The Beverly Hillbillies was an instant hit comedy and ranked as the number-one program on television during its first two seasons. The show attracted as many as 60 million viewers per episode and rose to #1 in the ratings faster than any other show.
The unique slapstick humor centered around the Clampett family who struck it rich when an oil well was discovered on their land and they moved to a Beverly Hills mansion. The Beverly Hillbillies was one of CBS’ longest-running comedies.
They deposited their first $25 million in Milburn Drysdale’s Commerce Bank. As Drysdale’s biggest depositors, they received special treatment including Mr. Drysdale moving them into the mansion next door in hopes of helping them become more civilized.
Jed was the clan’s patriarch. He was a widower with much more common sense than anyone gave him credit for. Jed’s mother-in-law, Granny, spent most of her time concocting potions for “medicinal purposes” and trying to find a husband for Elly May. Elly May was a gorgeous young woman who loved “critters” (everything from cats and dogs to skunks and deer). Cousin Jethro was a husky man who was as stupid as he was strong. The Clampetts’ encounters with corrupt politics, unfamiliar fashions, indoor plumbing, and the other trappings of modern life provided hilarious for years of classic comedy.
It entertained audiences for nine years in prime time but was finally canceled because its ratings declined gradually and its audience was too heavily concentrated in rural areas to suit Madison Avenue advertisers. Thanks to the launch of the fifth generation Apple iPod with video capabilities and digital entertainment companies like iVideoBlast.com you can still enjoy antics of Jed and all his clan on your iPod.

iVideoBlast.com allows you to fuel your iPod with Animation, TV Shows and Movies. You can watch The Beverly Hillbillies on your iPod by going to http://www.iVideoBlast.com and registering for free.

Norfolk Isl. Calling Cards

In life, there is no such thing as a free lunch, but amazingly one can watch free movies. Free movies are those movies that are made for free distribution or have entered the public domain. Sometimes free movies may be downloaded from the Internet, which may be done legally or illegally.
Initially, this business started with free movie clips. Movie clips may be screened in a theatre before or after a full-length feature or advertised on certain sites on the Internet, but technology has changed. Movie players can now be downloaded free of charge over the Internet, including the Apple Quick Time Player, The Windows Media Player and The Real Media Player.
Such software can be used to play free movies from the Internet. There are hundreds of sites that offer movies for a small fee. Why spend a fortune on movie tickets when one can watch their favorite movies at a fraction of the price from the comfort of your personal computer? Film directories like Scour and Ifilm are like virtual multiplexes. The advent of free movie sites have made online movie watching a popular activity.
A good place to down load free movies is at ibiblio.org and archive.org. Both these sites have a growing collection of public domain movies that can be easily downloaded. It is legal to down load these movies as their copyrights have expired and hence they are in the public domain. An example is the classic Frank Capra film, ‘It’s a Wonderful Life”, which was termed as a free movie in the public domain for the last several years since its copyright had not been renewed.
Some of the popular free movie sites are Watch Free Movies Online, Shared Movies, Free Movies Now, Movie Download World, 123 Movie Download, Cinema Download, Netbroadcaster.com, and Singingfish. Some low fees sites include CinemaNow.com and Movie Flix.com. Downloading a movie with a broadband connection requires only a few minutes. The flipside to the free movie phenomenon is that it has made movie piracy easy.
The Napster experience of music piracy is threatening the motion picture industry in what is known as the Wrapster phenomenon. Microsoft’s new operating system will have strong anti-movie -piracy features to prevent illegal downloads.
There are a lot of sites on the market offering free downloads. The burden is on the customer to determine whether the movie is a legal or pirated copy. Sometimes, claims on the Internet maybe false. Most DVD’s cannot be downloaded from the net without paying a fee. Only those movies released into the public domain such as when a director has not sought a copyright can be actually downloaded free of cost.

Free Movies provides detailed information about free movies, free anime movies, free movie clips, and more. Free Movies is affiliated with Free Movie Downloads.

