Diane Sawyer Skips Controversy for 'Angels & Demons'; Grilled Mel Gibson

Photo of Scott Whitlock.
  • Bookmark and Share

"Angels & Demons" star Tom Hanks received zero critical questions or challenges when he appeared on Monday's "Good Morning America" to promote a movie that features the Catholic Church ordering a brutal massacre in order to silence a secret society. Instead, Sawyer referred to the film, a prequel to "The Da Vinci Code," as a "scary, spiritual scavenger hunt." After playing a clip of Hanks' character in the film asserting that he has no religious beliefs, she moved on to talking about how the movie star still gets nervous when he acts.

It's not as though Hanks didn't open himself up to questions about the film's validity. He admitted to Sawyer that in a few years, this movie, like every one he's made, will be subject to wondering "if moments are proper or authentic. Or if it actually, really, has some purpose in its reflection of, like, the human zeitgeist and that's where you find out whether or not you were telling the truth or not." Wouldn't this have been a good point to jump in and debate some of the assertions made in the book and movie? Sadly, Sawyer remained silent.

Contrast the gentle way that the ABC host treated Hanks with the grilling of Mel Gibson in a 2003 "Primetime" special on "The Passion of the Christ." Regarding accuracy and his film about Jesus Christ, Sawyer pressed for specifics: "What about the historians who say that the Gospels were written long after Jesus died, and are not merely fact, but political points of views and metaphors? Historians, you know, have argued that in fact it was not written at the time [of Christ]. These [gospel writers] were not eyewitnesses."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

As the MRC's Tim Graham wrote in a May 23, 2006 study that contrasted the treatment of Mel Gibson's movie with "The Da Vinci Code, the conservative filmmaker actually received a psychological profile from Sawyer:

Sawyer pounded Gibson about his addictions, and how they led him to return to his Catholic beginnings. But Sawyer went further than that: on Good Morning America, she interviewed TV pop-psychologist Drew Pinsky about Gibson’s mental problems, with this line of questioning: "We know that spirituality is fundamental to AA [Alcoholics Anonymous]. Is there any rehab program that really says, hey, do it on your own, you don't need that?" And so on: "And you've said that the relationship between the movie, which concentrates on the suffering, the Passion, the suffering of Jesus, and what [Gibson] went through during this darkest time." And so on: "He's talked about intensity of his struggle being reflected in the violence in the movie."

Regarding "Angels & Demons," in an April 30, 2009 column, MRC President Brent Bozell explained how even the film's trailer is misleading:

Movie watchers are going to think large chunks of this story are actual human history, and the trailer has no disclaimer about how this scientist-murdering-church narrative is pure fantasy. The real Illuminati originated in Bavaria in 1776 (long after Galileo died) and fizzled out a decade later. The Catholic Church never murdered a single member of the Illuminati.

In many ways, it seems as though GMA's coverage of the works of Dan Brown has gotten worse. Thus far, the morning show isn't even hinting that there's anything controversial in "Angels & Demons."

A partial transcript of the May 11 segment, which aired at 8:17am, follows:

DIANE SAWYER: Well, on "Angels Demons," it is another- you called him what, an intellectual Indiana Jones without the whip out there-

TOM HANKS: Yes.

SAWYER: -on another one of his scary, spiritual scavenger hunts.

HANKS: That's a good way of putting it, yes.

SAWYER: And here you are talking to Ewan McGregor, who's inside the Vatican and you have to basically save the Vatican, save the world.

HANKS: Good enough, yeah. Every movie is sort of like that these days.

SAWYER: And he wants to know about your soul. Let's listen.

["Angels and Demons" clip]

EWAN MCGREGOR: Do you believe in God, sir?

HANKS: Father, I simply believe that religion-

MCGREGOR: I did not ask you if you believe what man says about God. I asked you if you believe in God.

HANKS: I'm an academic. My mind tells me I will never understand God.

MCGREGOR: And your heart?

HANKS: Tells me I'm not meant to. Faith is a gift that I have yet to receive.

