Angels & Demonizing: ‘Fiction With an Agenda is Propaganda’
by John NolteWarning: This post divulges the entire “Angels & Demons” plot. If you haven’t seen the movie and intend to, go no further for there be spoilers…
People whose opinions I respect have defended A&D as not being anti-Catholic. This is probably due to the end of the film which delivers a trumped up moment of warmth and reconciliation between Tom Hanks’ Robert Langdon character and the Church in the form of a new Pope. From my perch, this moment is a subtle but devious cherry on top of a blisteringly unfair and wholly dishonest attack on the Church.
Serial adulterer Martin Luther King, Jr.
Serial adulterer Martin Luther King, Jr.
Serial adulterer Martin Luther King, Jr.
One way to dishonestly destroy someone or something is to repeat only the negative about that someone or something. DreamWorks has just announced a new film about the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. and were it to focus solely on King’s extra-marital affairs no one would argue that the movie was anything other than a propaganda tool produced with the goal in mind of assassinating his character.
Now, DreamWorks could do this and hide behind the defense of “telling the truth.” After all, there’s little doubt King was involved with women other than his wife. But to focus solely on that aspect of King’s character without allowing for the full context of the great man’s life is pure, 100% character assassination.
The lie isn’t in what’s spoken – the lie is in what’s unspoken.
During my A&D screening I noted a hash mark each time an obvious swipe was taken at the Church. About 40 minutes in I had counted nine – most of them delivered by our protagonist played by Tom Hanks, some of them gratuitous and having nothing to do with the story. These criticisms included charges of the worst kind of intolerance, outright murder and what ends up being the film’s central talking point theme – a fear of scientific truth.
Rather than get sidetracked, let’s just stipulate each criticism is accurate (though they’re not). But it doesn’t matter, because… None of the enormous good the Church has done over the last 2,000 years is ever mentioned. So even if the filmmakers are right on “the facts,” they’re telling no less of a lie. Intentionally omitting all the good the Church has done intentionally creates a false impression no reasonable person would get if the film provided the full story.
In other words, all Director Ron Howard has to say is that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an adulterer.
Another cinematic sleight of hand used to affirm the negative is the fairly common device of putting the worst face possible on an institution by carefully crafting the character chosen to represent it. We’ve seen this a hundred times before with cold, calculating businessmen, yee-haw Southerners, overly-aggressive soldiers, wormy CIA directors…
A&D uses two characters this way.
The most notable is Commander Richter, played by Stellan Skarsgard. He’s a security officer whose zealous dedication to the Church is established immediately, and we know he’s the face of the Church because he’s the one charged with protecting it.
Naturally, he’s written and portrayed as a jerk – an intolerant, overbearing prig who’s not only unlikable, but so intolerant of outsiders like Robert Langdon it ends up interfering with how he conducts his job.
Howard only gives Richter a single opportunity to defend his Church, and here’s that lame attempt after Richter finally tires of Langdon’s unrelenting, snide comments [paraphrasing]:
“My church feeds and cares for millions, what does yours do? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have a church.”
Of course, Richter’s not allowed to say, “…and what does Harvard do for millions of starving people?” because that would actually make a pretty good point (Langdon’s a Harvard Professor). Instead, the line is used to show Richter’s holier-than thou attitude with a side order of intolerance towards non-believers.
Worse, Richter’s never once allowed the opportunity to reveal a generous spirit or moment of real humanity. For a reel or two we’re led to believe Richter might be the arch-villain, but when it’s revealed he’s not, he dies the same pious tight ass we were introduced to.
The second face of Ron Howard’s Church is Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, played warmly by boy-faced Ewan McGregor. But this character is another classic trope in the Leftist propaganda film canon: the set up for the ideological sucker punch. At first we’re led to believe McKenna is an example of what the Church really is and all the things Richter is not: patient, tolerant, open, kind to outsiders, unafraid of modernity… That is until the final ham-handed twist when McKenna is revealed to be the arch-villain.
And what are his motives for planning and committing a number of horrible murders?
In a nutshell, McKenna is afraid of science.
This ideological sucker punch (positioned squarely at conservative Catholics) is that Our Guy – the only sympathetic face of the Church – isn’t really. Ron Howard twists McKenna into something horrifying in order to further a lie. And at this point in the film, Howard has effectively left the whole of the Catholic Church without even a single sympathetic representative.
