Angels & Demons and the Hollywood Magisterium
by Joe EscalanteI didn’t get permission to see Ron Howard’s “Angels and Demons” film from anyone official but as a member of the media as well as the Catholic Church my gut feeling was that I should see it, but not pay for it. I wasn’t sure how I was going to pull that off because although the program I host on St. Joseph Radio is heard on EWTN, it’s really not on anyone in Hollywood’s radar, and my in-box at Indie 1031 has got Internet radio written all over it’s empty enclosure. Somehow I was invited to a screening at the ArcLight in Hollywood presented by Flemming’s Steakhouse. Perfect!
We could debate for a while whether A&D is really a movie at all or just a series of scenes with silly dialogue propelling an action filled scavenger hunt through Vatican City. Instead I will try to be as informative as I can about whether the movie is offensive, blasphemous, inaccurate, or just a joke; or all of those things like “The Da Vinci Code.”
Unexpected:
“Angels and Demons” is about a thousand times better than the “Da Vinci Code” as a film. Tom Hanks looks better and says less of those ridiculous revelatory lines at the end of every scene that make you want to punch him right in the character. It has its problems but it is not boring, doesn’t drag, and is a skillful mix of Indiana Jones type action set against a beautiful sacred backdrop.
Unexpected:
The Faithful depicted in the film were not ridiculed. The religion was not trivialized in the usual Hollywood manner. Howard used the visual and ritual majesty of the Catholic Church to its fullest. Vatican City is an awe-inspiring place and the film did little to damage the notion that membership in the faith is a serious privilege. It’s one of those films that after seeing, if I wasn’t a Catholic, I would be very jealous of all we have.
Expected:
Trite myths about the Church are perpetuated, of course. The blanket assertion that the Church has routinely suppressed science is nothing but myth. It’s laughable to people who know the truth. Even the case of Galileo, when fully studied, shows that the Church did more to advance the study of most sciences, especially astronomy, than any institution at the time. For some mind blowing elaboration on this fact, check out the summary of Dr. Thomas Wood Jr.’s “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.”
Expected:
Hollywood would not make a big film like this without a liberal message but even I couldn’t imagine Howard and author Dan Brown would go so far out of their minds to create this one. It’s amazing. The film starts with a Papal funeral celebrating the life of a “beloved progressive Pope.” The film then goes on to make the point that to avoid seeing the Church modernize, more traditional forces within the Church would torture and murder four Cardinals, kill about one million of the faithful, and destroy Vatican City.
That is the point of the story. The progressive Pope and the Godless Academic Robert Langdon are the heroes. The traditionalists (the enemies of change) are not just stubborn; they are murderous terrorists. It’s so outrageous it probably rises to the level of breaking both the First and Second Commandments. I don’t have the authority of absolution, but if I did. Howard’s penance would be to make a similar film dealing with “progressives” vs. “traditionalists” in the Muslim faith, and see how their modernizing is coming along when that film hits the streets.
Conclusion:
In “Angels & Demons,” Hollywood has embraced a lot of the beauty and reverence of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church but not the Magisterium itself. It has decided a new direction for the Church. Hollywood would like to make the Church into something acceptable to Hollywood, which is not surprising considering what Hollywood thinks about its role in shaping culture.
They are the wise. They will show us the way. If we listen, we can be Catholic AND popular in Hollywood. It’s the best of both worlds, right? Wrong. The well catechized know we must choose one or the other.
Solution:
If more films were made about the lives of the saints, heroic stories could be shared and everyone inside and outside the Church would be exposed to truths and virtues that would make this progressive vs. traditionalist divide a non-topic.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
55 Comments
Very good review! Thanks for seeing it so I didn't have to.
Who knows, I might enjoy the movie if I kept it set to "mute."
Hey Joe, good to see you contributing here @ BH. My son is a big 'Vandals' fan, he'll be happy to hear the news.
Also, thanks to you and the band for bringing your music to our troops serving in Iraq.
