Ah, the devious Vatican!

For several weeks there were vague, unsubstantiated reports that "Officials at the Vatican are allegedly planning to authorize a boycott of upcoming movie Angels and Demons." Now there are reports of the exact opposite, as indicated in this April 29th piece by Francis X. Rocca for the Associated Press:

But either way, in Round 2 of the battles with Brown, many church leaders are taking a new approach by trying to ignore the new film, hoping that the less attention they give it, the quicker it will go away.

''Be careful not to play their game," a top Vatican official, Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, said in the Italian newspaper La Stampa on March 20. "Dramatizing the question unintentionally gives publicity."

The Rev. John Wauck, a priest in the controversial Opus Dei movement that was a target in "The Da Vinci Code," agreed.

''Some people have called for a boycott but no one at the Vatican is speaking in those terms," said Wauck, who teaches communications at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome. "And I don't think there's any need to boycott this movie ? particularly after the scathing reviews that 'The Da Vinci Code' received."

Despite the involvement of the same author and the same director (as well as the same main character), the situation in 2009 is much different than it was in 2006. It was impossible to ignore The Da Vinci Code movie three years ago, especially since it was riding the massive wave of some 30-40 million copies of the novel being sold and a cacophony of controversy and marketing. Dan Brown and Ron Howard were, in essence, in the driver's seat.

Now, not so much. Not even close. The original movie did well worldwide, but critics blasted it, which does not bode well for the sequel/prequel (take your pick). Although the first Langdon novel, Angels & Demons, is considered by some to be better than The Da Vinci Code (something like preferring a Big Mac over a Quarter-Pounder, I suppose), its main point of controversy—the Catholic Church is anti-science and anti-reason—is not nearly as interesting or compelling to most readers as the central "facts" presented in The Da Vinci Code: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, he had children and a bloodline that exists today, he was not divine, the Catholic Church repressed the truth about Jesus and the origins of Christianity, and so forth.

All of which does not, I think, mean that Angels & Demons should simply be ignored. Rather, when possible, it should be addressed directly and simply for what it is, preferably without a defensive attitude and with a bit of a knowing smile—especially when it comes to Brown's "research." Some in the media, of course, seem content to go along with the very questionable notion that Dan Brown is an exacting and tireless researcher. Take, for example, a recent piece in The Telegraph:

Once the Browns – now effectively operating as a team – settled on the outline of The Da Vinci Code, the research operation began. They spent thousands of hours poring over books and documents in Rome, Paris and Washington. Tentatively at first, and then with more confidence, they constructed a quasi-factual, almost plausible framework for a work of outrageous fiction.

And yet Sandra Miesel and I wrote The Da Vinci Hoax in less than five months, debunked nearly every "fact" big and small in The Da Vinci Code, and provided footnotes and sources for all of it. We showed, I think, that Brown's "research" consisted mostly of a few books that are combinations of conspiracy theories and New Age, neo-gnostic nonsense. Increasingly, as the criticisms started to grow, the standard fallback position for Brown and Co. was the "It's just fiction!" line, which conviently ignores how heavily the The Da Vinci Code was initially promoted as a work of well-researched, highly intellectual, historically-accurate fiction. Nor should we ignore the apparent fact that readers of The Da Vinci Code were/are much more likely to believe that Jesus was married and that Opus Dei is a secretive, murderous sect.

If nothing else, Angels & Demons will reinforce, for some people, exasperating and dark stereotypes of the Church persecuting scientists, trying to kill Galileo, and being an anti-rational, backwards institution with nothing of value to offer modern man. That's reason enough to want to give a good response to those who might mistakenly think the Vatican is actively seeking to have Catholics boycott Angels & Demons.

Related Articles and Interviews:

• Dan Brown: A source of endless and empty hyperbole (April 25, 2009)
• "Ron Howard, Angry & Demeaning?" (April 21, 2009)
• Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code | Excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax | Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel

Comments

[Ben George]

The 2009 version of "bread and circuses" = "weed and abortion"

[Charles E Flynn]

Carl,

You might have missed the release on April 28th of "The Da Vinci Code Extended Cut" on Blu-ray:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000I2J2XG

For some reason, other people's pay-per-view comes in on my television. I have to say that "The Da Vinci Code" is the worst movie I have seen on other people's pay-per-view.

[A Mauldin]

I have a lot of fun with _The Da Vinci Code_ when I do early Church history. Using primary source documents, along with The Da Vinci Hoax, my 9th grade students and I pretty well shred Mr Brown.

BTW, most of my students are either Cumberland Presbyterians or Church of Christ members, so I get to subtly set the record straight on the Catholic Church. Note to Mr Brown and Opie: bring it on, dudes!

[Joe]

If nothing else, Angels & Demons will reinforce, for some people, that Tom Hanks has certainly aged, and his star power must be somewhat diminished if he agreed to sign on for part II of this turkey.

[Billy G]

Please, you're putting me to sleep! Find a cause that actually matters!

[Doug]

Respectfully, not a novel plan is it, really? A course of action parents have suggested their kids take in some instances. for just about forever now.I really doubt that the movie will simply just "go away", especially if the move is half way decent entertainment in it's particular fictional genre. In the end it probably doesn't matter how "devious" that Vatican, too Catholics, and non-Catholics, well end up providing the movie free publicity, because they always need one more bone to chew on, so they can growl at anyone who somehow denies them chewing on that bone.