From all of this, it’s reasonable to come to the conclusion that the filmmakers have an axe to grind with the Church based on science, but this is yet another Leftist head feint.
A&D isn’t about moving the Church towards a more pro-science position because the Church already is pro-science and the filmmakers know it — just like the Democrats and their allies in the media knew President Bush was pro-science. But just as it was with Bush, this charge of anti-science is not being hurled to convince the Church to become pro-science, it’s being hurled as propaganda to marginalize the Church outside the mainstream by convincing as many people as possible that this “superstitious” institution with an “indefensible history” would rather see them die young than give up outdated ideas and traditions.
Like Bush, the Catholic Church does not oppose stem cell research, they do, however, oppose embryonic stem cell research. This isn’t an anti-science position, this is a pro-don’t-kill-human-life position, and much more defensible than animal-rights activists who want to impede science to save bunny rabbits. But what the Democrats did to destroy Bush, Howard does in his cinematic attempt to destroy the Church: he intentionally morphs opposition to embryonic stem cell research into opposing “stem cell research,” giving himself cover to cry “anti-science.”
And so through the alchemy of half-truth and obfuscation the most effective kind of propaganda is created…
The kind that sounds just true enough.
Finally, to reaffirm his straw man really does exists, Howard tacks on a warm closing scene that portrays the Church as evolving into an institution more open and accepting of scientific truth.
Some may have gotten the fuzzies from this moment, but the Church is already open and accepting of scientific truth and to say it could be what it already is… Well, let’s just say that if “Angels & Demons” was as clever at storytelling as it is at spreading lies, it might have been a watchable movie.
UPDATE: Responding to those who find cowardly refuge in the “It’s only a fictional movie” argument, a reader summed it up beautifully in the comments: “Fiction with an agenda is propaganda.” — I’ve also changed the title to reflect that perfect sentiment.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
80 Comments
Once again the whole movie and book are Fiction!! Quit trying to make it out to be something it is not, it's plain and simple fiction. I really enjoyed this book as well as the DC, people need to remember this is fiction and just have fun reading or seeing the movie and quit trying to make it something else.
Interesting the use of "scientific truth". That is quite the oxymoron because science is not, nor should it be, interested in truth. Science is interested in fact which is something that can be tested and proved. Truth is the domain of philosophy and theology. As the left continues to impose the new religion of science with it's "scientific truths" then they pervert not only philosophy but science itself.
Which obviously means you'd have no problem with a "fictional" and denigrating approach to other real institutions like Martin Luther King, Jr., the ACLU, PETA, the environmental movement, etc.
As long as you're consistent you have no argument from me.
Nicely written review. The funny thing is that the left will sweep this under the rug by claiming "It's just a movie. Why are you churchies taking it so seriously" and "Any RATIONAL (*liberal*) person knows it's not real and it's only a movie." But don't you dare bring up ANY other religion or you're being "hateful." It's terrible how pop culture (movies, tv, music, magazines, books, etc.) as well as lefty teachers in public schools are indoctrinating our youth with their PC far-left crap.
So what you're saying is you can use the word "fiction" to cover any atrocious behavior you attribute to your book's characters, it that right? You can write a novel or produce a movie that shows Barack Obama as a mass murderer, then hide behind the word "fiction" and skate away uncriticized. I dare you to try it.
yes it is fiction. But it is treated as more than that by not just the uninformed, but the supposed educational entities. The Discovery channel already has 2 programs about A&D. They along with the history channel etc. had dozens of programs about Code.
Repeating a lie over and over, and having it repeated by respected individuals and entities strikes me as a problem.
I'm not Catholic, but take umbrige to an artist profaning what another holds sacred. I don't have to be a believer in a particular thing to have a sense of reverence for it.
Fiction, eh? I get it. And when it uses a real-life institution to portray this fictional story, the lies told within a fiction are merely fictional lies, right? Not intended to sway any real world opinions but merely entertainment? Waxman, can you invision a real life thing that you hold, if not sacred, dear to you that could be tarnished by lies and get your dander up? Be honest now? A back door attack, focusing on the negative, heavy on the innuendo and damning with faint praise, on your favorite person, place or thing, perhaps?
