I'm not fit to live alone, either.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:41 PM
| link to this | reply
AaronB:
SEE previous comment (regarding the depiction possessing the most feminity)
Meanwhile, after seeing the movie, I can safely say that anyone who actually believes the novel's theory is unfit to live alone.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:40 PM
| link to this | reply
I know, Scriber ... but what I'm saying is ...
it's actually the figure
second from the far left (standing and leaning over) that is a woman.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Franciscan:
Thank you very much. Certainly, at the very least, you haven't heard it worded quite that way before. After all, few, if any, religious scholars use the term "boinked".
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:34 PM
| link to this | reply
I believe the claim is Mary, the doll, is just to the right of Jesus, our
left. The figure does seem to be the more feminine of all.
posted by
scriber
on May 21, 2006 at 5:32 PM
| link to this | reply
brettnik:
Good question ... maybe you should ask Dan Brown ... or any of his 40 million readers (none of whom are
me).
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:32 PM
| link to this | reply
food4thought:
I saw those two (the History Channel rules!), and
yes, they did seem to dispute many of the book's "facts".
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:30 PM
| link to this | reply
ariel70:
Goya's take on The Last Supper can be viewed here:
http://artchive.com/artchive/G/goya.html
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi:
Judas attended the Last Supper, actually. At least, he did in Mel Gibson's version.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Scriber:
I am absolutely
convinced the figure second from the left is a female ... though she could just be a waitress ... besides, even if that
is Mary Magdalene, it doesn't really support the book's claim anyway, as she isn't sitting
directly to the left of Jesus (in the "V").
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay, I've done some exhaustive research (i.e. seen the movie ...
well,
most of it anyway), and am now prepared to answer your questions in a (slightly) more informed manner.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 21, 2006 at 5:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Madamoiselle
Do you think DaVinci was there at the last supper? His painting is just that, a painting and Dan Brown's novel is just that a novel!!
posted by
Burly
on May 21, 2006 at 3:07 PM
| link to this | reply
I count 12..the one on Jesus' left (as we look at the pic)....
is very young and feminine looking, but that has to be Da Vinci's rendition of the disciple, John, who was the youngest of the 12 (or close to it)...Da Vinci has him looking like a "girly-man"..
....
posted by
Rumor
on May 21, 2006 at 5:52 AM
| link to this | reply
I went to go see it and listen to the audio book on cd but
to me it's kind of like the other opposing side giving an answer to the Passion. Every side has a story , fact or fiction will never know. ~Silly
posted by
SillySoul88
on May 21, 2006 at 5:30 AM
| link to this | reply
The best evidences for the Code's premise
are taken from a demented conman who was trying to forge a claim to the throne of France, and a single misrepresented sentence from a book whose validity is in serious doubt anyway.
This sounds like a joke, but it's sadly true. People with a weak grasp of history and who are inclined towards outrageous conspiracy theories can be very gullible.
About the picture: John the disciple was painted in a slightly more feminine way to represent that he was younger than the others.
posted by
AaronB
on May 20, 2006 at 8:52 PM
| link to this | reply
!
Mademoiselle, excellent thought. I've never heard that. No, really.
posted by
franciscan
on May 20, 2006 at 7:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Construct...who needs to worry about what the details of it are.
posted by
brettnik
on May 20, 2006 at 7:03 PM
| link to this | reply
M...
I have seen at least 2 documentaries on this subject (they were aimed at the book) both of which concluded the premise is false. The evidence was never found and a lot of it was made up. You might look for them on the History or The Learning Channel, it was very interesting to watch the investigative process. People should focus on these reports and their conclusions rather than protesting the movie, which only makes people want to go see it.
posted by
food4thought
on May 20, 2006 at 6:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Btw, everyone should ignore my third to last comment ...
I was talking on the phone, and I meant to say that,
not write it.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 5:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Ben, you call this a direction?
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 5:54 PM
| link to this | reply
This discussion has taken a new direction!
(B)
posted by
A-and-B
on May 20, 2006 at 5:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Well, "they" say everyone is gay!
I mean, Alexander the Great, Michelangelo, Liberace, etc.
It's all just silly speculation!
