Ron Howard, Angry & Demeaning?

When it was announced, years ago, that Ron Howard—a one-time television thespian turned movie director whose roles as Richie Cunningham and Opie Taylor endeared him to millions of fans—would direct The Da Vinci Code, it surprised some people. I was asked repeatedly, in the course of giving talks about Dan Brown's infamous novel, why sweet Ronnie would direct a movie that was based on a nearly endless list of falsehoods about the Catholic Church (not to mention those about Italian art, medieval architecture, and much more). Some folks, apparently, did not understand that one's role as a boy does not make the man.

Now Howard has penned an apologia, aimed mostly at The Catholic League, on The Huffington Post, and it reveals, I think, why the Howard-Brown "creative" marriage is a match made in, uh, Hollywood heaven. The two men are essentially twins, possessing mediocre and modest talents, a hamfisted way with complex and challenging material, a drive to be taken seriously at what they do even while they often hide behind the "It's only entertainment!" barricade, thin skin, and an apparent inability to comprehend why Catholics are so upset that they shamelessly truck in anti-Catholic muck.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Howard's statements and then offer some "FACTS" in response:

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.

FACT: The Da Vinci Code novel, The Da Vinci Code movie, and the Angels & Demons novel are filled with direct and indirect attacks on many matters Catholic, beginning with the person of Jesus Christ and including (but not limited to) key events in Church history, Catholic doctrine, and Catholic practices. I've outlined several of the most glaring offenses in the Angels & Demons novel in this article for This Rock magazine. Here is just a bit of what I wrote:

The author [Brown] spends two pages (ch. 84), for example, on false statements and salacious intimations about The Ecstasy of St. Teresa, a famous sculpture by Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680) located in the Cornaro Chapel of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome. The sculpture, readers are told, “had been moved from its original location inside the Vatican” not long after its unveiling, “banished” to “some obscure chapel.” That is false. The sculpture was commissioned by Venetian Cardinal Federico Cornaro for the Cornaro Chapel.

“Pope Urban VIII had rejected The Ecstasy of St. Teresa as too sexually explicit for the Vatican.” That is also false. Bernini didn’t begin working on it until three years after Urban died in 1644; he completed it in 1652. Further, Langdon deems the sculpture—which depicts St. Teresa of Avila in spiritual ecstasy, based on a description in her autobiography—as pornographic, as it supposedly depicts the saint “on her back in the throes of a toe-curling orgasm.” Going from bad to worse, Langdon interprets St. Teresa’s description of her mystical experience as “a metaphor for some serious sex.”

This crude dialogue is easily matched by the audacious dismissal of historical fact in the service of Catholic-bashing. Kohler and Langdon agree, in an early conversation, that “[o]utspoken scientists like Copernicus . . . [were] murdered by the Church for revealing scientific truths. Religion has always persecuted science” (ch. 9). This is not just false; it is libelous. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was a canon at the Cathedral in Cracow, a loyal son of the Church who died after a stroke at the age of 70.

“Unfortunately, Brown is reinforcing a stereotype,” stated Owen Gingerich, Senior Astronomer Emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and an expert on Copernicus, in an interview with the editors of Secrets of Angels & Demons. “Copernicus was a servant of the Catholic Church. He dedicated his book to the pope, and never suffered any personal reproach or persecution.” Gingerich added: “In truth, it is extremely difficult to document anyone put to death as a heretic for introducing scientific ideas” (81).

FACT: Even some atheists have pointed out the anti-Christian nature of The Da Vinci Code. This isn't simply a matter of some small-minded religious zealots turning their backs on the 21st-century. In the end, it is about truth and integrity, even in the creation of fiction and light entertainment.

Back to Howard:

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?

FACT: As I've noted before, in Angels & Demons, it is the most fervently orthodox Catholic character, Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca, the papal chamberlain, who turns out to be the villian, while the agnostic/atheistic/hubristic "hero", Robert Langdon, is the cool voice of reason and science. And the recently deceased pope in the novel (which takes place in a short window of time during a papal conclave) is revealed to have had a son (Ventresca, of course!) by artificial insemination. So, the greatest enemy of the Catholic Church, the novel indicates, is not a mysterious group such as the Illuminati, but devout and loyal Catholic leaders. So the "vicious attack," at least in the novel, is being carried out by the most orthodox, traditional Catholic character, with the obvious implication being that orthodox, traditional Catholics tend to be unstable, narrowminded, and even violent.

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!

FACT: Fiction is, of course, a rather difficult thing when it deals with real events, people, and entities. Since so many fans of Brown's novels are drawn to them because of their claims about real events and people and despite their thin plots and even thinner characters, is it too much to think that care should be taken to get some essential facts rights? Especially since Dan Brown so often made a big deal about how well-researched and historically-accurate his novels are? And yet what is most striking about Brown's works is how he misrepresents, skews, and distorts nearly everything, and it is almost always aimed at making the Catholic Church appear to be backwards, controlling, violent and murderous, opposed to science, opposed to reason, oppressive of women, and so forth. That, Ron, is anti-Catholic, no matter how you spin it, Photoshop it, fillet it, and otherwise try to gussy it up for the party.