Maybe I need to see this movie myself, though I have no stomach for graphic violence, because some of the arguments I've seen about it don't make a lot of sense. While I get the way it hits conservative Christians, I still have a few questions about exactly why some of the story is being blasted. First of all, was this story created by Ron Howard or was it Dan Brown? I think that makes a difference because it could be argued that Howard was just making a movie of a really popular book. Second, as a writer, I'm not sure how much time one actually needs to put into making sure every statement adheres to some writers' fairness doctrine. You simply tell the story, a particular story that may not be totally representative.
Propaganda is by its very nature "fiction."
To hide behind the Jon Stewart defense of "I'm just an imbecilic clown and therefore cannot be held responsible for my actions" is the refuge of cowards.
A film that "fictionally" portrayed Dr. King as a womanizing, abusive, drug addicted racist who fooled an entire nation would be just as indefensible.
If you're going to use King or the Catholic Church or any real institution there's an inherent responsibility to be honest in showing who or what they really are.
If you want to create "The Empire" knock yourself out — do whatever you want.
The fictional use of what's real to sway people one way or another is not fiction, it's propaganda.
Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger who wanted to limit the births of blacks. Nowadays, abortions hit blacks hard.
I think we ought to make a movie which showcases M. Sanger being an immortal vampire who must drink black people's blood to continue in her undead state, but hates them for her racist ideas at the same time.
We could have heroic black gangbangers burning down abortion clinics, a black pastor racing to save the future president Obama who is about to be aborted by the Vampiress herself….
Maybe we can work in there the theory that AIDS was caused, not by the CiA, but by Planned Parenthood.
And at the end we reveal that M. Sanger is touched by the hero pastor's prayers and the miracles she saw,and so she gives up her rascism and dies at peace.
Unfortunately, the other members of the Council of Blood that runs PP don't go along with this, and the Holocaust continues.
What? I think thats eminently fair. Well, its fairer than A&D anyways. Perhaps its time to as John Hawkins said 'take the gloves off'
Angels and Demons is less obvious than Da Vinci Code in it's obvious bias against mainstream orthodox Christianity and it is a much better story. Ron Howard is not so much anti-church as he is an excellent filmmaker that is all too effective in communicating Author Brown's antagonistic agenda against, not just Catholicism but all of mainstrean orthodox Christianity. Sorry Waxman, but there is evidence out there that this is not "just fiction", but one man's aggressive promotion of the version of religious truth that he believes to be more accurate.
That's definitely true, and you can see the hubbub surrounding Prejean to understand it goes well beyond movies. But as a member of the church who has Catholics I know that would actually justify covering up the pedophilia scandal if they thought you wouldn't punch them out, I feel a bit uncomfortable with some of the discussion (elsewhere) that merely portraying a Pope or priest (fictional rather than actual historical figures, I presume) as acting against Church teaching is some high treason against the faith. Unfortunately, like every group, we have our share of goofballs, and shouldn't that be fair game for portrayal at some point? The broad brush of leftist versus conservative Catholics, however, is something troubling.
You're taking my point and moving it to an absurd extreme in order to call it absurdly extreme
My argument is over the intentionally dishonest and conscious way in which the Church is portrayed, not telling a fictional story around the Church.
"National Treasure" manages to tell a fictional story around American history without defaming America.
It can be done. It can be done fairly. You can even be critical. But A&D is at every turn unfair and dishonest. It's a hit piece on the Church, pure and simple.
You can write whatever you want and when I think you're being purposefully dishonest putting an agenda above story in order to denigrate an honorable institution — I'll respond accordingly.
That's the only "Fairness Doctrine" I'm in favor of.
Hope we can agree on that.
Also, it doesn't matter who wrote the book. Books change all the time when made into films. The film is wholly owned by the director. This is on Ron Howard — the book is on Brown.
Some idiot director decided he wouldn't make the Muslims bad guys in "Sum of all Fears." regardless of the source material, the final film is on the director.
well said,
Ok well written.
And why do I doubt that the Dreamworks film will spend much time on Martin Luther King's Christian faith? Perhaps it the years of public school education my kids have heard about King with barely a mention that he was a pastor.
