Da Vinci Code movie

[Matty B.]

Just curious about the history of the chevron...

I just read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and saw the movie. Brown says that the ^ chevron represents masculinity (the phallus) and the v chevron represents femininity (the vagina/chalice).

My question is: (for people who have read/ seen the film) does anyone have any historical information about the chevron? Why does America use the upward chevron whilst Canada and Britain use the downward chevron?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Just curious about the history of the chevron...

I just read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and saw the movie. Brown says that the ^ chevron represents masculinity (the phallus) and the v chevron represents femininity (the vagina/chalice).

My question is: (for people who have read/ seen the film) does anyone have any historical information about the chevron? Why does America use the upward chevron whilst Canada and Britain use the downward chevron?

Canada and Britain use both; appointment badges for pipe majors, drum majors and bugle majors point up; it used to be the insignia for a sergeant major also before 1915. Good Conduct Badges up until Unification also pointed upwards.

The Da Vinci Code is fiction and much "research" in it has been called into question.

FWIW there is good info on military rank insignia at wikipedia.org - use at your own risk.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Actually, the chevron is a modified horseshoe shape.  The word is derived from ancient Frankish, CHEV-horse, later Cheval in French, and RON-  The name of the very first farrier in mythology.  The V chevron indicates a horseshoe in it's propper position, so the luck doesn't fall out......

That's all I got, the creativity fornets are quiet today..... 8)

 

[paracowboy]

The Da Vinci Code is fiction and much "research" in it has been called into question.

exactly. It was thoroughly de-bunked by Nat'l Geographic, among others.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The first bit of research that many who have concerns over the Da Vinci Code should have done can be found at dictionary.com:

fic·tion
n.

  1.
        1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
        2. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
  2. A lie.
  3.
        1. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
        2. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
  4. Law. Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

The purpose of the Da Vinci Code was simple: to sell books to readers of fiction.  I am sure that Dan Brown welcomes every bit of controversy that leads new readers to purchase his book(s).  You couldn't buy that kind of advertising.  It's a successful novel, not because of the merits of its content, or the quality of writing, but because it has sold lots of copies.

 

[Enzo]

Seems the movie had a scene (only saw a trailer so I'm on weak ground here) where Hanks is showing icons and the human bias that accompanies each, i.e., the swastika's meaning to a Nazi vs. some of certain faiths in India, etc.

So, for one there is a meaning that may be contradicted by another, hence the Da Vinci reference's application to any of the aforementioned militiaries.

As for the book, it's a brilliantly executed concept and the author is reaping his success. This subject isn't exactly ground breaking (tour your pick of many churches/museums in France and they'll laugh over this subject) and all he did was create a story around it. It's entertainment and to rally against it is to simply increase the promotion of the material - no such thing as bad advertising. It's in the same vein as National Treasure's and From Hell's connections to the Mason's. So enjoy guilt free if you choose to, or go to Kinky Boots if you'd prefer and put lots of "REAL" butter on your ginormous bag of popcorn. :cheers:

 

[paracowboy]

never read the book, having learned shortly after it's publication that it was formulated on the writings of some whacko chick named Songbird, who took her theories from a novel titled Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent. Her books, and therefore Brown's, are blatant plagierism of his hypothsis. And I despise the idea of these people claiming his idea as their own, and making money off it. But, I digress.

But, I have found that it stimulated a lot of interesting documentaries debunking the entire theory, though. Very informative, from a historical perspective.

 

[Good2Golf]

I still prefer the more factually accurate "Monty Python's Holy Grail"!  ;D

p.s.  To give you an indication about how the movie panders to American understanding of the issue, Ron Howard even went as far as to add American police car siren sound effects to the London Metro Police vehicles, as opposed to the proper "hi-low" horns that almost all European countries use...it kind of added a "Dukes of Hazzard" element to those particular scenes in the movie... :

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Enzo]

Doesn't exist until Hollywood says it does  ;D

 

[paracowboy]

  To give you an indication about how the movie panders to American understanding of the issue, Ron Howard even went as far as to add American police car siren sound effects to the London Metro Police vehicles, as opposed to the proper "hi-low" horns that almost all European countries use...it kind of added a "Dukes of Hazzard" element to those particular scenes in the movie...

that's kind of understandable. America is where the over-whelming majority of Hollywood's money comes from. Opie ain't stupid.

