Ron Howard’s ‘Demon’ Defense Doesn’t Hold Water
by Andrew LeighPeople do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to. – Malcolm Muggeridge
I’m a fan of Ron Howard. I’m also a Roman Catholic. So when Howard recently defended his upcoming film, Angels and Demons, on the Huffington Post from criticism leveled by William Donohue of the Catholic League, I sat up and took notice.
Here’s an understatement for you: Not everybody likes William Donohue. Whereas some admire him as a passionate defender of the faith, others view him as a hectoring, self-righteous censor, with a tendency to get red-faced and a bit shouty when locking horns on one of the ubiquitous news talk shows.
Howard, of course, is always calm and collected. Besides, he’s Opie; and who doesn’t like Opie? So I enter this fray with the greatest trepidation, fully expecting to regret every minute of it.
Howard’s panoply of defenses included that familiar old warhorse: don’t knock it if you haven’t seen it. Ordinarily I have a lot of sympathy for such an argument. In this case, however, Howard’s new film is based on a novel of the same name first published nine years ago. And it was written by Dan Brown who also penned The Da Vinci Code, which Howard rather faithfully (no pun intended?) adapted into a movie with the same star (Tom Hanks). So, score one for Donohue.
But this isn’t about Howard vs. Donohue, as entertaining as that MMA match may be. It’s about Angels and Demons, alighting in a theater near you May 15.
A few years ago, intrigued by the fuss surrounding The Da Vinci Code, I read Angels and Demons. Why? Code was still in hardback, and Angels was only $7.99. I wasn’t about to give Brown the satisfaction of my $24.99 — not that I think his bank account noticed.
Later, I watched Code on cable (once again, not eager to give my money to an arguably anti-Christian work. So I think I’ve got sufficient standing to comment.
Reading Angels and Demons, I wasn’t so much struck by the work’s bigotry as by how badly it was written. The cliched style is the literary equivalent of cotton candy. And for someone with so much animus toward religion, Brown employs the deus ex machina more frequently than the Old Testament.
But more disturbing is Brown’s commingling of fact and fiction disguised as fact, aimed at convincing his readership that the Catholic Church is vehemently, even violently anti-science, and therefore anti-progress and anti-reason.
By fiction disguised as fact, I don’t mean standard historical fiction techniques like creating new characters against a backdrop of actual historical events. I mean massively altering or fabricating historical events and chronologies. For instance: virtually every historical fiction writer fudges dates a little, but Brown shifts key timelines by more than a century.
Perhaps Brown counts on most of us to be too lazy or obtuse to fact-check his work on the Internet. And judging from his hordes of unquestioning fans (and, usually, myself), he’s probably right.
[SPOILER ALERT: The rest of this article contains spoilers. If you don't like spoilers and haven't read or seen Angels and Demons yet, then you shouldn't read further. On the other hand, maybe you should read on, because at least you'll be armed against the falsehoods that pervade Angels. It's up to you.]
So, I got off my duff (a matter of speech — I actually sat on my duff throughout this ordeal) and actually (gasp) looked up some of the claims Brown makes in Angels and Demons.
Here are just a few inaccuracies (hardly an exhaustive list) I picked up in several exhausting minutes on the Web:
Brown claims: Copernicus was murdered by the Catholic Church.
Fact: Copernicus died quietly in bed at age 70 from a stroke, and his research was supported by Church officials; he even dedicated his masterwork to the Pope.
Brown claims: “Antimatter is the ultimate energy source. It releases energy with 100% efficiency.”
Fact: CERN, the lab which plays an important role in his story, actually debunked this claim on their website: “The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion of the invested energy back.”
Brown claims: Churchill was a “staunch Catholic.”
Fact: Any history buff could tell you that Churchill wasn’t Catholic, he was Anglican; nor was he particularly religious. The only things Churchill was staunch about were cigars, whiskey, and defending the British Empire.
Brown claims: Pope Urban VII banished Bernini’s famous statue The Ecstasy of St. Teresa “to some obscure chapel across town” because it was too racy for the Vatican.
Fact: The statue was actually commissioned by Cardinal Cornaro specifically for the Cornaro Chapel (Brown’s “obscure chapel”). Moreover, the sculpture was completed in 1652 — eight years after Urban’s death.
Brown claims: Bernini and famed scientist Galileo were members of the Illuminati.
Fact: The Illuminati was founded in Bavaria in 1776. Bernini died in 1680, while Galileo died in 1642 — more than a century before the Illuminati were first formed.
This last falsehood bears further examination, because the Illuminati are so integral to the plot of Angels and Demons. The great Baroque artist Bernini is also a central figure in Brown’s tale.
It may seem like a small “white lie” to change the timeline so drastically, and to make Bernini a key player in an Illuminati plot against the Catholic Church. But Bernini was an extraordinary Baroque artist who deserves better than Brown’s treatment.
Imagine that someone made a film that portrayed Steven Spielberg as a closet anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. Movie fans would be justifiably outraged.
But Dan Brown wrote a book (soon to be a movie!) identifying another great artistic virtuoso, Bernini, as a secret atheist who hated the Catholic Church. In reality, though, Bernini was a devout Catholic who went to mass every day and pursued the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius, which include up to five hours of daily silent meditation.
In one of the movie trailers (since taken down — I wonder why?), Tom Hanks chastises Vatican officials — “You guys don’t even read your own history!” — for not knowing about “La Purga,” the branding and execution of four Illuminati scientists in 1668.
The irony’s so rich, it could pay off the national debt. Because, you see, it’s Hanks’ character who doesn’t know his history. Repeat after me: there were no Illluminati before 1776. (Of course, that’s just what they want us to believe! Mwu-hahaha!)
Most of Brown’s historical misrepresentations tend to malign Christianity or the Catholic Church in particular. If these were just haphazard mistakes, you’d expect roughly half to be positive. But the book’s agenda clearly is to tarnish the Church’s image.
Some might argue that the Church has done a good enough job of that on its own, what with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the child-abuse scandals, and other shameful episodes in its past. Brown is like the cop who plants evidence on a suspect because he thinks he’s guilty. If his case against the Church is so strong, why make things up?
Nevertheless, Ron Howard encourages William Donohue to see the movie version of Angels and Demons for himself. The only reason that could make a difference is if the movie tones down some of the anti-Catholic aspects of the novel. So perhaps that’s a kind of acknowledgement that the book was too harsh, and the movie will, indeed, be different.
Well, there is one area, apparently, where we already know the film will stray from the novel. One of the bad guys is the Hassassin, whom Brown described as a “mahogany-skinned,” misogynistic Middle Easterner. According to the movie’s IMDb page, however, the actor portraying this character is… Danish.
His character name is altered from Hassassin (related to the Persian term for a Muslim sect) to the more generic-sounding Assassin. Some on the IMDb message boards suggest that the filmmakers changed him from a Middle Easterner because they were afraid of potential controversy.
So let’s get this straight: It’s okay to bash the Catholic Church as a violent institution opposed to reason. But don’t you dare make one bad guy (out of several) a Middle Easterner.
Why? Because Catholics may gripe, write letters, boycott, even sic William Donohue on you. But they won’t riot. And they won’t behead anybody.
To quote one of my favorite movies, “How do you like that? I buried the lead.”
Part II to come later…. Maybe….
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
261 Comments
I believe that in order for communists to work their magic on this country that they first must tear down religion and all faiths. After that it's just a matter of time before we become fully socialistic/communistic.
Gah!! Dan Brown drives me nuts! I was in college when the film version of "Code" came out, and got into several – several – heated discussions with fellow students. Their complaint? Professors wouldn't let them cite "Code" in their research papers. (These were Education majors, mind. One reason I am homeschooling.) I kept trying to show them how Brown couldn't tell up from down in his "historical" data, but it kept hitting a wall. That's my pet peeve with books/films like this. Throw a date and an air of authority on it, and people don't question it.
Brilliant analysis. I watch, bemused, as Howard and Hanks descend into idiocy with each passing movie. Tom Hanks is clueless while attempting to appear otherwise, a very confused man. I can pretty much guarantee you that he didn't spend one-millionth the time checking out the inaccuracies of the novel or script like you did. And his only response is "See the movie." Typical. Let's face it, that's all these crusading whores (including Brown) care about is the money. Whoever they slime doesn't matter, in their minds they're righteous and rowdy. I have a very simple policy – I don't see anything Howard or Hanks make any more. You can paint it any way you want, but b.s. retains its essence. Looking forward to the sequel – of your article.
I'm not a fan of Donohue. Our Faith is grounded in suffering and self-sacrifice, so it just doesn't "fit" to have Bill out there screaming like a crazy atheist whenever we're struck on the cheek. On the other hand, it's crystal clear that the only aim of Brown's books, and the movies made from them, is to libel the Church. If his books were about a living person, he would be in jail or in debt up to his ears from all the judgments against him (I don't know the possible punishments for serial libel).
As for Angels & Demons: meh. Who cares? Anyone who believes it is too big an idiot to merit Heaven anyway. (That's said tongue-in-cheek. I care about everyone, but most people refuse to listen.)
That's the goal of cultural Marxism. Tear down religion (in this case christianity) and replace it with a secular religion more to their liking.
I wonder if the movie will use the book's ending, it was astonishingly stupid.
I read both "Code" (first) and "Angels and Demons". While reading "Code" I thought it was akin to a Saturday matinee from my childhood, "Angels and Demons" was violent, abusive to the Catholic Church and too bloodthirsty for me. After having read "Angels and Demons", I decided not to view the "Code" film, even on TV, if and when it came out. Researching some of the so called facts from "Code" persuaded me to banish Dan Brown from a list of authors whom I would read in the future. That Ron Howard would make both films doesn't surprise me given his political leanings. Liberals, excuse me Progressives, seem intent on destroying Christianity and especially Catholicism. I guess Howard and his friends don't appreciate that there are people and organizations in this world who know right from wrong and won't compromise on the Truth.
I may be missing something here gang and if so kindly enlighten me?
This is a movie and not a documentary –
Certainly the author of the book and the director of the movie take on a controversial subject matter –
but so did The Exorcist – (great movie for the time- and if you want to see a movie that will scare the crap out of you – see Exorcist III – with George C Scott – Yikes!) and as I recall that stirred a lot of irrational commotion as well.
I am pretty confident that authors of fiction and those that translate that fiction for the big screen are, by definition, subject and constrained not by facts, but by their own imaginations.
I'm not Catholic, but I do believe in God and Jesus Christ is his son. Angels & Demons was the first Brown work I read and have read DaVinci Code and a couple of others. From the very get-go I knew this was fiction. I understand people's frustration regarding novels such as these, but it's my personal belief that all this attention is what the author wants.
