I have not read The Da Vinci Code, and I have no interest in reading it. I have no allergy to bestsellers or anything like that, but I always thought that a story like this deserves two hours of a movie, not more time of my life.
So when I had the opportunity, I saw the movie. The first thing that disappointed me was how boring it was (I had to see her in three cuts). The begining already left me astounded. I asked people who had read the book and they confirmed that the same happened in the book: Sauniere, mortally wounded, in the middle of the Louvre Museum, has time, while bleeding to death, to think about anagrams and write on the floor, and then, even more, write a few words with his blood behind Leonardo's Gioconda.
I would like to think that most people know by now that The Da Vinci Code is a snap of lies from the beginning until the end. That most of the facts that the book is based on are hoaxes is extensively well documented. And it was already done when the book was published, as shown by this links: "La estafa de "El código Da Vinci" [Spanish], or the debate in Cuarto Milenio about "The Da Vinci Code" [Spanish], or countless websites.
But nobody denies that there must be some details to explain their success, and probably many factors were involved, By mixing historical foundations (real places, real works of art), urban legends, pure inventions, and distortions of reality, Mr. Dan Brown warms everything up in his neuronal oven.
So when I had the opportunity, I saw the movie. The first thing that disappointed me was how boring it was (I had to see her in three cuts). The begining already left me astounded. I asked people who had read the book and they confirmed that the same happened in the book: Sauniere, mortally wounded, in the middle of the Louvre Museum, has time, while bleeding to death, to think about anagrams and write on the floor, and then, even more, write a few words with his blood behind Leonardo's Gioconda.
I would like to think that most people know by now that The Da Vinci Code is a snap of lies from the beginning until the end. That most of the facts that the book is based on are hoaxes is extensively well documented. And it was already done when the book was published, as shown by this links: "La estafa de "El código Da Vinci" [Spanish], or the debate in Cuarto Milenio about "The Da Vinci Code" [Spanish], or countless websites.
But nobody denies that there must be some details to explain their success, and probably many factors were involved, By mixing historical foundations (real places, real works of art), urban legends, pure inventions, and distortions of reality, Mr. Dan Brown warms everything up in his neuronal oven.
Personally, what I'm most interested ofin this story is the character of Pierre Plantard , the character that really created the whole story. As read in Wikipedia "Plantard created a fictitious history for that organization (the Priory of Zion), describing it as a secret society founded in the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099, which preserves the bloodlines of the Merovingian dynasty. This dynasty would have continued in France to this day, and was part of a surreal claim to the French throne. With the help of Philippe de Chérisey they created a series of fake documents.
"Between 1965 and 1967 these documents, known as the "Dossiers Secrets" (Secret Files), were planted in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris. A third co-conspirator, French author Gérard de Sède (1921–2004), based his 1967 book "L'Or de Rennes" on these documents, "revealing" the Priory of Sion Rennes story to the world.
The story was resurrected again to the big public by the BBC (yes, the BBC) series Chronicle, where they presented the story as real in a three-part doucmentary (you can watch them here).
After the succes of the documentaris the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) was published and made the story global. Let's see what the books was about: "In The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the authors put forward a hypothesis that the historical Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had one or more children, and that those children or their descendants emigrated to what is now southern France. Once there, they intermarried with the noble families that would eventually become the Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the throne of France is championed today by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. They concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is simultaneously the womb of Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to." [Wikipedia]. Have you read this story somewhere else later...?
After the succes of the documentaris the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) was published and made the story global. Let's see what the books was about: "In The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the authors put forward a hypothesis that the historical Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had one or more children, and that those children or their descendants emigrated to what is now southern France. Once there, they intermarried with the noble families that would eventually become the Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the throne of France is championed today by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. They concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is simultaneously the womb of Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to." [Wikipedia]. Have you read this story somewhere else later...?
But maybe what is more surprising is why the big media presented "The Da Vinci Code" under an umbrella of doubt, like if there could be some truth in what it explained, when only a 15 minute reserach in the internet woould have shown anybody that everything was an invention. So the question is: did they do it not to damage the book's sales? That is very considerate if they were not receiving money from the publisher... Or did they do it, because it created a doubt in the in the Christian believes?
No comments:
Post a Comment