 

[swanita]

So, this  being the big movie weekend for Da Vinci Code......what are the thoughts behind the movie, or book, & the story it presents.....

I haven't seen the movie as of yet but have read the book & found it an interesting read. Not sure if i believe the story line though but who's to say in the absolute positive in either direction?? Thoughts.....??  ???

 

[George Wallace]

It is a work of Fiction.  A work of fiction based around a Historical event.  Would you ask the same question on the movie "The Guns of Navarone (1961)",  or "Battle of the Bulge (1965)" , or perhaps the movie "Kelly's Heroes (1970)" ?  I am sure that you wouldn't.  So why ask about this work of fiction?

 

[Old Sweat]

Further to George's points, the book is a work of fiction, pure and simple. It is based on conjecture, a mish-mash of unrelated events and misstatements of historical record. Even with the turgid prose, it is an interesting read and quite an entertaining thriller. However it is no more factual than the Space Aliens Kidnapped Elvis genre of story in the supermarket check out tabloids. (I know I am going to be sorry for the preceding sentence.)

 

[George Wallace]

Watch it......you'll have everyone heading to Tweed, Ontario to seek out Elvis, if you keep it up.

 

[paracowboy]

it's a work of fiction based on an interesting hypothesis put forward in the book, Holy Blood Holy Grail. A woman named Songbird read it, and ran with it to further her own agenda. Brown took it, and wrote a semi-interesting book, which he is promoting by using the controversy around it.

It has been thoroughly de-bunked over the years by any number of historians, archaeologists, and even Nat'l Geographic.

Even the author of Holy Blood Holy Grail has stated that he doesn't believe the hypothesis he put forward, he just found it an interesting mental puzzle.

 

[Conquistador]

I haven't read the book, but I found the movie to be a bit rushed at times. It was good, not great.

 

[Enzo]

I went to the movie last night with some good friends. Here's what happened.

We left the theatre... and game on!  :

The debate went downhill from there. We've all read the book and consider ourselves to be reasonably intelligent, i.e., I can tie my shoes without assistance, but this was something to behold.

Later, when the dust cleared, I began to wonder. How many others are having similar debates? So here's the Coles notes version. I'm an atheist. I believe in myself and my faith resides within the same. My friends were raised within religious houesholds of various beliefs and held differing views. The main crux of our debate appeared to be: if the son of Jesus were to appear today as a mortal, would Western society survive the ramifications of this revealing?

My friend held that our society would crumble as the Judeo-Christian foundations of our laws would no longer hold sway over our populations and anarchy would be the end result. Time frames are suppositional depending upon your views.

Anyone care to get into this aspect of the debate?

 

[paracowboy]

meh,

he was supposedly the son of God made flesh. So, he was supposed to be human for a while. Humans have sex. They have children.

If he did have a kid, he did his job right. Well done.

Considering the plethora of religions, pseudo-religions, cults, athiests, agnostics, and whatever else, I somehow doubt that this sort of revelation would have much impact on the world aside from a few Christian zealots.

 

[mdh]

My friend held that our society would crumble as the Judeo-Christian foundations of our laws would no longer hold sway over our populations and anarchy would be the end result. Time frames are suppositional depending upon your views

I'm not sure about anarchy; that would require a febrile energy that most of the West can barely muster. If you look at Eurosecularism and its attendant values, it appears to have created a culture of self-referential decadence and malaise. 

The end-end result? Declining birth rates which threaten to depopulate the Europe, while Muslim populations grow rapidly in the opposite direction (sustained by an enduring religiosity that resists our materialist blandishments).

Perhaps the decline of Judeo-Christianity (or in modern times its purposeful eradication and replacement by the religion of the welfare state) ends in the West's collective suicide?

Just a cheery thought,
cheers, mdh

 

[George Wallace]

The end-end result? Declining birth rates which threaten to depopulate the Europe, while Muslim populations grow rapidly in the opposite direction (sustained by an enduring religiosity that resists our materialist blandishments).

Perhaps the decline of Judeo-Christianity (or in modern times its purposeful eradication and replacement by the religion of the welfare state) ends in the West's collective suicide?

???

The Birthrates of nations are less to do with 'Religion', than they are pure 'Economics'.  You will notice the tendency of any 'well-to-do' society in history to have lower birthrates than the poverty stricken.  It is economical for the rich to have few children, and for the poor to have more in order to achieve financial/economical survival.  Religion has little to do with it.