Mayotte Isl. Calling Cards

Movie trailers are short film advertisements of new movies that are not yet in theatres. They are previews of the film that give hints of its story line and introduce the actors and the scenery.
Trailers are so named because in the early years of cinema, the advertisements for one film were shown after another film. Trailers are now shown at the beginning of movies so that people do not miss them.
Trailers are often the best shots selected from the most funny or exciting moments of the movie. Some trailers carry special footage-scenes shot only for advertisement and left out of the movie. For example, in a trailer for the classic Casablanca, the character Rick Blaine says, “ OK, you asked for it!” Before he shoots Major Strasser, a scene not present in the final film.
Trailers are highly condensed and polished advertisements. Some common elements of all trailers include a green or red band graphic at the beginning of the trailer to indicate its certification by Motion picture Association Of America. Next come logos of the studio, production and distribution companies. The music maybe specially composed or it may consist of already popular themes. A cast run is also shown to publicize the stars of the movie along with the director. An attractive voice-over may explain about the plot.
Trailers maybe made in the studio itself or maybe contracted to outside advertising agencies called as Trailer Houses. Trailers are made with great care after doing market research and consultation with studio bosses and revisions galore before the final product is released in the market.
Free trailers are available at most Internet entertainment sites. Some movie trailer sites include The Internet Movie Database, Singingfish, Alta Vista-video search, Net broadcaster.com, Hollywood.com, and Apple Movie Trailers.
Trailers are sometimes criticized for using clichéd statements like-“In a world where…” Some free trailers contain scenes that are not present in the movie. Some directors are of the view that a trailer must summarize the whole movie but others believe that they must only arouse some interest in the viewer.
With the free trailer revolution on the Internet, movie studios are doing brisk business in ticket sales. Attractive trailers entice people young and old to come in droves to the theatres.

Free Movies provides detailed information about free movies, free anime movies, free movie clips, and more. Free Movies is affiliated with Free Movie Downloads.

Norway Calling Cards

King Kong is out with the Oscar-winning visionary.
The story in short can be enumerated in a few lines:
A crew of explorers and filmmakers set out to investigate the myths of legendary creature King Kong Travelling to Skull Island, they discover a land unaffected by time as Kong lives with dinosaurs that have been hidden and protected from man for centuries. As the crew struggles to survive on the treacherous island, they eventually capture Kong through his fascination with a beautiful woman. Taken back to New York, it may only be a matter of time before Kong escapes his confines.
Who is the winner? King Kong or the king behind the Kong? No doubt the winner is the amazing director Peter Jackson.
The giant gorilla was first made in the celebrated film in 1933 and Peter Jackson wanted to re-create it. He has had an obsession with this dream project. He made the Skull Island as the most hellish , tortuous jungle. On seeing the 24 feet gorilla in the film backed with super technology ,computer magics, special effects, one would wonder what would be the scientific facts with regard to gorillas, orang-utans.
Following facts may worth reading:
Few animals have sparked the imagination of man as much as the gorilla, the largest of the living primates and the last member of the ape family known to science.
The chimpanzees are the closest relatives of humans; the next in line are the gorillas. The Orang-utans are only remotely related to the other species.
The genetic material of apes is identical to that of humans to a very large degree. Differences are especially small in the nuclear DNA
Gorillas share 97.7 per cent of our DNA.
They have twenty four pairs of chromosomes and humans have twenty three. It has been established that our chromosome number two is equivalent to two pairs of the chimpanzee’s chromosomes.
There are three subspecies of gorillas living in different parts of Africa.
* Western Lowland Gorilla (gorilla gorilla)
* Eastern Lowland Gorilla (gorilla graueri)
* Mountain Gorilla (gorilla berengei)
The height of male gorillas : 5′6″ upright, 4′6″ normal stance.
Females 5′ upright, 3′6″ - 4′ normal stance.
Normal weight of male gorillas : 135-225 Kilograms.
Females 68-112 Kgs.
Like all great apes, gorillas’ arms are longer than their legs. When they move quadrupedally, they knuckle-walk, supporting their weight on the third and fourth digits of their curled hands
Gorillas live in groups, or troops, from two to over 30 members.
Gorillas recognize each other by their faces and body shapes. Each gorilla has a unique nose print. They are gentle and intelligent.
They are not aggressive.
Chest pounding, often portrayed in films, rarely happens with apes.
Gorillas feel deeply and remember for years.
Like other primates each individual has distinctive fingerprints.
Gorillas rarely attack humans. But in an encounter a person should stay still and refrain from staring or pointing at the gorilla.
Gorillas are susceptible to various parasites and diseases, especially to pneumonia during the long, cold wet seasons.
Gorillas eat some 200 types of leaves, tubers, flowers, fruit, fungus and some insects. Favorite foods include bamboo, thistles and wild celery. Gorillas do not drink water. They obtain all the moisture they need from the vast amounts of foliage they consume. Males consume approximately 22 kgs a day.
Female gorillas reach maturity at seven or eight years old, but they usually don’t breed until ten years or older.
Gorillas communicate using auditory signals (vocalizations), visual signals (gestures, body postures, facial expressions), and olfactory signals (odors). They are generally quiet animals, grunting and belching, but they may also scream, bark, and roar.
Scientists have heard 22 different vocalizations, each seeming to have its own meaning. Gorillas crouch low and approach from the side when they are being submissive. They walk directly when confident and stand, chest beat (actually they slap with open hands), and advance when being aggressive.
Gorillas may live about 35 years in the wild.
Orang- utans have very large brains and are very intelligent, especially those in captivity. Orang-utans have been seen using tools and copying people around them, such as their keepers, and watching their movements.
Puluh,a 135 kg orang-utan planned its escape from its cage at Chester Zoo, Britain in 2003. He went up to the roof and interested in soaking up the sun..After a 90 minute doze he slipped back into his cage.

