Return to Website

The Charlie Chan Family Message Board

Welcome to our Message Board. Please feel free to post your thoughts, questions, or information.

The Charlie Chan Family Message Board
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
Errors in CHARLIE CHAN IN EGYPT (1936)

I noticed several errors in the film CHARLIE CHAN IN EGYPT: first of all, the tomb was that of a high priest of Sekhmet, the goddess of destruction. Even though it is plausible that a statue of Sekhmet would be found in the tomb of one of her priests, it was the goddess Selket who was a mortuary goddess, not Sekhmet, who was indeed the goddess of destriction.

Second, the high priest's name is in a cartouche, a glyph used only to contain the name of a pharoah. A priest would never put his name in a cartouche for fear of offending the god Osiris, who was the ruler of the land of the dead.

Re: Errors in CHARLIE CHAN IN EGYPT (1936)

Dear Mr. Durrant,

Thank you for your valued insights into the historical aspects of this film's connection with ancient Egypt. I must say, I have never heard these points brought up before regarding "Charlie Chan in Egypt"!

Admittedly, I know very little of the things and customs of ancient Egypt, but, if I may, I will offer this feeble "explanation" of the seeming errors that you point out:

Perhaps the high priest, Ahmeti, was something of an egomaniac that thought of himself as at least an equal to the Pharaoh. As he possibly had something of a hold on the Pharaoh (maybe he feared him, due to his very close association with Sekhmet), who, for some unknown reason, allowed this apparent blasphemy, Ahmeti believed that he had the right to enclose his name inside of the cartouche normally reserved for pharaohs. He felt, then, that the god Osiris would welcome him to the land of the dead. Maybe he also thought that by having the goddess Sekhmet as something of a guide or ambassador has, so to speak, he could be even more assured of a warm reception from Osiris upon his arrival in the land of the deceased. Thus, the goddess was placed in his tomb with him.

Had he lived, Professor Arnold, who was certainly researching the very inconsistencies you note, would have attempted to uncover the answer to that mystery, as well! Over the decades since the opening of Ahmeti's tomb, archeologists have examined the work and discoveries of Professor Arnold, and still have not fully explained fully the mysteries that you have presented here in this humble forum...

Sincerely,
Rush Glick