Continued success/good health…
I learned my lesson well after watching the disastrous The Da Vinci Code. No Angels and Demons for me. I'm not a glutton for punishment.
Hey Joe – I'm a big fan of your music.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be seeing many stories about the lives of the saints. It's because Americans want a fallen hero. Not someone who does good and gets punished, but someone who does good in spite of his or her flaws – and usually gets rewarded.
It's why we side with The Man With No Name instead of John Wayne, Rick Blaine instead of Lazslo. We celebrate breaking the rules because the ends justify the means. The "saintliness" of the saints is too rich and pure for Hollywood to approach.
Joe Escalante! How much better could Big Hollywood get?!
Ditto, he's great on Red Eye too.
Thanks Mrs. Spooky. I was hoping I could provide some analysis for people who didn't want to see it. Where Indiana Jones made me want to drop what I was doing and become an archaeologist, (when I wasn't raising my eyebrows) this film made me want to drop what I'm doing and become a canon lawyer. How can I get behind those walls and around that art and help the world? Let me in!
Howard’s penance would be to make a similar film dealing with “progressives” vs. “traditionalists” in the Muslim faith…
Hmmmm. THAT might be interesting. THAT I might just pay to see.
If he did that he wouldn't have to worry about his hat as much as he does now.
I am so happy my husband informed me that we will not see that movie… He has read both books and we saw the Da Vinci Code and so I expected to see this one too…. Thank goodness that he didn't like the story or the film…
I read the book back when it originally came out and that alone was enough to make me want to not see the movie. Although the book did have a some more lighthearted stuff in it than Da Vinci Code did, the idea of jumping out of a helicopter while using a trenchcoat as a parachute springs to mind; but to be honest I didn't think Angels & Demons was compelling enough to be worthy of a sequel novel in the first place, but what do I know. Now they have the movie based on the first book being the sequel to the movie based on the second book, something inherently strange in that to me as well.
I'm with you on the whole Indiana Jones thing too, after we saw Raiders of the Lost Ark my cousin and I were bound and determined to become archeologists, then a couple months later I met one on a class trip to a museum. No fedora, no whip, no punching people, guns are a no no, and a lot of math you say? That ended that.
THE Joe Escalante? I have Lady Killer and Slap of Love in the "guilty pleasures" section of my iPod. I'm so glad to see you here (even though I had no intention of seeing the film anyway!)
I'm looking forward to finding A&D in the bargain by early June, about 2 hours and 22 minutes after the DVD hits the streets.
"The blanket assertion that the Church has routinely suppressed science is nothing but myth."
That would seem to a non-Catholic to be a bold statement. I mean it goes against pretty much everything we've ever heard. One would think that a link would be provided to give indepth insight into the building of such a prominent myth. But alas no, a link was provided for selling a book. Why wouldn't it be?
Are those priests still goosing all those little boys?
LOL! So true! LOL!
Goosing. Goosing? Does anyone even say "goosing" any more? LOL However, I'd be interested in seeing any stats on priests messing around with kids compared with teachers. Things that make you go "hmmmm". And thanks, Eddie, on your comment on the film. It was very enlightened.
You know what I love?
His Word never changes. Society does, civilizations rise and fall….but God's Word never changes.
Sorry – if I'm going to have my name written in the Book of Life, I have a far-higher authority to deal with than some rich snobs living somewhere in Southern California.
There's a book called "The Courage To Be Catholic" by the Catholic theologian George Weigel. In that book he makes a great argument that liberalism, rampant in the seminaries during the 1960s and 1970s, paved the way for these scandals of the 1990s. My apologies to the previous poster, I don't provide in depth insight to things that have already been written in books by experts. If I've read the book, I just recommend it.
Liberal media bias isn't something new that was invented when D.W. Griffith hit the scene. The Catholic Church has been fighting it for centuries. Judging by the postings here, they've got a lot of work yet to do.