S.Nagarajan is a vehicle body engineer by profession. He has written more than 1300 articles in 16 magazines and published 18 books so far. He is revealing Eastern Secret Wisdom through T.V.Programmes, magazine articles, seminars, courses. His email
address is : snagarajans@gmail.com.

New Caledonia Calling Cards

I’m in love with an ape. A twenty-five foot ape to be exact. Peter Jackson did the impossible: he managed to make a re-make of King Kong that didn’t suck and not only did it not suck it is arguably the best King Kong re-make ever and can rival the original as the best King Kong movie ever. This is more Kong then you ever thought you’d need but in the end Jackson keeps you wanting more.
King Kong takes place in depression era New York, we’re given a glimpse of slums that resemble refugee camps, forced evictions and protestors that are marching against the deplorable living conditions. . A young actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is employed, if you call performing in a low budget vaudeville show, in a theatre where the rent is due, where she hasn’t been paid in two weeks. Eventually the bottom falls out and Darrow is as unemployed as the rest of the populace.
As Ms. Darrow tries to figure out what she’s going to do about food Carl Denham (Jack Black) is underwhelming his producers with the footage of his latest film. Just as they let him no how they are not pleased, Denham informs them that not only is he in need of a ship to continuing filming but the ship will be taking the cast and crew to Singapore. The producers eighty-six the idea yet Denham hijacks the film, commandeers a ship only to find out his leading lady has pulled out of the project. Now he needs an actress who can wear a size four. You see where this is going.
Add to the cast a kidnapped writer (Adrien Brody), an egotistical actor (Kyle Chandler) and a skeptical, secretive crew and the stage is set for a lot of action and confrontation. While heavy on the exposition for the first hour King Kong turns into a wild rollercoaster ride of action and emotion and makes you feel like you’re a kid again, watching whatever cartoon or movie that made you lose all track of time and completely engulf you in whatever story was being told.
Some might argue that it’s all too much. As soon as you get over one heart stopping ride, Jackson cranks it all up again as the cast of characters finds themselves in yet another life threatening situation. Yes, it’s a bit over the top, but so is the idea of a twenty-five foot monkey falling in love with a blonde, blue eyed, willowy woman. Since the premise of the story is so over the top then the resulting film should be too and Jackson doesn’t disappoint. You get what you pay for and more. Yes it’s three hours long but I promise you there’s no better way to spend three hours.

T.S. Johnson is a Florida Based Freelance Writer for Hire, Providing Nation-Wide, Professional, Freelance Writing Services. For All of Your Writing Needs Visit http://prologuezine.com Today. Or Check out the blog http://tlkbck.blogspot.com