The premise of the DaVinci Code didn't bother me, b/c I knew it wasn't true and such fictions works cannot shatter my faith. I think christians lose a little bit of credibilty if we let "heathens" get to us.
Why take this or "Code" seriously? People who want to believe this work of fiction is absolute fact or some sort of documentary (as Spartacus above pointed out) need to seek professional help. Its escapist fun, nothing more, and while I can appreciate Catholics upset by Brown's depiction of their faith, I seriously doubt either Dan Brown or Ron Howard's "blasphemy" truly rises to the level of anything ore than a historical footnote.
The fact that anybody would want to cite The Da Vinci Code for a research paper is truly depressing.
I'm not offended by The Da Vinci Code on religious grounds. The fact that it was such a lousy movie is what offended me.
(Please note, I saw your request for enlightenment, so I am responding to that…not attacking you)
I think what you may be missing is that the book, and what seems to be the movie, take a subject matter, and a lot of truths and distort them so badly that they become lies. In this book particularly, there are a lot of little lies (lies about dates, people, places, lives) that are combined in a way that it makes the whole thing a farce. The books major claim is that is it historical fiction–this is entirely inaccurate. It is not historically based at all. It is a work of complete fiction (yet uses familiar people and places). In fact, it's much more sinister than that. It takes common bits of knowledge that people are familiar and comfortable with (like the name Copernicus–everyone knows the name, but that's about it) and gives them an entirely fake backstory. In doing so, it creates a lie. Many Catholics view this masterful web of lies as used as way of destroying their Church as well as the individuals faith in that Church/Community.
The criticism that the Catholics and religious community give to this production is akin to the criticism that English history majors give to "The Tudors".
(Also, my uncle was the priest who did the technical directing for the Exorcist–so complaints here!)
From what I'm reading and hearing so far, Angels and Demons is so ludicrously over-the-top that it would be better just to tell everyone about the new sword and sorcery movie that Ron Howard is putting out. Great special effects. Lots of explosions and angels wrestling with demons, and conspiracies that nobody really believes. You know, like that other great fantasy movie End of Days. Except the action hero is Tom Hanks, not The Terminator. But you can't have everything.
First, education is redesigned as indoctrination. Second, the family unit is destroyed via that indoctrination. Third, the culture is changed via media, arts, academia, enterprise & marketing, and the state to reinforce the previous changes. Lastly, religion is ridiculed and maligned as an ancient relic of past oppressors. In the end you are left with a culture & society with no morality, no basic beliefs except what the state & science believes are eternal truths, and no traditions to defend itself against progressive-socialist ideals. Basically, you have then created the perfect narcissistic, atheistic, decadent society of citizen-workers/consumers – "Utopia."
Having read all of Dan Brown's pulpy novels (they were great mindless reads in law school), and seen Howard's Da Vinci Code and was unimpressed, I'm not pursuaded by most of the post's attempt to correct the "inaccuracies" in either the books or the movies. After all the books were in the "Fiction" section of the bookstore when I purchased it. I wasn't expecting David McCullough, after all. As Sean Foushee said, "It's escapist fun, nothing more."
I do agree that changing the Hassassin character to a generic Danish "assassin" is a cowardly move on Howard's part, and probably helps your argument that Howard is more sympathetic to, or perhaps afraid of, Muslims than Catholics.
I believe Dan Brown is a Christian but not a Catholic.
I also believe he's a lousy writer.
The movie may be a pretend fantasy, but the Catholic Church is real. And when lies are spoken as fact–even in a pretend movie–it harms those who have faith and those who believe facts. IF the movie was about a pretend religion, then they could say anything they wanted and I would have no problem.
so let me get this right.. they're writing research papers, and they want to cite a FICITION book as a reference?
don't forget "rumoured" plagarist… (i'd have to find the site that compared DVC to another book of the same topic).
of course, I'm still stunned over jaci's note above…
The Da Vinci Code was more insidious because it had one main theory that undermined traditional Christian (and particularly Catholic) belief. The movie came out, and instead of reinforcing the nonsense in the book, it became a near-parody, and a boring one at that. This one looks like Terminator meets "The Omen, Part III. Not just one nutty theory, but a whole bunch of ridiculous conspiracies as well. Unlike the first movie, I might actually enjoy this piece of high camp. The only thing missing is Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition.
I'm bemused by people criticizing a book / movie that is a work of fiction while defending a religion based on a book of fiction. It you don't like this particular fiction that seems appropriate but to criticize it for being fiction is to be a hypocrite.
Agreed…and that religion is Climate Change!
"The only things Churchill was staunch about were cigars, whiskey, and defending the British Empire."
You left out Clementine. Churchill was the only major world leader of the Second World War who seemed to able to be faithful to his spouse.
I'm actually sort of encouraged that their professors wouldn't allow it. Score one for academia. But yes, education majors are one of the reasons that I homeschool, too. And I used to be a public school teacher.
You are correct. They just couldn't understand WHY they couldn't use "facts" from DaVinci Code for their papers, specifically the ones dealing with the compilation of the Bible and the role of women in the Bible. They insisted that Brown did his research, obviously! It's a historical book!
"…commingling of fact and fiction disguised as fact, …"
I see this time and again on various anti-Christian forums/blogs. I hear the same on radio shows and see it on book titles at B&N stores. There is no shortage of lies and innuendo produced to discredit the Roman Catholic church, Jesus and the Christian faith. The haters will not do their homework because they need to keep swallowing this kool-aid to nurture their hatred of the Christian faith.
We'd like to see Opie bravely do a movie about Islam. But then, PREDICTABLY he'd just sugar coat it or make it part of a larger theme of pluralist stew .
I just reread my previous post, and realized it comes off a little dismissive. If that's the case, I'm sorry.
I don't trust Hanks or Howard any farther than I can spit. And if Brown or Howard and Hanks had claimed that they hired a "former Catholic" to help them with the historical accuracy, and came out swinging like this, similar to the recent "Big Love" temple controversy, I would be squarely in your camp.
Sure, this is possibly thinly-veiled propaganda; but it is (or should be) an exciting story also. Unless and until Hanks or Howard come out and say that this movie represents their personal beliefs, or I hear other evidence that that is the case, I'll see it as nothing more than that.
Here's a BBC story where Dan Brown asserts: "All of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/428...
Here's some more de-bunking of Brown's claims, which he insists are true.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/usnews/060522a.aspx
When the Da Vinci Code movie came out, I recall reading in the Brit press of a survey that showed that people who read the book were often likely to be convinced of the truth of it's claims. (I recall reading it in ThisisLondon, I believe.) I can only find the story on World Net Daily, which I don't like to cite because it's often inaccurate, but in this case it accords with my memory of the survey, and the response of the Roman Catholic bishop in England.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART...
I think we are doing ourselves a disservice, by crediting to mediocrity what is actually caused by malignity.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. The Catholic Church has survived far worse attacks, including us Lutherans.
Your uncle would be an interesting guy to talk to..did he work on Exorcist III as well?
Regarding "Historical" subject matter and distorting to the point of lies in books and movies-
This has been going on as long as books have been written and movies have been made-
Regarding books I would reference "The Bible" , The Koran, etc. etc
Regarding historical movies –
Spartacus
Braveheart
JFK
Nixon
Ben Hur
Glory
Schindlers List
and on and on….
Unless the book or movie identifies itself as a documentary it is open to the highly specific interpretation of the people that put up the money, expertise, time and energy to create the product.
The fact that a specific product deals with a controversial subject is irrelevant.
Oh, and here's some debunking of Brown on an atheist site.
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/TruthD...
I met a young teacher the other day, we were discussing how the curriculum's have changed. We were on the subject of planets and stars. She ask me, "I forget, which are closer, the stars or the planets?"
And Al Gore is the new Pope selling "indulgences" against "sin" to the highest bidder.
Yes, it was nice to see that profs treated DaVinci Code the same way they did Wikipedia (which we also weren't allowed to cite, for obvious reasons). Unfortunately, the profs didn't give a reason WHY not to cite DaVinci Code, other than they wanted sources from an approved sources list they had handed out, if I remember correctly. There wasn't any discussion about the accuracy of DaVinci Code, which led to the students' frustration.
Hey, as many times as those English Ed. majors failed and retook our Grammar and Usage class, nothing surprises me anymore.
Says it all about the American public school system doesn't it? Don't worry, we'll just pay the teachers more, spend more money for technology to teach the kids, let the TV and MySpace teach them everything the teacher missed….. and everything will work out just fine.
You are talking about a nation that thinks "Reality Shows" are actually reality, and you expect the sheeple to determine the difference between an adapted work of fiction and documentary? That line was blurred to the point of non-recognition when Moore did Fahrenheit 9/11 – and won an Oscar for it.
As straight up fiction I don't have a problem with Dan Brown.Except that he is an awful writer but that is no crime.What bothers me is that he insists much of his nonsense is "fact" against all evidence to the contrary.He can bash the church and Christians all he wants since I believe in free speech(Christians and Jews are easy to bash since they don't tend to seperate peoples heads from their bodies for criticizing them.).I don't have to read it(or watch the movies)just don't say it is factual.
For those who are getting upset that Dan Brown's novels include a comment in the beginning claiming that certain things are fact, did you get similarly upset when Jack Webb would claim at the beginning of every Dragnet, "The story you are about to hear [or "see" for T.V. episodes] is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent."
Were there stereotypical and offensive portrayals in those pulpy episodes? Definitely. Where's the outrage for Jack Webb's claim that those were "true?"
Interestingly, Hanks seems to be drawn to these types of over-the-top fictional accounts which claim to be "true" given his participation in the 80s Dragnet movie.
I tried to read the Code and was unable to get into it. It really seemed like an 11th grader wrote it. No wonder it was a huge hit. as that it he average reading level on the US right now (I am feeling kind).
Poor Tom and Opie are a goner. They are not coming back.
When is Dan Brown's bashing of Islam coming out? Wait, its NOT? Why?????
The problem is the sheeple take these types of movies and believe them as if they are – ahem – gospel.
As for the already lost, this movie fits their already preconceived belief system regarding the church and taht is, church bad and evil.
As for Exorcist III – yup, pretty good, but this line from Max Von Sydow in teh first exorcist sums up the approach the left has taken, "The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen to him. Remember that – do not listen"
C'mon – now if that is not succinct and to the point for what we are dealing with today, I don't know what is.
Umm, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this a "novel"? And aren't "novelists" allowed to take liberties with the facts because it is fiction? I understand all of the religious arguments about "Angels & Demons" and "Da Vinci Code", but both are stil fiction novels. And these movies are interpretations of a these fictional novels. Not documentaries based on scholarly non-fiction works. With exception of the need for a lot of free publicity, I do not understand the controversy.
