Sunday May 28, 2006 The DaVinci Quote - now in a blog near you
Dude. Why are these DaVinci Code guys puzzling over paintings when they could solve much more interesting mysteries right there in the movie database! :-) You know how even eye-witness testimonials often remarkably contradict each other in some points? Well, you don't need a crime scene for that to happen, just look at these two 'DaVinci Code' quotes from the IMDB quote collection that (I assume) were contributed to the database from memory:
Sir Leigh Teabing: Shall I serve tea or coffee?
Robert Langdon: Tea.
Sir Leigh Teabing: Precisely. Now... what shall I put in the tea... milk or lemon?
Sophie Neveu: [whispered to Langdon] Milk.
Robert Langdon: That would depend on the tea.
Sir Leigh Teabing: Very good. Now, the last... in what year did a cocky Harvard
professor outwit a great Englishman?
Robert Langdon: Surely such a travesty has never occurred.
Sir Leigh Teabing: Well done. You have proved your loyalty
Sir Leigh Teabing: First, shall I serve coffee, or tea?
Sophie Neveu: I would think in England it's customary to serve tea.
Robert Langdon: Tea!
Sir Leigh Teabing: Correct. Next question, shall it be served with Lemon or Milk.
Robert Langdon: It would depend on the drink now, wouldn't it?
Sir Leigh Teabing: Correct! Now finally, the last question. Now tell me in which
year did a Harvard honor student defeat an Oxford student at history?
Sophie Neveu: [after a long pause] I don't think ever Mr. Langdon.
Robert Langdon: [Reluctantly] Never, Leigh.
Sir Leigh Teabing: [Laughs] Correct. Now, come along inside.
Hmmm... So, in the first version of the dialogue, useless Sophie remains mostly silent and Langdon 'passes the test' by ignoring the one wrong answer she whispers to him ("milk"). In the second version, Sophie saves the day by prompting two of Langdon's correct answers and never even suggests the third (wrong) one... Well? Which of the two versions is closer to the actual scene shown in the movie (that I haven't seen)? Or was it maybe teamwork, neither knew all the answers, but together they got it right?
Moreover, in the quote collection, there's a third (different) version of the Oxford/Harvard question: "In what year did a Harvard man out row an Oxford man?" WTF? Allright, the witnesses (movie audience) agree Leigh was questioning the victory of a Harvard person versus possibly an Oxford person. We don't know whether it was about students or professors, or whether the disciplin was history, wits or rowing. Isn't it scary to see how human memory and perception doesn't get obvious things right, not even replayable movies that everybody supposedly sees and hears from the same perspective?
PS:
FWIW and on a more serious note, so, what about the hype? Allright, you and I know the DaVinci Code is fiction, and you and I know which plotpoints are made up; groovy. Still, each and every advertisement I've seen play-pretends the Code's a documentary. The taglines are all "Can it be true that <insert scandal here>? And what if <rumour of your choice>? Waaait, we never said that! It's only an old marketing joke -- get it?" More damage is done by these ads than by a simple fiction book's content.
IMHO, the threat perceived by opponents is not that a fiction story might make believers lose their faith, but that it might mislead as yet uninformed people. I like being entertained by fnord about Legolas, Harry Potter and James Bond as much as the next person. But there are many who don't know bleep about the historical background of (say) Christianity — except for what they see in the media. <sarcasm>So, what's the next movie for your children and neighbours to watch? A shocking (but of course fictitious) thriller about how all democratic elections are fraud? Or a self-incrimating (but of course fictitious) drama focusing on 9/11 attack conspiracies? Why not? It's all free speech and obvious fiction, isn't it?</sarcasm> The media are a tool, they have an effect, we shouldn't pretend it's only about entertainment.
Posted by Uli on May 29, 2006 at 12:48 PM CEST #