[Clip ends.]

HANKS: There you have it. The British School, Royal Academy of Dramatic Art Guild Hall Drama School and the American school "Bosom Buddies" and the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile. And they are going head to head in a battle royal of acting backgrounds

SAWYER: Showdown. Right. In the box office. Have you said- somebody told me on Biography once, you said that you have two sides of your face.

HANKS: Aw.

SAWYER: One side of your face is leading man and one side of your face-

HANKS: I blame my mother for pushing improperly. The- Because, you know, it's just like- I do. You come out. And I guess for awhile there your head is malleable, you know, your skull and when I was a young man I came out with one pretty good jaw side.

SAWYER: Wait a minute.

HANKS: Which is- this is a good side. This is- you know, please, what time is it? Who's got a good side at this time of the morning? That is a good side and this is not the good side. Now, people at home will YouTube this and freeze frame it and they will say, my God, those are two different human beings. But it's all me.

SAWYER: It's invisible to the naked eye and my eye is very naked at this hour of the morning looking at you. One of the other things that you said, which struck me was that each time you do it, each time- even after all this, each time when you go out, your heart is pounding a little.

HANKS: Oh, it's-

SAWYER: Not possible.

HANKS: Look, I take my work very seriously. I do not take the promotion of my work very seriously. This is a very different beast wrestling, wrestling, wrestling the maw. But it is terrifying because, look, it'll last forever. That's the thing. All movies come out in this kind of, like, hot house atmosphere. Is it a thumbs up? Is it thumbs down? Is it number one at the box office? Did the marketing work? Is the story- Is it worthwhile making the movie at all? That fades after a certain time and years from now, three year, four year, five years, every movie, everybody's film is recalibrate as to whether it was worthwhile or not and whether- if moments are proper or authentic or if it actually really has some purpose in its reflection of, like, the human zeitgeist and that's where you find out whether or not you were telling the truth or not. So, every day, no matter where you are in the world, oh, it's petrifying when you think about that.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Factual inaccuracies abound in "Angels & Demons"

Here are just a few:

Brown claims: Copernicus was murdered by the Catholic Church.


Fact: Copernicus died quietly in bed at age 70 from a stroke, and his
research was supported by Church officials; he even dedicated his
masterwork to the Pope.

Brown claims: “Antimatter is the ultimate energy source. It releases energy with 100% efficiency.”


Fact: CERN, the lab which plays an important role in his story, actually debunked
this claim on their website: “The inefficiency of antimatter production
is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion of the invested energy
back.”

Brown claims: Churchill was a “staunch Catholic.”


Fact: Any history buff could tell you that Churchill
wasn’t Catholic, he was Anglican; nor was he particularly religious.
The only things Churchill was staunch about were cigars, whiskey, and
defending the British Empire.

Brown claims: Pope Urban VII banished Bernini’s famous statue The Ecstasy of St. Teresa “to some obscure chapel across town” because it was too racy for the Vatican.


Fact: The statue was actually commissioned by Cardinal Cornaro
specifically for the Cornaro Chapel (Brown’s “obscure chapel”).
Moreover, the sculpture was completed in 1652 — eight years after
Urban’s death.

Brown claims: Bernini and famed scientist Galileo were members of the Illuminati.


Fact: The Illuminati was founded in Bavaria in 1776. Bernini died in 1680, while Galileo died in 1642 — more than a century before the Illuminati were first formed.

Just in case you were curious.  And, from what I understand, the plot of "Angels and Demons" is that - years ago - the Vatican killed a whole bunch of people who discovered the "real" moment of creation and now those people (or their descendents or whatever) are coming back to destroy the Vatican.

If the Vatican is so horrible - as Brown's biased writing and the media regularly claim - why not let the group destroy it and be done with Catholics once and for all?

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

I don't think anyone's

I don't think anyone's claiming this movie is factually accurate, are they? The anti-matter is a perfect example. The whole threat of the book surrounds it's ability to be life-threatening, when in reality it's not. But that's why it's a fictional story.