I'd agree that those of us who have true faith wouldn't likely be swayed by this kind of fiction. The bigger problem lies with those who are not interested in Jesus. What do I say to my brother-in-law who isn't yet interested in a relationship with Jesus, but lets this kind of movie influence how he thinks of Christianity as a whole? It isn't *my* faith I'm concerned about with things like this.
I found The Da Vinci Code to be really predictable, on top of being boring and maybe a hour too long. I will probably hold off on seeing Angels till it's reached the cable-tv-movie stage. And then maybe not…
When did current American reading skills improve? I was just beginning to think the public couldn't understand anything in writing that didn't have pop-up illustrations.
I guess he doesn't want to become famous as the Headless Novelist.
Yes, fiction is allowed license. Otherwise we wouldn't get such good historical fiction. The difference here, though, is that Brown presents his fictionalized history as historical fact, down to dates and places. It would be different if he admitted that the distorted verifiable historical record to serve his plot. Still wouldn't make the Catholics happy, and even me, a Protestant, doesn't appreciate what he did with DaVinci Code. But then he wouldn't be trying to claim history on his side. That's what makes people upset.
Well said.
How about this for a Summer blockbuster. Martin Luther King, Jr. secretly ordered the murder of John Kennedy, Malcolm X was really a white man who just pretended to be black to inspire rioting against his hometoen police, who had given him a traffic ticket he didn't deserve, and Jackie Robinson spiked Babe Ruth in a hard slide at second base, so he could win the American League batting title…you know, it's just a piece of fiction, so who could ever object?
I see where you are coming from. Without meaning to sound condescending, it seems that your brother-in-law isn't looking for spiritual answers or else he wouldn't turn to movies for guidance. The best thing for us to dao as christians is lead by example and tho this flick misrepresents the facts, that doesn't mean it can't be used as a basis of talking points. my husband isn't a believer, but he'll watch these flicks and of course have tons of questions. I use those times to discuss and if I don't have the answers we look them up together.
Because bashing Catholics gets you a verbal thrashing from Bill Donohue. Bashing Islam gets you Fatwas and possible beheadings. No one ever accused Hollywood of actually having guts.
Perhaps if Catholics resurrected the old monastic military orders instead of the Catholic League, they might get some more respect…
I look back to my elementary through high school teachers, and realize that the worst of them were adequate, some inspired, and a few nothing short of brilliant. Speaking with many of today's teachers is akin to speaking to a Valley Girl, minus the voluminous vocabulary. The game was probably over for good when Toni Morrison replaced William Shakespeare as required reading. They teach a poor curriculum poorly.
Pet peeve is putting it mildly! I am truly incensed by – for example – the readinessof high school teachers in our town to allow students to watch "historical" movies in lieu of reading actual history books. Because I work in our library's children's and audio-visual section, I see the list of "approved" films that the kids are given and hear them congratulating themselves because they don't have to bore themselves with stupid ol' books. Of course, this sort of behavior gives me useful ammo with which to rant, because as an [amateur] historian, I've been protesting loudly for years about the lack of accuracy in most historical films/television/novels.
BTW, while Dan Brown is truly dreadful, another particularly heinous offender is Michael Hirst who wrote the Elizabeth movies and "The Tudors" and explained in an interview that he merrily re-writes history because he doesn't want to confuse his viewers with facts. Aaargh!
Those ideas are certainly more creative than most of the movies being released these days by Hollywood.
For an industry which claims to be 'just entertainment', the people working inside industry are under the impression that they're products offer great meaning and purpose.
AT the end of the day, it's just entertainment which affords the luxury of wasting away hours of life.
In your list of things that the Catholic Church has done to harm humanity, you left out all the women who were forced to bear unwanted children because they were denied birth control by their religious faith. To allow impoverished mothers to keep bearing babies that they cannot feed by making birth control sinful is the worst action of the church. Women throughout the ages have been treated very badly by the "father" church, beginning with the depiction of Eve and extending to today. Their deaths through childbirth and poverty far exceed the number of deaths of the Inquisition and are crueler, too.
This sort of reminds me of when some were citing Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" as proof of the fallacies of global warming because he had a lot of footnotes in it, too. It's like citing "Gone With the Wind" as Civil War history. Fiction is fake; people need to leave it at that. I read both Brown's books and they're like barbecue potato chips–you start and before you know it, your mouth is salt-crusted, your fingers are greasy and dyed red, and you're a little sick to your stomach. But it was good while it lasted. I think it's a little silly and pointless to pick apart fiction for facts–one can enjoy a yarn with tongue in cheek (exhibit A: Showtime's "The Tudors," a lush, sexy romp that gets Henry VIII's wives in the right order and that's about it) Brown managed to sell a lot of books because he touched on themes that most in the west are familiar with and riffed on them to make enjoyable, somewhat intelligent thrillers. If he wrote a similar book on Islam it wouldn't have the same cultural/religious touchstones at least for me because I know very little about Islam, nor do I particularly care to learn more. Also if Brown had some nefarious scheme to undermine Catholicism, I'd say he's either doing a piss poor job, or the vast majority of his readers are enjoying it as a bit of fluff/conspiracy thriller and not a deal breaker with their faith. Da VInci Code made for a flat movie because it so slavishly followed the book (but tried to soften some of the controversial edges). Angels and Demons looks like more of the same, but, if it's a hot day, I might take in a matinee to get a cinematic travelogue of Rome. Oh, and Mr. Leigh, my method for trying new authors is patronizing my favorite used bookstore–you benefit local business and the author won't see a nickel of your money!
These guys make a living off whining. Just like the pastors who make a living off lies.
I know I risk a bashing here, but I wouldn't watch this movie simply because of the appearance of one Tom Hanks. Yes, we've all been told he's today's Jimmy Stewart, but he couldn't carry Stewart's jock strap. Somewhere along the line (around the Philadelphia period), Mr. Hanks started believing his own publicity. As a result, his smug sanctimonious demeanor is more than I can handle. When he was selected to give a speech at the new WWII memorial in DC, I was incredulous! So an ACTOR is more important than the men that actually fought? He played a role, for crying out loud! He didn't win the war himself. However, he acts like he was the first guy on Normandy Beach! Hollywood's Mr. Nice Guy…feh.
Someone needs to bring him down to Earth by reminding him that he got his start playing a doofus dressed up like a woman in a long forgotten sitcom.
Davinci Code was treated as a serious topic by the History and Discovery ad nauseum.
Should we really expect students to understand more than the so called educational channels?
When Richie/Opie coerced Andy Griffith to do a Barack Obama campaign ad, I knew civilization, as we know it and cherish it, had died. Somewhere Aunt Bea weeps.
Hey, I knew a lot of Blue Boys in my life. Stop picking on my friend Jack Webb!
Kudos for bringing up how badly written these books are. I only read Da Vinci Code but I went through so much eye rolling that I thought they might stay that way. The roughly fifty pages where they argue about the inscription on the puzzle thing only to suddenly realize that it's backwards? It's like a less skillful Encyclopedia Brown story. Holy Blood, Holy Grail was so much more interesting.
Sean, the thing is… now you've got flawed 'historical' movies/tv series/books, that the average lazy student is using as "Facts"…. and nobody corrects them? (Thank god jaci's professor did). These lazy students are going to become the future-leadership… and since they weren't corrected in the past, who's going to correct them in the future?
(personally, I thought Code was a 'fun' read… but again, I knew it was fiction…)
I've read both books and I'm a Catholic. I don't get my religious doctrine from works of fiction, so I was able to enjoy them boths as works of fiction, which they are. I think everyone's just looking for a chip to plant on their own shoulders because we've become a nation of victims. Get over it.
No big whoop there. Have you ever actually seen a picture of Churchill?
Any one who's faith is so weak that a novel could shatter it, and any non believer who would use a novel as fact are both showing more about themselves than the author did.
These people aren't ready to hear the message.
If someone wants to use the novel as an opportunity to learn some facts more power to them. I do this all the time. If i stumble across information referenced that i don't know about, i look it up. I did this with Mr. Browns books. And i found them to be entertaining.
That said, the first movie didn't impress me enough to actually remember it.
I read Code then Angels and Demons. Then I read Digital Fortress and another one of this books. I can not stand his style of writing. Each book is the same, noticiably so (I read more because I thought he would 'develop' as a writer). I don't mind authors re-writing history, for 'artistic license', but it is ridiculous that people take it as fact.
When Dan Brown's new book comes out I am not reading it. I already know whats going to happen.
THE CRUSADES & INQUISITION were direct results of Islamic invasions & occupatiohs. Could we stop using those as the worst crimes of the Catholic Church!
Of course, the issue isn't that a work of fiction rips apart real history and lies and lies and lies–that's what FICTION is. The issue is that today's dumbed-down punk population doesn't know the difference between fiction and fact and doesnt' really care much about it. That's what gives us pretentious crap pretending to be important like "Da Vinci" and…well, Obama for another thing.
I blame Global Warming.
(smile)
If memory serves you are LDS. As a member of the church you know how the general authorities have approached this type of situation. They state that the story or movie or show is inaccurate and invite people to learn more. There are plenty of chapels or missionaries or the internets or whatever for the curious to learn more.
I think the Catholic Church would be well served by this approach by its membership.
I wish more people had your intellectual curiosity. Sadly, many of them take what they see at face value and never question it.
The depressing thing is that you can make up all kinds of medievalist conspiracy theories from established facts — see the characters in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. Dan Brown didn't need to distort the historical record in order to come up with a convincing conspiracy; he had to do it in order to come up with a way to discredit the Catholic Church.
He didn't just plagiarize, he had the balls to name a character after the people he was plagiarizing. There's a book about the Knights Templar by two authors named Leigh and Baigent; one of Brown's villains is named Sir Leigh Teabing.
Go down to the lowest common denominator. Don't come up to a level of accepted competence. Then again, they do…..the accepted level keeps going down.
[...] Ron Howard’s ‘Demon’ Defense Doesn’t Hold Water by Andrew Leigh [...]
If only he were the only actor to believe he is the roles he played. The problem is however, that people believe the actors are the characters and treat them like it.
Hanlon's Law: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Corollary: Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
But where does he present this? It is presented in the context of a novel! I have read both of these books and nowhere in the book or in any comments I have read or seen from Dan Brown does he present what is in either book as facts. Otherwise he would have published them as non-fiction history. He did not. For "DaVinci Code", he took a idea from dubious non-fiction book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and turned that idea into a novel. It makes an interesting read and presents some interesting ideas, but it is still fiction. For "Angels & Demons" he takes an old conspiracy theory of the Illuminati and, again, spins a yarn based on that conspiracy theory. The only reason I can think of that people are getting so worked up about these is to sell tickets and books. It is the same thing that happened with "The Last Temptation of the Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ" and you just play into it. Have you read "The Left Behind" series of books by Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins? It is very similar, but no one is getting all bent out of shape over the dubious facts in that series.