No, that's cool. I was merely taunting Mr. Eddie and his awesome, informative reply to the article. Yes, major sarcasm, there. LOL And I still say "Goosing? Really, Eddie?"
Yo Joe, ya done good wit it, saving us any money loss or paying for bad stuff problem with the movie. Note the brit Guardian article of damage done to the church, as your article is also the answer to that. Hope springs eternal for the hostiles; they can only hope, and hope, sort of like Rather with Bush. Stupid never works, but they can keep trying, always running into people like yourself. Howards pennance is that eventually, like Rather, he will have to explain his BS work, knowing that he did it.
Jeez. Imagine that; a book about the "courage" to be Catholic from a…a…a…Catholic!
And "liberal media bias" isn't just the go-to term for the mutants FOX News, I guess.
Sorry, Joe, but believing in the teachings of the Catholic church might be even crazier than believing that a guy in the sky is looking over us.
That's "sarcasm?" I just thought it was juvenile.
Maybe I should have asked if they were still making altar boys blow the priests.
http://www.hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_conten...
This is the link that you get when you click the word summary that is highlighted in red. Both are hyperlinks and clicking them will get you to the book. The article discusses the subject in depth. The article asserts that the church allowed the subject of the movement of the earth aroung the sun to be stated so long as it was stated it was a hypothesis which at the time it was.
I am confused by you comment that "No Link was provided"
Why Eddie are you into that sort of thing. I'd be careful if I were you I hear Breitbart is friends with FBI agents.
'Course that's just the word………
Why Eddie are you into that sort of thing. I'd be careful if I were you I hear Breitbart is friends with FBI agents.
'Course that's just the word………
Actually, Breitbart is a thoughtless hothead and A-hole who flips the bird to protesters before learning what they are actually protesting:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/18/i-jer...
Hollywood itself is trying to become a Magisterium. And any dissenters within its ranks suffer the loss of their livelihoods.
Statistically, it's more dangerous to leave your child alone with a public school teacher than with a priest:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004...
Odd that we don't hear more about that, no?
Actually, Liz, that study by Shakeshaft shows it's more dangerous to leave your child alone with a female public school teacher (more than 40% of the wrongdoers in the study were female.)
But we are discussing the Catholic Church here–the institution that won't let priests get married, but will move 'em to a new parish after they get a l'il altar boy lovin'. The discussion on High School Musical will have to wait…
Joe, if you figure it out, I'll go with ya! I'd lean Italian just for the privilege of answering the phones at the Vatican!
And as said before, if they were good protesters it wouldn't take a day or two for people to figure out what they were protesting.
Yes, but not their manhood or womanhood.
Great post Joe,
Hollywood's idea of a "good Catholic" is Nancy Pelosi.
Gee Eddie,
I guess we can't all be as morally evolved as you. Expect any minute now you'll evolve into a being of pure light energy, and leave nothing behind but a bad smell.
As an evangelical protestant, I would argue that the greatness of Catholicism(and western civ) is a result of the reformation. Competition sifts wheat from chaff. All Christians are better off because of the 95 thesies, and I believe all of humanity as well.
"I mean it goes against pretty much everything we've ever heard."
Um, duh? I guess believing everything you read makes you a more discriminating person or something? (h/t to David St. Hubbins)
And what's with the royal "we?"
And who exactly are you alleging believes in a guy in the sky, Eddie?
Obviously, you don't even understand the intellectual position. Why would you think anyone would credit your kindergarten-grade opinion of it?
I don't view blind faith as an "intellectual position."
"Hollywood," like "Mel Gibson" Hollywood?
Isn't he the hardcore Catholic douchebag who cheated on his wife, who then dumped him and who has now knocked up his young girlfriend? The "Passion of the Christ"-uber Catholic? That "Hollywood?"
Funny–I don't remember Nancy Pelosi yammering on about her "Catholic values" like he did.
Which "Hollywood" is it that's espousing the "good Catholic" Nancy Pelosi?
Um, yeah. "Good protesters." You mean like teabaggers?????