Balboa

Actually, Dan Brown does. More from Bozell's column:

[Ron] Howard is easily exposed as dishonest by a sentence on Dan Brown’s own website about the book: “It is historical fact that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's. The early Illuminati – those of Galileo’s day – were expelled from Rome by the Vatican and hunted mercilessly.”

It'd be nice if they talked

It'd be nice if they talked about some of the inaccuraces, balboa.

Because they abound and the message, at least according to Brown, is clear: the Catholic Church is bad and evil and kills people it disagrees with!

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Borrowing the church

Maybe, but that's the problem, bal.

For them to make the "threat" convincing, Brown had to exploit an old stereotype about Catholics. The story only works if you exploit a religious insult. It's the same as basing your fiction on the stereotype that black people are lazy and stupid and need to be taken care of by white people. You can't just say, sure it's deliberately insulting to Catholics, but hey it's just fiction.

What about other books /

What about other books / movies / TV shows where a principal turns out to be the criminal, or a business, or a senator, or a general, or the wife/husband/mom/dad? Are all of these insulting to those respective institutions? 

 

You know the answer as well as I do

In those books (at least, all the ones where no one takes offense), the "criminality" has nothing to do with the institution itself. Even when an author makes a senator or president to be the bad guy, no one assumes that he's bad because of the Senate or the White House.

That's why this is different. Brown and Opie and Hanks all base their story on the idea that the Catholic Church carried out a massacre to quash the "truth" because it directly contradicts the Catholic faith.

It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" premise. That kind of question makes two assertions (1-you did beat your wife, 2- you stopped) but only allows you to deny one of the assertions, leaving the other assertion un-denied, and therefore seemingly confirmed.

In this case, Brown's premise is that the Catholic Church committed murder to cover up the truth that Jesus wasn't divine. That's two assertions (1-the church committed murder, 2-the church knows it's all a fraud).

  • And then, they (wink, wink) admit to the fiction that that church didn't commit murder.
  • Notice, however, that they never surrender (or publicly comment on) the second part ... that the church is a fraud. They leave that assertion un-denied, and therefore seemingly confirmed.

That's what's so Clinton-esque about these guys. They parse what they say. Remember they tried to film on church property in Rome, but were denied permission? They knew they were going to be denied, and did it for the publicity stirred by the denial. The whole Dan Brown enterprise is filled with that kind of nonsense.

Perhaps my comparison

Perhaps my comparison doesn't work perfectly, but the complaint about a movie that shows a corrupt business exec is that it's "attacking big business," which seems to include capitalism itself. When it's a parent, then the institution of marriage is said to be under siege. 

Bottom line for me is that this is fiction, and it's not passed off as anything but. It's not the author's fault if people can't figure that out. 

Not the end of the world

Yeah, I'm not slitting my wrists over it. But just because it isn't the most important issue in the world doesn't mean I can't object to it. And when these guys offer their bogus explanations, I don't mind saying, "that's bogus."

Understood. I wouldn't want

Understood. I wouldn't want you injuring yourself over a Ron Howard movie, either. :-)

LOL!

Death by Opie. What an embarrassing way to end a life!

Fictional book

Sadly, there is a faction of fools out there who do not realize that Brown's books are indeed works of fiction. 

Is that his fault? Nope.

Is that his fault? Nope. Some people think Scientology is real, too. 

bal, how many viewers thought FARGO was real?

Said so right on the movie credits, This is a true story! names were changed blah blah blah..

Every person that I talked to thinks it really happened, because the print on the screen said so.

Reagan VS 0bama

But as far as we know, A&D

But as far as we know, A&D doesn't say that, and the DaVinci Code didn't either. 

And literally no one I know thinks Fargo was real. It said "Based on a true story," which leaves a LOT of room for fabrication, and with just a little research you can find out that it's not based on a true story. 

Fargo ISN'T REAL!!! You

Fargo ISN'T REAL!!!

You mean Buscemi never went head first through the wood chipper? Damn.