New Zealand Calling Cards

Reality television shows have been a craze for the past few years. You
may not realize that the first reality tv show was first aired in the 1950s. It
featured a band leader and his family. The show actually started on the radio
and was a husband and wife affair. The children were brought in and later, after
it had transferred to tv, the kids grew up, got married and their wives were
also in the show.
It was called The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet and had its
roots in a spot on a radio show in 1935 and lasted 31 years until it ended its
tv run in 1966.
Oswald Nelson was born in 1906 in New Jersey. He studied law at Rutgers
University and was also a keen musician. To help pay the fees, he was a
part-time football coach. He also was in a band, playing saxophone. In time, he
learned to play most of the band’s instruments.
When the depression hit in late 1929, Oswald realized that there was no
guarantee of a job at the end of his studies. He enjoyed playing in the band and
as this was a proven source of income, he decided to form his own band and try
his luck.
The Ozzie Nelson Band had moderate success playing lowly clubs around New York and the
East Coast. When a competition was run by the New York Daily Mirror for
readers to vote for their favorite band, he and the band obtained hundreds of
unsold newspapers and sent in votes for themselves. When they won the
competition the publicity spurred them into a bigger league and they could at
least scrape a living. Oswald recruited beautiful 23 year old vaudeville
showgirl Harriet Hilliard
as lead singer in 1932. They soon fell in love and were married within three
years.
Their big break came when they were booked at the Glen Island Casino.
Their performance was broadcast on national radio. In those days radio was as
big as tv is today and this exposure led to their first big hit And then Some
along with regular spots on The Baker’s Broadcast
radio show from 1935. They were then recruited to do regular spots on another
popular radio show, The Red Skelton Show.
In 1936 Harriet gave birth to their first son, David, followed in 1940 by
brother Eric, later known as Ricky.
Ozzie and Harriet were increasingly inserting comedy skits between musical
numbers, and this seemingly spontaneous repartee went down well with the
audience. These were basically skits based around the couple’s family life. When
Red Skelton was drafted in 1944, Ozzie and Harriet were offered the vacated
timeslot and filled it with The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. Oswald
decided to major on the comedy scripting, with the music taking second place. In
time, the music was dropped altogether with the scripts being penned by Oswald.
The subject was once again their own family life including their two sons,
played by actors.
By 1949 the actors were replaced by the real David and Ricky, largely as a
result from pressure from the boys themselves and a guest appearance by Bing
Crosby who brought his own two sons along to appear in the show. If Bing’s kids
could do it, then so could Ozzie’s kids.
In 1952 the show was premiered on ABC television. By now David was 16 and
Ricky was 12. The theme continued to be the family. Many of the comedy script
ideas came from incidents that actually occurred in the Nelson household. If the
boys took up a hobby, that would be featured. When David and later Ricky started
dating girls this was also included and became a regular theme.
By the time he was 17, Ricky began to take an interest in the new rock ‘n’
roll music that had taken hold of so many of his generation. He once dated a
girl who swooned over Elvis Presley. Not wishing to be outdone, Ricky told her
that he was cutting his own disc, a fact that had absolutely no foundation.
Wishing to turn this white lie into reality he asked his father to pull some
strings. By 1957, Ricky had a recording deal and released Fat’s Domino’s song I’m
Walking. Ozzie duly produced a special script of The Adventures of
Ozzie and Harriet that would feature the new song. A few years back this may
not have had any great effect, but by the late 1950’s television was rapidly
being taken up across the country and I’m Walkin’ became a big hit. Ricky
was an overnight pop idol. Oswald soon realised that the tv show was a perfect
way to promote Ricky’s records and that the show would attract more viewers,
especially teenagers. From this point onwards, Ricky’s songs would feature in
many of the episodes. When they couldn’t be incorporated into the script, a song
performance by Ricky would simply be tacked on to the end of an episode.
When the boys finally married - David to June Blair in 1961 and Ricky to
Kristin Harmon in 1964 - the art-imitates-life theme was taken to new heights
when the wives were cast in the show to play themselves.
Had The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet not been cancelled in 1966,
maybe the show would still be playing with Ozzie and Harriet’s grandchildren
taking up the baton. What was striking was the way that the scripts, all written
or supervised by Oswald, paralleled their real life so closely.
When Ozzie and Harriet cracked their first joke on stage together back in the
1930’s, little did they know that this would lead to one of the longest running
shows on tv and the grand-daddy of today’s reality tv.

Vernon Stent is the marketing consultant to http://www.bygonetv.com
where there is more information about The
Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet

