Angels & Demons: It's A Thriller, Not A Crusade

William Donohue of the Catholic League is on a mission. Whether it is a "mission from God," as the Blues Brothers would say, only God knows, but the goal of his mission is clear: to paint me and the movie I directed, Angels & Demons, as anti-Catholic.

For a $5 donation to his organization, Mr. Donohue will send you his glossy new booklet (Angels & Demons: More Demonic Than Angelic), in which he writes that I and the people who made this thriller "do not hide their animus against all things Catholic."

He's been making these assertions for years, going back to the theatrical release of The Da Vinci Code. He stepped up his campaign more than a month ago with a series of press releases. And there he goes again, in a Daily News op-ed last Friday, saying that Dan Brown and I "have collaborated in smearing the Catholic Church...."

Let me be clear: neither I nor Angels & Demons are anti-Catholic. And let me be a little controversial: I believe Catholics, including most in the hierarchy of the Church, will enjoy the movie for what it is: an exciting mystery, set in the awe-inspiring beauty of Rome. After all, in Angels & Demons, Professor Robert Langdon teams up with the Catholic Church to thwart a vicious attack against the Vatican. What, exactly, is anti-Catholic about that?

Mr. Donohue's booklet accuses us of lying when our movie trailer says the Catholic Church ordered a brutal massacre to silence the Illuminati centuries ago. It would be a lie if we had ever suggested our movie is anything other than a work of fiction (if it were a documentary, our talk of massacres would have referenced the Inquisition or the Crusades). And if fictional movies could never take liberties with reality, then there would have been no Ben-Hur, no Barabbas, The Robe, Gone With The Wind, or Titanic. Not to mention Splash!

I guess Mr. Donohue and I do have one thing in common: we both like to create fictional tales, as he has done with his silly and mean-spirited work of propaganda.

Mr. Donohue's op-ed and booklet also suggest that we paint the Church as "anti-reason." There is plenty of debate over what the Church did or didn't do with Galileo, but I for one do recognize that the Church did much throughout the ages to encourage and preserve education, the arts and the sciences.

Had Mr. Donohue and his allies waited to see Angels & Demons before criticizing it, they would have seen references to struggles within the Church between faith and science, but they would also have seen clear signs of support for the pursuit of science at the highest levels of the Vatican. Indeed, one of the first scenes of the movie depicts a scientist at the high-tech CERN laboratory...and he is a priest.

And it's a two-way street. As Dr. Rolf Landua of CERN said during my visit to their facilities in February, "Most physicists which I know are very, very tolerant towards all kinds of religious beliefs, many of them are themselves religious believers....When you look at the scientific way we are looking at these questions, you come to the conclusion that there's always some part which we cannot explain."

Even the current "faith vs. science" debate over embryonic stem cells is briefly depicted in Angels & Demons in a balanced way.

But since Mr. Donohue has, in effect, smeared me by claiming I am smearing his Church, I want him to know this: I have respect for Catholics and their Church, and know they accomplish many good works throughout the world. And I believe Angels & Demons treats the Church with respect -- even a degree of reverence -- for its traditions and beliefs.

I know faith is believing without seeing (and a boycott would be disbelieving without seeing). But I don't expect William Donohue to have faith in me, so I encourage him to see Angels & Demons for himself. Then he will finally witness, and perhaps believe, that what I say is true.

Ron Howard is the director of "Angels & Demons" and is co-chairman of Imagine Entertainment

Comments

[archtoplee]

Just think if Ronnie Howard had read James Perloff's book "Shadows of Power" first before making Angels and Demons he would have gotten a different perspective on the subject of conspiracy and the "Illuminati."
http://jbs.org/index.php/component/content/article/934-speaker-bios/1737-james-perloff

His book Shadows doesn't resort to made up "conspiracy theories." http://www.shopjbs.org/magento/index.php/shadows-of-power.html

[Kamran Pasha - Huffpost Blogger]

As a Muslim and as a filmmaker, I want to applaud you for treating the subject of faith with such respect in "Angels and Demons." The movie is both an edge-of-your-seat thriller as well as a profound essay on the relationship between religion and science in the modern world.

