days ago I let myself be persuaded to see 'The Da Vinci Code'. More than anything else out of necessity because there was nothing to see ... that it is not raging and do not know why, even with all the publicity that I did not go unnoticed ... and then in the meantime I had recommended lto conflicting opinions: my boyfriend read the book and liked it, not I remember those who had criticized the fact that 'a film about Leonardo da Vinci and there is no scene filmed in Italy! ' (Okay this criticism to criticism), someone else had seen the movie and he liked it some did not, Okay de gustibus non est disputandum, and I finally saw it too. In the opening scenes especially you see the rooms of the Louvre with many works that actually there is grim. I state that I have never been to the Louvre in Paris and even, but obviously sooner or later in life you gotta go, see Paris and then you die ... (Such as Naples is not it?). Last weekend a colleague of mine is gone. Dialogue: collega1: I'v Been In Louvre! Collega2: have you seen the Mona Lisa? Collega1: yeees! She's amazing! 
Collega2: did she smile at you? ... Ha ha:). closed in parentheses. We return to the Da Vinci Code. Here I have to open a parenthesis of film criticism: It will be because I saw it in Italian as I know, but the female lead was less expressive of Dana Scully in the first two series of The X-Files. The expression you see in the photo above is almost the same for the whole movie! And be careful! She is the one in the bottom right, not the elegant lady behind him, that even after centuries, at least hints at a smile! The Wailing Wall is more expressive. And then the 'general ignorance of protogaonista left speechless. As she qu time in high school one of my classmates had the courage to say in the question of art history 'Bruno Elleschi' instead of Brunelleschi ... Philip. I sgranto eyes and she was ashamed x, instead I were the teacher I think I fainted. Anyway back to the main character ... I grant that you may not know the detail of the hand and the person in more 'feminine' as part of the last supper, because it is a detail that the tourist, the profane, the ignorant in the field say, does not know, if notices, and interprets the pre-established framework in a way that is, what the title says, that a dinner of only males. But if it was that you can not know the existence of the Crusades, and that there is also the Apocrypha, or you know maybe you do not know suggest that Mary Magdalene was 'lover' or companion of Jesus, but then again if it was, Because it means that more than college, you lived on a desert island, and if you lived in'isola desert how do you do this or that policeman is in Paris? anyway ... when the super teacher of Seven and explained the history of the Templars Holy Grail and Mary Magdalene so that fell from the clouds like a dive boing747 damaged ... Now I say one thing: as the setting for the film is contemporary, and the girl in the movie is young, around thirty will not know, I wonder and I say, but at school, wherever you shall have done, never heard of the Crusades? Ever seen a movie that I know about the Middle Ages, or Jesus of Nazareth, where is Mary Magdalene? Or ever seen nememno India Jones and the Last Crusade, which speaks of the Holy Grail? O The Fisher King with Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges? mean something I'm rico cultural or any movie that rifesce something like this as they hit the Crusades, or religion, Mha! ... course we Italians are more lucky, we can not know, because our St. Francis of Assisi was also knight in the Crusades, and go Well this tells you the nun in grade school ... but you, I say, English or French you are, but how can you not have even heard? mha! In a little 'solve the Rubik's cube in three years ... mha! ... However I said, apart from the blinding ignorance of the girl, the film is a sort of treasure hunt polizziesco-European international intrigue and mystical religious frenzy, and ends at the point of departure. And it goes well, except that me and the yellow police personally do not like, I do not dwell further and get to the point where I explain why at the end q T his film I did not like. At one point, towards the end where you see a piece of advice I of cardinals who I believe were in the Vatican, but it is said, in short, in the great hall, co 
know there behind the plank to give a voice to the environment? The 'Taking of Christ garden' by Caravaggio in 1601. ... Beautiful and majestic. Gives prestige to the room ... and because I think the Vatican is probably one takes it to the oroginale, why should they have a poor copy? There are all the originals to the Vatican palaces ... Caravaggio has left other wonderful works in Rome ... In short you think is there because it's always been there from the outset exactly. Even you will indeed get the original, like the ones you've seen before in the Louvre ... Unfortunate that this work is to be bombastic at the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin (Ireland which is quite far from Rome right?) I know this because in these months I just grim in Dublin and I went several times to see live and I would say it's worth its worth a trip here. This is my best work around the museum. I've seen it several times (because fortunately here Wallpaper For the museums), to 5 cm away and without glass in front, and I swear that the rest always enchanted. Almost like Vermeer's paintings are immediately thereafter quetsi shame that they are small. comuqnue tornado to Caravaggio might think: Well Okay, maybe the first was in Rome, then took her to Dublin, it can be. NO but that can not be! Before when? I remind you that the film is set in present day, 2006, but this framework (for years attributed to Gerard of the night) was in possession of the Jesuit Fathers in Dublin since the 30th of this century, given to him by a widow with those points. The Jesuits themselves then Recently the 'loan' to the Nation Gallery of the city permanently. I'm sorry but this oversight of the director or whoever he may accept if you make a film that features art in one way or another! How to say 'I have a living room in Van Go gh of 1895' when he died 5 
years earlier. Then: g IA, the film I was saying much, then I recognized this 'misplacement' let's call it, and more at the end of the movie when Tom Hanks is if the walk from the hotel to the Louvre (which I have said to be very long way!) in pajamas and slippers, I thought 'Okay, since that too, next please '. ... The only thing that has aroused interest in this film is near the end: the church of Rennes-le-Château, in Scotland, of which I had never heard of, and I'd like to visit sooner or later. I will let you know ... .
0 comments:
Post a Comment