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.

FACT: If Mr. Donohue's statements are just fictional tales, then why is Howard upset? "Hey, Ron, isn't fiction just harmless entertainment?" Doesn't he understand that he is only doing what Mr. Donohue has done—defend the name and reputation of something important to him? It is here especially that Howard has absolutely no legs to stand on. Mr Donohue's "propaganda" is actually based on what Dan Brown has written and what was in The Da Vinci Code movie; anyone with eyesight and a functioning brain could see how those works were reliant on portrayals of the Catholic Church decidedly negative in character. Howard doesn't bother to address that fact directly, but attempts to use the "it's only fiction" argument, which doesn't hold any water when he then attempts to argue that the movie can't be anti-Catholic because it has some good things to say about the Catholic Church:

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.

FACT: The novel, Angels & Demons, very obviously depicts the Catholic Church as opposed to reason, logic, and science. “Since the beginning of history,” Langdon states nonsensically at one point, “a deep rift has existed between science and religion” (ch. 9. Of course, modern science, which he is referring to, hasn't been around sicne "the beginning of history".) Brown tosses the bone of Fr. Leonardo (a priest who has an adopted daughter. Say what?), but that is only used as a foil to demonstrate how unusual and upsetting it is to the Catholic leaders in the book that a priest would be an accomplished scientist. The novel claims Galileo was persecuted by the Church and that Copernicus was murdered by the Church, neither of which is true. Never mind that the Catholic Church has a long and illustrious history of supporting scientific investigation and scientists (not a few of them priests).

What the novel does, in addition to generally pitting the Catholic Church against science, is to suggest in several ways that the only way the Catholic Church can survive is to either renounce or seriously rework many of her doctrines and beliefs. In Brown's world is appears that science and religion can co-exist, but only if religion defers in all matters to science and secular interests.

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.

FACT: If that is true—and I think it is a large "IF"—then it is due to some serious re-writing on the part of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman. But even if it is true, how can Howard be so self-righteously indignant in light of the glaringly obvious track record established by Dan Brown? And why is he so defensive about his reputation while mocking Mr. Donohue for defending the reputation of the Catholic Church? Why the double standard? After all, if I wrote a work of fiction titled, Ron Howard: A Novel, which was about an actor and director named Ron Howard, filled with all sorts of dubious or outrageous statements about said Ron Howard, would he be fine with it? What if I claimed it was based on several years of research and was historically factual? Well?

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.

FACT: This cuts both ways, Mr. Howard. If you cannot see why a Catholic, such as Donohue or myself or thousands of others, is upset by Brown's literary depictions and your cinematic depiction, in the first Langdon movie, of the Catholic Church, then I have to conclude that even if you may or may not be overtly anti-Catholic, you are surely no friend of facts, reason, civility, and artistic integrity.

Finally, a simple question: if you made a movie about Islam and an Muslim leader wrote a response similar to Donohue's, would you respond the same way?

Related Articles and Interviews:

• Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code | Excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax | Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel
• The "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine Carl E. Olson
• Dan Brown Reveals How Little He Really Knows | Sandra Miesel
• Danned If You Do, Danned If You Don't | Carl E. Olson
• Meeting the Real Mary Magdalene | An Interview with Amy Welborn
• What Do Christians Know? Carl E. Olson
• The Da Vinci Code's Sources | Carl E. Olson
• The Atheist and the Code: An Interview with Tim O'Neill | Carl E. Olson
• The Code and Gnosticism | Carl E. Olson

Comments

[Jackson]

The whole con reminds me of Donizetti's L'Elisir d'Amore. They're like old-time snake-oil salesmen. They trade on ignorance.

[Prudence]

The best way to dispel ignorance is with information like this artcle Why not make it available on Facebook and all the sites and veues where young people gather? Perhaps it is worth an advertisement in every cinema showing the film like
The picture Angels and Demons is made up if you want to know the facts go to www.

[Todd]

A good case for mediocrity can be made against Dan Brown, who is a writer of popular thrillers. However, Carl, you really damage your argument by insulting Ron Howard:

"The two men are essentially twins, possessing mediocre and modest talents ..."

Howard has actually won an Academy Award, and I think his work directing a few movies like Apollo 13, was excellent. Among his peers, Howard is definitely a step up from where Brown stands among his peers. But calling someone "mediocre" for doing something you disagree with--it doesn't present the Catholic argument against Dan Brown as well as it could.

[Ed Peters]

"Howard has actually won an Academy Award."

I've enjoyed a number of RH films, but that he's a recent AA winner is perhaps the weakest argument one can offer for being a film talent these days.