Somewhat heartening to see that there are professors that won't accept that.
Why would anyone base an opinion on additional information? That might require work.
Ron Howard lost me when he decided to routinely include blatant lies and character assasination of historical figures in his "fact based" films. He needs lies to make telling his "true story" work. But that seems to be typical of the left.
It certainly explains last November's election results.
The Inquisition was the direct result of Islamic invasions and occupations? Would you mind explaining why the Church then felt compelled to torture and murder all those Jews?
Until ultimately the highest academic award a student or teacher can get is "perfect attendance."
So true…as the image of Jessica Lange, Sally Field, and…the other one (can't remember) testifying before Congress regarding the family farm attests. Yes, these humble actressess fresh from the farm in their gingham homespun…
I had the following conversation many many times with some of my fellow Catholics and Christians who read or had seen and liked Da Vinci Code.
Them: "It really made you think about everything you learn about Christianity and wonder if its true! It's changing the way I look at my faith."
Me: "But it's totally false, there are several basic facts and timelines that are simply wrong [I then cite some of those facts]!"
Them:" But, that stuff doesn't matter; it's fiction!"
They would openly acknowledged it was all made up fiction, but the lies led them to question their faith and their view of the Catholic church or Christianity anyway. They refused to admit that Brown was writing essentially anti-Catholic propaganda, because it's "just fiction" and "it's a fun book."
The point here is I wouldn't care what the Da Vinci Code did to distort history except I experienced first hand several people who were questioning their faith (or being supported in already held doubts) because of the very book. But then when pointed out it was not at all true, said it didn't matter because it was "just fiction". They wanted to have the book be both an authoritative source and also "just fun fiction" at the same time. Authoritative when they drew conclusions from it, but fiction when I tried to argue with them about why they couldn't base any conclusions from the book. That's changing goal posts, or pulling the ball away from the kicker at the last minute.
I'm not looking forward to having the same conversations all over again when Angels and Demons comes out.
You guys know it's fiction, right? And not very good fiction at that.
You guys know it's fiction, right? And not very good fiction at that.
You forgot the biggest offender of all "Titanic." I could go on all day about that tripe…
At least the visuals were excellent, but the dialog and subplot did not rise to the level of a Lifetime Made for TV movie.
Sorry, Hollywood – got other more important things to do than pay attention to "Angels & Demons." Go spin your pitiful lies on someone who cares.
Indeed, that's what'll happen with Angels & Demons too, a book I read when it first came out mainly because I needed something to kill time on long flights. That's where all of the arguments of "you know it's fiction right?" don't hold water, because it's sensationalism, something that gets picked up by History and Discovery and repeated until you want to slam your face through a cheese grater. Sure they may give a clue it's sensationalist, but they'll still roll the hordes of Templars out as often as possible.
I bow to your excellent verbosity.
When the book first came out, Borders quoted Brown as saying that, aside from the main characters and their adventures, all the historical data contained in The Da Vinci Code is historically accurate. They've since redesigned their website and that section has been removed, so I can't give you the link. But in an interview with Matt Lauer on July 9, 2003, Lauer asks Brown how much of the story is true. His answer? "Absolutely all of it. Obviously Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societiesall of that is historical fact." On Brown's website, in the FAQ section, one of the questions is: SOME OF THE HISTORY IN THIS NOVEL CONTRADICTS WHAT I LEARNED IN SCHOOL. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE? His answer: Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?. That's it. That's the whole answer. Basically, if what you hear in your history class tells you something different than what I wrote, why should you believe it?
My wife asked a friend of hers what he believes. He said, "Read DaVinci Code."
That sadness aside, its obvious only deluded True Code Believers can give a hearty "amen!" to a movie that spends its whole length disproving the divinity of Jesus but in the end claims His female descendant is divine…because she's a descendant of Jesus, who wasn't divine.
Excellent theology, that.
I agree with you Lawhawk but it does seem that Brown really has some sort of axe to grind. I'm half expecting him to come out with "The Protocols of the Elders of the Holy See" or something. And I'm only half joking there. When it comes to mixing fact and fiction and sensationalism, it can be a dangerous thing, especially when a lot of people that read and follow don't bother to separate the two.
Sorry, it was in June. I'm having trouble editing.
And therein lies the problem, there's nothing wrong with historical fiction, I'm a big fan of it (especially Bernard Corwall and Sharon Kay Penman) but when the author intentionally blurs the line between his pet theories and actual facts, then you have a problem. Even moreso when the History Channel will throw up 40 "documentaries" about the "real story behind…"
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was the book right? Didn't they actually sue Brown over that whole thing? My memory is hazy because I honestly didn't care enough to keep track of what happened.
You must know one of my law students at Loyola who called me Martin Lucifer.
Seriously, go to Brown's website and read the FAQs. His answers to the questions of accuracy and authenticity are either evasive like above "How historically accurate is history itself?" Or "The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me." So nowhere does he say or imply, "Come on, guys, it's just fiction, don't take it too seriously."
Well, we do grind up Muslim babies to make bread, and drink their blood at Communion, don't we?
I totally remember Bosom Buddies! That show was genius! But anyone remember "Mazes and Monsters," a tv movie about (gasp) the dangers of Dungeons and Dragons??
Hey we thought of that first!
I mean, um yeah, that's probably something he'd say…
Exactly, in my own personal opinion I believe that you could give Dan Brown a time machine and send him back to observe any historical incident he wanted to first hand, with a camera crew and he'd still come away with,"Now even though we saw this, what Really Happened was…"
Greater minds than yours have tried to disprove the Bible. Many became Christians in the process.
Go ahead. Don't simply state the Bible is fiction. Honestly try to *prove* the Bible is fiction. I dare you.
The first thing you need to do is read the Bible. Beginning to end. Have you done so?
Some. That was at UCO. I head from a friend at OU that it was required reading for one of their classes. So you never know.
Ok, lets see if I can make this clear. Dan Brown wrote a FICTION novel which means it does not have to be true or accurate. It is not a biography.
Unbelievable, if you don't wan to see the movie then don't.
The "church" didn't you freaking ignoramus. The civil authorities in Spain were the driving force. But I've long since realized the futility of trying to convince anyone ignorant of anything to expend effort on their own to remedy their ignorance. No skin off my nose!
Here's another gem from the FAQ section:
WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Hardly. In fact, I'm quite the opposite–more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, or many of the other "mysteries" that permeate pop culture. However, the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss.
The fact and truth about antimatter are not mutually exclusive; both can be true. The efficiency of antimatter production is a different animal than the energy released when it comes in contact with matter.
The double standards, the lack of historical knowledge and then the pedestrian writing of these two garbage books doesn't shock me. Look here: I had a conversation about the problems facing our country the other day and I brought up the fact that the Fed is printing a trillion dollars a month….without backing. Just printing whats obsetensibly PAPER. Anyway I brought up a historical parallel, the Weimar Republic and its problems with massive inflation. THe guy I was tlaking to said and I quote, well the Germans went from the Deutsch Mark to the Euro. I was shocked. This is the lack of the leftists knowledge. We expect them to be able to keep up in a debate. To have some knowledge base. But they don't. My eyes were WIDE opened after that. The fact Brown just writes this garbage without historical knowledge and bigotry is par for the course.
In Hollywood, is there some sort of barometer of success, or age requirement, for when one becomes deranged and filled of arrogance? During the campaign, I could not believe when Opie dredged Andy Griffith out of the home to tout the fortunes of an Obama presidency. It was sad, and now I have trouble watching the old Griffith show because of it. Talk about taking a bomb to good memories and flushing them down the crapper. Shut up and act – or direct.
Not that I'm defending Brown, but if people don't question it, whose fault really is that? We have too many passive people, too much dumb-downed education, and not a lot of curiosity to do much reading beyond the walls of a formal classroom. That's not everybody, but it's too many people who let others think for them.
I sure do. Tom Hanks went off the deep end in that one.
so the man believes his own hype, i'm not too worried about it.
I'm always curious when the "turn the other cheek" verse is quoted what you might make then out of St. Paul asserting his rights as a Roman citizen. Clearly, context matters, and though I don't like Donohue either – his Lara Flynn Boyle attack was very shallow IMO – I think there is a need for what he's doing on some level given how anti-Christian society is these days.
Those didn't name real people/historical figures that anyone knew anything about, so no harm done. But I love Bernini's work, and I'm not happy to hear how his life story has been factually tampered with, for example. Public figure vs. unknown somebody.
Did you happen to catch it in the prime time press conference on Wednesday when the President says….'the most challenging part of being the President See…."
I think he's hinting at his next move.
Wrong. Better recheck your history books. THe church championed free marriage and equality between men and women over and against European paganism for 2000 years, and even Asian converts noted how much better women were treated in Christianity than in their native faiths.
Ah another stepping stone on the road to Emperor of the Universes (Known and Unknown) eh?
See what happens when you forget you're not in the confessional? Now you know why we got rid of it.
A lot of people, and I do mean a lot, including college educated people, believe these books to be real in spirit: meaning the Catholic Church is evil and has hidden the true history of the world.
For everyone who says this is just fiction, if someone makes a blockbuster movie about how Jews control the world and made up the Holocaust, will you blow it off as just fiction? Or would you think the producers and writers were anti-Semitic and intentionally lying about reality to futher their agenda? Would it change your mind if casual acquaintances read the books/saw the movies and believed them to be somewhat true?
It's one thing to be negative towards something, even outright hatred is fine by me. But when people lie and pass their lies off as truth, something else is afoot.
I'm just glad I never had to play this kid at Stratego. His Earth Czars would have taken all my generals and colonels.
The Obama ad he & Andy did was creepy !
Okay, now I'm really depressed. What class was this?
Yes, except it means the whole "it's just fiction" argument for quelling criticism loses water when you consider that the author doesn't consider to be fiction.
She didn't specify, but she said the prof's reason was because "this is the Bible belt and you people need to open your minds to new ideas, so read the book and write a paper from it."
Actually, it's going to be fun hearing from the Catholic bashers who just luuuved "The Da Vinci Code" and tried to say Brown's book and the movie was factual explain the factual basis behnd the anti-matter plot line in "Angels and Demons". They might as well be trying to explain to you why one of those Star Trek episodes with a time travel into the 20th Century plot was factually accurate.
