The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Angels & Demons: Everyone's trying to save the church
'The film has seeds of the Gospel, appeals to Catholic sensibilities'
May. 13, 2009
Tom Hanks stars as Robert Langdon, Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra and Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss in “Angels & Demons.” (Photos by Columbia Pictures)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionTom Hanks has awakened from hyper-sleep.
In director Ron Howard’s new film, “Angels & Demons,” Hanks reprises his role as Robert Langdon, a Harvard University “symbologist,” in a pounding Vatican-centered thriller with a gentle finale that surprises and even inspires. Hanks is trim, engaged, droll, and quite the lecturing action hero -- totally different from his drab, passive persona in the “The Da Vinci Code” (2006).
One early morning a Vatican official approaches Langdon during a swim and shows him a paper with “Illuminati” on it. He explains that the Vatican has received threats from this supposedly extinct secret society. Indeed, the pope has died and four cardinals, the “papabile” -- those most favored to be elected pope -- have been abducted just as the conclave to elect a new pope is about to begin. The Vatican wants Langdon’s help to decipher the meaning of the symbol and assess the threat of the resurgence of this secret society before word leaks out and panic ensues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Rose Pacatte asks the question Is Hollywood anti-Catholic?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Illuminati, Langdon explains, formed in the 17th century to resist the church’s persecution of scientists who put the sun, rather than the earth, at the center of the solar system. The society included such scientific greats as Galileo and Bernini. (Historical note: The Illuminati was a small German intellectual association influenced by the Enlightenment that existed briefly in the 18th century.)
Meanwhile, another threat emerges from the Illuminati. A canister containing a particle of “antimatter” has been stolen and the man who discovered the process, a priest-scientist, murdered. The particle is a potential weapon of mass destruction, though CERN, an actual Swiss laboratory, intended to harness the discovery as a new source of energy.
Pierfrancesco Favino, Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer and David Pasquesi in “Angels & Demons”The canister is hidden in the Vatican and it is revealed that its detonation will follow the murder of the four cardinals. CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra, played by Ayelet Zurer, joins Langdon, the Vatican gendarmerie, the papal guard, and Rome’s Caribinieri to unravel the symbols and clues, rescue the cardinals, save the conclave and find the canister before it is too late.
If the plot doesn’t sound complex enough, add in the deceased pope’s young camerlengo, the angelic Fr. Patrick McKenna, played by Ewan McGregor, and the seemingly ambitious, tough Cardinal Strauss, played by Armin Mueller-Stahl, who is a kind of devil’s advocate. People are not what they seem, however.
In “Angels & Demons,” everyone is trying to save the Catholic church that is trying to save everyone else.
“Angels & Demons” is a convoluted tale, based partly on fact, partly on Dan Brownian fabrication concocted for his 2000 best-selling novel of the same title. Both are predicated on a common misinformed perception that science and faith are at loggerheads still, almost five centuries after the Galileo debacle, for which Pope John Paul II asked forgiveness when lifting the edict of the Inquisition against Galileo in 1992.
There is an ethical subtext, too, that deftly challenges the scientific community: Science can go too far and once something is discovered, no one controls it anymore, like the atom bomb.
The film diverges from the novel in ways too numerous to detail here. Because the filmmakers, including the prolific Oscar-winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (“A Beautiful Mind”), changed a significant thread, it altered the ending. Thus the film is more plausible from both a storytelling and a Catholic perspective. But this does not mean that because the film might make more sense that it is believable. Hardly. It is a fiction, an entertainment.
And as adversarial a premise and as argumentative a plot this may be to some, the film ends respectably on its feet. Cardinal Strauss humbly asks Langdon to write about the church gently in his next book, to which Langdon replies, “I’ll try.”
“Angels & Demons” takes place after the events in “The Da Vinci Code.” (The novel Angels & Demons was written first.) It is interesting that there is no mention of the feminine divine, although the humor in the film comes from the characters’ shared memory of “The Da Vinci Code” adventures.
The Catholic church of “Angels & Demons” is very male. There is mention of the church being built on St. Peter. But there is barely a mention of God at all. It assumes we know. My Catholic imagination fills in the blanks by gestalt.
Further, the film was too violent and about 20 minutes too long.
Director Ron Howard on setI do not think “Angels & Demons” is anti-Catholic. I think that Howard, like many filmmakers, is fascinated by the Catholic church. That they don’t always get it right says more about the ability of us Catholics, perhaps, to articulate our faith and tell our stories, to explain the hope that is in us in ways that respect film as a medium of sight and sound that evokes an emotional response before any other.