Thank you for the review, although I never intended to see the movie. After enjoying the book, the Da Vinci Code, which reminded me of a Saturday afternoon matinee of my youth, I read "Angels and Demons." I was appalled by the violence and bloodshed. I recognized the untruths, written in the guise of fiction. As Mark Twain said, of course I paraphrase, "fiction has to stick to possibilities". Apparently, current fiction does not have to "stick to possibilities", particularly when that fiction is about Christianity. An author can say what he/she wants, as long as it is against a group which believes that "one should turn the other cheek", that one should try to communicate values to one another, not strike out at another. I am a Catholic and a Christian and have grown tired of turning the other cheek. To claim that the story is only fiction or that it is only a movie, denies the fact that many people obtain their information, which they come to believe is truth, from movies, books and TV talk shows. The makers of the movie recognize this — why else would they propagate so much untruth if not to convince their viewers of what they see as the evils of Christianity? If not to marginalize and ultimately destroy the faith of millions?
I'm not talking "treason" I'm talking politics.
Hyper-criticism outside of honest, historical context is propaganda. There's nothing wrong with being critical of the Church, we're all critical of the Church…
Focusing solely and dishonestly on the negative in a $200 million Summer film is not being critical, it's propaganda.
Have your "can't we criticize the church without being called traitorous" argument with someone who actually says that. No one here has and I doubt you can cite someone who has.
This is your second argument with a straw man.
The story goes that when Abe Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he said, "So here's the little lady that started a war."
What a fool that Lincoln was. Didn't he know that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a work of fiction? Just a fiction, like "The Jungle" and "The China Syndrome". They couldn't have possibly had made a difference in the real world.
Since I haven't read the book or seen the movie, perhaps that's why it sounds like a lot is being made out of nothing. Perhaps you could talk some more about exactly what kind of license Howard should have taken with the book to strip it of it's agenda, in that case. I still would think he could only take that so far. Otherwise, why make the movie at all?
I noticed CNN has been running articles debunking the Bible and the like since the movie came out, so even without the intent to smear, it's providing ample opportunity from the media.
Brilliant satire tennwriter. Brilliant.
You're being disingenuous, Waxman. Of course it's fiction but most people don't know it. Unless you know the ins and outs of the way the Catholic Church works, unless you read critically biased reports on the Church and her teachings, and you are pounded by the mainstream media with biased anti-Catholic reporting, why wouldn't you think there wasn't a lot of truth to what the movie was portraying? It's called INDOCTRINATION from all sides. THEY KNOW IT and that's why they do it!! Especially when they can count on posters such as you minimizing this propaganda.
Oooh, you should pitch it and see where it goes! I'd pay just to see the "making of" documentary.
[...] Angels & Demonizing: How Cinematic Propaganda Works by John Nolte [...]
You nailed it Nolte, by saying fiction with an agenda is propaganda. Of course it is. That's why those who foist propaganda wrap themselves in the "it's just fiction' flag.
Great post John. All I have to say is, do your worst Ron Howard. The Catholic Church has withstood heresies, controversies and scandals for 2000 years. I doubt some forgettable movie is going to be the "game-changer" that will end our backwards Catholic ways once and for good.
I think this is another brick in the wall that Hollywood is building against all things conservative. They have already attacked the war in Iraq with half a dozen movies (that all tanked). They have vilified our intelligence communities for decades with films that portray CIA types as shadowy figures that make people disappear. Every time a conservative is displayed on screen he's some loud-mouthed redneck with a gun.
I'm not Catholic but even I can see that is a one-sided movie designed put Catholicism in a bad light. And not just Catholicism, but organized religion as a whole.
I see your point and have seen that recently with something I hold very sacred that HBO had on recently, which happens to also involve Tom Hanks. You see, I am a Mormon and know, probably better than most, about lies, half truths etc. but I know what I know and try to not let fiction or the uneducated change that or let me get too upset about things that are just NOT true. I can read the A&D book and DC and know that they are fiction and what they portray about the Catholic church is not true. Forgive me for not being as eloquent as you and for the bad punctuation, just trying to do the best I can with it, and there is no sarcasm there, I really think you wrote a great post.
I agree, well said! I just can't understand why certain directors get such a rush out of trying to defame and destroy institutions and/or the culture they disagree with. Maybe it's because they don't have strong enough arguments to debate the issues without adding "fiction".
"The fictional use of what's real to sway people one way or another is not fiction, it's propaganda"
Amen to that.
