Newsweek hasn’t favored the movie Angels & Demons with a cover story like it did for The DaVinci Code, but it is allowing the cast to make the usual denials of anti-Catholicism on the Newsweek website. In an interview for their Pop Vox blog with Newsweek’s Nicki Gostin, actor Ewan McGregor repeats his mantra that "There’s nothing anti-Catholic or anti-church or anything that challenges people’s beliefs in the film."
That’s an interesting thing to say when your character is supposedly an idealistic Catholic priest who ends up being the film’s supervillain, poisoning the Pope and murdering Cardinals, until he finds out he was the Pope’s son (by artificial insemination). Learning that he poisoned his own father, he commits suicide. He’s a perfect portrait in Catholic corruption. But McGregor wants us to buy the notion that none of this "challenges people’s beliefs" about the Church:
Newsweek: This movie hasn't been getting a lot of press. No controversy around it.
Ewan McGregor: It's not really controversial, there's nothing controversial in it.
Newsweek: Well, the church doesn't exactly like it.
McGregor: The church didn't like The Da Vinci Code, and I think it's a carryover from that. There's nothing anti-Catholic or anti-church or anything that challenges people's beliefs in this film. It really is a kind of old-fashioned thriller set against the backdrop of the Vatican, which is an interesting world, I suppose, which we don't know much about.
Newsweek: Are you Catholic?
McGregor: No.
Newsweek: So you weren't offended.
McGregor: I wouldn't have been involved in a film that I thought was anti- anybody's religion. I'm not interested in doing that. People are asking me what I think about the controversy about the film, but I'd like someone to tell me what it is.
That's when Nicki Gostin tried to play coy about the plot, obscuring why anyone would think the movie's anti-Catholic:
Newsweek: Not to give anything away, but in the film there are some clergy that are corrupt. That would be controversial, right?
McGregor: That would be controversial? Would it? The very fact that the corrupt clergymen get their comeuppance at the end of the film and it's quite clear that the rest of the church stands against them, it's not in any way suggesting that the church as a body is condoning any kind of corruption, so in that respect, it's not controversial.
Is McGregor really that disingenuous? Even if the villains die at the end, the movie has still mangled facts by insisting the Catholic Church brutally slaughtered the Illuminati in the 1600s -- when there was no murders, and the Illuminati wasn't founded until 1776.
Everyone associated with this movie seems to find it necessary to mislead the public about its contents.
PS: Newsweek's online workers were more flippant about The DaVinci Code.
(McGregor image from darkhorizons.com)
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
We've all hashed out this
May 15, 2009 - 14:25 ET by balboaWe've all hashed out this argument a few times now. I'll just refer everyone to my posts on the previous 32 threads about this movie.
You're missing the point, bal
May 15, 2009 - 14:48 ET by KC MulvilleForget the Catholic angle.
Most movie promotion tours show an appealing celebrity, who asks the audience, in so many words, to go see the movie. Here, we have a number of appealing celebrities (Opie, the guy who saved Private Ryan, Ob-Wan Kenobi) going on the promotion tour, to dismiss any concerns about inappropriateness. And the media happily puts them on.
This issue is marginally about issues of the Catholic church. Instead, this issue is much more about the power of the media, and willingness of the media, to frame public perception. We discuss the Catholic part only to explain what's being distorted in the liberal media frame. But the point is the distortion.
And the reason we keep responding is that they've screwed us before, and they'll do it again.
I thought it was the fact
May 15, 2009 - 14:58 ET by balboaI thought it was the fact that the Catholic church is being "attacked" in these movies, which I still don't believe it is.
Perhaps it's one-sided because the controversy is not taken seriously, it's just another facet to this movie which is and will get lots of attention.
Media will always, to some extent, frame public perception. But what are they getting here? Ron Howard has a big movie coming out, with some controversy in it. They don't think it's controversial. Go see the movie.