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 5:47 PM
| link to this | reply
I don't know but the following is from his biography:
A remarkable event happened on 8. April 1476. At this time it was usual to put anonymous accusations in a wooden box (called tamburo), which was put up in front of the Palazzo Vecchio (Picture).
On 8. April Leonardo and four others were accused. The anonymous person accused Leonardo to have a homosexual affair with Jacopo Saltarelli, who was a model. The procedure ended for all participants with an acquittal of the charge.
This story is an indication of the supposed homosexuality of Leonardo da Vinci.
posted by
TAPS.
on May 20, 2006 at 5:41 PM
| link to this | reply
What?! Plans for Beastlie Kingdomme were scrapped?!
That's the last straw! I'm so not going to Disney World!
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 5:33 PM
| link to this | reply
DaVinci was gay?
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 5:31 PM
| link to this | reply
mam'selle, It is probably because Da Vinci liked his women in his paintings instead of in his bed.
posted by
TAPS.
on May 20, 2006 at 5:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Okaaay. You know what? I'm not even going to bother trying to sort out which comments were directed at whom ...
However, I will say that there is DEFINITELY at least one woman in that painting.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 5:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
Good for you! Stand up for your beliefs. Altho' I don't share them I will always offer you support and friendship.
posted by
ariel70
on May 20, 2006 at 3:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Yes Ariel that is ture. I am saddened that the book was written
I am also saddened that people call Christianity a joke, and I am sorry that people who are Christian or not do find anyone else' religion a big joke. I don't believe I saw anything offensive on there from you, or ever have. You discussed the painting etc., of Leonardo, a brilliant man. If someone made fun of your best friends children I believe, being a gentleman, you would call them on it. I did!
posted by
Justi
on May 20, 2006 at 2:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
As you well know, I never ridicule Christian beliefs, and I suspect that maybe you're being a mite hypersensitive about yours. I have no knowledge of you relationships with non-beleives outside of Blogit, but it seems to me that any riducule that's going about in this comment section is aimed at Brown's book, and Da Vinci's picture.
posted by
ariel70
on May 20, 2006 at 2:40 PM
| link to this | reply
I get redicule all the time for being ugly toward unblievers. I am not. I
wonder what this is called? It is not anything I would do to Buddha, or any of your icons. It is a painful thing to hear people make such mockery of Jesus as is done here. Taps was right, and did as she should have but she was ridiculed not a joke. You don't know enough of the reality of this to make good educated guesses and your uneducated guesses are offensive.
posted by
Justi
on May 20, 2006 at 2:28 PM
| link to this | reply
No Darling Johnny is not in the bathroom. Jesus, as he says in the
Word, has already excused Judas. Judas is not on the scene for the Communion!
posted by
Justi
on May 20, 2006 at 2:21 PM
| link to this | reply
scriber
I really must get my butt into gear, and give The Last Supper a good coat of looking over ; apply my world famous forensic abilities to the problem of the gender of the figures.
Should any of them be covert females, you can be sure that I shall sniff them out. They shall not escape my steely gaze, I assure you.
The results will be sent under plain cover to interested parties. $200 +PP
posted by
ariel70
on May 20, 2006 at 2:12 PM
| link to this | reply
I've read the comments here. I agree with TAPS-'. My faith is unwavered.
Congratulations! You've won Contest#2. 10 clicks have been delivered. Please return to check my response regarding your question. Thanks for participating.
(B)
posted by
A-and-B
on May 20, 2006 at 2:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Arial-true enough. Another comment on the painting in question: there
are six figures on the left of Jesus, and six on the right. Two of those on his right, including immediate right, certainly could be women, judging from appearance. And the figure, second from left in the painting, is feminine in appearance.
posted by
scriber
on May 20, 2006 at 12:56 PM
| link to this | reply
scriber
These days most men look like women. Very ugly women too. And those who dress like women wear things that no woman would be seen dead in.
Don't ask me what this has to do with the Da Vinci Code, ''cos I don't know
posted by
ariel70
on May 20, 2006 at 12:42 PM
| link to this | reply
m--Men often look like women and vice versa in paintings. As for the
theory, common sense would seem to be that Jesus was a man born of woman.
posted by
scriber
on May 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel.....LOL....the nude thing, huh??? LOL
Well, I guess I can't complain about being born.
posted by
shelly_b
on May 20, 2006 at 11:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel, Mademoiselle = Ekaterina
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Madem
ROFL
posted by
shelly_b
on May 20, 2006 at 11:58 AM
| link to this | reply
ShellyB
it's times like this that I think " Why the hell didn't I take up nude holly arranging for the over seventies?"