My brother, who I love dearly, is one of these people. He sees a controversial movie and takes it as gospel. I'll never forget after he saw Kingdom of Heaven, he ranted about how cruel the christians were. Because that's what they wanted you to come away with. I've since given him literature regarding the true history of the crusades.
He will see this movie and come away with the idea that the Catholic church is some lumbering antiquated pool of fanatics and murderers. Which is exactly what the makers of the film want.
No matter how it's played it is still fiction, just because he has written it down and it's his view does not mean it is true, no matter how it's spun. He can be as aggressive as he wishes with his "views" but it still doesn't make it true, fiction is fiction and truth is truth.
I don't necessarily have a problem with this movie the way it is.
What I do have a problem with is the complete cowardice Hollywood displays toward Islam. If they wanted to make a movie about a violent and bloody religious group, well hell! There a ton of movies just sitting there on the table!
But it's easier to pick on christianity, it's safer to denegrate them because they're not the ones sawing people's heads off.
Hollywood needs to grow a set….
Many who post here are LDS. We recently had a discussion of Big Hollywood. I have lost respect for Tom Hanks, bacause he took what was sacred for so many and trampled it. And in this case after he said he would be respectful. With Code and A&D they had no intention of being respectful. I am all for a critical examination of a topic. but there's Critical and there's critical.
One of the main weapons of the opponent is to take things out of context. This is extraordinarily easy to do when the events are many years in the past. The Catholic Church, The LDS Church and many other entities have elements to them wihch make little sense when taken out of context. This is the problem I have with these books and movies. They take historical situations and examine them with modern eyes. They have an agenda and massage the facts to meet their desired result.
We can't allow them to cast our pearls before swine.
but an untruth repeated often enough becomes true.
I may be a jerk but i'm the guy who replies to the latest "Have you seen this" e-mail. With the snopes.com link debunking it.
We need to stand up against lies and untruths.
I would challenge someone to write a fictional novel about the Islamic religion called Angels and Demons 2. Furthermore I would challenge Ron Howard to produce a movie based on the novel and see if he gets the same reaction by the Hollywood crowd, anti religious bigots and the public as he has seen with this movie. I would bet first no-one has the guts to write such a fictional novel and second Ron Howard would never consider making a movie which portrays Islam in the same light as the Catholic Church. Neither Brown nor Howard fear being targeted as dead men by the Catholic Church. I wonder if the Islamic fundamentalists would take such a passive vocal reaction that the Catholics have voiced against this movie? I would think that the reacttion would be a little less passive.
I would challenge someone to write a fictional novel about the Islamic religion called Angels and Demons 2. Furthermore I would challenge Ron Howard to produce a movie based on the novel and see if he gets the same reaction by the Hollywood crowd, anti religious bigots and the public as he has seen with this movie. I would bet first no-one has the guts to write such a fictional novel and second Ron Howard would never consider making a movie which portrays Islam in the same light as the Catholic Church. Neither Brown nor Howard fear being targeted as dead men by the Catholic Church. I wonder if the Islamic fundamentalists would take such a passive vocal reaction that the Catholics have voiced against this movie? I would think that the reacttion would be a little less passive.
somebody could make a fictional movie about jews using gentile blood to make matzoh bread. actually i think this was a mini series in egypt a few years back. i would not expect the jews to relax and just call it harmless entertainment.
So the Catholic Church was invented to serve as an elaborate front, so the perpetrators could weave the tentacles of conspiracy around poor defenseless science, but of course that job was left to the higher ups, so that they could not only tighten the screws of oppression, repression, compression on the poor innocents of science, but, BWA HA HA HA!! LIE ABOUT IT TOO!!!
As a practicing non-Catholic protestant, I had no idea. We must rise up and stop this conspiracy! and loot the church to pay for the expenses, and and, and unionize it too, in the interests of reform, and and unity! And we must seek retro-active taxation, because the church was never a church in the first place! And force it to have congressional oversight, and the pope be fired, and the trunk be popped, and replaced with a
toady,puppet, appointment approved by the senate. At the very least…/sarcasm off
"I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." – Max Born
I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." – Max Born
"The fictional use of what's real to sway people one way or another is not fiction, it's propaganda.
