In addition to the anti-Catholicism present in the forthcoming release of "Angels & Demons", there's another politically correct element to the movie adaptation of the Dan Brown novel that's worth noting: Hollywood's aversion to portraying radical Muslims as the bad guys.
From Christian film critic Dr. Ted Baehr's May 14 review (h/t Townhall's Greg Hengler; emphasis mine):
[A]lthough (unlike the book) the movie's dialogue has some positive statements about faith in Jesus Christ, the person making many of these statements turns out to be the real villain, a mad clergyman who also is one of the most conservative Christians depicted in the story. Furthermore, when confronted by these various statements about Jesus Christ, the hero keeps his agnosticism. In fact, the movie's ultimate impression is that Christians throughout history are mostly a bunch of well meaning but bumbling fools with a few really bad guys and hypocrites included in the bunch.
Also unlike the book, the assassin henchman of the mad clergyman in the movie is not a rabid Muslim as he is in the novel, but a very lapsed Catholic. He is not killing for Allah, but for money.
This is nothing new, of course.
Take, for example, 2002's "Sum of All Fears," an adaptation of the Tom Clancy novel by the same name, where the novel's chief villains were changed from Palestinians bent on subverting American support for Israel to neo-Nazis hoping to trigger a nuclear war that would destroy the U.S. and Russia out of a desire to avenge the demise of Hitler's Third Reich.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
For reasons that libs like Ron Howard are mainly chickens
May 14, 2009 - 15:01 ET by Lord ErondBecause deep down, Ron and his producers, directors and screenwriters know that the Catholics aren't going to come running up to his door scream "allah is great" then set off the backpack bomb for insulting their religion.
Liberals..particularly Hollywood liberals are a bunch of mealymouthed cowards.
"Let him who would move the world, first move himself." -Socrates
"We sit together, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
Remember, when
May 14, 2009 - 15:09 ET by Paul Atreidesthey called people who support the War on Terror "chickenhawks?"
Liberals are all for attacking religion as long it is Christianity.
follywierd shoots on location.
May 14, 2009 - 16:22 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonSometimes the location is in places where the security can't be quite tight enough to prevent the crew and actors from being over run by a group of really irritated muslims that have a desire to slice off a few heads for slandering muslims.
In other words, Christians won't kill them for poor behavior, but muslims will, and muslims really aren't into political correctness anyway.
http://gjresult.com
You know, that is the catch 22
May 14, 2009 - 18:02 ET by general companyIf holyweired realy wanted to help out, they would make the Islamic fanatics look like fools and criminals as often as possable
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Who said they wanted to help
May 14, 2009 - 18:03 ET by balboaWho said they wanted to help out? Isn't their job to make money?
Aparently not. The movies
May 14, 2009 - 18:10 ET by BDAparently not. The movies Hollywood has made denigrating the US Soldier have all be HUGE sucking chest wounds financially.
The movies Hollwood has made making the GI look noble in the past ten years have all been boffo at the box office.
still the number of films showing the US fighting man in a bd light DWARFS the good films.
So, no , it is not apparently their goal to make money.
Those movies you're talking
May 14, 2009 - 18:12 ET by balboaThose movies you're talking about only comprise a small sliver of Hollywood's output.
Are you suggesting
May 14, 2009 - 18:55 ET by general companyThat they could not make money making fun of Jihadist? Get real,
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
No, I'm not. But I don't see
May 14, 2009 - 18:57 ET by balboaNo, I'm not.
But I don't see a bunch of Republican producers getting together to make one of these movies any time soon, either.
"bunch of Republican producers" ??
May 14, 2009 - 19:53 ET by general companyHhmmm, sorry I did not consider that the party affiliation would be necessary. I was just thinking if they picked the good guys occasionally, they might make some money
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
No, I know. I'm just saying
May 14, 2009 - 19:55 ET by balboaNo, I know. I'm just saying that if these things are such a sure money-maker, why doesn't someone do it.
Your right
May 14, 2009 - 20:25 ET by general companyAnd I am no movie producer, and they are doing so well ? BTW do you fully appreciate what you are suggesting? You are suggesting that we should not ever expect a fair shake by the folks who produce 90% of all media in the USA. You have approved,,,
Twice in one day? my butt!
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I don't get your
May 14, 2009 - 21:16 ET by balboaI don't get your link...
There seems to always be a lot of people saying "If they only made _this_ movie or _that_ movie..." I'm just not sure it's that easy, and if it was, I think there'd be a conservative producer willing to stick his neck -- and money -- out to do it, since the "Hollyweirdos" haven't done it.
conservative producer willing to stick his neck
May 14, 2009 - 21:29 ET by general companyWhy must it be a conservetive producer? Hollywood used to have patriots. What does that say about the rest of them?
I didnt get my link either, sorry
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Bal: Lets face it,
May 15, 2009 - 09:49 ET by BDBal:
Lets face it, Hollowood has long ago stopped producing much of value.
Watch TV at night and see that the current films invariably follow the following patterns:
The amusing thing is anytime a good quaility, usually underfinanced film of a positive subject (Fireproof comes to mind) comes up and makes a huge haul, Hollywood blinks and says "Yeah, but that will not be seen as cool at a cocktail party - and thus I will not get laid if I make one like it."
Hell, even Tom Hanks had to insert gratuitous sex scenes whcih did not further the story line in both Band Of Brothers and John Adams to remain cool.