Look, I read the DaVinci Code and rather enjoyed it, sort of like cotton candy; lots of fluff and it melts away pretty fast. Between reading serious history books, fluff like that is a relaxing interlude. The problem is that it fits right in with the Progressive Agenda, i.e. Securalize our society, demonize religions, and have the Federal Government control our lives. The Hollywood Elite promote that agenda, which is why they choose to make movies from really poor books, but ones from which their agenda can be promoted. What you need to do is what I do. Don't put a nickel in their pockets. Opie, Hanks, Penn, Streisand, etc. don't realize that what they do in life is really dependent on the good will of the people who buy the movie and concert tickets. If we just ignore them, they'll have to stop making these movies because the "suits" in Hollywood do demand a certain profit.
I for one enjoy William Donohue's comments. I am sick and tired of Roman Catholic representatives being "so soft spoken and kind" so that they appear "spiritual". That's okay most of the time, but Donahue makes me shout "all right", at least somebody is getting fired up about defending our beautiful faith.
I suppose those women were just minding their business when a stork dropped another baby on them. In any case, the Church has never physically stopped anyone who really wanted birth control from getting it. And who treats women worse, a Church that insists motherhood should be revered or liberal men who only want to use women for a good time without any of the inconveniences?
LOL! I remember that one!
How exactly is it that the removal of religion creates a society with "no morality, no basic beliefs except what the state & science believes are eternal truths, and no traditions to defend itself against progressive-socialist ideal"?
If that were the case, then you would have to be able to argue that religion is an unwavering pillar of morality which is FAR from truth. One glance at history reveals some of the worst atrocities have all been "in the name of God".
I am in no way trying to defend Angels & Demons because Brown is a terrible writer. Let's just not pretend that some "machine" is trying to take away your religion because the NWO is all about Socialism. I
If a corporation fearing lefty got on here and babbled about Halliburton and the US Gov't instituting the NWO, they'd be ridiculed to no end. But an atheist fearing righty talks about the media taking away their religion to usher in the NWO and they're cheered…?
I don't know about the movies (didn't see'em), but I read the Da Vinci Code all those years ago. The problem is that on page one of the book Brown states that every detail regarding historical dates, documents, and locations, etc. is COMPLETELY accurate, and that is the problem…
OK, I stopped at the spoiler alert (despite reading the book), but damn, it's a fiction book. Good golly, get over it. Fact check?!?! Are you serious? Uh…we can't get dinosaur blood out of amber, but that was still an entertaining book…(and movie)
That'll be a tough sell out in the Midwest this year. I've had it from no less than three sources, one of them pretty left, that they're not sure spring is coming what with it being May and the outside temp being only in the 50s today with endless rain for the last couple of weeks.
My understanding of historical fiction is that you take a true setting and stay true to it, but the fiction comes from your characters and how they interact with that setting. If you alter your setting factually in a major way by altering the dates, times and outcomes of major events then you aren't writing a historical fiction. What you have then is an alternate history.
I refused to read Angels and Demons after reading Code. The book was an insult to my intelligence. What a waste of time. The writing was so bad. The historical and artistic references were unoriginal. While I will admit an underlining contempt for Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular in the book and movie (which I saw, against my better judgement), the real offense is the total lack of creativity. No wonder Howard went back for seconds.
Not only that but he'd have demanded you remove all your Spies because that's just not how civilized people play. I loved Stratego when I was a kid, I even had the electronic version too.
And you just know whenever he played Risk he was one of those schmucks that would just sit on New Guinea and build up a massive force in Australia and do absolutely nothing else while everyone else was busy, you know playing the game, then when everyone was all tired and drunk he'd cackle and start running the board.
No it doesn't. These are still works of fiction. Just because Brown finds the topic "too significant for [him] to dismiss," it is still just conjecture. And why would someone write a novel about something that they did not find compelling? I find the topic compelling myself. Just like I find Carl Sagan's novels compelling. But it is still fiction.
Exact same formula in all three books.
I agree. It's like the old saying goes, "knowledge is power". Many people don't know history and therefore can easily be swayed by titilating little "the names have been changed but the events are true" fiction stories. I'm Catholic, and I've known fellow Catholics who've read Brown's books and considered leaving the church! The worst lies are those that are wrapped in truth. How's the average joe to know what's real and what's not?
I want a good movie based on actual historical facts, and when the author diverges for 'artistic license' from history he's humble enough to admit it instead of trying to snow people or engage in standard shifting fast talk. Once upon a time authors spoke like that. Dan Brown is a step down in accuracy, and another step down in humility. He needs to step up, admit he's a anti-Catholic potboiler propagandist with a formula.
But then the money spent on him might go to an actual good movie, and we can't have that.
It would certainly rid the world of Dan Brown in a hurry
[...] Ron Howard: It’s quite a coincidence that just as the Da Vinci code was cracked to reveal that Opie Cunnigham is in league with the Illuminati to bring down the Catholic Church, nay, to destroy the very foundation of Western society and its [...]
For all those who think these books are only fiction and it won't be taken seriously, I have a question. What if a writer decided to tell your family story and twisted the facts and made it seem you were having sex with you own children? It's the same idea. Once published, fiction stated as if fact using fabricated dates and incidents becomes fact to those who can't tell the difference because of the effect of the printed word. You know, sorta like all liberals and the New York Times….
Oh my goodness!!! What part don't you undestand about FICTION. FICTION does not have to be FACTUAL or TRUTHFUL. If you want a good movie based on actual historic facts then watch the HISTORY CHANNEL and not anything by DAN BROWN. You don't have to spend your money on the movie.
It is ignorance like this that causes these problems.
I agreed with you until your last sentence. Again Brown wrote a fictious novel – hence does not have to be factual.
http://www.cafepress.com/solrac
Someone said up-thread what if the book/movie were about Muslims. Well we have an example Salmon Rushdie’s, “Satanic Verses” this man is still in fear of his life, Theo VanGogh murdered for his film, “Submission.” Brown and Howard and Hanks would have a fatwa on their a$$es so fast they’d be hiding in a basement with massive security. Christian’s are simply an easy target no threat, so far. I wont be seeing the movie these creeps are on the boycott list.
I agree.
http://www.cafepress.com/solrac
After "The Da Vinci Code" came out how many dozens of "The True Story/Behind/Beyond/OMG We Can Cash in on 'The Da Vinci Code'" sort of "documentaries" appeared on the History channel? I lost count there were so many of them, and what happens when your generally not historically schooled person tunes in and sees that on something called The History Channel? Yeah they think it's fact because,"Well I saw it on The History Channel so it has to be true!"
I'm not a Christian but I know sensationalist BS when I see it, and that's what Brown peddles. You're completely right on the reasons they don't make books/movies about the "truth" about Islam too, it's verified fact they'll kill you or attempt to for "blasphemy." Having said that, "The Satanic Verses" is about the dullest book I ever tried to read, maybe Brown could punch it up some, well if he gets over that whole liking his head where it sits thing that is.
(disappearing post thing yet again)
First lets separate the two because they are two different issues. "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction hence it does not have to be factual!.
I did not watch any of "The True Story/Behind/Beyond/OMG …." so I can not answer to any of these shows. If the shows presented itself as NON-FICTION then debating the facts make sense.
For the "Da Vinci Code" it is fiction and there should be no debate.
http://www.cafepress.com/solrac
Liberals are physical, moral and intellectual cowards.
Agreed, it doesn't have to be factual. But when the author comes out and gives a bunch of winks and pseudohistorical theories when he's asked about the inspiration or historical research for the story, then it's an issue.
I avoid the History Channel like the plague anymore, I just know they're going to have a 4 hour special on The Truth About Time Travelling Maya Templars from Another Dimension sometime soon, but the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people who are mildly interested in history do watch it, when they see specials about a work of fiction presenting "facts" on the backstory, that's where the problem lies.
I'll give you the right Pill for birth control Here's an aspirin. Keep it tightly clenched between your knees. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and that includes the consequences.
There have been plenty of Hollywood movies blasting Islam and Moslems over the last 30 years or more.
Also, anti-matter is a great "energy source", the problem is that we don't have it. It's not efficient to produce anti-matter just to use it to make energy, just like its not efficient to do with ANYTHING.
Oil is a good energy source, but if you had to produce it from all its components it would be a hugely inefficient process that would take far more energy to make than could be had from burning, but that's just the laws thermodynamics at work, which Dan is aware of.
Also, I am a Catholic and realize that this is a work of fiction meant to entertain. I don't trust Tom Clancy or any other author at the word either when it comes to science.
And the Catholic Church does have a history of violence and murder. It also admittedly has a huge problem with its spiritual leaders molesting young boys and a long history of bishops, cardinals, and Pope ignoring the problem of Catholic Church sponsored pedophilia.
And yes, Islam is bad. Judiasm is bad. Even the supposedly peaceful Buddhists are bad.
They are human, they all use religion to justify or facilitate their misdeeds.
I read Angels and Demons before Davinci came out. I never read or saw that, and wouldn't, after reading A & D. I took the book as it was, not knowing anything about what was soon coming with DaVinci. My overwhelming feeling throughout the book was pretty simple. I thought, wow, this sucks. Even if you discount the religious and historical errors and inanities, it is just a convoluted mess. Not my thing, at all. I was genuinely surprised Davinci was such a big hit.
Did you all forget the part where these books and the movies spawned from the books are FICTION?
Actually, I read recently that the average reading comprehension grade level for most Americans is a 6th grade level. Just gives ya goose bump, now don't it?
I like it, when does it hit theaters?
It's not the grinding up of Muslim babies to make bread and drink that keeps me in the Baptist Church. It's all that kneeling, ya see. Rough on my knee cartilidges.
That is because he is novelist and not a historian…
I lost count of how many knuckleheads I know in Hollywood who have some vendetta going on with the Catholic church. OTOH, there are many ardent Catholics in Hollywood. There are also fakes like the Governor, who would stand outside the church in Santa Monica some times as people were coming out so it would look like he'd been there. And then there are creeps in the church like Cardinal Mahoney – just about anyone who knows anything in LA knows what he's about. So all this ignores what Jesus was all about, what good the Catholic church has done for millenia, and concentrates on made-up crap. That's easy, cowardly, and Jesus doesn't come at you with a sword and try to cut your head off. Brown, Howard, Hanks – jerks.
I hope you aren't referring to me when you say "atheist fearing" because I am neither religious nor atheist fearing. I am merely stating my beliefs. I do believe that without a solid religious foundation, on which to base morals and values then we as a people may as well be rock pounding neanderthals. There needs to be some sort of common sense guidlines to start out with, after that we can decide for ourselves if we NEED to continue along that same starting point or veer from it. That doesn't necessarily mean that we stop following a moral and just path.