Waxman – and all of the others who say we shouldn't bother with a film because it's 'only' fiction – should take a look at Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'. That film is the most brilliantly filmed piece of propaganda in the world. It is a masterpiece which broke new ground, filming in a way so original and beautiful that ever since directors have stolen shots and settings from that film to use as their own. Now – can Waxman, et al – say that film was no 'big deal'? If they agree, than argument is impossible. To understand the horror of that film is to understand a moral stance, to understand the ability of humans to be swayed towards evil without realizing it, to understand the power of beauty and skill and artistry in furthering evil.
Saying a film is "only" fiction is like saying an untruth is 'only' a lie. In the end, it comes down to morality, honesty. Those are very hard things – but without them we are lost.
This movie becomes relevant when Hanks and Opie have the cojones to make a "fictional" flick that takes simular liberty with Islam. There's a market for that type of film, so why not? Opie could call it "Ayatollahs and Deodorants". There could be a Islamic scientist that wants to prove that Islam DOESN'T seek to eliminate infidels and seeks an effective deodorant. It could happen, it would be fiction but it could happen. He could discover the secret of a special deordorant blessed by an ancient Ayatollah. There's plenty of spectacular Mosque footage, and dramatic sceanery associated with Islam. Opie could film in Mecca or Medina, what could possibly be the problem? The fact of the matter is that Hanks and Opie have NO PROBLEM attacking the Catholic Church and haven't the BALLS to attack Islam, even in a "fictional" way. They would be dead within one week of the Middle Eastern premire of "Ayatollahs and Deodorants".
U.S. movies are redubbed and distributed WORLDWIDE! You are right on target. Every piece of cinematic garbage that leftists like Opie turn out goes worldwide, to shall I say, a less sophisicated audience. Many foreign movie goers think if it's Hollywood IT'S REAL. Pissing on the Catholic Church, it's parishioners, and clergy is a parlor sport of the left, and practically required for the British cinema.
I would be more sympathetic to the memory of MLK if he hadn't grown beyond himself in his own mind. He stopped being a humble preacher striving for the correct outcome, racial equality, when he started wearing a diamond and gold Rolex, two carat diamong cuff links and $1000 suits. On a famous visit to the Chicago projects he sayed with a ghetto family, to "rough it", see how they lived (which was not well) the first thing they did was bring in a beautiful French Provencial sofa for "his holyness" to plant his ass on. Let Hollywood take on his legend, let's see what they got. The FBI collected the girlfriend stuff, apparently he had a appetite for white girls, that's the rumor.
Thanks John.
I appreciate your sitting through this piece of crap so that I don't have to.
The Catholic Church is probably the only main stream Christian instituition that does not condone homosexuality. As a result, it MUST be marginalized. The political left has been playing this game in Hollywood for years. Vicious propaganda is "fiction", critics are told to "lighten up" and that they are "overly sensitive" . Films the puncture the facist facade of the left however, well thats a different story entirely. They are "mean-spirited" and "hate-filled". They must be roundly condemned and boycotted. Unfortunately, for the left, more and more people are seeing through the propaganda machinery of Hollywood. The fiction of organized religion retarding scientific advance is a lie that even a cursory reading of history would expose. Therefore, the biggest fear of the facist left is that people will read history.
I really think he should just go and do the movie "I hate God". Seriously.
See, here's the problem MPB: say I write a book about you, giving your real name and description and occupation, and saying you're a child-molestor. I defend this by saying it's just a novel. But you notice people in the street looking at you funny and mothers pulling their children away. You log on the internet to find people discussing your revolting pedophilia. Your in box is filled with hate mail. You can't sue me, or the anonymous gossips. You protest to everyone you can that you're no pedophile, that it was just a work of fiction. Some believe you. But many are not sure, Fiction or not, the seed of doubt has been planted. Some say there's "no smoke without fire". Soon you find you can't sell your work, and you wonder if it's because of the rumors. You'll never know for sure.
That's what Brown and Howard have done to the Catholic Church. Their books/movies are chock full of lies, but lots of people don't know that, and are happy to believe the worst. The whole thing is vile beyond belief.
You LDS folks have it bad–there is almost never a positive portrayal of you. Sadly, I think the closest I see is done by the South Park guys, who mock your beliefs (like they mock everyone's) but at least portray Mormons as decent human beings and good citizens.
Even Republicans have it better.
Have you no appreciation of heroism?
No movie version of Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" has ever been filmed. Gee, I wonder why that is.