[Gail F]

Todd's right, Ron Howard isn't mediocre. "Apollo 13" is a fantastic movie (also,like htis one, starring Tom Hanks).

That said, I have a far different opinion of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks after their making these two films. I used to respect their work. And while I still respect their past work, I have a much lower opinion of them as people after choosing to make and star in crap like this.

Dan Brown, I expect. But them?

I don't know what religion Ron Howard belongs to, if any. But Tom Hanks's wife is Greek Orthodox. How would she like it if he starred in a movie saying that the Greek Orthodox church had massacred the world's most brilliant people and has spent the centuries since then trying to destroy whoever is left of them? TWICE???

[Jackson]

"Howard has actually won an Academy Award..."

And Yasser Arafat has won a Nobel Prize. And Mustapha Mond (aka Obama) was elected president. Such is the Brave New World. It awards both brutality and militant mediocrity.

[Scott W.]

"Howard has actually won an Academy Award..."

And soccer players try to draw a yellow card by falling on the ground, holding their knee and wailing like some kind of lawn fairy. It doesn't have anything to do with whether he was actually fouled or not.

[David Murdoch]

I feel that, unfortunately, this kind of response from us catholics is probably going to lead to much greater marketing publicity for Dan Brown and these movies. The more people attack him, the more people are going to want to see the movie.

The catholic church is often trashed in the arts and especially in hollywood. The depictions of the church on screen are often of some dark, forboding, evil institution with stereotypical characters. We need to start making movies ourselves that show the real story about the story, which I think would be a far more interesting piece of film than the regurgitated stereotypical plots being made up by Mr. Brown et al.

[Carl E. Olson]

I feel that, unfortunately, this kind of response from us catholics is probably going to lead to much greater marketing publicity for Dan Brown and these movies. The more people attack him, the more people are going to want to see the movie.

I don't buy it, David; I really think that is a small possibility. And, besides, it can too easily become an excuse to not respond. Frankly, I'd rather respond and let the chips fall where they may rather than to simply be quiet and let opportunist jerks like Howard and Brown get away with their cash-cow bigotry without any criticism.

[Ed Peters]

I think you're right, Carl. "Controversy", whatever that means in a day wherein we simply lurch from controversy to controversy, doesn't drive people's entertainment dollar that way it might have. That "controversy" drives sales is fast becoming what the sociologists would call a "mythic fact", an assertion arguably true at one point, but being repeated by habit now, irrespective of whether it's still true.

[bill]

And don't get me started on how bad the physics in the book is ... On the whole, A&D was the biggest waste of reading time I've experienced in years -- even more than TDVC.

[Joshua Hoagland]

I guess The Catholic League got under Mr. Howard's skin. Poor Opie, Mr. Donahue is being unfair! I'm glad the League goes after people that trash the Catholic Faith. If more of us did that we could make a bigger difference. I know people like to say that "bad press is good press" and if "The Passion of the Christ" was left alone it would have failed at the box office. Doubt it. People see a film because they want to see a film, bad publicity or not.

What the Catholic League and Insight Scoops does is makes the audience -- at least the ones who read -- aware of what is going on in film, books, organizations, and individuals who are against the one true faith. Carl Olsen showed that in his Da Vinci Hoax that people will believe just about anything they read or see no matter how false it is.
I will continue to say rosaries for both Ron Howard and Dan Brown and the whole industry that they will see the Truth.

[Ed Peters]

"People see a film because they want to see a film..." ...right, and they dont go if they don't want to, as Louis B Mayer once said (I quote from memory) "If Americans don't want to see a film, no power on earth can stop them from not going!"

[CV]

I applaud Carl's ongoing efforts to speak the truth about the DVC and A&D book and movie scams. I have my suspicions that A&D is going to sink like a stone--it will get far fewer "curiosity seekers" than the DVC movie.

I think it's interesting that Ron Howard is taking the time to refute the Catholic League on this, and so extensively to boot. It suggests that he understands, on some level, that his reputation for "first-class cinema" was damaged with the aethetic smear job he perpetrated with the DVC movie. A lot of people (still a minority, but nothing to sneeze at) think a lot less of Howard (and Hanks for that matter) and I think he knows it.

Of course he'll take the money..not that he or Dan need anymore of course. But some things are priceless.

Regardless of whether it makes a lot of money (and it probably will even if it's not a blockbuster) his movie will tank because the plot is so inane, and because the curtain has been yanked away from the "wizard."

Sorry, Ronny! Lots of us loved you in Mayberry, and in Happy Days, and we know you're a great director. But you sold out, you hurt a lot of innocent people, and self-rightous explanations aren't going to chang that reality.

[Emilio III]

Regarding "Even some atheists", unfortunately Tim O'Neill allowed his his domain name to expire, and historyvsthedavincicode.com now advertises Dan Brown's "frightful horseradish".