Pontifications

Pontifications


Angels & Demons: Read all about it right here

posted by David Gibson

So here’s the good news: It is safe to go see “Angels & Demons.” I didn’t think the novel of the same name was especially anti-Catholic, but director Ron Howard was apparently stung by reactions to “The Da Vinci Code” adaptation and so scrubbed any Jack Chick traces from the screenplay, as well as a lot of the other absurd plot points that made the novel so terribly good.

 

And that’s the bad news, too: “Angels & Demons” is so tame that it’s hardly worth spending two hours on it–unless you’re in a sparsely-populated screening room with really excellent easy chairs, as I was.

 

What is worth seeing are the awesome CGI images of Saint Peter’s Basilica and the Square, which are front and center as the film opens with shots of a pope’s funeral–clearly inspired by the outpouring for John Paul II. If you didn’t make it to Rome for that funeral (and that would have put you in a minority of the world’s Catholics, I think), the movie will give you a sense of it. So why was Ron Howard all hissy about being refused permission to film in the square and the basilica The Vatican never gives such permission anyway, and certainly wouldn’t after “The Da Vinci Code.” (The film winks at this several times in some of its better moments, such as when the head of the Vatican police asks Langdon if he is anti-Catholic.)

 

But with the miracle of styrofoam travertine and computer-generated images, who needs Rome? Admittedly, some of the other mock-ups are appalling, such as Bernini’s Saint Teresa in Ecstasy in the Church of Santa Maria della Vittoria.

 

As for the story, well, there’s a plot, and we jump right in, switching from the Vatican to the CERN particle physics lab in Switzerland where a beautiful Italian scientist Vittoria Vetra (played by Ayelet Zurer) is leading the first attempt to create…anti-matter! (No, this isn’t “Star Trek.”) There is also a priest-scientist, thus foreshadowing the real theme of the film, which is the conflict or collaboration of faith and science. Apparently the dead pope was very cozy with science, the chagrin of many. And the priest at CERN will join the pontiff in the hereafter–minus an eyeball, though I trust he will be made whole–shortly, thus setting off the scavenger hunt narrative, such as it it.

 

Normally I like plot-heavy fare. I watch “24” religiously, despite it’s patent absurdities and the fact that its ethical vision may be rotting my soul. But “Angels & Demons” was a page-turner as a novel, nothing more–the writing ranges from atrocious to bad–and stripping it down leaves only a skeleton. Which is pretty much what the characters are. Sure, Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon adds his usual and irresistible Everyman wryness (and he’s had his hair cut, thank goodness). And Ayelet Zurer is a mature beauty with bags under her eyes–a wonderful change from the Bratz dolls usually cast in these roles. But the romance that Brown wrote in the novel has also been removed. In defending his film against the verbal assaults of the Catholic League’s prez, Bill Donohue, Ron Howard said the film was not anti-Catholic and added: “I believe Catholics, including most in the hierarchy of the Church, will enjoy the movie.” Well, he may think the hierarchy is stupid, but they’re not prudes. And neither are the rest of us. Taking out the sex does not make a film more Catholic. Al contrario, I’d say.

 

But I digress. On to the real spoilers! (After the jump, of course…)

What of the Illuminati, the secret society that turns out to have been behind the death of the pope, and which is planning to destory the Vatican–and the conclave of cardinals meeting to elect a successor–using anti-matter stolen that day from CERN?! Donohue and others fulminate that in fact the Illuminati, a fraternity of freethinkers that existed for a few years in the late 1700s before being disbanded by the emperor, do not exist. But they really don’t exist–either in the novel or in the film. They Illuminati are a school of red herrings, or actually one red herring, whose identity will be revealed shortly.

 

Yes, there are the claims made as fact, namely that the Illuminati existed in the 16th century and Galileo and other famous names were members. And of course that the Church “hunted them down and killed” them (like the mythic witches the Vatican was said to have eliminated) and “drove them underground and into a sercet society.” Shades of Al Qaeda.

 

The Big Reveal, however, is the same as in the book: There is no secret society, just a rogue priest, the Camerlengo, or Chamberlain, played by Ewan McGregor, who brought far more priestly charm to his role as the Jedi knight (and pseudo-Jesuit) Obi-Wan Kenobi. Okay, that a priest would be the Camerlengo is funny. But that’s the end of the laughs. This Camerlengo turns out to be the bad guy, a raving right-wing nut case who has turned on his father-figure, the deceased pope, because he feels got too cozy with modern science. Hence the plot to use science to destroy a church (St. Peter’s, in particular) that must be entirely rebuilt, with himself as pope.

 

Lots of people–and a few cardinals–die gruesome deaths, as they plot ticks off the requisite scenes until the mask drops and Langdon saves all. There is reconciliation between Science and Church, Langdon and the cardinals.

 

“Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed,” the new Camerlengo, a cardinal, tells Langdon at the end. “All men. Including this one,” he says, pointing to himself. (The new pope takes the name Luke–the doctor, to symbolize the marriage of faith and science. How come movie popes always get names real popes never use?)

 

“Mr. Langdon,” the Camerlengo continues, “thanks be to God for sending someone to protect the Church.”