William Donohue, who heads the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, is not only engaged in a verbal sparring with Howard over the film’s content and Howard’s motivation for making it, but has also issued a booklet, Angels & Demons: More Demonic than Angelic.
I read the original novel, though it took me two tries to get through it. I could tell Angels & Demons was written by someone who didn’t know the church well, and it was, after all, in the fiction section of the bookstore. I was in second or third grade when I learned the different between a true story and fiction. I saw the film. I think it has seeds of the Gospel that appeal to Catholic sensibilities, more than I expected. Most of all, it ends with a quiet humility.
I don’t think “Angels & Demons” will win an Oscar, though it is probably going to hit a home run at the box office. It is a well-made entertainment.
If you run into people who don’t trust their own critical abilities or are afraid to see the film, suggest a media-mindful approach that asks questions, encourages conversation, is characterized by respect and is rooted in theological reflection: What’s going on? What’s really going on? Does it make any difference? How can I make a difference?
Sr. Rose Pacatte, a Daughter of St. Paul, is the director of the Pauline Center for Media Studies, an award-winning writer on film and scripture, and a media literacy education specialist who has served on Catholic and ecumenical juries at the Venice, Berlin and Locarno film festivals.
i honestly don't see whats so
i honestly don't see whats so great about dan browns stuff. i read the da vinci code, and to be honest, it was perfectly... average. as far as im concerned, there wasnt any real glaring badness in it, but there wasnt anything that made it a very good story either.
there are so many good novelists out there whose work would make fantastic movies, why do they go with 2nd rate authors like brown? i guess if they can find a way to try to stir up enough religious controversy, they can expect to sell enough tickets to make a profit, but thats not a sure thing either. anybody remember a movie from a few years back called 'the order'? no? thats my point. the story was about the level of brown too: not bad, but not any good either.
more 'gladiator', less 'da vinci', holywood. come on! you can do better!
When I read the book I
When I read the book I certainly did not think it was anti-Catholic -- just a mystery story with the Vatican and the Catholic Chruch as subject matter. I have not seen the movie but I doubt that anyone's faith will be endangered by it. If it is entertaining -- we should enjoy it. If not we should chlak up the experience as a waste of a coiupel of hours but no more than that. If it has some redeeming value or is thought provoking -- that is a bonus.
I think that the less said
I think that the less said about this Catholicsploitation film the better. If the intent of the film is plain fiction, advertise it as such. I believe in Truth in advertising. Pray for all concerned. Happy Easter! Christ is risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Snowie, It is pure fiction
Snowie, It is pure fiction and has been advertised that way. If I hear it is exciting and well acted, I may see it!
Peace,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Not from where I sit! You
Not from where I sit! You wouldn't believe the number of bizarre questions received from casual acquaintances that don't see this as fiction because it is not clearly advertised as such. In one instance, I provided a book that systematically answered issues raised by the other Catholicsploitation film to a good friend that is well read and educated. Pretty smart guy - after reading the response, his one comment to me was that the book responding in detailed was so detailed, exhaustive and provided responses to the junk isses raised by the Author that he observed "there might be truth in the film, since the response (book) was so detailed". I don't think I have to mention the other absolute bunk spread about our Holy Catholic Church in books like Maria Monk. The problem as I see it is not persons like my friend, its all the folks that are not interested enough to verify. These are people who will miss out on the joy of being Catholics. Peace and understanding in Christ! Happy Ascension! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thank you for viewing this
Thank you for viewing this film for what it is - entertainment. As a new Catholic, I cringed initially when this movie was announced as I remembered how "Christians" went totally over the edge when the DaVinci Code was released. I read both of these books and, as you stated, have known the difference between a true story & fiction, so saw them both as pleasure reading, not anything true. I will hopefully enjoy watching this movie as I did the other - thank you again for being so sensible with this review. Have a blessed day.
"The Last Temptation of
"The Last Temptation of Christ" set the standard for the industry. If left on its own, it would have simply remained a small-time art house flick with a limited run and limited audience. But once "good Catholics" started picketing movie houses, it became a must see. Now, everyone is praying for an official condemnation to make their cash registers ring. Take it for what it is: a flash in the pan of pop culture and move on. Like Texas Chainsaw Massacres: "It's only a movie! It's only a movie!"
"Mission Impossible" meets
"Mission Impossible" meets "Shoes of the Fisherman" meets "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider." Something for everyone - and a vast improvement over "The Da Vinci Code!" No wonder Rome wouldn't condemn it....
