Caught an error


Just watched this for the first time.
Not too bad but not great for me.
But I did catch an error.
Simon Damian is shown as doing calligraphy lefty.
As a lefty myself, I was thinking that until the 1950s or 1960s being lefty was discouraged and he would never have learned to write that way but another poster brings up the point that it was done to show some demonic influence and he was certainly a "dark priest" so fair enough.
But I am talking about a clear goof in the film. They show a close-up of the calligrapher and you cannot tell if he is lefty or righty. Well, I used to do calligraphy and I think the close-up pen vs. hand position is righty but that is not the real error.
The real error is when they show Simon Damian writing away in a long view. A lefty cannot write that way while do calligraphy or using any "wet ink" pen. His left hand would smear what he had just written. Lefties either have to use a weird position where they loop their hand around the top of what they are writing or rotate the paper about 45d counterclockwise (so they are still writing from the top but the hand position is more comfortable). They can also rotate the paper the other way and write from the bottom and that could be what is in the close-up (though I doubt it). But Damian is writing as a righty would do calligraphy, with the paper square and his hand rolling across it; works OK for modern ballpoints though we lefties still end up with inkstains on the meaty part of the palm.
John
white trash philosophizer
and former calligrapher

reply

Here's another error for you,
In the scene where Nicholas( Paul Bettany) confronts the other monk (Ewen Bremner) and asks him to confess the murder, when the doorman walks in on them, the other monk says "Brother Paul is leaving." Paul? As in Paul Bettany? Oops.

reply

how is simon damien saying "brother paul is leaving" an error? now if he said "brother paul bettany is leaving" that would be one thing...but chances are it's probably just a gag that they threw in to see if anyone would catch it.

reply

Well, since the character Nicholas would no longer be allowed in the town, it's quite possible that he used a false name (Such as "Brother Paul") to get a chance to speak with brother Simon Damian.

The pen thing has always looked a little fishy to me, but I believe that the lefty-righty issues change over time more than we think. In The Name of the Rose, set in 1327, there was no problem with Brother Berringer being a left-handed writer, and I believe that some manuscripts from the time period appear to be written left-handed.

reply

The monk was never introduced to Nicholas as Paul or any other name. The other monk just said "there's another brother here to speak with you"- or something to that effect, and led him in. I just watched it tonight for the first time and that one slip seemed a glaring error, rather than an intentional joke. The only thing that redeems it exactly what makes it so obvious: Damian makes a big point of saying Paul's name, and is given a long close-up for the event. I have to assume that small budget or no, this kind of error would never be allowed to stay in the film without the director's knowledge and consent. I suppose I'll leave it to mystery, as I really did enjoy the rest of the film.


--------------------------------------------------
There are no happy endings because nothing ends.

reply

It's not a goof. The monk simply makes up a name, pretending that he knows Nicholas, in order to not arouse any suspicions in the doorman.

reply

But is that actually an error? You're talking about handwriting as a lefty not being accepted, however, as a person who learned to read and write in 1954, I can assure you that people who were left handed did indeed write with their left hand, just like one of my teachers, who quite definitely learned to write in the 1920's... but writing as a lefty was usually done backhanded because the pen needs to be pushed across the paper as opposed to pulled, like a righty. So, the writer had to curl their hand up and over what they were writing, to pull the pen across the paper, simulating the motion of a right-handed writer.
On the other hand, this is calligraphy, not handwriting, which was something very few people could do, and was left primarily to monks. It was a form of artwork as opposed to mass-produced handwriting practiced by everyone today. Back then, even after someone transcribed writings, only a very small percentage of people, mostly clerics and royalty, could even read it. Since and extremely large percentage of people who are artistically inclined are left handed, if I were to guess, no monk would be forced to be a back-handed calligrapher, for no apparent reason.

reply

"for no apparent reason"

There was a very good reason. Left-handedness was considered evil. Left=sinister in Latin, etc. The church would not have allowed a lefty!

reply