It's time like this that I think " Why the hell was I born?"
posted by
ariel70
on May 20, 2006 at 11:51 AM
| link to this | reply
I think that exact same thing (about the Bible), Shelly.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:50 AM
| link to this | reply
You know, it's times like these, when I think.........Why didn't I write that book?
posted by
shelly_b
on May 20, 2006 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
So was mine. See the HAHAHA's.
posted by
TAPS.
on May 20, 2006 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
It was a joke, TAPS.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:44 AM
| link to this | reply
I don't see the resemblance at all, actually.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Ooops, sorry. I thought there was some question about it. HAHAHA
posted by
TAPS.
on May 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Mam'selle
Da Vinci was the worst meddler in artistic history. Paint on wet lime plaster, like everyone else has done for ages? No way! I'll try ... hmm, let's see. Aha! Bitumen! That's the stuff!
He was what, in the building trade would be called a bodger, or cowboy. Incidentally who agrees that the Mona Lisa is a self portrait? It is a good likeness.
posted by
ariel70
on May 20, 2006 at 11:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Christ, TAPS, how dumb do you think I am?! I know which one is Jesus.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:34 AM
| link to this | reply
You know, Ariel, because of the materials DaVinci used ...
this painting hasn't held up very well at all (relative to other works from the period).
I learned that in art school!
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:32 AM
| link to this | reply
HAHA, I like Ariel70's Toemas joke.
posted by
TAPS.
on May 20, 2006 at 11:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Mademoiselle, Jesus is in the center. The twelve disciples were painted in four groups of three. 4x3=12 . I don't understand the hubub anyway. Da Vinci wasn't around when the last supper took place. He wasn't born until the 1400's. He could have painted anything he wanted. People are so gullible because they want to believe that The Bible is fake and that even though Jesus is a historical person that really lived, he is not the Son of God. People will always believe what they want to believe.
posted by
TAPS.
on May 20, 2006 at 11:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Mam'selle et al
Hang on! Who's that guy under the table? some kinda foot fetishist? Oh, no, silly me, it must be Doubting Toemas.
Has anyone seen Goya's depiction of the Last Supper? We saw his lunette of it in a church in Cadiz a couple of weeks ago. Everyone's sprawled on the ground, very natural looking. And so Goya-esque! Which means powerful!
posted by
ariel70
on May 20, 2006 at 11:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Wait ... I think I counted Jesus by mistake.
Let me start over.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Hahahahahahaha
posted by
RckyMtnActivist
on May 20, 2006 at 11:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Though actually, that one might be a waitress.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Okay! I count THIRTEEN!
Plus I think the second one from the left is a girl, too!
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Here it is:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/L/leonardo/lastsupp.jpg.html
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:17 AM
| link to this | reply
I assume he was joking, PassionFlower ...
I am considering googling it, actually. It seems so obvious, though.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 11:14 AM
| link to this | reply
LOL...tell your boyfriend they didn't have
Bathrooms in those days....I haven't counted the apostles in the painting but I guess we could Google it and do it on line ... wanna try?
posted by
Passionflower
on May 20, 2006 at 11:11 AM
| link to this | reply
No, fourcats, I mean this as a legitimate question!
Has anyone ever actually counted the number of Apostles in the painting? Because if there are only 12 ... "The Code" is a total fraud.
I would do it, but I'm too lazy.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 20, 2006 at 10:33 AM
| link to this | reply
there's a canadian comedy act called maclean and maclean, two brothers
who play guitar and have fantastic singing voices but in fact are performing rude, insensitive, politically incorrect material. they were hot during the eighties and had a piece called "jesus was just a guy". in part:
so jesus and peter were the last ones seated at the table and jesus said unto peter, "i see your twenty dragmas and call. what have you got?"
and peter said, "four aces, jesus, count 'em. and none of your goddamn miracles!"
posted by
fourcats
on May 20, 2006 at 10:19 AM
| link to this | reply