Niue Isl. Calling Cards

As with so many subjective “things” in life, there is a great deal disagreement over who are the best method acting greats in the acting business and in movies. A good place to start in a search for the best of the method acting greats is the famed Actor’s Studio in New York City. Run for fifty years by the imitable Lee Strasberg, the Actor’s Studio turned out some of the great method acting legends in movies of the 20th century.
Acting greats that were part of the Actor’s Studio and who were instructed by Lee Strasberg include:
1. Marlon Brando. Brando necessarily must be on list of any great method actor. Particularly in his early roles, Brando breathed a believability into his work that truly transcended the movies he appeared in and made it seem as if he were the living and breathing character he portrayed.
2. Sidney Poitier. No actor in the 20th century broke down more barriers in Hollywood than did Poitier. And, he accomplished so much because of his ability to inhabit the souls of his characters and bring them to life on the big screen
3. James Dean. Although his life tragically was cut short, Dean’s short passage across the cinema screen and in movies is remarkable. Serious thinkers in the world of film credit Dean for cutting a believable stride in the few roles that he did play on the screen before his untimely death. There is near universal agreement that had Dean lived beyond his youth, he would be one of only a few actors who dominate the business, even today.
4. Robert de Niro. De Niro remains one of the hottest properties in movies today. Whether playing the role of a dangerous psycho-path to a silly, paranoid father in a happy comedy, de Niro’s work is shaped by his work with Strasberg. Indeed, the typical movie-goer forgets de Niro’s prior characters in movies each time they view him in a new film.
5. Marilyn Monroe. Certainly, some people scowl when Monroe’s name is mentioned as a great method actor. But, Strasberg himself considered Monroe to be one of his greatest pupils of all time. (Indeed, Monroe lived with Strasberg and his wife during her time at the Actor’s Studio.) Most people fail to remember that Monroe abandoned Hollywood at the height of her fame in movies to study under Strasberg at the Actor’s Studio, so intent was she on becoming a fine actor. According to Strasberg himself, Monroe succeed as a method actress, particularly in comedic roles. He maintained until his death that no actor had comedic timing and a method-based screen presence that could challenge Monroe. Like Dean, had she survived, she would have developed into one of the most formidable screen actors of the 20th century.
Beyond the Actor’s Studio alumni, there are numerous other strong method actors that have established a sense of greatness through their careers and work.
6. Rod Steiger. Steiger’s career in movies spanned over fifty years and included roles that brought him three Oscar nominations and one Oscar for Best Actor for his performance in “In the Heat of the Night” in 1967 opposite Sidney Poitier. He filled his roles in such a way that the characters he played on film will long be remembered and his personal essence is a bit misty.
7. Martin Landau. Landau has mastered some of the most complex roles in theater and motion picture history. He has been described as not only playing a character in movies or on the stage — but assuming and becoming the character through and through.
8. Dennis Hopper. Perhaps some consider the Wichita, Kansas, resident an unlikely choice for one of the great method actors of the 20th century, but Hopper’s turns on the screen have been phenomenal. From his early roles through his most recent fare, Hopper has fashioned characters that are now etched on the psyche of filmgoers the world over.
9. Charlize Theron. Women are noticeably a rare breed on lists of great method actors. While there are many formidable women on the screen today, very few of them have involved themselves in the method school as part of their training. With that said, one of the most extraordinary actresses in movies of the 20th and 21st century is Theron. Perhaps no actress in decades has so assumed a role than has Theron in “Monster” in which she actually seems to become the psychopathic, real life serial killer Aileen Wuornos. Theron won critical acclaim and an Academy Award for her work on this film.

Publisher & Author Raymond DeChampfleur - You can access detailed articles, news, & more relevant resources along with great information and downloads on the movies and music world at Movies or http://muzic-and-moviez.com/wordpress/categories/articles/

Nicaragua Calling Cards

Why the Fuss?
Since Dan Brown’s mystery thriller The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003) first appeared, people have asked a lot of questions, especially regarding Leonardo da Vinci’s world-famous painting, “The Last Supper.” Is the feminine-looking figure sitting just to the right of Christ really the apostle John, as traditionally believed, or is it instead Mary Magdalene?
The answer may be boring, in that it is drained of mystery and intrigue, but it is nevertheless so obvious that it rings true. The coming of the film version of “The Da Vinci Code,” starring Tom Hanks, prompts renewed interest in this subject that should by now have been laid to rest.
The Fresco’s Context
Keep in mind that Da Vinci painted this 460×880 cm (15×29 feet) fresco on the wall of the dining hall of the Santa Maria delle Grazie convent in Milan in 1498. His masterpiece is ingenius in many ways, not the least in its dramatic realism, enhanced by the way in which Da Vinci paints the perspective of the background as a continuation of the room in which it resides.
Instead of assigning a halo to Jesus, he sillhouettes him by the light entering through a window behind him. Da Vinci groups the 12 apostles in four clusters of three, six on either side of Jesus. Except for the replacement of roman-style dining couches with contemporary table and chairs, Da Vinci closely follows the biblical narrative. His fresco is a snapshot of the moment after Jesus announces a traitor is in their midst. Listen for the click of Leonardo’s “camera shutter” in the following excerpt from John 13:21-26:
After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me.”
His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.” [**CLICK**]
Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”
Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.