The Last Temptation of Christ
The Last Temptation of Christ was one of the most violent and anti-Semitic films ever made. It was a right winger's view of Christ in a most dishonest portrayal.
All of the reviews I have
All of the reviews I have read of this movie from secular news sources have given this movie ho-hum to negative reviews. Funny reading the first positive review from a "Catholic" news source.
this is the lead in to the
this is the lead in to the review of the film by the new york times:
"Since 'Angels & Demons' takes place mainly in the Vatican, and is festooned with the rites and ornaments of Roman Catholicism, I might as well begin with a confession. I have not read the novel by Dan Brown on which this film (directed, like its predecessor, 'The Da Vinci Code,' by Ron Howard) is based. I have come to believe that to do so would be a sin against my faith, not in the Church of Rome but in the English language, a noble and beleaguered institution against which Mr. Brown practices vile and unspeakable blasphemy."
i lol'd.
I saw Angels and Demons. It
I saw Angels and Demons. It was a very enjoyable movie. It was very fast paced and full of action and special effects. Tom Hanks is trim and fit, and his charm and sense of humor comes through. Ewan McGregor is very good too. Some reviews have complained that they wanted more romance between the lady scientist and Hanks character. Yet the film was so fast paced there is no time for that. It takes place over the course of a single day. The scenes of Rome and sculptures and churches are great to see too, some had to be created due to difficulties filming on site.
I read the book a few years ago. I really liked the movie and I recommend it. I do not think it is anti-Catholic. It is an action movie too.
It is a movie. It's
It is a movie. It's entertainment. People who take it seriously need a life.
i agree paul, but for the
i agree paul, but for the opposite reason i think you do.
you see, the problem that gets lost in all this is, as ridiculous as it sounds, lots of non-catholics take the little factoids that brown uses (he claims a lot of his asides are based of historical research, btw, read the inner dust jacket) and BELIEVE them. because of that they come to believe some very biased, stupid things about the church.
i didn't believe anyone could honestly be that stupid. really! i mean its like taking a factoid from star trek and accepting it as historical proof, but people do it. and then they SPREAD the stupid around. i have had someone mention to me, in total seriousness, that they can't take seriously a church who murdered the founder of the heliocentric theory.
THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!
the dumb gets think out there.
Angels & Demons, Good movie.
Angels & Demons, Good movie. I liked Da Vinci Code too. This new one is full of action. Pete the greek mentions gladiator. That was a great movie too. When he loses his son and wife and he mourns and walks through field of wheat, his pain, the music. Really poignant. Powerful. When he prays using the little statues of his mother, dad, wife, son, which he carried in his pouch like we carry photos of our family in our wallets, and had these statues on an altar, I thought, wow, this is just like the Roman Catholic way to worship saint statues,and Mary and Jesus statues. One could see the similarities between Roman ancestral worship, mother, father, goddess, god and our modern Roman Catholicism. Really interesting. Certainly deserved a lot of awards. Music was fantastic too. Angels and Demons is a good movie too.
"and had these statues on an
"and had these statues on an altar, I thought, wow, this is just like the Roman Catholic way to worship saint statues,and Mary and Jesus statues."
*smacks forehead*
beverly, please tell me that im either misunderstanding you or that you dont honestly think that catholics worship statues.
Dear Chris Smith Do you
Dear Chris Smith Do you refer to Passion of Christ movie, by the troubled Mel Gibson, which is uber violent and anti-semitic rather than Last Temptation of Christ, which imagines if Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene? It starred William Dafoe and Barbara Hershey.
I think Mel Gibson is so obsessed with the violence of Christ's passion because I understand when he was a young man he was viciously beaten by thugs in Australia. A priest helped him to recover, he had been even more handsome prior to the beating. This may explain his obsession with the torture and beating of Jesus. It is sad that Gibson has had such a distorted, anti-semitic view of Catholicism, maybe fostered by his dad or the priests he consulted. Sad too because Jesus and the apostles, both male and female, were all Jews too, and this hatred to Jews is so wrong.
well mr. freud, it could also
well mr. freud, it could also be because the death of jesus actually was uber violent.
there's a book call 'a doctor at calvery' (i think that's the name) where the physician details, using historical records, what would have been entailed in the specified roman punishments, particularly the scourging and some very detailed notes on crucifiction.
after reading that, suffice it to say that there are some things which, thankfully, gibson left out.
as crazy as mel gibson may be (his father's also a sedevacantist, read his website. or don't, rather. it's a real exercise in penance to try to!) scourging, which the romans sometimes used instead of the death penalty, and crucifiction weren't the nice clean affairs that they were portrayed as in ben hur and other movies.
ive seen the passion of the christ several times. i'm not exactly sure what people are talking about when they say its anti semetic. could you be specific?
