Movie Angels And Demons Full Of Lies

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1817178' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:22 PM']I could see what you're saying. Of course, he does not have the Pope teaching error about it (thankfully). So while I don't like that part, we have had Popes who haven't completely followed Church teaching, if I'm not mistaken. Not saying that to excuse the actions taken by the character, though. And yeah, I don't really see how that is necessary to the plot.[/quote]

I agree, we have had immoral Popes, but as you noted, it was just the total unnecessity to the plot that got me.

Also, for the Dan Brown quote earlier...

[quote]Q: Angels & Demons reveals a lot of inside information about the Vatican... much of it unflattering. Do you fear any repercussions?

A: I imagine some controversy is unavoidable, yes, although it's important to remember that Angels & Demons is primarily a thriller--a chase and a love story. It's certainly not an anti-Catholic book. It's not even a religious book. Much of the novel's action takes place deep inside the arcane world of the Vatican, and yes, [b]some of the factual information revealed there is startling[/b], but I think most people understand that an organization as old and powerful as the Vatican could not possibly have risen to power without acquiring a few skeletons in their closets. I think the reason Angels & Demons is raising eyebrows right now is that it opens some Vatican closets most people don't even know exist. The final message of the novel, though, without a doubt, is a positive one.[/quote]

What factual information? The premise of the book is itself fiction (There was no Illuminati in the 1600s)

-Edit-

Really, reading through his interview is quite scary...

[quote]Q: The plot of Angels and Demons is described as "a revenge 400 years in the making." Can you explain what this means?

A: Sure. It is [b]historical fact [/b]that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/quote]
No, they were formed in 1776.

[quote]Q: You've written novels about a classified intelligence agency and an ultra-secretive brotherhood. Are secrets something that interest you?

A: ... My goal is always to make the character's and plot be so engaging that readers don't realize how much they are learning along the way.[/quote]

Learning? But it's a fiction book... Right?

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[Veridicus]

I've read The DaVinci Code, but not Angels & Demons. As much as I would love to see the Church scandalized even more by making monsters of men in our most important eccelsial offices...I think I'll just keep using what little free time I have in reading Fulton Sheen instead. Depicting corrupt Catholic clergy could not possibly be more overdone; it isn't even a scandal anymore really, but people must still love it or there wouldn't be money to make over the sensationalization.

For those of you who have read it, please tell me that it DOES NOT begin with the preface...: "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"...

I only pray that his prodigious skill as an historical sleuth, writer of 3page-Soap-Opera-esque chapters, and his unassailable ability to compose hollow weightless characters are not brought to a tragic and premature end during a freak Inversion Therapy accident. How ever would the world continue in the absence of his illuminating refulgence?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1817088' date='Mar 26 2009, 01:18 PM']I would argue his declaration of an Egyptian pyramid being an "occult symbol representing a convergence upward toward the ultimate source of Illumination". It does represent the primeval mound of creation, though.....[/quote]

I've always thought that the pyramids were actually spaceship-landing docks.....

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817180' date='Mar 26 2009, 08:26 PM']I agree, we have had immoral Popes, but it was just the total unnecessity of it that blew my blood.

Also, for the Dan Brown quote earlier...



What factual information? The premise of the book is itself fiction (There was no Illuminati in the 1600s)[/quote]
Agreed.

[HisChildForever]

These novels are fiction and they are presented as fiction. My opinion is that a lot of the responses here are overreactions.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817172' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:17 PM']I suppose that's partially why I found it anti-Catholic, as he went out of his way to have a Pope who committed an act against Church teaching with no remorse to pull off an unecessary plot device that had no basis with the rest of the book.[/quote]

It was a plot twist.