If you read my comments below and on other posts regarding Angels & Demons on this site, I am not taking issue with the fact that historical facts should not be messed with, that is unless they do something like with the Watchmen where they came out and stated at the beginning that this was an alternate reality and not things as they actually happened. This website is getting way too hostile in its conversation, and by no means were any of my comments above out of line or extreme. Many of the people I'm around are more arch-conservative Catholics who do think exactly like your "straw man". I think the tone of your comments above is unnecessarily sharp, and maybe this isn't the site for me to be bothering with anymore.
That novel was already written. It was called The Satanic Verses and Salman Rushdie — the author — as well as "anyone involved in its publication" (translators, etc.) was targeted for murder by the Islamofascists, thanks to a fatwa by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It got so bad that 37 intellectuals in Turkey were slaughtered like lame cattle, all to kill the Turkish translator of the book. He escaped the initial attack, but they got him eventually. I would say more, but brevity forbids it.
And people call films criticizing Christianity or the Catholic Church "brave," "provocative," and "daring."
Salman Rushdie was brave. Dan Brown and Ron Howard are nothing but chumps in comparison.
EDIT: Added "…in comparison."
To give an example: at one point the Hanks character talks about an event in 1688 called the "Purga", in which he says the Church murdered scientists belonging to the Illuminati order and branded their corpses with cross-symbols before tossing them into the streets. Hanks sneers about this shameful "history" and the priest he's addressing admits the purge is "a dark stain" on the Church.
So what's wrong with bringing this up in the movie? Simple: it never happened. There was no purge, no scientists were killed by the Church, the Illuminati order didn't even come into being till the 18th century. But the fictional "Purga" is presented along with genuine historical facts, misleading the audience into thinking it's real.
There are other lies, including the ludicrous assertion that the Pope "banished" Bernini's Ecsasty of St Theresa sculpture from the Vatican because it was too sexy-looking. In fact it was commissioned specifically for the chapel in which it is located. Oh, and Bernini was a member of the Illuminati too, even though he died a century before it was created.
But how does the uneducated public disentangle the lies from the historical truth? It doesn't, as we already know from the Da Vinci Code. It just swallows the whole thing, hook line & sinker. And the Church is left having to "defend" itself from things it never did.
Of course I agree with the aims and results of his efforts, as far as equal rights under God and our Constitution, I believe that, as usual, power and influence went to his head (so to speak). That being said, what is heroic about a Baptist preacher wearing thousands of dollars in jewelry? Could he have not achieved the same results NOT aquiring expensive jewely and staying faithful to his wife? Ya, we're all human but from where I sit, I think he took advantage of his celebrity and had he lived his reputation would have been tarnished. None of what I'm saying is false, there is plenty of photgraphic evidence. The FBI conducted the buggings and wiretaps that provide the evidence of his serial infidelity. So, have you no appreciation of the truth?
I'll go see Howard's and Hanks' films again after they team up for the screen version of "The Satanic Verses"…
I'm just waiting for someone to come out with "F___ Christ".
[...] lists are fun to check out. But I sure wanted a good, old rough-and-tumble Dirty Harry polemic. And here it is, concerning “Angels & Demons”: One way to dishonestly destroy someone or something is to repeat only the negative about that [...]
Nice article. I hope to see more of this type of specific media deconstruction. Thanks!
I'm sorry, but that first statement is just not true. Southern Baptists, members of the church of Christ, most Pentacostals, evangelicals and many other conservative Christians also do not condone homosexuality. You may have a decent point, but don't paint with such a broad brush that you diminish the stand others take for Biblical morality.
I saw the film the other night. (Spoiler) It has one of the most preposterous scenes in it. Towards the end, the anti matter device is taken from the hidden location to a waiting helicopter which rises above the crowds and earth to maybe 10,000 feet and then -BLAM!- a nuclear explosion. Suddenly, we see a passenger on the helicopter parachute and land back at the same spot, somehow safely gliding down through this nuclear explosion. Maybe I missed something. Maybe he was Superman.
The thing you have to keep in mind is that the left is seriously attempting to rewrite history here. Don't be fooled by the "we're just making entertainment" line they spout (and I know you're not, John). They play the "this is only fiction" game up front, in order to get the film made and into circulation, but anyone who's been around knows that this is actually a teaching tool for them, which, if they had their way, would find its way into every junior high school history class in America, in place of the current (already biased) textbooks.
