"Good Morning America" continued its hyping of "Angels & Demons" on Tuesday, a film that accuses the Catholic Church of participating in a brutal massacre of a secret society. While talking to director Ron Howard, GMA co-host Diane Sawyer mostly glossed over the film's controversial elements and again referred to the movie as a "great, spiritual scavenger hunt."
She prompted the director to spin himself as not wanting a fight, saying, "And you're relieved. 'Cause I read somewhere you said, 'I don't like controversy.'" At no point did she mention Catholic League President William Donohue and his organization's opposition to the film or the nasty column Howard wrote on the Huffington Post where he attacked, "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" (referring to the group's criticism of the film).
Instead, Sawyer allowed Howard to portray himself as a non-threatening presenter of new ideas: He asserted, "I'm not a naturally, you know, confrontational person. But, you know, I do like that these Dan Brown movies are thought-provoking." He added, "It can be exciting. You can be entertained. And maybe there is something to think about or talk about on the way home, if you want to." There was no discussion during the interview of what was fact and what was fiction in the film.
If Sawyer had been talking to the director of a movie that featured Muslims or Jews of participating in a (fictional) killing spree, wouldn't the ABC anchor have discussed the subject? It's one thing for Sawyer to toss softball questions to star Tom Hanks, as she did on Monday, but quite another to do the same thing to the film's director. As noted yesterday, during the release of "The Passion" Sawyer actually psychoanalyzed Mel Gibson and the possible motives behind his film about Jesus Christ.
A transcript of the May 12 segment, which aired at 8:35am, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: Anyway, I want to turn to 'Angels & Demons.' I want to play a clip, because this is, this is part of this great, spiritual scavenger hunt where one clue seems to mean one thing. And you get there and it suddenly means something radically different. And they're searching for a clue about Raphael Sanzio, the painter.
RON HOWARD: Yes.
SAWYER: And here is Tom Hanks and Ayelet-
HOWARD: Zurer. And they're rushing to try to save the first Cardinal.
SAWYER: Right. They're going to try and save someone that's about to be killed.
[Action clip from "Angels & Demons.]
SAWYER: So, the Catholic Church this time has been comparatively, compared to "The Da Vinci Code," they have been quiet.
HOWARD: Well, here's the thing about the two movies. Directorially, they were entirely different. "The Da Vinci Code" was first and foremost, really, about these very provocative ideas. And, you know, that's what made the book such a best-seller. In this case, it- while it's smart, and all that, it really is about the clues. It's a thriller.
SAWYER: The countdown on the clock.
HOWARD: It's not about talking. You know, it's about being in motion.
SAWYER: And you're relieved. 'Cause I read somewhere you said, 'I don't like controversy. I don't really want people to-'
HOWARD: I'm not a naturally, you know, confrontational person. But, you know, I do like that these Dan Brown movies are thought-provoking. And the fact that you can go, it can be fun. It can be exciting. You can be entertained. And maybe there is something to think about or talk about on the way home, if you want to.
SAWYER: Well, the hairdressers protection society, however, has weighed in on the fact that you changed Tom Hanks' hair from "The Da Vinci Code." How did you decide to give him- well, you gave him a cut.
HOWARD: Well, we did. We decided to give Bob a trim.
SAWYER: Was that because of all of the commenting about his hair?
HOWARD: There was so much commentary about it, which Tom and I thought was absolutely hilarious. But, why have yet another distraction. We figured, it's a few years later. Some girlfriend said, "You know, Bob. You might look good with a hair cut."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Thought-provoking
May 12, 2009 - 11:00 ET by KC MulvilleWhat thoughts are being provoked? These reflections on faith, church, science, truth, et al, are all embarrassingly shallow. Does Opie actually think that he's performing a public service by nudging the dull public to start thinking about the relationship between faith and science?
Hate to break it to you, Opie, but we're way ahead of you.
I think any time you have a
May 12, 2009 - 11:30 ET by balboaI think any time you have a movie involving science and religion and where they intersect, it can lead to musings on the subjects. I know that after reading the book, it made me want to learn more about anti-matter, CERN, and the giant collider. Plus I wanted to learn more about the places described in the book, the churches, Vatican City, and see what these places were all about.
Yeah, but I'll make a bet
May 12, 2009 - 12:04 ET by KC MulvilleBal, I'd bet the house that you've already spent some time thinking about science and religion. Maybe you haven't spent decades, but I'm sure you've already spent some time on it. You didn't need Ron Howard to bring up the topic. So what exactly did Dan Brown add to your perspective about the topic?
Consider this. The movie has two justifications: (1) sheer fun, and (2) perhaps a reflection on the relationship between science and religion. Fine.