The Biblical Context
Da Vinci captures the immediate emotional reaction of the disciples, employing conventional gestures for surprise, interrogation, and perhaps even indignation. We see the disciples reacting to Jesus’ revelation in the ways the Bible describes. See also the parallel passages: Matthew 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; and Luke 22:22-23.
For hundreds of years scholars have agreed that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26-27; 20:2-8; 21:7, 20-24) is the way in which the Apostle John refers to himself in the Fourth Gospel. The Apostle John, prominent in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), is otherwise absent from the Gospel of John, except for an oblique reference to “the sons of Zebedee” in John 21:2.
Scholars agree that his self-characterization as “The Beloved Disciple” is not an egotistical claim that he is worthy of an inside track with Jesus, but rather a Christ-exalting expression that though he was entirely unworthy, yet he was showered with the Savior’s love. Add to this a few references to “another disciple” (John 1:35-40; 18:15-16; 19:35) which also appear to be autobiographical (John 20:1-9 merges the “Beloved Disciple” with the “other disciple”), and we gain a composite picture of the author of the Fourth Gospel.
Could this “other disciple,” this “Beloved Disciple” be, in fact, Mary Magdalene? The biblical evidence is decisive against this hypothesis. In Greek, the definite article, translated into English as “the,” has gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter) and number (singular, plural, or dual), in agreement with the nouns, pronouns, or participles they accompany. In all of the verses cited above, the “the” attached to either “the other disciple” or “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is uniformly masculine, never feminine.
Furthermore, identifying Mary Magdalene with “the disciple whom Jesus loved” makes nonsense out of John 20:1-18, especially verses 10-11a: “Then the disciples [Peter and the Beloved Disciple] went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying.” She cannot go and stay simultaneously.
Why so feminine a figure?
This “Beloved Disciple,” obviously a man, in the Fourth Gospel, is the one Peter buttonholes at the Last Supper and demands, “Ask Him which one He means” (John 13:24). Why does he look like a woman in Da Vinci’s portrayal of that moment?
A reasonable inference based on John 21:20-24’s testimony that John outlived Simon Peter by many years holds that John must have been considerably younger than Peter, or for that matter most or all of the other apostles. The earliest writings after the New Testament indicate that John lived on into the early second century. If he was about 20 at the time of the crucifixion, he would have been around 90 in the year 100. We could allow him to be a little older or a little younger, but not by much either way.
Sitting beside Jesus in the rennaissance master’s “The Last Supper” is a figure portrayed as a young man, using the conventions typical of that day: fair features, no beard, and slight body. We find similar depictions of young men in Leonardo’s other paintings.
In his two depictions of John the Baptist, for example, painted sometime between 1510 and 1516, we find a beardless youth. Even within “The Last Supper” itself, Da Vinci’s portrait of Philip (fourth from the right) is similarly androgynous.
Want to Go Deeper?
A survey of paintings of the Last Supper just before and just after Da Vinci’s demonstrates how stereotyped were depictions of John, who is regularly depicted as a young man, nearly always asleep next to Jesus. Once again, breaking with convention, Leonardo depicts him as only very sleepy. Some of these depictions actually label John and the other disciples. You can view these at online art history sites, such as the “Web Gallery of Art.”

1308-11 - Ducco di Buoninsegna
1464-67 - Dieric the Elder Bouts
1476 - Domenico Ghirlandaio
1480 - Domenico Ghirlandaio
1486 - Domenico Ghirlandaio
1498 - Leonardo da Vinci
1510 - Albrecht Dürer
1511 - Dürer
1520-25 - Andrea del Sarto
1523 - Dürer
1542 - Jacopo Bassano

The Place of Mary Magdalene
It is abundantly clear, therefore, that Da Vinci’s figure beside Jesus is John, son of Zebedee, not Mary Magdalene. Her place in history, however, is secure. She was the first human being to witness the resurrection of Christ, and responding obediently to the Savior’s commission recorded in John 20:17, she served, as one scholar has put it, as “the apostle to the apostles.”
To make her into something else does not elevate her, but degrades her. Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” is certainly coded, not with enigmatic images of a clandestine relationship between Jesus and Mary, but with the pathos of the Night of Betrayal.
The hidden meaning that reaches us more than 500 years later is, “Is it I? Am I the one who will betray Him?”
Da Vinci Decoded
The magnificent fresco pierces our heart and conscience with these probing questions. Are we, like John, hardly even conscious of the Lord’s challenge? Will we, with false bravado, join our voices to those disciples who are saying, “I’ll never deny You,” or like Peter, go even further, “Even if all the others fall away, I never will”? Or, like Judas Iscariot, do we lean back in surprise, grasping tightly to our bag of money?
I believe that Leonardo intended for everyone who sat in that Milan dining hall and by extension, all of us to be, not detached spectators, but participants in the Last Supper. This is the true Da Vinci Code, and the mystery of “The Last Supper”: What will I do with Jesus?

* * *
Copyright ©2005 Steve Singleton
Steve Singleton has written and edited several books and articles on subjects of interest to Bible students. He has been a book editor, newspaper reporter, news editor, and public relations consultant. He has taught Greek, Bible, and religious studies courses in university and adult education programs. He has taught seminars in 11 states and the Caribbean.
Go to his DeeperStudy.org for Bible study resources, no matter what your level of expertise. Explore “The Shallows,” plumb “The Depths,” or use the well-organized “Study Links” for original sources in English translation. Check out the bookstore for great discounts on Bible study books, and subscribe to the free “DeeperStudy Newsletter.”
Copyright information: Free for reproduction but must be reproduced in its entirety, including any live links & this copyright notice.