Let's be clear
May 15, 2009 - 15:08 ET by KC MulvilleI don't want the media to frame public perception. And to the extent that it's inevitable, I want to oppose it, in any such small way that I can. As for this site, the mission is to Combat Liberal Media Bias ... a worthy mission, in my opinion.
OK, I've said it before, I'll say it again
May 15, 2009 - 19:57 ET by lotrIt's not merely the Catholic Church that's being attacked -- it's the Christian religion. According to the movie, the Catholic Church is merely the main protagonist in brutally perpetrating (mine blood pressure doth riseth) "the lie that is Christianity." I refer back to Stone's masterpiece of mass brainwashing, JFK. In these tough economic times, save your 10 bucks (and your mind) and abstain.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
#1 subject line phrase
May 15, 2009 - 15:00 ET by general company"Your missing the point Bal"
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Thanks bal....I'll be
May 15, 2009 - 14:52 ET by motherbeltThanks bal....I'll be sure to go back and re-read them all.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
It's good readin' I tells
May 15, 2009 - 14:59 ET by balboaIt's good readin' I tells ya'!
LOL!
May 15, 2009 - 15:19 ET by motherbeltI'll keep that in mind when I can't sleep at night.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
The Selective Hollyweird
May 15, 2009 - 18:08 ET by reelman46Can't wait for the "Islamic version"...ohhhhh, there won't be one trashing and bashing Islam...as Gomer would say, " sue-prise, sue-prise"...
liberals make the best cowards and liars...soooo much practice.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
I wouldn't have been
May 15, 2009 - 15:26 ET by motherbeltI wouldn't have been involved in a film that I thought was anti- anybody's religion - McGregor
Well that certainly does it for me!
Nicole Kidman tried the same thing with "The Golden Compass." Her proof that it wasn't anti-Catholic? She's Catholic, and her family would be very upset if she appeared in an anti-Catholic movie.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Wrong place! They might
May 15, 2009 - 15:30 ET by motherbeltWrong place!
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Does Ewan sing?
May 15, 2009 - 15:36 ET by Old SaltI'll see the movie if Ewan sings.
A work of fiction.
May 15, 2009 - 15:52 ET by bubbasterA religious belief must be pretty fragile if it can't withstand criticism. Why so sensitive? Who cares?
BUBBA
So if having a Pope violate
May 15, 2009 - 16:00 ET by eaglewingz08So if having a Pope violate his vows of celibacy, have a child, have that child become a priest, have that priest go on a murderous rampage, and have the Church portrayed as anti science and murderous, is not anti catholic or anti christian, then why was one character who was a murderous muslim villain changed to a non distinct nationality?
Riddle me that?
Riddle You Nothing.
May 15, 2009 - 22:41 ET by someloudthunderIt's not anti-catholic. It's a movie based on a book. The plot involves real things in our world because it makes it interesting. If this book's premise involved the Muslim faith as the anchor and it made ridiculous claims - half of you would not give a damn and you know it.
Why was the Muslim villain scrapped? Since when have book to movie adaptations been 100% faithful? Hell not even To Kill A Mockingbird did it right.
where do I begin?
May 16, 2009 - 09:35 ET by lotrYou're right -- it's anti-Christianity.
I'm not holding breath on that one. Talk about fiction. Dream on.
That's because we would not have to. Trust me, there would be plenty of "non-nonviolent" protests. Christians are an easy target, as they always have been.
Because they know the reaction won't be pretty, and they are cowards. Period.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Oh, please.
May 16, 2009 - 10:06 ET by bubbasterlotr,
All religions have been the subject of ridicule and persecution.
Did you read the book?
BUBBA
nope
May 16, 2009 - 12:16 ET by lotrHave no desire to either. Thankfully, others have, and I've read their reviews.
Well gosh, thanks for clarifying that -- I feel a whole lot better now.
But seriously, though -- it seems we are in agreement then on what the DVC franchise constitutes.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Reading a review is not the same as reading the book.
May 16, 2009 - 13:09 ET by bubbasterlotr,
How can one fully grasp Christianity without reading the Bible? If you rely upon others to spoon feed you information, you will only know what they want you to know.