Yes, it was 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' that sued Dan Brown for plagiarism. That lawsuit ended badly for HBHG – not only was Brown found overwhelmingly NOT guilty of plagiarism but HBHG's authors were hit with a massive fine for bringing the lawsuit in the first place. That fine literally bankrupted the both of them. The bitter irony is that lawsuit was brought by the HBHG authors because they felt that 'Da Vinci Code' had deprived them of profits. In reality, however, 90% of the people who bought the HBHG book only did so because it was mentioned in the 'Da Vinci Code' ; ergo, the HBHG authors owed their millions in royalties to 'Da Vinci Code'. Talk about biting the hand that fed you.
History is written by the victors ………
and then it is rewritten by liberals every five years to suit whatever agenda needs backing up…
Three planets are the closest, then one star, then the other planets in our solar system and then the remainder of the stars and planets are more or less the same distance depending.
But it varies with orbits.
You cannot cite wikipedia however you can use what is wrtten there to lead you to a source that you can cite if the authors of that particular post are kind enough to cite their references. You should however go to the actual source for your material.
Just because some of the data is bad does not mean it can't be a helpful tool if you are wise enough to docuble check and use it right.
My Dad taught mathematics at a community college before he moved into administration. He use to bring the papers home to grade. He told the kids that the family pet rabbit graded the papers as a joke.
My Dad said that because the high schools would pass kids along and not fail them they would get out with a high school diploma and the faculty at the community college would have to set them up in remedial classes to reteach the basics of the 3rd through 10th grade in one semester.
This is the liberal way 12 years of indoctrination and and then one year to force yourself to learn what they should have taught you all along becasue wow you need an education to have a career.
You're free to believe that Christianity is "a religion based on a book of fiction", and I'm free to think that you're an idiot, and an intellectually lazy one at that.
If you were paying attention at all to the post, you might have figured out that what we Catholics object to is the fact that Dan Brown is claiming that A&D and DVC are "fiction based on proven historical fact," when they are clearly fiction based upon fiction posing as "facts".
The "facts" about The Church claimed by Brown are on par with the "facts" about Jews in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a 19th Century concoction of the Czarist secret police which is wildly popular today in the Palestinian territories and much of the Islamic world. Spiteful fiction which masquerades as fact must be confronted.
And what if I wrote an article of fiction in the same vein as brown but decided to accuse Judaism of doing some terrible things when I know that historically there was no way Judaism was responsible. What if I wrote a book explaining that wiccans were actually killing and drinking peoples blood in Salem during the witch trials and this led to hysteria even though I know this was not true. Would it be just a work of fiction or would I be a bigot or an anti-semite.
Well said and I don't disagree. I was aimed at Mez. I never really thought about religion being necessary to serve as a way to establish the guidelines and I can see how that might the case. I think Brown and his like are short sighted in their criticism of a single religious institution. I believe all have shown their thirst for being the "dominant religion" and the one that is "right" throughout history. Now their respective extremists cause more harm than is allowable, yet these institutions do tolerate them and their actions – if not outright calling for it in some. I believe fervently in individual freedoms and do not wish to portend that I have knowledge that renders anyones faith null. I simply do not agree with mez's assertion that faith and morality always go hand in hand.
As for removal of religion and socialism, that just doesn't follow. Jesus was a socialist not a republican, democrat, capitalist, fascist or anything else. As bato65 said "That's the goal of cultural Marxism. Tear down religion (in this case christianity) and replace it with a secular religion more to their liking.". Jesus did exactly this to Judaism, storming the temples and condemning the establishments actions and asking his followers to give up all they possess and follow his new way.
In socialism in action means that someone has to be in charge. 100% of the time, those in charge will screw it up for everyone…whether power hungry, misguided or incompetent.
With regard to this…….
Spartacus, Braveheart, Ben Hur, Glory and Schindlers List are what I would call nuetral. The inaccuracies whatever they are were not couched in such a way that an ignorant viewer would despise some group more than they already are.
Nixon, JFK are political movies and the inaccuracies are placed specifically to influence someone's political view point. You leave out Good Night and Good Luck which is equally bad on McCarthyism.
Have you gone into a Barnes and Noble lately and seen the books on display. Everyone seems to prominately promote athiesm but not just athesim, evangelical atheism. The idea that it is not OK for you to be an atheist but you have to convince everyone else of it too.
One of the ways they do this is to state that all those chirstians believe the earth is 6000 years old and what have you. What we know of the way liberals work. What is a popular fad today will somehow become an excuse for a law tomorrow.
Dan Brown's book is being promoted by these movies for political reasons. The catholic church disagrees with too many liberal core notions of free sex, condoms and safe coathangers for all. So attack it. The protestants receive the same grief mind you but because you do not have the same centralized authority as us the tactic is diferent.
" One glance at history reveals some of the worst atrocities have all been "in the name of God".
Wrong. The worst atrocities are not done in God's name, but those who despise and deny God's name. Hundreds of millions of people died in the last century alone by atheist governments. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min – those were just a few. No one 'in the name of God' ever brutally tortured and killed as many people as did atheistic men and governments in the last century.
Your problem is you just glance at history, hon. You have to delve into history deeply, not glance. You will find in all of history that those who commit 'atrocities in the Name of God' actually have very little to do with God at all.
But totally agreed on the assesment of Brown's work. A teen friend of the family said of Davinci Code "I'd rather read the ingredient label on a shampoo bottle. Much more exciting stuff." Brown is a crappy writer.
This would be a good metaphor if the TV shows claim was the person's depicted as felons in criminals in this movie are true only the actual crimes are made up.
Then again the above is not a good metaphor because the show would be admitting they are making up the slander. They would have to simply put on a show that said John SO and SO of 123 Main Street Anytown USA committed the following crimes in Pittsburg.. Then Joe So and So would have to spend the next 10 years of his life trying to convince people he had never been to Pittsburgh.
Against a person this would be liable (or slander not sure where a movie falls, is the script liable and the movie slander??) but against an institution it's just a film. Hmmm ………
Don't give us ideas ………..
Let's put them in the comfy chair.
Thank you for your insite but I have to politely disagree on the religion VS Socialist argument.
I believe that socialists of today, not in Jesus' time but of TODAY, have the beliefs that once you cut out religion and demoralize the masses then it's easier to get them to follow along like good little sheep. Without religion there is no basis for the constitution and once they get the religion out of EVERY argument then they can trample upon the constitution and throw out every argument FOR it.
And historical studies never really end. I'm only *just* beginning to learn about the more modern era. I'"ve always been more interested in ancient/medieval/Renaissance histories than the 18th century to ours.
The more I read about the last three centuries, and most especially the last 100 years, the more sorrow I feel. The more disconnected from God the culture gets, the more death at human hands it sees. Read details of the glorious 'French Revolution' for example. As atheism moves in, brutalities increase.
I once read:
In India the average family was 4.2 children. The Indian government wanting to curb population growth started a campaign of contraceptive. After all was said and done the next study showed 4.3 children. Finally they looked into the reasoning and determined that economically because children worked for a living as well as parent a family needed to be 4.2 children in size to break even.
Handing out birth control does not necessarily affect birth rates.
That (and poking with the soft cushions) is the new liberal concept of enhanced interrogation techniques.
Opus Dei does not promote self flagelation and their members do not murder people.
It is slander for me to assert that this were so but not if I write a book about it.
In his book Dan Brown cites Catholic World News for their help in research among many other agencies and persons. According to Catholic World News no one at their agency had ever heard of him before the book.
So are these justified. This is not part of the fiction this is what he says is the reality of the research of his book to give it a weight it does not deserve.
So what you are stating is that Catholics should
1) Not care about what is said of them because assaults on one's good name and reputation don't matter
&
2) If they do attempt to correct the slandering lies told of them as murderers then well there is something wrong with them.
I worry about this because I am Catholic but others shoud worry about this for the same reason one should worry about people that deny the Holocaust. It is religious bigotry.
Ok, let's say someone makes a movie about Bill Clinton raping babies. Not a documentary… just a movie. No problem, right?
Being a person of middling smarts I already knew that Opus Dei is a benign organization and never believed Mary Magdalene had sex with Jesus or whatever. My aunt is a practicing Catholic and as far as I know she not only doesn't flagellate but she knows the earth is round, and I'm fairly sure she hasn't assassinated anyone lately. (Early 90's…I'm not so sure…there are a few unaccounted for weekends I've been meaning to discuss with her) I do sympathize with the reputation part–I am a proud USC alum and I really wish people would stop with that University of Spoiled Children crap–but Catholics have been dealing with blows to their reputation since that Gallileo business and more recently, the child sex scandal, and they seem quite able to shoulder the burden and move on. Intelligent people know this isn't the sum total of the Catholic experience–far from it. I guess I just treat a novel/movie with a lot less seriousness than some others seem to. It's a novel. It's temporary entertainment, not a shaper of my world view.
While it is accurate to hypothesize that the crusades would never have occured without the conquest and brutality of Muslim invasions, the barbarous treatment that was often meted out by the Crusaders to Eastern Christians, particularly in the Fourth Crusade, has been effectively whitewashed from most history books. Ditto for the staunchly Catholic Ustashe regime in the Balkans during WW2, which conducted its own "crusade" to convert or murder over half a million Orthodox Serbians, all with the endorsement of many Croatian clergy.
Bracing for the onslaught in five, four, three, two…
As an Italo American woman who KNOWS her people's true history and as a ROMAN Roman Catholic, I heartily concur with you BahiaBob. By the year 2000, we were past 700+ "it's only fiction" movies done in which at least one of the main characters is an Italian or Italian American who is mafioso. I am surprised Osama didn't try to pin 9/11 on us.
The problem is also the paucity of Italian Americans who know their true history is rivalled only by the puny numbers of Catholics who are actually educated and catechized in the Faith.
It BREAKS MY HEART how Opie turned out! The Catholic Church doesn't want us watching "Angels and Demons," nor did it want us to see "The DaVinci Code." So, as a devout Catholic, I have no intention to. I have studied the New World Order for many years now, as well as it's branches. The Illuminati is one of those branches. To blatantly twist history is, to me, shear laziness. As the person above wrote about the U.S. becoming a Socialist country; unfortunately, I could not agree more. May God have mercy on the souls of Brown, Howard and Hanks. What some people won't do for a buck!
Spare us the "Jesus was a socialist" nonsense. That canard has been played far too many times by the liberation theologians and other communists. Jesus was a religious leader who spoke frequently of rendering unto Caesar the things of this world, and unto God the things that are God's. He didn't expect everyone who heard the Sermon on the Mount to give up their lives and possessions, only those who would be His messengers on earth after He left.
