Da VInci Code - Leonardo's portrayal of John

I've recently watched a DVD on the Da Vinci code background details, particularly the ones about the figure of John being feminine, the knights templar and the meaning of 'saint grail'/'Sang real'. With regard to the former this is quite helpful and interesting. It's an art history perspective and usefully contains a whole load of links to other paintings of the same era and a historical-cultural note that rather puts a different perspective on it from the Holy Blood Holy Grail/ DVC line. As the author says:

when Leonardo's version of The Last Supper is viewed in context, the John "gender issue" seems less of an issue. Leonardo was sticking to tradition: Biblical (John was the youngest Disciple), Florentine (young men were often love objects) and the Florentine School (young men were often painted as "pretty"). Considering this logically, it would seem reasonable to lend credence to the many art historians who've said no, based on contextual evidence Leonardo didn't paint Mary Magdalene, he painted John. Unless, of course, many art historians have got it all wrong, and the whole Florentine School actually believed that Jesus meant for Mary Magdalene to head His Church.

Worth bookmarking for apologetic use?
See also here, for a look at what the restorers did, which is intriguing too.
The Florentine School and the Portrayal of Male Youth:
Filed in: Da_Vinci_Code, art, Last_Supper, John_the_Evangelist, Da_Vinci, art_history