"Actually, Liz, that study by Shakeshaft shows it's more dangerous to leave your child alone with a female"
So you'd be against women priests, then?
That'll be next. Don't you know the terms "man" and "woman" are heteronormative and deeply hurtful to LGBTQs??
It is my poor punctuation that makes it confusing. "But alas no. A link was provided for selling a book." I was speaking to the word "summary" above that linked to a book. Thanks for the link.
Ah see now you have a negative vote. This is my point. People who live on the inside of any institution have a far different view from people on the outside. They should take the time to educate instead of making an assertion without support. Of course I've noticed this is the new internet 'debate' style. Make an assertion and then dare anyone to disprove it. It is no longer on the debater to back up his/her work.
Ah you must be a Catholic. You guys tend to react harshly to any confrontation, criticism, questioning. I mean still. You see your reaction only serves to back up my assertion. And why wouldn't I believe what I was taught in (nonCatholic) school? And is in many history books? If it is not a widely held belief then why was it addressed in the article? And the 'we' is not loyal. The we is a pronoun that refers back to the sentence previouos to it. Here: That would seem to a NON-CATHOLIC (caps added for emphasis) to be a bold statement. I mean it goes against pretty much everything WE'VE ever heard.
Good as in good at getting their message across.
Sorry to bother you so late in the posting game with a reply to this. "Judging by the postings here, they've got a lot of work yet to do." That was exactly my point. In order to sway an outsider who has been exposed to a certain view of the Catholic Church you need to share a lot of information. I don't think a lot of non-Catholics will rush out and buy a book in order to elighten themselves. The church needs to offer a lot of information for free and let the interested know where to find their side of 'the story' lest people will think they are still concealing information from the masses, like when the Bible was translated into Latin. ;>)
Liz, Liz, Liz. Logic isn't your strong suit, eh?
I wasn't the person citing Shakeshaft; I don't find an unrelated study to be of much use for the debate here. It's a distraction.
I'm not "against" women priests, Liz. I am, however, "against" religion.
What are you calling "debate"? You haven't offered a single fact, study or statistic, you're just spouting slurs and ad hominem: the typical left-wing liberal substitution for argument. When I poined out that teachers are (statistically) more dangerous to kids than priests, you had no counter-argument to offer.
Go troll some school teachers' forum.
Actually, honey, I pointed out that you were citing the Shakeshaft study, which has nothing to do with catholicism. And the "ad hominem" attack belongs to you and your tired "left-wing liberal" cliche. Can't you come up with your own material, or must you repeat talk radio's only routine?
Stick to the topic.
BTW, "ad hominem," "troll" and "left-wing liberaL" seem to be recurring themes among you right-wing types, huh?
Thanks for the short-and-sweet summary.
I always found the whole Dan Brown hype such an epitome of faulty education. Take the whole John=Maria on Da Vinci's painting case Brown makes. Anyone who has had any exposure to the contemporary art of the time knows that 'handsome men' were depicted, to our sensibilities, as effeminate. Heck, the Archangel Michael, pretty much the 'brick super-hero' of that age, is depicted as such all the time. Also, do the Dan Browns of the world even know that the number of apocryphical Old Testament books is much larger than those of the New Testament (easily checked on Amazon btw) ? Heck, the Book of Enoch has at least 3 different known versions – though I doubt Brown would be interested in them (he seems to have more of a bone with the existance of Satan/sin than with God per se) – and the plurality of 'Apocalypses according to Adam' is even greater. Then again, if Howard had any balls at all he'd film Rushdie's The Satanic Verses – so he won't.
Obama Bought The Presidency
Re: "Solution"
I don't know whether 'heroics' is the best way. Personally I always liked the 'what's the fuss? Clergy don't have hooves or something beneath their cassocks'-approach of eg The Father Dowling Mysteries or the italian Don Matteo- tv series.
Obama Bought The Presidency
Good lord, you're right, how could I be so unconformative..ah well, off to the gulag for insulting the storm troopers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.