Here is my review of your film as a fellow Huffington Post blogger:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/why-angels-and-demons-wil_b_204311.html

[EdMcG]

The movie follows the book up to the ending and then Ron Howard takes a subtle, but effective swipe at the basic beliefs of the Christians.

For some, the point may be too subtle but for those who got it, the last dig scored a solid hit.

In the twist ending, Prof. Langdon proves, with a gold key, that Science trumps faith. The Cardinals were ready to act on "signs" from the Holy Spirit but when they were exposed to Scientific knowledge, they quickly changed their minds. Subtle but Effective. I like this ending much more than the one in the book.

[archtoplee]

So the Catholic Church isn't "scientific" you say?

Do a google search of the Vatican and the PHD's serving the faith and science there.

Without the church leading the way there would have been no scientific advancements. The church funded and promoted scientific progress which is opposite of your propaganda peddling myths. Was it perfect? No and neither is any other institution especially government. Look at the funding of the Manhattan project. It eneded up being dropped on innocent Japanese people who didn't deserve to be incinerated by Truman's monsterous act. Where did secular science get us in that war?

"Langdon is the character who locked horns with the Catholic Church in The Da Vinci Code, and he is a thoroughly secular academic who has a decidedly snide attitude toward the church. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg, as the whole film is infused with fabrications which, it just so happens, in every case serve to impugn Christianity.

"... there is no shortage of Ph.D.s at the Vatican. As for expertise in symbolism, ancient orders, and rituals, well, this is the Catholic Church, ya’ know? It has only been studying such things for the last two millennia. This means for about 1,500 years before the birth of Harvard, which, incidentally, was named after a minister and founded by Puritan Calvinists for the purposes of training clergy." Slwyn Duke ---www,the­newamerica­n .com
Review of Angels and Demons
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/movies/1131

[Agentlady007]

The search and discoveries for cures to diseases using stem cell replacement is medical breakthrough technology. When you get into cloning or using DNA to start making experiments beyond the medicinal reasons, then I think there is something wrong. We are not going to be living on the planet of Dr. Moreau.
We do not need to clone animals to survive, yet there are cloning farms reproducing meat. So the science vs. morals of religion colide and clash. It's another way of talking about the power of good vs. evil.

Thank you Ron for always including a moral lesson in your films. You are an amazing talent.
I am looking forward to seeing your new film. Take care.

[Reyn Mansson]

BIBLE = The Book of Superstitions based on myths and legends recorded between two and four thousand years ago then translated into several languages and rewritten into different versions by several editors.
Catholicism is one version that had adapted, included and cooped many regional pagan holidays and used the power of alignment with ruling aristocrats [many descended from Roman Senators and Legion officers] to establish the religion as a tool of control after the break up of Roman Empire.

And that is some how MORE accurate than Brown's fiction

[happybandit]

I was on the wonderful ABC show Nothing Sacred about a NY city Catholic parish and the iconoclastic priest who is its pastor. The show was created by a working Jesuit priest. It was thoughtful, soulful and yes, it portrayed complex human dramas. The kind that happen in the real world. Bill Donahue and his Catholic League protested the show before it went on the air. They mounted an on-going campaign to have it canceled.

The effect of their call for censorship was that it toughened network support for the show and probably kept it on the air longer.

I hope Donahue's bullying will boost the popularity of your movie as well.

[bbc3341]

I think a lot of this animus from Donahue is based on Dan Brown's books and not the movies. Brown in Da Vinci Code absolutely tried to make the case that his book was based on facts and the truth. I thought Ron Howard did a much better job of rooting the film in the world of fiction and I also think he went out of his way to be deferential to believing Christians - see Tom Hanks asking why Christ couldn't still be Divine even if it was shown that he had offspring - I thought that went beyond decency towards Christians.

I personally thought Angels & Demons was a better book and far, far less anti-Catholic or religion - my gut tells me Howard will evidence the same respect and care with his approach in this movie - Mr. Howard just strikes me as a decent man and I believe him.