His message was to the souls of men, not their physical possessions. He didn't "storm the temples," he cleansed The Temple. And as you said, He did condemn the "establishment" which had become a compromised tool of the Romans. Leftists love to quote scripture badly, and out of historical, religious and metaphorical context. You made some good points, but completely negated them by building your argument on the "Jesus was a socialist" hooey. He, like many Greek and Roman philosophers, condemned the love of money, not the money itself. Cupiditas radix omnia malorum est is a Roman saying, not a Christian one.
If "Dragnet" episodes had focused upon defaming target racial or religious groups with accusations of horrible crimes with the intent of inflaming public hatred and acts of violence against them, your comparison might be apt. As a Catholic, I don't find the "it's just fiction, lighten up" argument very compelling.
If it was someone defaming someone important to you, you'd feel differently.
It looks like everyone is bad except you and anti-fascist.
Everyone seems to prominately promote athiesm but not just athesim, evangelical atheism. The idea that it is not OK for you to be an atheist but you have to convince everyone else of it too.
Some aren't as secure in their faith as others, so other viewpoints need to be… reduced.
If Jesus was a socialist, why did he tell the Parable of the Ten Tallents? (Matthew 25:14-30)
Suspension of disbelief does not mean hanging it by the neck until dead.~Marion Zimmer Bradley
I think the conspiracy theories surrounding Dan Brown give him too much credit. He's an passable writer who has crafted books too sell by firing up the religious and anti-religion zealots.
Think about it: had anyone heard of the guy when he was writing techno thrillers?
My problem with Angles & Demons is how long the book is when it is suppose to take place over eight or twelve hours. Please.
That's strange, I'm not aware of any Hollywood movies since 1979 that blast Islam as a religion. Would you mind listing them, Simkatu? I'm genuinely curious.
When I reached the part about Hassassin, I knew what was coming. Back in 2005, I blogged about how bestselling spy novelist Vince Flynn couldn't get a deal for one of his books because of Hollywood political disagreements. He told Laura Ingraham one studio head read one book and said "I hated it! It was more Bush than Bush!" What took the cake was when a proposal was made to change Arab terrorists in one novel to … wait for it … FILIPINO terrorists. I am NOT making that up. http://lnsmitheeblog.blogspot.com/2005/07/popular...
I had barely heard of The DaVinci Code when ABC News did a ridiculous amount of publicity for the movie through stories on its newscasts. When Catholic defenders such as Donohue attacked Brown, Brown, in a videotaped snippet, said something in the realm of "Well, we're talking about these things, and that's good for religion." SAY WHAT? I thought, "Is that the best you got?"
Howard's response about Donohue not seeing the work he's criticizing is another popular dodge. Unless it's entirely unfaithful to the original, we know what it is. But if Donohue HAD seen it, I know what Howard's response would be: "Well, he saw it, and his faith is still intact, right? It didn't turn him into a doubter or an atheist." It's what porn producers used to do: Either say "You don't know what you're criticizing because you haven't seen it" OR "You saw it, but it didn't turn you into a sex maniac, did it?"
I don't like opie. I will never watch anything Howard produces or Hanks. Holly wood is dead to me.
[...] See Andrew Leigh at Big Hollywood, especially the part where Howard & Co. are trying to tamp down any offense taken by [...]
SPOILER WARNING
I was not nearly as upset by Dan Brown's abuse of the Church (probably just because as a Christian, I've become so accustomed to the insults that I've learned to ignore them) as I was by his shameful failure to demonstrate adequate research in Art History, especially considering that his main character is meant to be a world-renowned expert in iconography. As an Illustration Major in college, I had to take a few art history classes, but even without a terribly detailed knowledge of Bernini and DaVinci, I could pick out glaring inaccuracies in both books. Furthermore, the BIG REVEAL at the end of each books was so absurdly obvious that I felt my intelligence was insulted – (seriously , SPOILERS) I'm not claiming to be brilliant by any means, but come on: anyone with a high school education could see "Apple" coming a mile away. And Langdon wondering "WHATEVER CAN HE MEAN?" when the Camerlengo gets to shouting about "On this rock I shall build my Church….." HELLO? Study Western History much? Ever heard the religious justification for basing the Church in Rome?
Now I'm getting all worked up. Ugh. I won't be reading any more Dan Brown (nor seeing the movies based off his books) simply because I like a well-written mystery, and these are certainly not.
PS. It reminds me of the scene in Disney's "Atlantis" when the expert LINGUIST struggles with the pronunciation of the princess' name. Does common sense ever enter into the creation of these stories?
If you don't understand what is wrong and evil about this kind of movie, imagine a movie in which it is revealed that it really is true that Jews kill Christian babies at Passover to make matzo. And that they have a secret agreement with the Muslims to subvert and destroy democracy by paying for Islamic terrorism. And they have have been at this for 500 years. And realize that there bigots happy to believe all of it. This is exactly what Brown and his ilk are doing to Catholics. If you cannot see the problem, you need to get your moral senses examined.
Under normal circumstances (99% of anti-Christian books and movies) I agree with you – let them say what they want, the truth is elsewhere. But the sad, astonishing thing is that publicity hound Dan Brown (who would make Simon Cowell blush) gets on the talk shows and tells people his NOVELS are filled with FACTS ONLY. He presented DaVinci Code as historical fiction, and the media elites lapped it up as a chance to dig at the Catholic Church, and in fact all of Christianity. Ask around – not just your closest friends – and check out how many people who read DVC believe it as if it were a history book. Really! A sad commentary on our world, honestly.
[...] See Andrew Leigh at Big Hollywood, especially the part where Howard & Co. are trying to tamp down any offense taken by [...]
A friend of mine said he tossed "The DaVinci Code" aside by the time he reached page 10, not because of its anti-Catholicism, but because Brown's descriptions of Paris were messed up. My friend lived in Paris for many years and said Brown gives street directions that make no sense. It irritated him so much that he didn't want to read a book written by an author too lazy to consult a street map.
I stopped reading it because Brown is a horrifically bad hack writer. And he had better enjoy his fame now, because hack writers are forgotten the second they die. When's the last time you saw anybody reading Jacqueline Susan or Sheldon what's-his-name, both huge sellers in their day?
The Catholic Church will be around long after Brown and his works (and Opie and his works too for that matter) are long forgotten.
[...] See Andrew Leigh at Big Hollywood, especially the part where Howard & Co. are trying to tamp down any offense taken by [...]
You know what's great about America? Ron Howard can make any movie he wants as long as someone gives him the money to make it. Whether or not it's against his beliefs because it's all about the money. I in turn do not have to watch any movie that Ron Howard makes because he makes movies that I do not want to see.
I never had any delusion that Brown's work was grounded in any reality. But I think I have read 4 of his novels. The last was Angels & Demons. It came across as a rehash of "Da Vinci", even though it was written first. But if you ever want to understand the stupefying depths of Brown's idiocy, read Digital Fortress. If you know anything at all about current information technology you will find it laugh out loud funny.
One part of Angels & Demons that I liked was the murdered scientist who was said to be both devoutly religious and a leading researcher. Who would have thought that such a person could exist. Of course there is an attempt to make him look an idealistic fool. I did however find him to be a refreshingly un-stereotypical character, and maybe something Hollywood could further explore. I mean, think of the possibilities! A man who believes that a small glimpse of the hand of God can be seen through scientific discovery! Holy crap!
Dan Brown is one of the worst writers I have ever read. Usually a book written as badly as The Da Vinci Code would have been tossed long before its conclusion but due to "cultural" reasons (and to give Opie his chance), I finished it. If you're in search of some of the lamest dialogue ever put to paper, look no further. The movie was a little better but not much. I'll avoid this one like the plague. What is amazing, however, is people taking this junk seriously. Maybe they all secretly desire to be direct descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdelaine instead of merely children of God.
Bozell Column: Opie Gets Ugly
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2009/05...
"Give to Ceasar that which is Caesar's"
That is not the words of someone who supports an all powerful STATE. Lawhawk stated it but it bears repeating.
Jesus was an iconoclast that railed against government control and supported capitalism and freedom. He talked highly of merchants and the owners of farms (the productive engine of the 0 AD economy) and very lowly of tax collectors. Sounds like a conservative to me.
Shana,
More people have been murdered in the name of Atheistic Socialism in the 20th century than have been killed in the name of religion in the entire history of Mankind.
Hitler killed 6 million jews, even more slavs not to mention the death' from the war. The Stalin and Lenin pruges have killed what upward 100 million. More millions died in China in the great cultural revolution, the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia. On and on.
Given a socialist (FAscist or MArxist does not matter they are the same philosophy) and a religious zealot I'll take religion. For any athesit or Socialist to make this statement is Ludicrous.
Sorry not sure what that means……reduced.
I really don't understand it at all. If one doesn't believe in God what does it matter if others do or not but honestly you see these people on You Tube that are affected by it. Some of them are very reasonable and are doing little more than explaining their belief which is fine.
Then there are others like the Amazing Atheist guy making vlogs to attack anyone posting a beleif in God. I remember one guy who posted evolution videos who unformtunately got into a flame war with this guy because he had the audacity to call himself a theistic evolutionist.
It is really mind boggling to me but the attempt to push the issue propaganda wise is all too evident.. If you understand it let me know.
Was that before or after you gave him his grades.
How's that going for the Obama administration.
I don't think Spike Lee will agree to direct it.
Don't know the man personally but I get that feeling…………
Individualist,
Hitler, I left him out of the 'atheistic' mix because there is some evidence that he had some sort occult/pagan thing going on there, so how atheist he was as opposed to using it as a show – not sure. Haven't delved so deeply into his personal history just yet.
Still, if you want to be more accurate here with Hitler, you can easily say that more people died in the name of Adolph Hitler and the National Socialist Party than in the name of God in all of history, and you would be quite right.
I don't know I guess. The thing makes me angry. I don't care if Howard makes the film. I just want to make sure the nonsense gets answered. The historical facts do get answered but the bogotry behind this film does not. The problem is that too many people believe it becasue "it's in a movie".
Anti-Semitism got its foothold in pre Nazi Germany with nonsense similar to this. IT seems to me that Propaganda unanswered is Propaganda confirmed.
No its not fiction.
Books of Fiction admit that they are made up.
Books stating that they are the truth which are made up use another term, Propaganda.
Again,
If you place facts in a work of fiction and state that the fact are all researched and true then this par t of your book is not fiction, it is propaganda. If your facts are inaccurate or deliberate lies as it is clear Brown is doing then it is libelous Propaganda.
Brown states the facts in his book are true, he cites Catholic Groups as helping him in his research who have had nothing to do with the book. This is not acceptable.