Pete, it's doubtful that
Pete, it's doubtful that anyone will be able to be specific about where the anti-semetism is in "Passion of the Christ". It is a beautiful movie, despite the torture and crucifixion, both of which are very difficult to watch, because it illustrates just how much Christ truly loves us. If even half of the movie's portrayal of the passion is accurate, it is remarkable. Even more so, given the fact that Christ, at any moment of His choosing, could have ended it all. But, He endured all that pain and suffering because of His infinite love for us, and His desire to sacrifice Himself for the redemption of the human race.
Gibsom specifically mentioned in the run-up to the movie that his point was not that Jews killed Christ, or that Romans did, but rather that each and every one of us killed Him. This is the point he tried to make when his hand appeared in the film nailing Christ to the cross. As we were taught when we were children, each of our sins nails Christ to the cross all over again.
I think that this is the real problem so many have with the movie. They use the violence and perceived anti-semitism as an excuse, but the reality, I believe, is that so many people can't handle the fact that their sins (and my sins) are the cause of the suffering of Our Lord. They don't want to be told that they, that we, are the crucifiers. We are responsible. That message flies in the face of the modern sensibility that says "I'm okay, you're okay". It reminds us of our sinfulness and calls us to constant conversion. It is the opposite of tolerance, which says that everyone should live and let live. It says everyone should be perfect, as Our Heavenly Father is perfect.
The message is too hard for us to hear and so we seek to attack the messenger.
I don't know about Gibson
I don't know about Gibson being beaten up by thugs in Austriala or how that has affected his "obession with the torture and beating of Jesus". But, the anti-semiticism that seems to be so present or just under the surface with conservative and orthodox Catholic christians has been what has always caused me to hold them at harms length.
Study Theology and you will
Study Theology and you will find that Jesus was a Jew trying to reform his relgion - Judaism. He didn't start the Catholic church or Christianity. Paul did. Unfortunately, this is not what is taught by the Church. The Catholic Church is not fond of telling the truth. Read the stories regarding the abuse of children by Catholic congregations in Ireland and the massive cover-up. It's systemic.
the only abuse i see here at
the only abuse i see here at the moment is your abuse of history.
with libraries and historical sources online so easily accessible, there is no excuse for your ingorance here, it is your choice.
Thanks for the many
Thanks for the many thoughtful replies. Am I being called Freud? For me, it would be Mrs. Freud. No, just wondering what is up with Gibson. I have not read Gibson Senior's website.
Pete the Greek, did you see Gladiator (Russell Crowe, who sadly can get uber phone violent at hotel clerks , his temper, temper!). Did you like Gladiator movie? I did. I agree, John David and Gina that anti-semiticism is super wrong. Pete the greek, sorry I am a wimp and have not seen Gibson's Passion of Christ. I quoted others who reviewed it ( I do not like uber bloody, violent stuff, wimp-I-am). Is it really over-the-top relentlessly violent like is said of it? Did Gibson miss an opportunity to present a fuller picture of the wonderfulness of Jesus and God, his compelling wisdom, compassion, joy of life, reasons so many wanted to see him, be with him, learn from him. It would have been splendid if Gibson had shown that part of Jesus and the faith too.
Loved seeing the scenes of Rome, the churches and statues, in Angels and Demons. I love good religious movies that make us think, show us Holy places, or help us, I also loved Man For All Seasons, was told it was great and borrowed it from a library. It is amazing, complex ideas and human behavior, full of humor, great scenes, costumes, issues, dialogue,music is great, About St. Thomas More and Cromwell. Good stuff! Becket is good movie too. Beverly
beverly, sorry to jump on you
beverly,
sorry to jump on you like that. i'll not deny that gibson himself has said some very anti-semetic things, very publically. i will not try to apologize for him as he was wrong to do so.
that being said, i can't see where people can say that passion of the christ was anti semetic. it was no more so than the actual bible is, if you could even call it that. it was no more anti semetic than galdiator was anti-roman.
it is very violent and very bloody. but the point of the movie isn't violence and blood. the whole point is driving home how much jesus suffered and shoing how much he gave to save us from our sin.
yes, there are moments throughout the film that reflect back on jesus' life and ministry, but the point of the film is his passion. to be fair, any film that tries to encompass the entire life of our lord would be grossly inadequate.
it is NOT for everyone, though. i can totally understand people who would object to seeing it.
Post new comment