I think part of your list is
May 15, 2009 - 10:01 ET by balboaI think part of your list is accurate, part isn't. The "US is evil" and "diatribes against Catholics or Baptists" doesn't make up a large percentage of Hollywood's output. Man ruining earth has been a big seller lately (I'm a sucker for Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal battling wolves and blizzards), but that's part preaching, part jumping on a hot trend that execs think will sell.
(And I only remember one sex scene in BoB, and it was really brief. Are there others?)
Bal: Hollywood has been
May 15, 2009 - 10:21 ET by BDBal:
Hollywood has been in a production decline for two decades. The number of major releases each year from Hollywood is now about 20. So, in the past four years we have had (Partial list):
One film comes to mind that might be considered the anti-thesis to this "The Kingdom" which was quite good until the last scene in which the US FBI agents are equated with the Terrorists so that one goes either way.
And more are in the pipeline. So as a percentage? They are ALL OUT OF WACK!!!!!!!
Regarding the sex scene in BOB, what did it accomplish? It didn ot further the story since it was just a minor player in the script and an unknown German girl. But it did acheive an insertion of sex to keep the film "Cool" on the cocktail circuit.
First, I hardly think that
May 15, 2009 - 10:31 ET by balboaFirst, I hardly think that one sex scene was inserted for any kind of cool quotient, as incredibly brief as it was. You could also make that statement about many different scenes in that series.
Second, your 20 number is inaccurate.
Then why were two disparate
May 15, 2009 - 10:48 ET by BDThen why were two disparate scenes inserted with so little meaning assoiated with them. Did they advance the story? No. Since things that do not advance the story are usually deleted to save precious time they obviously must havea purpose.
That purpose is to remain cool in Hollywood cocktail parties.
Regarding the number 20. Sure a few under-produced films are rleased each year, but major releases number about 20. Usually one or two at each holiday season.
But the KEY is look at the dichotomy in the prduction. US is bad HUGELY ourproduced versus US is GOOD. That cannot be debated.
In military-themed movies,
May 15, 2009 - 11:29 ET by balboaIn military-themed movies, you're right that there are tons more movies that are critical of the U.S. than positive, if you don't count the appearance of the military in things like "Transformers."
And again, 20: look at this list of movies from 2008: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm
Way more than 20.
I said major
May 15, 2009 - 14:35 ET by BDI said major releases.... Most of these do not count.
BD, what do you consider a
May 17, 2009 - 15:36 ET by balboaBD, what do you consider a major release? I'm stumped.
Best way I can explain it
May 17, 2009 - 17:15 ET by BDBest way I can explain it is that in 2008 there were hundreds of releases. Most were not major releases but rhater niche films that no one really expected anyone to ever see.
My list of major releases of 2008 is:
I must say that I only went to a theater twice last year, only finding Leatherheads and the Indian Jones film worth the hassle of going to a theater over.
I saw others, mostly as inflight movies.
This is why I am guessing
May 14, 2009 - 17:48 ET by BDThis is why I am guessing Hollywood is unable to make patriotic films regarding the GWOT. They are having problems turning the Taliban into Catholic Albino's from Norway.
AQ? Why they are simply pro-life militants from Kansas don't you know....
I don't blame Howard for
May 14, 2009 - 18:25 ET by CamelopardalisI don't blame Howard for scratching the Muslim villian from the movie. Who could? Muslims everywhere would be calling for the movie to be boycotted. I know that Muslims and dare I say, our sympathizers, think they are doing us a favor by avoiding putting us in a negative light. However, it prevents frank conversation and clamps down on free speech if we complain everytime a guy named Hassan or Mohammed in a movie decides to blow something up. What I really hate is that instances like this are used by fodder for those who claim that Islam says to punish those who speak ill of Islam; this isn't true. But who could I blame for not knowing that?
I think this omission
May 14, 2009 - 20:13 ET by ThatDudeI think this omission actually dumbs things down a bit. The man was of the muslim sect of hashashin, a group who was aggrieved by the Catholic church (at least in the book, I don't know whether the history is correct.) So the man agrees to help the Illuminati in order to seek vengeance for what the Catholic church has done to his ancestors.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't make this man out to be so much of a villain. He is used by the villain. I actually found that to be an interesting part of the book. Still though, they do seek to put down Catholics and Christians quite a bit in the book/movie. The Pope's son was ultra-conservative? No. He was very political and sought more power for the church rather than to cooperate with the concept that science and religion don't necessarily conflict.
I know many here dislike these books/movies, but I especially enjoyed Angels and Demons and am disappointed to see pc changes being made to it that makes the story less coherent.
Blah blah blah
May 14, 2009 - 19:36 ET by someloudthunderThis isn't something to be concerned about. You shouldn't be surprised. We should be looking a Pelosi and her web of lies.
It's A Shame They Don't Demonize Muslims As Well...
May 14, 2009 - 22:28 ET by The7SticksAs far as I'm concerned, fundamentalist Muslims and the elitist Catholic hierarchy are one in the same (By the way, I'm not referring to the bomb-throwing Muslims in comparison to the Vatican, I mean the Aey-holes that threw hissy fits because their "pwecious-wittle Mohammed was being mocked by Danish cartoonists"). Both have persecuted the Jews over the centuries, and they both have tried to censor our movies. The Muslims seem to have the upper hand at this moment because the businesses running the studios don't want to hurt their bottom line by offending them. It's a shame. All religious authoritarians should be subject to ridicule. I can't believe they're actually afraid of making fun of Scientologists. The guys on South Park did a brilliant send-up of those morons in the "Trapped In The Closet" episode, and Tom Cruise tried to skin them alive.