This is the jist of what is going on in the novel, taken from Wikipedia:

[spoiler] Langdon, Vittoria, and the cardinals confront the camerlengo in the Sistine Chapel, where the truth is finally revealed. Shortly before the events of the novel, the Pope was scheduled to meet with Leonardo Vetra concerning his research at CERN. Vetra, a devout Catholic, believed that science was capable of establishing a link between Man and God, a belief that was manifested by his research on antimatter. Vetra's beliefs caused great discomfort to the camerlengo, who firmly believed that the Church alone, not science, should dictate the moral creed of the Christian faithful. While discussing Vetra, the Pope reveals that his support is due to science having created him a miracle: a son conceived by artificial insemination. Horrified that the Pope has fathered a child, the camerlengo plots to "rectify" the situation. He poisoned the Pope and, under the guise of an Illuminati master (Janus), he recruited the Hassassin, a killer fueled by the same zeal and animus towards the Church as his ancestors during The Crusades, to kill Vetra, steal the antimatter, and kidnap and murder the Preferiti just as the papal conclave was set to convene. The camerlengo planted the antimatter in St. Peter's and feigned his last-minute "vision" from God in order to be seen as a hero and the savior of Christendom by those who witnessed his brave acts. The Illuminati thus had no actual role in any of the novel's events, and its "involvement" was merely a plot engineered by the camerlengo to cover his own plans. As Langdon suspected from the very beginning, the Order of the Illuminati was indeed long extinct.

As one final twist, it is revealed that Camerlengo Ventresca was the birth son of the late Pope, conceived through artificial insemination.[/spoiler]

[CatholicCid]

Did you read the novel? As I said, I thought it was a decent detective novel, but the ending ruined it. I don't really think anyone here is overreacting. The novel itself did seem to go out of it's way to distort both Church members and Church history, which is why I think it was anti-Catholic. The "plot twist" had little to no basis to the actual story, so it seemed he went out of his way to include the unnecessary ending. I've actually contemplated going to see the movie since I did enjoy 90% of the novel.

My main concern, I suppose, would be the interview you posted of Dan Brown... Why did he state certain fictional items he wrote about as fact? Clearly, he should know they are fiction, but he seems to think they are actual fact. So, perhaps he does not realize that part of his writing is actually fiction and instead is presenting it as fact? e.g. Stating the Illuminati's existence in the 1600s was historical fact, when they weren't actually founded until 1776. Considering that the "fact" he believes is the major premise of his book, you'd think he'd realize it was infact fiction.

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[Luthien]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817184' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:28 PM']I've always thought that the pyramids were actually spaceship-landing docks.....[/quote]

Okay Daniel Jackson.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1817202' date='Mar 26 2009, 03:56 PM'] Okay Daniel Jackson. [/quote]

I was hoping someone would pick up on that...I was kinda expecting an "Indeed, Daniel Jackson." (Kinda a Stargate Junky...sorry...I thought that smiley kinda looked like Teal'c in his pi[i][/i]mp-hat...except more yellow)

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817204' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:00 PM']I was hoping someone would pick up on that...I was kinda expecting an "Indeed, Daniel Jackson." (Kinda a Stargate Junky...sorry...I thought that smiley kinda looked like Teal'c in his pi[i][/i]mp-hat...except more yellow)[/quote]

You deserve a SHAM WOW for your efforts.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817201' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:53 PM']Did you read the novel? As I said, I thought it was a decent detective novel, but the ending ruined it. I don't really think anyone here is overreacting. I've actually contemplated going to see the movie since I did enjoy 90% of the novel.[/quote]

Yes, I read it. Otherwise I would not be talking about it. It irks me when people (in general) who have not read the novel pass immediate judgment.

I found the part with Robert [spoiler] falling out of a helicopter, and into a body of water, and surviving[/spoiler] to be lame.

[quote]My main concern, I suppose, would be the interview you posted of Dan Brown... Why did he state certain fictional items he wrote about as fact? Clearly, he should know they are fiction, but he seems to think they are actual fact. So, perhaps he does not realize that part of his writing is actually fiction and instead presenting it as fact? e.g. Stating the Illuminati's existence in the 1600s was historical fact, when they weren't actually founded until 1776.[/quote]

His story line was complete fiction. Obviously there is going to be SOME fact involved but the majority of his novel was for sheer entertainment, not education. When he mentioned in that interview about teaching his readers, I think it was more "the Illuminati is real" rather than "the Illuminati is not only real BUT it did this crazy thing..."

