Posted on 06/25/2008 1:50:05 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY — Were the makers of Angels and Demons, a movie based on a Dan Brown novel by the same name, seriously hoping to film scenes on the premises of Catholic churches in Rome? If so, they must have been dreaming.
The movie, which is a prequel to Brown’s more commercially successful potboiler, The Da Vinci Code, sees Tom Hanks reprise his role as Harvard professor Robert Langdon.
This time, however, instead of battling a murderous “Opus Dei monk,” Langdon is on a mission to save the Vatican from being blown up by a canister of antimatter. The storyline also includes the murder of four cardinals during a Vatican City conclave to elect a pope.
The entire film is set in Rome, and Sony Pictures applied for permission to film two key scenes on the premises of the churches of Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Vittoria. They are two of the 700 or so churches owned by the Italian Interior Ministry and run by Italy’s Church.
During the film, in Santa Maria del Popolo, home of two masterpieces by Caravaggio, a cardinal is buried alive, while in Santa Maria della Vittoria, another is burned.
Speaking to the Register June 19, Father Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the Vicariate of Rome, stressed that any film allowed to be made on church premises must be acceptable to the Church, and it was “never really up for discussion whether Dan Brown’s novels are acceptable.”
The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are, he said, “not in line with our concept of respect for the Church and the people of the Church.”
Father Fibbi added that it was the Church’s mission and duty to guarantee and protect what is sacred from being profaned, and made offensive to the religion.
Not Unique
Father Fibbi stressed that to describe the vicariate’s decision as a unique ban — as many news reports had done — was very misleading. The Diocese of Rome regularly refuses permission for films to be made on Church property for similar reasons.
“To be able to shoot in a church is exceptional,” he said, “because a church is a place of prayer where the liturgy and the sacraments are celebrated.”
Father Fibbi added that the vicariate had no direct contact with director Ron Howard or Sony Pictures. The request, which was to film on the steps of the churches rather than inside, was made last year to the Ministry of the Interior who, as always happens in these cases, asked the vicariate if they approved the request.
The refusal has only come to light now as the film, due to be released in 2009, was being shot during first half of June. Scenes were allowed to be filmed away from churches, in the square in front of the Pantheon, Piazza del Popolo, Castel Sant’Angelo and Piazza Sant’Agostino.
In contrast to The Da Vinci Code, which cast Opus Dei in a sinister light and passed on many other falsehoods as fact, the effects of this film are likely to be less.
“Throughout the world, the books of Dan Brown are now perceived much clearer and not as products of high culture,” said Manuel Sanchez Hurtado, spokesman for Opus Dei. “At the same time, the book, which is the basis for this film, isn’t new. It’s old and well-known. I think its impact will be minor.”
‘Comedy of Errors’
His views were echoed by Father John Wauck, an Opus Dei priest who set up a popular blog, The Da Vinci Code Catechism, to rebuff the errors of that book.
“Like The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons is a comedy of errors,” he said. “Dan Brown slips on some doctrinal, historical or artistic banana peel on almost every page. He gets things wrong — and never in a way that favors the Church — about the Eucharist, moral teachings, Copernicus, Galileo, the Devil’s Advocate, art and architecture ... the list is endless.”
Father Wauck, who is also a professor of literature at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, said his reaction to this refusal of permission to film was the same as that of the Italian film director Franco Zeffirelli. Paraphrasing Zeffirelli, Father Wauck said: “If someone were to say to you, ‘We’re making a movie that will make your family appear ridiculous and evil, and we’d like to film in your house,’ I think that you would probably say ‘Find another house.’”
Father Wauck also downplayed the effects of the film.
“I doubt that there will be a strong reaction,” he said. “I sense that people are all ‘Dan Browned-out.’” He remembers that once The Da Vinci Code
movie appeared in 2006, the interest level for his blog, which had been high, “just fell off the edge of the earth.”
Added Father Wauck: “The million dollar question on everyone’s mind in Rome is: Can Ron Howard and company manage to make another movie as spectacularly bad as The Da Vinci Code?”
