"DOPEY OPIE"
Posted on 04/21/2009 8:48:34 AM PDT by kellynla
Ron Howard, director of “Angels & Demons,” the movie version of Dan Brown’s book by that name, attacked Catholic League president Bill Donohue yesterday on the Huffington Post.
Referring to a booklet on the movie that Donohue authored, “Angels & Demons: More Demonic than Angelic,” (click here) Howard wrote: “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….” Howard also said that “most in the hierarchy of the Church” will enjoy his film; he denies being anti-Catholic.
Donohue responded today:
“Dan Brown says in his book that the Illuminati are ‘factual’ and that they were ‘hunted ruthlessly by the Catholic Church.’ In the film’s trailer, Tom Hanks, who plays the protagonist Robert Langdon, says ‘The Catholic Church ordered a brutal massacre to silence them forever.’ Howard concurs: ‘The Illuminati were formed in the 1600s. They were artists and scientists like Galileo and Bernini, whose progressive ideas threatened the Vatican.’
“All of this is a lie. The Illuminati were founded in 1776 and were dissolved in 1787. It is obvious that Galileo and Bernini could not possibly have been members: Galileo died in 1647 and Bernini passed away in 1680. More important, the Catholic Church never hunted, much less killed, a single member of the Illuminati. But this hasn’t stopped Brown from asserting that ‘It is a historical fact that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600s.’ (My emphasis.)
“Howard must be delusional if he thinks Vatican officials are going to like his propaganda—they denied him the right to film on their grounds. Moreover, we know from a Canadian priest who hung out with Howard’s crew last summer in Rome (dressed in civilian clothes) just how much they hate Catholicism. It’s time to stop the lies and come clean.”
garbage in...garbage out...
May I suggest you spend those two hours reading a Bible.
just a thought...your time, your money.
I can differentiate fact from fiction, learning from the former and being entertained by the latter.
I enjoyed “National Treasure” too, but don’t expect there’s a secret message on the back of the Declaration Of Independence.
Do you read fiction at all?
>>> If they have changed minds it’s weak minds. <<<
Given the results of the last presidential election, the presence of a lot of weak minds wouldn’t surprise me.
However, this point doesn’t address your false assertion that “there was no claim of truth” in the movie.
>>> No work of fiction no matter great (or in this case probably really bad) should be taken as a history lesson. <<<
Well, I believe that people SHOULD be nice to each other and that centralized governments SHOULD be careful about being too big or getting too powerful.
The historical fact that people many times AREN’T nice to each other — or that some writers and movie-makers play fast and loose with the fact/fiction distinction — has lead me to conclude that there is a big difference between what IS and what SHOULD BE.
Books and movies categorized as fiction have been and will continue to be considered as repositories of fact. Your wish as to what should be doesn’t change this; nor does it challenge the twisted little anti-Catholic/anti-Christian game that Dan Brown plays with his novels (and the movies licensed fom them).
Also, once again you do not address your false assertion that “there was no claim of truth” in the movie.
I haven’t read either of these books. I did see the first film (which was very bad) and don’t recall any ‘Based on fact’ title cards. I don’t know a single person who walked out thinking ‘Wow, it’s all true!’.
The idea that fiction should strictly adhere to historical fact has no basis in Western Culture. Shakespeare and Tolstoy took severe liberties with historical figures and events and so did many much lesser lights.
not much...too busy dealing with reality...
It was a VERY odd movie— the only words I can think of is fringe or BLASPHOMY.
"DOPEY OPIE"
I was watching Shootist on AMC TV two weeks ago Nutmeg
I wonder how the DUKE John Wayne would have react to see his former co star Opie doing this movie
He probably throw some f-bombs
Except for the author's claim.
>>> I did see the first film (which was very bad) and don’t recall any ‘Based on fact’ title cards. <<<
As for me, I read the book and didn’t see the movie. The cover of my book says “Now a major motion picture.” When we have a media culture where a book and a licensed movie (or vice versa) are out simultaneously, to claim or imply that the two are distinct and don’t “cross-pollinate” each other seems short-sighted.
>>> I don’t know a single person who walked out thinking ‘Wow, it’s all true!’. <<<
Well, Pauline Kael once wrote that she didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon back in ‘72. It all depends who you associate with, I suppose. Consider yourself lucky! I wasn’t — I had work associates who had read the book and seen the movie and had swallowed whole a lot of the “facts.”
>>> The idea that fiction should strictly adhere to historical fact has no basis in Western Culture. <<<
Although this idea has not been brought up in this thread until now, I would have to agree. Unfortunately, it’s an idea that is tangential to the arguments I’ve made so far.
And so when Opie says it's fiction in the context of fiction, he means it's fact.
The mind reels.
Brown was NOT playing your game - he believes and promotes his books as containing facts - those listed in the "fiction" book as facts. Which he, by the way, stole from another book which also claimed them as facts - a non-fiction book.
>>> Amazing how many people here just don’t get that.
It’s fiction, and that it starts with the word “FACT” doesn’t make it not fiction. Heck, seems a great way to promote fiction sales is to - in the context of the fiction - call it fact. <<<
Amazing how many people here just don’t get how propaganda works.
>>> FWIW: I liked “The DaVinci Code”. It was an entertaining portrayal of vast complex ancient conspiracies, which always makes for entertaining FICTION. From the previews, I look forward to “Angels & Demons” - again, as entertaining FICTION. <<<
Funny. Just this week I had a discussion with a co-worker who said they couldn’t take _Atlas Shrugged_ seriously because it was just an entertaining fiction. They read the book, they enjoyed the characters and situations in a sci-fi kind of way, but saw no more in the book. It was just an entertaining fiction.
Is he referring to the Hermeticists and the Rosicrucians?
Opie hates needing John Galt.
seriously,
everyone you just mentioned believes in god and, in some fashion, is a christian.
as for hanks, he is just zoolander.
Do you think all fiction is propaganda if it involves historical events? One can make that claim. Remember ‘The Name of the Rose’? Do you think that was anti-Catholic propaganda?
so in 1600 did the illuminati conspire with Leonardo Davinci in order to clone dinosaurs and attack the united states too?
Is the Pope Catholic? ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.