Netherlands Calling Cards

It is one of life’s greatest ironies that Ritwik Ghatak who is today something of a cult figure in Bengal was so little understood and appreciated during his lifetime. Despite the fact that today his films have won much critical acclaim, the fact remains that in their time they ran to mainly empty houses in Bengal. Ghatak’s films project a unique
sensibility. They are often brilliant, but almost always flawed.
Born in Dhaka (now in Bangladesh), the partition of Bengal and the subsequent division of a culture was something that haunted Ghatak forever. Joining the left-wing Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA), he used to work for a few years as a playwright, actor and director. When IPTA split into factions, Ghatak turned to filmmaking.
By and large Ghatak’s films revolve around two central themes: the experience of being uprooted from the idyllic rural milieu of East Bengal and the cultural trauma of the partition of 1947. His first film, Nagarik (1952) weaved the oppressive tale of a young man, his futile search for a job and the erosion of his optimism and idealism as his family sinks into abject poverty and his love affair too turns sour. Ghatak then accepted a job with Filmistan Studio in Bombay but his ‘different’ ideas did not go down well there. He did however write the scripts of Musafir (1957) and Madhumati (1958) for Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Bimal Roy respectively, the latter becoming an all time evergreen hit.
After this brief stint followed by his comeback to his good old Calcutta, he made Ajantrik (1958) about a taxi driver in a small town in Bihar and his vehicle, an old Chevrolet jalopy. An assortment of passengers gives the film a wider frame of reference and provided situations of drama, humor and irony.
However, his “magnum opus” happens to be none other than Meghe Dhaka Tara (1960), the first film in a trilogy, examining the socio-economic implications of partition. The protagonist Nita (played by Supriya Chowdhury) is the breadwinner in a refugee family of five. Everyone exploits her and the strain proves too much. She succumbs to
tuberculosis. In an unforgettable moment, the dying Nita cries out “I want to live…”, while the camera pans across the mountains, thereby accentuating the indifference and eternity of nature even as the echo reverberates over the shot.
Complexities notwithstanding, Meghe Dhaka Tara reaches out to the audience with its directness, its simplicity, and its unique stylistic use of melodrama. Melodrama as a legitimate dramatic form has continued to play a vital role in rural Indian theatre and folk dramatic forms. Ghatak goes back to these roots in his presentation of a familiar struggle for survival, which has lost its dramatic force and pathos through repetition in real life.
In Meghe Dhaka Tara, day-to-day events transform into high drama: Nita’s tormented romance is intensified with the harsh sweep of the whiplash on the soundtrack; Shankar’s song of faith in a moment of despair reaches the height of emotional surrender with Nita’s voice joining his and Nita’s urge to live becomes a universal sound of affirmation reverberating in Nature, amidst the distant peaks of the Himalayas.
The three principal women characters in this film embody the traditional aspects of feminine power. The heroine, Nita, has the preserving and nurturing quality; her sister, Gita, is the sensual woman; their mother represents the cruel aspect. The incapacity of Nita to combine and contain all these qualities is the imminent source of her tragedy.
Besides, here Ghatak tries to delve deep into our roots and traditions and discover a universal dimension within it. And for the first time, he says he experimented with the techniques of overtones. In the film, Ghatak succeeds in achieving a grand totality through an intricate but harmonious blending of each part with the whole in the inner
fabric of the film. Meghe Dhaka Tara transcends into a great work of art that enriches and transforms the visual images into metamorphic significations…
The music in the film perfectly intermingles with the visuals, none dislodging the other be it a remarkable orchestration of a hill motif with a female moaning or a staccato cough with a surging song.
Here, it would be relevant to mention that Ghatak weaves a parallel narrative evoking the celebrated Bengali legends of Durga who is believed to descend from her mountain retreat every autumn to visit her parents and that of Menaka. This double focus, condensed in the figure of Neeta, is rendered yet more complex on the level of the
film language itself through elaborate, at times non-diegetic sound effects working alongside or as commentaries on the image ( e.g. the refrain Ai go Uma kole loi, i.e. Come to my arms, Uma, my child, used through the latter part of the film, esp. on the face of the rain-drenched Neeta shortly before her departure to the sanatorium).
This approach allows the film to transcend its story by opening it our towards the realm of myth and to the conventions of cinematic realism (e.g. evoked in the Calcutta sequences).
“Meghe Dhaka Tara” was followed with Komal Gandhar (1961), concerning two rival touring theatre companies in Bengal and Subarnarekha (1965). The last is a strangely disturbing film using melodrama and coincidence as a form rather than
mechanical reality.
His next film, Titash Ekti Nadir Naam (1973), done for a young Bangladesh producer happens to be focusing on the life and eventual disintegration of a fishing community on the Titash. However, this epic saga was completed after many problems at the shooting stage including his collapse due to tuberculosis and was a commercial failure.
Notably, Jukti Takko Aar Gappo (1974), the most autobiographical and allegorical
of his films, was made just before his untimely demise. Here, he himself played the main role of Nilkanta, an alcoholic intellectual. The film has been spoken about in critique circle for Ghatak’s stunning use of the wide-angle lens to most potent effect.
Unfortunately for Ghatak, his films were largely unsuccessful. Many remaining unreleased for years, he abandoned almost as many projects as he completed. Ultimately the intensity of his passion, which gave his films their power and emotion, took their toll on him, as did tuberculosis and alcoholism. However he has left behind a limited, but
subtly rich and intricate body of work that no serious scholar of Indian Cinema can dare ignore.