I will definitely investigate the historical inaccuracy. Frankly, Dan Brown is not an idiot. He knew that writing a novel like this would spark controversy, regardless of his intentions. Call me an optimist, but I have to think that he has some basis for this, even if the information is incorrect. But I am punching it into Google now.

[Veridicus]

I just think it's a cheap shot to make the Catholic Church look so corrupt at that high level in the hierarchy. I mean seriously, after reading that synopsis...I don't even really care who dies...EVERYONE was bad. Sure the "murdered Pope" was a progressive and pro-science (which the 'world' would consider good)...but his ethics were utterly against Church teaching. And the wackjob orchestrating the whole thing actually seems to have a more orthodox view of Church authority and its place in the world relative to science (but of course who stands for the 'traditional' Church is the BAD GUY). Seriously, I wasn't even sure who I was supposed to like and dislike by the end of that synopsis...but that is because I am Catholic. If I didnt' have a formed conscience, I would just assume that everyone was corrupt and Church power was being bought by the most power-hungry, insane, and ruthless men possible. And to top it all off...let's add more scandal with [color="#FFFFFF"]Artificial Insemination[/color] and [color="#FFFFFF"]Fratricide[/color] and [color="#FFFFFF"]Suicide[/color] (PLEASE tell me the oil wasn't Sacred Chrism...) and a Papal Electoral Process shown to be a sham privy to false propheteering and madman's whims.

Yeah, that's not a bad image of Catholicism to sell the world? Especially for a world CRAVING for any reason to hate a Church that stands for objective moral and theological teaching. At least [i]most [/i]people take the time to do independent research and be well informed on historical and ecclesial history and policy...

Edited March 26, 2009 by Veridicus

[CatholicCid]

Alright, wanted to make sure. And yes, that part was very annoying. That alone shows the book was fiction

Yes, the story line is fiction, but the trouble comes when the author claims he has interwoven truths into the story. It makes matters even worse if the "facts" he believes he's included are really fiction.

I would hope he had some basis for his "facts", otherwise that just shows him as a poor researcher. Fiction or not, research is key.

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[HisChildForever]

It looks like Dan Brown says something different in another interview piece:

[quote]50. Angels & Demons, like all my books, weaves together fact and fiction. [b]Some histories claim the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/b] The early Illuminati - those of Galileo's day- were expelled from Rome by the Vatican and hunted mercilessly. The Illuminati fled and went into hiding in Bavaria where they began mixing with other refugee groups fleeing the Catholic purges --mystics, alchemists, scientists, occultists, Muslims, Jews. From this mixing pot, a new Illuminati emerged. A darker Illuminati. A deeply anti Christian Illuminati. They grew very powerful, infiltrating power structures, employing mysterious rites, retaining deadly secrecy, and vowing someday to rise again and take revenge on the Catholic Church. Angels & Demons is a thriller about the Illuminati's long awaited resurgence and vengeance against their oppressors. But most of all, it is a story about Robert Langdon, the Harvard symbologist who gets caught in the middle. Much of the novel's story is a chase across modem Rome - through catacombs, cathedrals, piazzas, and even the Vatican's subterranean Necropolis.[/quote]

You will find that quote on the fifth page: [url="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article741005.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1"]http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...et=0&page=1[/url]

One page four he explains what got him to thinking about writing the novel:

[quote]I still had not decided on the main topic for my new novel when Blythe and I visited Rome. We were beneath Vatican City touring a tunnel called il passetto -a concealed passageway used by the early Popes to escape in event of enemy attack. It runs from the Vatican to Castle Saint Angelo. [b]According to the tour guide, one of the Vatican's most feared ancient enemies was a group of early scientists who had vowed revenge against the Vatican for crimes against scientists like Galileo and Copernicus. History had called them many things - the enlightened ones, the Illuminati, The Cult of Galileo. I added the Illuminati to my mixing pot of ideas.[/b][/quote]

[CatholicCid]

Of course, I'm sure Dan Brown also included historical research somewhere showing that Galileo was part of the Illuminati, and that it existed in the 1600s (and not in 1776).