[Gingersp]

Why can't we still be a "believing Christian", as you put it and believe that Christ was fully human. Divine or not, married with children or not, Christ taught us to love your neighbor, love your enemies, take care of those who are sick, hungry, etc. He PEACEFULLY took on the Roman authorities to try to make life better for those who were oppressed by the Romans. We can all live better lives by following Christ's teachings. What difference do the details make?
People who are threatened by a book, whether the author declares it to be "true" or not, have a very shallow faith.

[bbc3341]

OK - first of all I never said what you could or couldn't be. Not sure where that comes from. And I never said I was threatened by the book - again, not sure where you're coming from. And I would never claim to be able to judge someone else's faith the way that you have, but whatever...

Now in terms of your definition of a believing Christian, I think you can call yourself a Christian no matter how you follow Christ, but I find it odd that someone who thinks he was not who he claimed to be would want to - Bono said it the best - that Christ doesn't give people that out, he doesn't allow you that - Jesus did not go around saying he was a great teacher and thinker - he claimed to be God incarnate so to follow him and claim to be a Christian but say that the whole God incarnate thing is not true seems bizarre to me. You're basically saying that you follow a man who perpetrated the greatest fraud of all-time, or was insane.

[weatherwaxx]

There's nothing any fiction can say about the catholic church that will top the vile reality of the Inquisition, the thousandsa of "heretics" murdered because their Christian traditions did not suite Emperor Constanting, the Cathar slaughter, the collusion with Hitler, the ongoing oppression of women, and the protection and enabling of pederasts for hundreds of years.

If this church were not so very large and so very rich, it would be considered to be the cult it is.

Why, yes, I was raised catholic... 8 years of neurotic nuns. There's a reason they're having trouble with recruiting kids into the ranks.

[ejpoeta]

I just finished reading the book and cannot fathom what the controversy is about. It certainly was a great read, and there was nothing in there that I thought was bad for the church. I can't wait to go see the movie now.

[Airmail56]

It is absurd to say that Dan Browns books are not against the Catholic Church. For Howard to claim no bias against the Church, when bringing a second such book to screen, is also absurd.. To hide behind the 'It's only fiction' alibi - while knowing many will take it as fact- is not credible. NOTE: I remember reviewing the box office numbers for the first movie, and saw that that much of the gross was from off-shore. I wonder who really underwrote this film?

[truthartbeauty]

Ron, don't worry over it. Donohue is a total idiot. So what if he doesnt like something? It works both ways. I am gay and I despise the catholic church for the ignornace and bigorty it causes to perfectly innocent people. To the church that says to me that "I" do not live up to it's standards, I say....Neither do you live up to mine! It works both ways. I like the church in equal measure in how much the church likes me. anyone can set policy. the church can set policy. I can set policy! The church has been given a pass just because its the church for far too long. they have no authority over me and certainly this ignorant bigot has not moral authority at all....hypocritical to the core...the church has causes more misery than any other thing ever and the Catholic church in particular is a ridiculous bunch of evil people, all misguided all hypocrites. fk Donohue! The people who still have brains and do not believe in superstition are with you Ron.

[Viper]

he does not make money unless he has has something to be against...

Regards

[mbaty]

I can't wait to see all the church signs about this movie. "The truth about Angels and Demons, this Sunday!" They did more to advertise the Da Vinci Code movie than a PR campaign.

[davism97]

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie! Ron Howard makes good movies (Willow!).

[rocketsfan2000]

Catholics are 1/4 of the population alone, and while quite a few don't practice, more than enough DO (actually, there are millions who do) who might be influenced by bill donohue or his pope. I.E. it'll cut into the movie's bottom line. plus, so called 'recovering catholics' are being rapidly replaced by hispanics so the percentage of catholics in this country has actually increased. once the republicans drop their cryptoracism on immigration and figure out a way to appeal to the conservative cultural instincts of hispanics (who are basically economic refugees), the democrats and secularist allies will have a HUGE problem winning elections. if you don't believe me, think of the amazing success that right wing parties like the PAN have had in mexico.