Lopa Bhattacharya is a content writer/developer working on websites for overseas/Indian clientele. Has worked for various corporate website projects, CD-Rom presentations, brochures, flyers and other communication materials on varied themes ranging from travel, hotel industry, photography, web design and software development to US-based clubs and network communities. Was previously an editorial associate for a news, culture and entertainment portal based on the life and times of Kolkata.

Nether. Antilles Calling Cards

Many folks complain about violence in films and on television. Quite honestly, I don’t see much violence either place because I’m extremely selective in what I view. I was having a discussion with a friend the other day about this topic. It reminded me that I had written an article a while ago, and tracked it down.
It’s a true story, which happened in December, 1994. With hindsight, this story feels more like a planned experiment than a spontaneous happening.
I attended three films within a period of seven days. Where I lived at the time in Santa Monica, I had the luxury of being within easy walking distance of five movie theaters which can show a total of 22 films simultaneously. Most are hot out of the studio. (I still live in Santa Monica, but a little further away from these theaters.)
The first film was “Legends of the Fall,” which everyone can admit is violent. How I got to that one is a mystery, why I stayed is more of a mystery. Perhaps it was so I could have this experience and tell it.
The second film was “Jungle Book,” which parents actually take little children to see! I found it appallingly violent and distorted.
The third one was “I.Q.,” a film I found delightful. Wa Who! Walter Matthau is one of my all-time favorite actors. No violence. Many would probably say “no depth,” to which I shrug my shoulders without comment. I went to the film to be entertained, and was. I have considerable depth in my work every day.
So now you know the films, here’s the experience. As blood and gore flashed across the screen in “Legends of the Fall,” I sometimes watched and mostly closed my eyes. About three-quarters of the way to the end, advertisements that are usually shown at the beginning began to play. The audience exploded!
Yelling and feet stomping were the norm. One man in particular seemed to go crazy. He screamed obscenities and could not say more than three words before repeating his favorite word, “f___ing.”
I’ve not ever been in a riot, but it felt to me as if one was about to happen. I sent lots of love and light to the projectionist and to the audience. Soon the right reel was playing. Oops, no sound. More jeers from the audience. Then the film’s sound came on. More jeers to rewind and begin the new reel again. Finally the film ended, although I have no memory how.
Several days later, I was off to the second film at another theater…. “Jungle Book,” a classic, considered to be a children’s film. The audience that day included little boys and girls accompanied by adults. The children were quite frightened. This was a tense fright, though, not an exhilarating one.
Three-quarters of the way through, the film broke. The audience exploded with yells and screams. The theater was not as crowded as the previous film, or the responses would undoubtedly have been multiplied. Soon the film returned to the screen for its finale.
Several days later, I attended “I.Q.” at a third theater. This is a romantic comedy requiring the wits of Albert Einstein with tee-hees and wide smiles for the audience throughout.
Are you ready for this? Three-quarters of the way through, the film broke. Not a sound came from the audience. Everyone sat quietly, waiting for the repair or whatever was needed. This soon happened, and the film played to the end without interruption.
Something in me wants to end this article with a profound and pithy statement that summarizes the whole experience. But something stronger in me just wants it to stand on its own — you make of it what you will. It’s a true story.

Copyright © 1994, 2005 Marshall House. All rights reserved. You may save this article, send it to a friend, or reprint it in your online publications, provided the article remains complete and this information is attached. Please visit Marshall House at http://www.mhmail.com and Voice of Jeanie Marshall at http://www.jmvoice.com

Nigeria Calling Cards