As a fuel sorce however both are related.
Hey man Star Fleet is real.
Spock really did go back in time to see Al capone, It happened……..Obama the Man!
How's that …… To much Fanboyism.
and the One…….
Course their real religions is that of the OLD ONES………….
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/cthulhu3.h...
Hmmm…. Well, I've searched and did not find anywhere where Dan Brown stated it was factual or his basis for the book. I have found were other people have stated the book is a fact which I believe can lead to a cult. Regardless of what anyone says the question is "are you personally aware of the facts". If so, you shouldn't be stressing over the movie or book. I saw the movie (and I don't like Ron Howard but I love Tom Hanks) and I thought it was great. But it was just a movie – not a documentary. Did you ever see "The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)". People were outraged by this movie and it is just a movie.
Fact is if you are Christian read the Bible and understand it yourself. Don't let someone tell you what it means.
If you don't like a movie don't see it.
http://www.cafepress.com/solrac
Reduced means removed, essentially.
If you were wondering who I was thinking of when I said "aren't as secure in their faith" I definitely meant the evangelical atheists you were referring to. Keep wondering when the Great Crusade to "Save" people from Religion will start. (That is, "imitate the Inquisition with utter zealousness and completely without any sense of irony" start. Not playing games with the courts.)
I'm actually less worried about Christians. They tend to know enough history to realize it's a bad idea and will likely not follow a zealot trying to repeat it… or will even move to stop it. Evangelical atheists will keep insisting "it's different" and go right down the same path the Christians did way back when. Because it's for everyone's own good, after all.
A few unconnected thoughts:
Doesn't anyone remember the folks traveling around England trying to find the "locations" mentioned in the Di Vinci Code? These folks are either weak in their faith, or uneducated. The get their news from People and US magazine
Howard changed a character name that sounds Islamic and casts a white guy. Way to stand up for what you believe in!
Opie says the Vatican got in his way. The Vatican is not in the movie business so they have no motivation to be cooperative
I tried to read the DiVinci Code. Couldn't get half-way thru it. Historical Romance novels do a much better job of research.
A new movie by Opie and Hanks could be about the question about the citizenship of President Obama. His family says he was born in Hawaii, but his Grandmother says he was born in her village in Africa. If the President would just give these folks his REAL birth certificate this would all go away.
See: bits and pieces of truth intertwined with complete crap, but there are people who really believe this. They are spending their own money to go to court to pursue the issue.
Holly Berry said- "The best thing for us to dao as christians is lead by example and tho this flick misrepresents the facts, that doesn't mean it can't be used as a basis of talking points. my husband isn't a believer, but he'll watch these flicks and of course have tons of questions. I use those times to discuss and if I don't have the answers we look them up together."__I agree, which is what we're doing. But what the author really wants is for roughly a billion Catholics to leave the Church, read his books and watch his movies. The Church should point out the lies that the author tries to spread by dishonestly calling it historically "accurate". He was already rich before the movies so I doubt he needed the extra negative publicity, and the fact he gets so upset (along with Howard) that the Church would respond with facts, and that millions of catholics and not a few protestants refuse to see his films or read his books tells me this ain't the publicity he wants.
You do know how to read the comments, right? The comments that show how Brown claims certain parts of his books are facts but is actually lying? Ring a bell, or did you just ignore all that?
If you don't like this post or the comments that show how Brown lied, don't read them.
Obama should make Brown one of his speech writers.
Obama should hire Brown as a speech writer. Afterall, it's just fiction dressed up in "facts" that are actually lies. They should get along great.
I love idiots like you. You are the reason why Obama was elected.
Ok, again – I'll use your words "you place facts in a work of FICTION" which means they are NOT TRUE because it is FICTION. Wow, the education system in America really sucks or you guys are about to drink to kool aid as they did in Jamestown.
I'm just tossing this out…some might say using pure logic is how humans should advance. That being said if we did that we'd be ok with killing the "not perfect" or the "too old" because they are not useful to a Utopian society because they contribute nothing to the greater good.
If we head down that path then I feel we've truly lost our humanity. I think religion grounds us in the sense that there is something higher than just us as a physical being, that we have worth more than what we are able to provide to society in a physical sense.
there were between 3000 – 30,000 executed during the Inquisition. OMG!!! Actually thats about 10-100 per year. Or 1 to 10 per month throughout Spain. Why? The Inquisition could only prosecute Christians. Or rather, those who claimed Christianity but were perhaps Muslim terrorists or Jews pretending to be Christian. The Inquisition had learned from 700 years of Islamic occupation and Jewish arrivals, of the terror, torture, harems, and brutality of the Islamic regime, and was so fearful of Islam they, well, fought fire with fire. Remember, this was the Dark Ages… no UN, no media, no cops, just gang warfare. Before the Islamic invasion, Spain consisted of a bunch of christian villages, spitting and spatting at each other, but never a vast slave army of extremists. Also… the largest number of volunteer Crusaders came from France… the place those Islamic armies were first defeated at the Battle of Tours. They knew full well the horrific terror Islam put on Christians. The Jews just chose the wrong side.
Lets see some real courage, Ron. Make a movie about islam and their wonderful practices. Hollywood cowards know that christians will complain, but Muslims may do something about it.
[...] (D)Opie may have the “aw shucks” demeanor that makes him hard to dislike, but this film finally pushes me to wish to boycott any more anti-Catholic trash this guy insists on directing. Worst of all, Dan Brown, the writer of this dreck, can’t even get his facts right! [...]
Well all I can say is
God or if you prefer the Randomness of Quantum Mechanics save us all from Zealotry.
Thanks for clarifying.
There is another one called "The Body" set in Palestine that is equally ridiculous. Essentially archeologists find the mummified body of Jesus Christ. So the Israelis and the Muslims go off on this secret spy war attempting to steal the body which is protected by some UN force. The assumption is that the Catholic Church is rich and all powerful and will do anything to cover this up so which side gets "The Body" will rule Jerusalem.
I don't know if the Bible is true . If it were proved untrue (Jesus never died, had a lovely daughter in Egypt, was really a space alien, whatever) it would not affect my Faith. I have decided that the Church's teachings for the most part are good and valid. So what does he myth matter. God is more than the stories (True or Not).. Perhaps the myth's are just God's way to communicate to our stubbornly blind minds. I certainly ain't the expert on it, but I still believe.
The man states several of the key facts are true. They are not. This is a lie. Ah I forgot you’re a liberal. Which definition of “is” were you using?
But then again who am I to judge I am not smart and well educated like you.
I guess I'll go to drink to kool aid as they did in Jameston or was that
Go drink the Kool-Aid as they did n Jonestown.
If you are going to insult someone's intelligence it would behoove you to review your post for proper grammar, spelling and accuracy of your content. While normally one is given grace on a blog for such mistakes not when you are being insulting and obnoxious.
Again FICTION is not facts. I have not seen anywhere where he stated it was a fact. In addition, it does not make sense why people are getting bent out of shape over a movie/book. Don't read the book or watch the movie.
Though you try to be eloquent in your writing you have no citations or sources. If you know that "The Da Vinci Code" is not based on facts it shouldn't get your panties all bunched up.
youre a retard (yes, a politacally incorrect term for mentally disabled)…it's a work of fiction, it's pop idolatry and you're a loser for even engaging in this type of argument. go eat yourself retart.
[...] Andrew Leigh writes. [...]
The left attach on the traditional American values is the crap that gave obama to us.
opie is an a$$hole
…he merrily re-writes history because he doesn't want to confuse his viewers with facts…
Wait…what?
Two words: Salman Rushdie.
Anti-Semitism got its foothold in pre Nazi Germany…
Godwin's Law strikes again!
[...] more information about the inaccuracies in Angels and Demons, check out Ron Howard’s ‘Demon’ Defense Doesn’t Hold Water by Andrew Leigh and Mendacity & Whitewash: The Slanderous Anti-Christian Falsehoods of ‘Angels & [...]
Hehehehe…
Yeppers, that is how Hirst explained his conflating the two sisters of Henry VIII into one vaguely Italian-looking chick with a deep tan and no inhibitions. His rationalization was that he didn't want to CONFUSE his viewers. See, because early Renaissance folk didn''t have enough imagination to make up cool [weird] names for their kids, Bluff King Hal was saddled with both a sister and a daughter yclept Mary. And since the Great Uneducated (aka the American viewing public) doesn't know enough history to tell the difference, Hirst blithely proceeded to wipe out — er, WRITE out – the royal line of Scotland and a goodly chunk of the Tudor family, not to mention having Faux Mary smother the King of Portugal with a pillow! And no mention of the King of France. *sigh* It was SUCH a travesty of history.
The movie (which I saw last night) retains Brown's utterly ridiculous use of Bernini's sublime "Ecstacy of St. Theresa" by showing us a made-up fictional version of it. Brown's novel has the angel's spear pointing out across Rome in the direction of the Piazza Navona to furnish the plot's need to get to the Fountain of the Four Rivers. But, as anyone who knows this work will see, the angel's spear is pointed down, toward the saint. If Langdon were to follow its direction, he'd have to burrow into and under the streets of Rome! So what does the movie show us. The sculpture group with the angel's arrow elevated. And these guys claim to be artists?
[...] Stress test mess – Equity Private, Dealbreaker AIPAC case dropped – Jonathan Tobin, contentions Ron Howard’s ‘Demon’ defense – Andrew Leigh, Big Hollywood Miller on Obama and Tea Parties – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air Souter and [...]
IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE LIST AT THIS WEB SITE, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/870845/p... you are a target. See how many have died on the list or how many have a serious illness like cancer. MANY IN THIS MOVIE IS ON THIS LIST, you NEED TO WARN THEM.
A satellite I call the Death Star is the weapon used. This satellite is new to the sky or it present position which is south at about 35 degrees, seen at midnight. Although on 10/2/09 at 9:00 P.M. I have observed its position being more SW. It rises in the East and moves to the west. Sometime it is along beside the moon. It is the brightest star in the sky at night and can be seen even under city lights.
This Satellite has electronic weapons aboard that can kill. I call this satellite the Death Star since I believe it has killed. From what I have observed it is most effective at killing when the victim is outside in the open. This is where I have encountered the most dramatic effects. It is also where I have notice others have died of a heart attack, like John Hughes (8-6-09) while walking and Jake Logue (8-21-09), while on the football field playing for Sullivan South High School.
IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE LIST AT THIS WEB SITE, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/870845/p... you are a target. See how many have died on the list or how many have a serious illness like cancer. You NEED TO WARN THEM. FOR MORE INFO SEE http://fact7b.com/deathstar.htm
You must be logged in to post a comment.