“I'm with you on a free press. It's the newspapers I can't stand.” Tom Stoppard, Night and Day, 1978

Nope, However, getting stoned/ shredded in Hawaii could happen.

The first of 57 states to sign on.

EDIT: or this 9-11

Reagan VS 0bama

His fault

Who, Brown? If that's who you mean, then he has tried to pass his work off as something more than fiction in the past. If we're talking about Hanks...nah, he's just an actor reciting lines fed to him.  But don't tell him that and burst his self-important actor's bubble.  ;-)

What hubris!

"if moments are proper or authentic or if it actually really has some purpose in its reflection of, like, the human zeitgeist and that's where you find out whether or not you were telling the truth or not."

Gee whiz, if only someone would like ... reflect ... on what faith means!

Let's see: Paul. Peter. Augustine. Aquinas. Hume. Kant. Kierkegaard. Sartre. Bertrand Russell. Niebuhr. John Courtney Murray. Karl Rahner. John Paul II. Benedict 16. (Just to mention people who explored the nature of the Christian faith, no disrespect to other religions) And now ... Tom Hanks?

You know what's sad? More young people will think that Hanks said something worthwhile than any of the others.

atheist

 

No surprise. I believe Sawyer is an atheist. Everytime she says "our prayers go out to you" when talking to a victim of something, you can almost hear the sarcasm in her voice like she is being told to say that but doesn't believe in prayer. She normally tries to avoid the statemnt about prayers, preferring to go for the "you'll be in our thoughts" statement (which I wish she would always use - I hate it when people that do not believe say something like that).

She most likley doesn't care that his movie trashes the church... after all, in her mind the chuch is just a place for fools to gather.

Diane Sawyer

I'm not sure about Sawyer herself being an atheist, but I did see her husband Mike Nichols name on a list of famous atheists once, so the chances of her having the same beliefs -- or lack thereof -- are reasonable.

 

 

 

This sounds excessively

This sounds excessively defensive.  A&D is a movie based on a fictional book, and Hanks did not author the book.  The Gibson movie was presented by Gibson as his own belief system.

 

Enforce Term Limits if They Won't:  Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.

Another lie

Hanks as well as Ron "Opie" Howard are some of the leftist leaninf libtards in Hollyweird.  Just doing the movies, which the first was stolen from a previously written book by a different author, shows their contempt and hatred for religion.  The books were lousy books, as was Dan Brown's sci-fi military books, and not worthy of movies, but was done just out of pure hatred of anything good.  Your defense of them shows how little you think or how much you hate Christians and religion.  Which is it?  Are you a typical, hypocritical, lying, hateful, intolerant liberal?

Another lie

Hanks as well as Ron "Opie" Howard are some of the leftist leaning libtards in Hollyweird.  Just doing the movies, which the first was stolen from a previously written book by a different author, shows their contempt and hatred for religion.  The books were lousy books, as was Dan Brown's sci-fi military books, and not worthy of movies, but was done just out of pure hatred of anything good.  Your defense of them shows how little you think or how much you hate Christians and religion.  Which is it?  Are you a typical, hypocritical, lying, hateful, intolerant liberal?

I assume you have some kind

I assume you have some kind of evidence that Brown wrote these books "out of pure hatred of anything good."

I think that most rational

I think that most rational people would read my post and then your response and conclude that YOU are a the hypocritical, lying, hateful, intolerant one among us.

 

Enforce Term Limits if They Won't:  Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.

Angels and Demons...

While I'm pretty sure that this flick will end up on DVD in Target a month after its release in the theaters, I am hoping that it will stick around for a while - maybe become a cult favorite like Reefer Madness or Fahrenheit 911 and provide a gathering place for this sort - because they need every opportunity for their social and tolerance skills.

And as long as they do it together, the rest of us will remain unoffended. 

For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me.  As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.

Ian Anderson "Wind up"

 

 

Last one made 217 million,

Last one made 217 million, so I'd say this one will do similar business. There's probably more anticipation for this one, as people generally assume that this one will solve the problems of the first movie.