They've been doing this since at least the time of Nixo…er, excuse me: arch-Satan.
Classic Dirty Harry rant. More like this, John!
And when you say it never happened, they instantly believe you're lying.
Completely awesome Tennwriter!
And conservative Catholics / Christians / Adherent Jews as raving lunatics, Hank. The propaganda against The Church is an attempt to mainline and allow anti-Catholic bigotry as acceptable; thus giving backdoor approval to attack, demonize and thus neutralize anyone who is not lockstep liberal.
I am a practicing, dare I say conservative Catholic, and one of the reasons we cancelled HBO was because of that horrible portrayal of Mormons and the LDS Church.
ROFLOL – thanks; I so needed a laugh after A&D and Nobama at Notre Shame…
I second SeanLA. Motion carries ~ Hooray for John Nolte!
Come on Sigmond, I do that every day. HAHAHA
_____
It sounds even worse than I thought. Not much in repeat viewing in might be safe to presume.
Welcome back, Dirty Harry!
"DreamWorks has just announced a new film about the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. and were it to focus solely on King’s extra-marital affairs no one would argue that the movie was anything other than a propaganda tool produced with the goal in mind of assassinating his character."
Is this really the best paralell?
Adultery is just about the only genuinely "bad" aspect of MLK's character anyone can prove. Thusly, his positive actions definatively and demonstrably outweigh the negative. The Catholic Church – and I say this as a Catholic who I'm reasonably certain has NOT yet been excomunicated – as an INSTITUTION is not in anywhere near the same boat… it's much murkier, muddier and "evenly balanced." Yes, they front some wonderful charity work. They've also behaved, historically, like an opulent dictatorship. Yes, at one time they were at the vanguard of science. They also tamped-down, stamped-out or simply denied science when it became inconvenient to them. They commisioned lovely art, they also censored. This institution is FAR from innoculated against broad criticism by goofy pulp novels.
No, It just happens that King is to be new BS from hollywood.
Do you think the producers will even mention his adultery? Foolish if you do. King will be depicted as a virgin prophet born of the same. The King hollywood will produce will walk on water, split the loaves and be sacrificed for our sins by a Christian. Weirdly familiar in a way…
The devil is said to portray himself as an angel of light. How else to destroy truth than to twist things in a subtle way? The devil loves his subtlety.
MovieBob, you are not a Catholic but a "severely lapsed Catholic" (your own words) who habitually criticizes the Church for frowning on your libertine proclivities and who has more than once equated opposition to gay marriage to a belief in a flat earth. Is that what you mean by "stamping out" and "simply denying science?" Give us some examples. Brown certainly doesn't – no real examples anyway.
Yes, the Church has a lot of warts, but on net it is and has been a force for good. And if we are going to see the warts, how about the real ones, which are much more interesting anyway than the BS ones Dan Brown dreams up?
P.S. DreamWorks could also fixate on Dr. King's very provable plagiarism, which calls into question the whole "Dr." title. To say that a 2,000 year old institution has more flaws than a guy who died before age 50, without also considering the quantum of the positive accomplishments of each, is simply more of the MovieBob bigotry we've become used to.
Still awaiting an example of the Church stamping out science. Bring up the myth of Galileo, and I will bury you with the truth.
[...] Fiction with an agenda defined. [...]
Clare Booth Luce, after her conversion to Catholicism by the late Fulton Sheen, once remarked the Satan sleeps well in Hollywood – and that was before Satan came out of Hollywood's closet.
"Responding to those who find cowardly refuge in the “It’s only a fictional movie”"
It amazes me how many people took DaVincci Code to be a documentary, and an honest historical novel. For me, it was a 'meh' piece of fiction. Trying to argue with these people based on historical fact (such as the time shifts Dan Brown admits to making to make things fit that are sometimes centuries off the mark), and your response is often "That's what The Church wants you to think".
And this from people who failed or almost failed intro to history classes talking to a guy whose curriculum is almost nothing but…Ah, the joys of modern society, where everyone's an expert on stuff they've never even really looked into because to think they weren't an expert would be evil…
invest liberty reserve I really equal when you address this of sundries region your posts. Perhaps could you travel this?…
I really equal when you address this of sundries region your posts. Perhaps could you travel this?…
You must be logged in to post a comment.