 

“Father, I don’t believe he sent me,” Tom Hanks replies, getting His Eminence’s title wrong–some symbologist!

 

“Oh, my son! Of course he did,” says the cardinal.

 

Nice. But you never really feel there was anything at stake, and maybe that’s where Dan Brown doesn’t “get” the church. Why should we care? If you’d made it anti-Catholic, maybe someone would.

 

But what may really make the likes of Bill Donohue and the evangelical movie maven Ted Baehr mad is that the bad guy turns out to be a right-wing raver who castigates the dead pope and the cardinals and the rest for going soft, for allowing the modern world to take over. Sound familiar?

 

In effect, the film is respectful of the Catholic tradition of faith and reason, and the Catholic tradition of rejecting fanaticism in favor of careful discernment. The system of celibate old men with their sexist, dogmatic blinders turns out to be the best one, at least in this movie.

 

What happened? Dan Brown wrote “Angels & Demons” before “The Da Vinci Code,” but it went nowhere. Perhaps that’s what prompted him to write “Trhe Da Vinci Code” next, with its anti-Catholic stereotypes–and it worked. Ron Howard then made “The Da Vinci Code” movie, which was awful but a commercial success, and got hammered by Donohue et al. So in a reversal of Brown’s path, he has made a film that is kindly to Catholicism–but not to moviegoers looking for more. As the Vatican daily, L’Osservatore Romano, put it, the movie is little more than “harmless entertainment” with many factual errors and little cultural value. 

 

In the end, the movie isn’t as bad as the book, but that makes it worse. It’s the problem of playing camp as straight.

 

Yes, there are plenty of corkers for Vaticanisti and clerical trivia mavens to cluck over. The favored candidates for election in the conclave are called preferiti instead of papabile, and it’s as if they have a formal office, as does the so-called Grand Elector. (No mention of the Holy Spirit.) The new pope wins “election by adoration” rather than “acclamation.” And the movie traffics in the usual myths–hilarious to anyone who has ever stepped foot in the Vatican–that the Holy See is an efficient and technologically top-of-the line place where Renaissance art pulls back to reveal rooms that would make Pentagon wargamers feel at home. The Vatican archive is to die for, and wonderfully implausible. Almost as much as the idea of an anti-matter bomb–if anyone should cry “Foul!” it is the Union of Particle Physicists, or whatever. 

 

But they get much right–the chain-smoking prelates, e.g. And the Vatican could take notes on how to run a conclave, especially burning the ballots, which went awry in 2005–yet again.

 

Two final points that may change my mind entirely:

 

One: Does anyone else think that the Columbia Pictures logo–the lady holding the torch–is a ripoff of Our Lady of Lourdes? Just askin’.

 

Two: Langdon’s charge that Pope Pius IX had all the penises knocked off the classical statuary in 1857 in the so-called “Great Castration” seems to be an urban legend. But I can’t prove it. And it would be a greater slander than any Illuminati plots.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(8)
post a comment
Cindy

posted May 15, 2009 at 10:25 am


Two thumbs up for the review!
I might actually go see it!



report abuse
 

Frank Clyburn

posted May 15, 2009 at 6:07 pm


http://www.cliburne.com/Clyburn_family_news__Vol_18.htm
Well if I get a chance, I may watch the movie. After all it’s simply an action movie. I didn’t see the DaVinca Code, but read the book and thought it poor writing but by the end it started getting better, and I enjoyed it. See, my faith is not shaky, and it allows for entertainment. I am Catholic altho I was over 50 years old when I joined the church. God is…… He’s not just a set of rules created by man.



report abuse
 

Georgia

posted May 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm


I felt a slight disconnect from the book, and was surprised at what appeared to be the intrusion of fear of what the Church or critics might say if there appeared anything anti-Catholic in the movie. I enjoyed the movie, but it was no where near as intense as the book. A quick search on the internet for information about the “Illuminati” might raise some eyebrows and strike fear into the hearts of die-hard Catholics who see the Church as without conflict or error or as being perfect. As for the review, it is indeed in tradition with Catholic faith and reason. I do believe there are many hidden truths the Church would not like to be exposed…..a movie about the Inquisitions would certainly spark controversy.



