The Vatican calls it “outrageous.” Hillary called it “disgraceful.” Eric Holder smeared it as “idiotic.” And the NYPD called it “dangerous.”

No, those strong words are not about my new mesh thong ( I’m only giving the people what they want). And they aren’t reactions to the mosque built near Ground Zero. They are responses to the putrid pastor’s plans to burn the Quran this Saturday, Sept 11th.

And I agree with all of them. The dude, Rev. Terry Jones, is an attention seeking sack of poop who’s accomplished everything he wanted: He put his morbidly mustachioed face all over the map – and embarrassed everyone from Gainesville, Florida. I’ve been trying to do that for years.

But in a weird way, this handle-barred hooligan has taught us a few lessons:

1. That mostly everyone agrees the pastor can burn the book, but he’s a big weenie if he does it. This was exactly my argument over the construction of the mosque. So in a weird way, this guy may have clued in others who missed that subtle point: The mosque can be built, but a compromise (or a conversation about it) might have been nice. Don’t get me wrong: the Koran burning is pure provocation, and I’m not sure that’s entirely the case with the mosque. But both issues deal with poor judgment. The key distinction: the pastor is a total barfpuck. (more…)

A frequent cavil by participants in the Angels & Demons debate is, “It’s just a movie!” (Or, “It’s fiction!”)

The implication is that the filmmakers made this movie just so they could tell a ripping good yarn. Stipulating for the moment that it is a good yarn, there’s no way to show that the filmmakers were indeed fully cognizant of their movie’s cultural impact. There’s no way we can get inside their minds, right?

Hassassin Assassin

Well, I’ve figured out a way to do just that. No, I don’t have ESP or a special mind-reading device. But I do have common sense (pace my wife).

Now, whenever someone adapts a book into a movie, it’s instructive to examine where the movie differs from the book. If the movie version alters a key detail in the book, you can’t blame the original author for that decision. It’s clearly a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmakers. (more…)

I 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.” (more…)

The first review of “Angels & Demons” hit the streets today and apparently director Ron Howard took a different tack with his second adaptation of Dan Brown novel.

The Hollywood Reporter says the “Da Vinci Code” prequel treats The Vatican “as a fairly ‘normal’ nation-state, and not as some all-powerful SMERSH-like nemesis.”

THR:

And in the end, most of those who attacked the film before seeing it on grounds of its being anti-Catholic will have to eat their words, as the warm-hearted ending casts a rosy glow around the College of Cardinals, the papacy (sic.) and the faithful throngs in St. Peter’s Square. 

The Vatican itself seems to think the film is less a threat than “Da Vinci” was. Or maybe humor is now part of its press strategy.  (more…)