The Fear Factor
Another increasingly common question that’s being asked is why Hollywood seems happy defaming the Church, yet will rarely make movies offensive to Islam or other religions.
The same question was put to Sony Pictures, but the studio declined to comment.
For Father Wauck, the answer is simple: fear. “No one is afraid of Catholics,” he said.
“The Angels and Demons crew was filming the other day in Piazza Sant’Agostino, right under the nose of the largest Opus Dei institution in the city,” said Father Wauck. “They didn’t seem too concerned about being waylaid by any assassin monks!”
Nothing to fear but fear itself.
I read both books and saw the first movie. Enjoyed all.
Can’t wait to see the new movie.
Just saying.
It’s a misleading title. They didn’t “block” anything, they just refused to let Catholic churches be used for filming it. But what would you expect from the press?
Good for them! If they wanted to shoot an anti-Catholic-homeschooling film at my house, I’d tell them no, too.
I honestly lost interest in Dan Brown’s books after seeing the Da Vinci Code. I’m not a Catholic but the books just seem to be an exercise in vendetta against the Roman Catholic Church. I’m not exactly sure what compelled him to have to write these stories past some lightly veiled hatred of that denomination.
Oh, I’m sure he will be equally harsh with the Mormons in his next book, The Solomon Key.
He spent 2 weeks in Salt Lake last year researching, and the LDS church pretty much gave him free run of the archives, from what I understand. It should be an interesting read, to say the least.
No wonder his books are so bad.
For on site research among special collections, that’s actually pretty normal, according to other authors I know who travel for similar purposes.
Well I’m the token only person that never read the books or saw the movie..
I havent read Harry Potter either..
I have no interest in reading a book that defames Jesus or Mary, the mother of Jesus..
Jesus was never married and had no natural children...
Mary did not have sex with a mortal or immortal being..
I spent a lot longer than two weeks in the Georgia and Alabama State Archives, just for starters. And I spent as much as a week in three or four local courthouses in the record rooms.
And I wasn't getting paid. But I WAS trying to get it right, which is more than I can say for Brown.
No Arguments there. I’m not saying Brown only researched the LDS aspects for TSK for just two weeks, just that he spent 2 weeks in SL on location.
Unless you are specifically referring only to the immaculate conception, then I disagree. Mary was married to a mortal, Joseph, and the scriptures say he knew her not UNTILL after Jesus was born. Jesus had mortal brothers. Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. If they weren't blood siblings, then the passages are very confusing, to say the least.
"until" did not mean the same thing to a 17th c. Englishman that it does to us. You'll see plenty of other uses of 'until' meaning indefinite continuance, not a point of occurrence . . . as 'until the day he died' - which means never, not that it happened the day he died.
There is no word in Aramaic for cousins or just 'male relative' . . . so 'brother' was pressed into service, and that became the Greek 'adelphoi'. Koine Greek is also a bit ambiguous about the exact degree of relation.
So, yes, the passage is confusing to modern English speakers. In fact, there are three levels of confusion - Aramaic to Koine Greek to 17th c. English to modern English. I wish I read Aramaic but the best I can do is a little Greek. NYer's pastor is fluent in Aramaic, which must be neat. I think she can back me up on this one.
The Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary was preserved from sin by the intervention of God at the moment of her conception, so that she was a fit mother for God.
The Virgin Birth is the doctrine that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin without the biological intervention of a human male parent.
Could be. I’m of the mind that she was married to Joseph, and had a normal family life after her extraordinary and completely miraculous conception of the Christ.
I too believe she was a virgin until after she gave birth to Jesus.
If you believe Jesus left the tomb without rolling the stone away first (and scriptures indicate He also left the burial wrappings without unwrapping them), then why could He not leave His Mother’s womb without passing through the birth canal?
Here's what we do know...
Matthew 1: 8 ¶Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The language of Mary "bringing forth a son" is exactly the same as Elisabeth bringing forth a son, John.
Luke 1: 57
57 Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
While a miraculous birth (different from a miraculous conception) is an interesting idea, I don't find any scriptural support for it.
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.