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted May 16, 2009 at 6:51 pm


saw Ron Howard and Tom Hanks promoting their movie “Angels and Demons.” It was 30 minutes of softball from Mr. King to Howard and Hanks, as the following link will attest to.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/15/lkl.01.html
Here is a quote from transcript.
“Well, first of all, if you look at Dan Brown, I think it even says it’s a novel. You know, it’s fiction from start to finish, from the moment you open the book cover.
And so, second — first I’d say that, and it certainly applies to the movie.
Second, I would say that what Dan does and the movie, therefore, does, is it exploits fringe theories that he’s researched, ancient conspiracy theories, or — and some modern. You know, if you go on the Internet, you can find a site that tells you that Barack Obama is a member of the Illuminati today.
And he weaves all these possibilities into a very exciting and very thought-provoking stew. And it’s — you know, I think the reason it’s been so popular and so successful is that it works on a lot of different levels and pushes a lot of buttons.”
By following that logic, you would expect them to bring Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” to the screen, right? Of course not! Bashing Catholics is much safer pursuit, especially in Hollywood; don’t you think? Here is another quote from the link.
“KING: You think the church, Tom, should be involved in, say, state issues like gay marriage? I know you were opposed to Proposition 8, were you not?
HANKS: I was. I was. I still am.
I think we have a president in the United States of America that our founding fathers were very smart to, first of all, dream up and then to codify — they write down on a piece of paper that says very distinctly a separation of church and state. I think there are things that one must render under Caesar, and there are things that you must render under God. And I think that’s one of the things that makes America as strong and good as it is.”
In Hollywood the message to Christians is we can openly trash your belief systems, so long as we say it is fiction. However, if you as a person of faith who brings their ideas to the public square, this is verboden! Yet they wonder why people complain about Anti-Christian bias in Hollywood. What do you think?



report abuse
 

The Man With No Name

posted May 17, 2009 at 12:07 am


Hmmm, don’t know what to think of it. I thought the ‘Da Vinci Code’ movie was really anti-catholic (not to mention anti-christian in general) but I always knew that ‘Angels and Demons’ was tamer than it’s predecessor. I still will probably not see the movie though, why in any way contribute money to dan brown? It still kills me that Tom Hanks does these kind of films, I always liked him. Then again he is kind of a far-left guy, so what do you expect? Also, to answers some of these user comments…
If they actually made a HISTORICALLY accurate film about the inqusition (by that I am refering the the famed spanish inqusition, there were several after all) then there would be no fear or remorse over it. The inqusitions (in particular the spanish) are incredibly over hyped and made into some massive murderous campaign against non-catholics. Not true though, historical evidence suggests that maybe 2,000 people were killed in the spanish inquistion over the 3 or 4 hundred years they took place (a far cry from the hundreds of thousands, or even millions that anti-catholics and hysterists have proported over time, heck, there was not even a million people to spare at the time!). The inqusitions were demonized and taken out of context by fearful protestants (especially the english kind, who had feared the spanish would bring the inqusition to their shores) and anti-catholic bigots. So if hollywood overcame it’s own nature and made a historically accurate movie about them, then there would be no problem.
Secondly, ‘seperation of church and state’ does not appear in the constitution at all, but a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of baptists around the time of his presidential election. Even ‘seperation’ of CHURCH and state, does not mean seperation of RELIGION and state. When will those people realize that?! No official ‘church of america’ does not mean that religion is meant to be banned from the public or governmental square, while the govenment does not legislate on faith, people are expected to bring there religious beliefs with them, and yes that means even those who hold office. The founders respected and believed in the place of religion in society too much to try some kind of quasi-secular non-sense the left in this country is always proporting they founded this country with.
But other than those things, I long for the day hollywood stops making the usual anti-religious crap it to often makes. I know, I know, but I can dream can’t I?



report abuse
 

What a joke

posted May 18, 2009 at 2:20 am


You people amaze me….you are all roped up in religion so much that you cant stand a book that doesnt agree with what you say…who cares if there are anti catholic parts in the movies or books…Dan Brown wrote books that sell and if you didnt notice the world is all about money these days and i bet Dan Brown has way more then you…he is an amazing writer and the movie adaptation was an utter failure compared to the book. You people should quit your b*tching and grow up. No book or movie should ever affect your religious beliefs



report abuse
 

Lukish

posted May 19, 2009 at 5:56 pm


David, I too was curious whether the Great Castration actually happened or not. Apparently it didn’t (what a relief!). Here’s the answer by religious sects scholar Massimo Introvigne:
The legend [of the GC] dates back to English-language anti-clerical pamphlets of the late 19th century. What is true is that certain statues had their prominent genitalia covered by fig leaves. This happened at various stages during the 17th, 18th, and 19th century (not only in Rome) and was certainly not a new idea of Pius IX. The claim in the movie that pagan statues in the center of Rome were destroyed by Pius IX “at the end of the 19th century” is preposterous. At “the end of the 19th century” Pius IX was dead, and the center of Rome was administered by the (quite anti-clerical) Kingdom of Italy. If anything, Pius IX had a keen interest in archeology and in restoring the ancient historical and artistic monuments of Rome. He was even criticized for this by Catholics who believed that supporting Roman archeology was not part of the Church’s mission, or a waste of its resources.
Full text at http://www.cesnur.org/2005/mi_illuminati_en.htm



report abuse
 

Pingback: The Jolly, ‘South Park’ Loving Side of the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue - Idol Chatter

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Pontifications. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Faith, Media and Culture Prayer, Plain and Simple Happy Blogging!!!  

posted 2:38:01pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Moving on, and many, many thanks...
So...my recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from PoliticsDaily.com to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That means, in short, that I'll have to sign off from blogging h

posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 | read full post »

Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored the new look Calvin in an essay at PoliticsDaily, "Patr

posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
 In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time. And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation. Anyway, hence the long absence. Apologies to those who have chec

posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco: Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's contribution in developing countries" were key topics of discussio

posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.