You can say that it shows that "religion hates science," but that's a ridiculous stereotype. Other than Galileo, where the church already admits we screwed up badly, the church has been a patron of science for centuries. And that's why we find this supposed "thought-provoking" fiction so objectionable. It manipulates the audience to presume that the Catholic church does hate science. And that's an outright lie.
This isn't a neutral "let's think about it" movie. This is a movie manipulating people with the premise that religion is a known fraud that attacks and kills anyone who dares threaten their power. So, if this is "just a movie" ... fine. Then this is "just" an objection to it. If the movie is harmless, then why be so sensitive about criticism of it? Two can play that game.
I guess I think it's odd to
May 12, 2009 - 12:18 ET by balboaI guess I think it's odd to get this worked up about a work of fiction. I don't think it's wrong to have an objection, and it's not like the objections will do anything but bring more attention to the movie, but the reasons for the objections don't register with me.
Well, I won't lie
May 12, 2009 - 12:51 ET by KC MulvilleMuch of the intensity of my objection is driven by the popularity of the books. The Da Vinci Code was a monster best-seller, which means that whole "Church hates science" and "Church knows it's a fraud" insinuations have been spread massively. And it's basically a small cheap shot, but it's been maginfied by the popularity of the books.
A small lie spread often is as dangerous as a big lie told once.
KC, I enjoy talking with
May 12, 2009 - 14:56 ET by balboaKC, I enjoy talking with you.
The hype has been big. I just want to see a good movie. :-)
He's just trying to
May 12, 2009 - 11:42 ET by mattmHe's just trying to disguise his propaganda as art. It has long been a Hollywood trick to put some "statement" into an otherwise mediocre or bad movie in order to appear to be "deep" and "thoughtful" and be seen as an artist.
You have a really bad movie script that you want to sell? Stick in an evil Bible-thumper, a corrupt church official, or some ingnorant backwoods rubes to portray as the face of "religion" - and your worthless script will sell. This is all Opie is about.
Dopey Opie
May 12, 2009 - 12:04 ET by merlin61The attacks on Christianity are getting more and
more frequent, and more and more hatred filled.
Love was preached by Jesus, not hatred. What's
wrong with that philosophy? We could all use
a little bit more of it.
"Insert propaganda statement
May 12, 2009 - 12:13 ET by SickofLibs"Insert propaganda statement here": I betcha Opie idolizes Oliver Stone.
'disguise his propaganda as art'
May 12, 2009 - 12:37 ET by JDWCorrect.
Remember the news media lyric used to describe the individual who murdered several people before turning the weapon on himself? 'He was a quiet man'.
Rather than telling the story as it was, we are deceived by 'news media art'.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
Gee, Opie is very easily
May 12, 2009 - 12:06 ET by SickofLibsGee, Opie is very easily lead if a dolt like Sawyer can insert words in his mouth.
If he doesn't like controversy, maybe his next flick should be "The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin" or something similar.
I asked yesterday, I will
May 12, 2009 - 12:08 ET by pcantidoteI asked yesterday, I will ask again today: Why should the media question whether a fictional movie is really a fictional movie? This defensive posture just suggests insecurity. Gibson put his movie forth as 100% factual.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
Gibson put his movie forth
May 12, 2009 - 13:00 ET by Dan The Man 2Gibson put his movie forth as 100% factual
Not true, he said the movie was made from scriptures which are fact. To say a movie is 100% factual is disingenuos because there are a whole lot of assumptions on what actually happened. It was based on 100% factual material but the movie had to take some liscense becuase there were no films or eyewitnesses to consult. Of course the eyewitnesses wrote their accounts of what happened but not in the detail of teh movie.
Interesting take, but
May 12, 2009 - 15:48 ET by pcantidoteInteresting take, but surely you see the difference in the intent to portray facts by Gibson vs. Dan Brown? I just think all this outrage about A&D suggests insecurity.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
Since When Did Fighting Against The Vatican Make You A Liberal?
May 13, 2009 - 23:00 ET by The7SticksI know Ron Howard made some commercials in support of Barack Obama during the election, but it doesn't seem to be implied here. What I'm getting here is that because he has decided to take a stand against the elitist hierarchy of the Vatican by slandering them, he makes himself a lefty? I've said it before that I decided to get out of the Democrats when I found out they are just as prone for censorship as the Republicans are. I've decided to be an independent and pick and choose candidates from either of those parties that fit my preferences. I'm still against the Vatican hierarchy and elitist bishops because of their persecution of the Jews and their censorship of the movie industry, and I think they left themselves open for all sorts of slander no matter how fictitious it is.
Well,
May 13, 2009 - 23:18 ET by Kelly72I'm sorry that such bigotry has been passed on to you, 7Sticks, but no matter what is passed on to you, it is your own responsibility to learn the facts. Please do that. Good luck.
Slander is, by definition, a terrible thing. A truly terrible thing. It is always dishonorable to participate in it.