Tintin Forums

[Moved from thread Thompson and Thomson - which is which?]

I know that sometimes 'Dupondt et Dupont' were called 'Durand' et 'Durandt' in advertising.

For the appearance of Durand & Durant in Tintin in India - The Mystery of the Blue Diamond, a 1941' theater play by Paul Riga, see here.

Just to set the record straight once and for all:
The Thompsons were only called "Durand et Durant" in the printed programme of the 1941 theatre play.
In the actual play itself, and in the script, they were called Dupond et Dupont - as usual.

Just to set the record straight once and for all:
The Thompsons were only called "Durand et Durant" in the printed programme of the 1941 theatre play.

Well, no... Unless the following info is also false, from an article in Le Soir, on the 17th of September 2004; according to that, on page one of Le Soir volé, the edition of the 11th of June 1942, in regard to the play, readers were informed about the "new extraordinary adventures of Tintin and Snowy with the captain, the detectives Durand-Durant and all the team".

Sorry to dig up this old thread, but recent mention of the 1940s stage plays got me looking in Chronologie 4, where I came across this [Roughly translated by me]:

"The Thom(p)sons, ordered to look for the rich philanthropist Mr Boullock, methodically mangle his name before his wife; they call him Boulogne, Boulotte, Boulette, Bouilloire, Bouboule, Boutique, Bouteille or Bouleau. Just to return the favour she calls them Durand, Dupuis or Duparc."

Quite a bit of pre-Castafiore name massacring there!

I think the exhumation has been worth it!

Well spotted, that man!

Just to clarify, and before new rumours are born, I take it that the use of "Thom(p)sons" in this case was just part of your rough translation, and that they were actually listed as "les Dupondts" in the Chronologie text?

It was a bit of over-translation on my behalf. It actually says Dupondts in the book.

I thought at first this might have been the source of the "Durand-Durant" (mis)spelling, perhaps even put that way in the programme as a continuing joke. But probably not since it comes from the later play - M. Boullock was after The Blue Diamond (where the mistake was allegedly made). It could have been a subtle reference to the previous mistake in The Blue Diamond I suppose.

Incidentally, has anyone ever seen the actual mistake written in the programme to The Blue Diamond? As yamilah noted above, the mistake also occurred a year later in Le Soir from 11 June 1942, when it announced "The new extraordinary adventures of Tintin and Milou with the Captain, the detectives Durand-Durant and all the cast." This would have been to herald the forthcoming "Secret Of The Unicorn" serialization, which started in July 1942.

This is the translation for those like me who cannot read French (FRANCIAS)

"Both employees...in 1941 wrote a play in three acts,''Tintin in India, the mystery of the blue diamond'', directed by Paul Riga. The play was performed at the Théâtre des Galeries in Brussels on 15 and 17 April and 1 and 8 May 1941. ...The names of Dupont and Dupond''''will be transformed into''In''and Durand."

"...Hergé Van Melkebeke seconds write a piece in three acts,''Mr. Boullock disappeared'', always directed by Paul Riga ... Mr Boullock Brussels have disappeared,''Tintin'',''Snowy''and''''Dupondts will take a tour of the world to find it...."

Moderator Note: Thanks for the attempt, Terry, but a couple of things. First, you can't just copy and paste an entire article from someone else's site - at best it's rude, and at worst it's piracy; we wouldn't want someone copying stuff wholesale from Tintinologist, even in translation, so we can't do that to other peoples' sites either.
You may excerpt small pieces from a larger work, but be sparing. Therefore your copy of the article has been edited to reflect the topic of this thread.

Secondly, while automatic translation sites are okay for a very rough understanding, they aren't anywhere near perfect, and you really have to check thoroughly that the translation makes sense. In this case, it doesn't; sadly it actually makes the point less clear, as the article's ''Durant et Durand'' has become ''In''and Durand", which doesn't make any sense. You have to try and clean it up:

In 1941 the two colleagues write a play in three acts, ''Tintin in India: the mystery of the blue diamond'', directed by Paul Riga. The play will be performed at the Théâtre des Galeries in Brussels on 15 and 17 April and 1 and 8 May 1941. ...[In the play] the names of "Dupont" and "Dupond" are transformed into''Durant'' and "Durand."

... Hergé and Van Melkebeke write a second piece in three acts, ''Mr. Boullock has Disappeared'', directed as before by Paul Riga ... Mr Boullock from Brussels has disappeared, and Tintin, Snowy and the Dupondts take a tour of the world to find him..."

The Tintinologist Team

I've just been looking at the source material of this quote, as found by clicking the link, and it is notable that, as excerpted, it stops just short of the following:

Un pataqués digne des plus invraisemblables lapsus des Dupond-Dupont!

In English:
A mix up worthy of the most unlikely slips-of-the tongues of the Dupondts!

In other words, the journalists who wrote these short pieces, which accompanied the re-printing of the original newspaper strip version of Unicorn taking place at the time, are pointing out not that the detectives were incorrectly named in the paper, not in the play.

It would seem to me that on this occasion the person who wrote the copy had either misremembered the earlier play, perhaps by re-reading a file on it pulled to prepare new material, or perhaps had been involved in publicizing the previous one and simply got confused.

By the way, many of these little features were collected (although the one in question here seems to have been dropped!), and accompany the album re-print of the strips, Les Vrais Secrets de la Licorne. They were written by Daniel Couvreur and Frédéric Soumois, with documentary research by Philippe Goddin. On page 12 there is a thumbnail sized reproduction of a poster or flyer for M. Boullock.

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused by your post jock. Firstly, although you used 'not' twice, I'm assuming you mean the detectives were incorrectly named in the paper and not in the play.

Also, you wrote "the person who wrote the copy had either misremembered the earlier play, perhaps by re-reading a file on it pulled to prepare new material, or perhaps had been involved in publicizing the previous one and simply got confused". Do you mean, the person who wrote the 2004 text, or the 1942 text (with the mistake)?

Just to clarify; the 1942 text of Le Soir had nothing to do with play, it was to announce the forthcoming Unicorn. Whether or not there was any connection between the mistakes is unclear.