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
Got a Tip?
626 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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.