Capisci quello che sto dicendo?
BUBBA
Angels and Demons and Popes, Oh MY!
May 16, 2009 - 09:54 ET by bubbastereaglewingz08,
Angels and Demons and Popes, Oh MY!
Angels and Demons and Popes, Oh MY!
You should do a little research and read a little history on the illegitimate children of the Papacy and the Church in general. Dan Brown wrote a fictional story with a few historical facts included. Everything you wrote- Popes & Priests violating their vows of celibacy, having illegitimate children, a priest committing murder, the Church suppressing science and approving of murderous campaigns are all true. It's an idiotic plot. It's entertainment. The best way to not support it is not to spend money on it. Don't see it.
The film's controversy is fuelin' its buzz; the more riled up, the more interest, the more money. Money, money, money.
Did you read the book?
BUBBA
Again, where do I begin?
May 16, 2009 - 12:04 ET by lotrFolks, I present Exhibit A demonstrating how this new genre of "hybrid-fantasy-history-propaganda" does in fact work. These claims are all patently false. It is no accident that today's natural science (aka, "science") arose in the West under Christendom. "Universities" were the brainchild of the Roman Catholic Church. And I don't believe these facts are coincidence, for only Christianity has taught that there is a objective Truth behind the material Universe (aka, Creation), and furthermore, we can know what it is.
Can't disagree with that.
Trust me, you couldn't pay me to see it. It's true that the most direct way to not support it is to not spend money on it. Kind of like the most direct way to support a political candidate is to vote for them. But that's simply not enough. Politicians use the mass media to influence others besides themselves to vote for them (and likewise, Ron Howard et al. are getting a free advertising campaign courtesy of the pop-media). That is what's going on here, albeit we here don't have the same broadcasting capability. These "movies/books" are anti-Christian mass propaganda -- I have argued elsewhere as to why. They have an agenda, and they use a powerful medium (the "big screen") and emotional hyperbole to spread a distinct anti-Christian sentiment, much like common gossip, but far more powerful. You wanna blow your $10 on it for "entertainment," then by all means, knock yourself out.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Wrong.
May 16, 2009 - 13:18 ET by bubbasterlotr,
You're wrong. Universities were not the brainchild of the RCC. Could you please do a little research on the history of education before making such a statement.
Anti-Christian Mass Propaganda? A little bit of a stretch- though you are entitled to your opinion- which has come from others reviews.
BUBBA
Just a note
May 16, 2009 - 14:33 ET by KC MulvilleWestern universities were, in fact, developed by the Catholic Church.1 The first universities, in the modern sense, were the Universities of Bologna and Paris, starting around the 11th century. They were actually collaborations between the church and the state. But those were only the uiniversities open to the general public. In every effective sense, the monasteries were universities, but they were open only to monks.
______
1 How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Thanks.
May 16, 2009 - 15:31 ET by bubbasterKC,
I see we're now parsing this into smaller pieces. The first would actually be the University of Constantinople followed by the University of Salerno as higher education institutions in Europe. Will the next parsing would be degree-granting universities? Then, we can bring in your UBologna & UParis reference. Again, thanks for setting the record straight.
Of course, there's the issue of the rest of what I said.
BUBBA
The rest
May 16, 2009 - 15:52 ET by KC MulvilleI plead balboa. You're making the same point as bal, with which I respectfully disagree. But I've written a lot about it, and it's getting stale, even to me.
Any culture in which the people, especially the youth, get their news and perspectives on government through entertainment shows (Jon Stewart, SNL, etc.) makes it necessary, no matter how juvenile it seems to be, to object to liberal prejudice through the media.
Remember, this site isn't directed to political liberalism only as it comes through news shows. It's combatting liberal media bias, wherever found. Unfortunately, it's found everywhere.
Agreed.
May 16, 2009 - 16:01 ET by bubbasterKC,
Thanks.
BUBBA
Insult is not criticism
May 15, 2009 - 16:36 ET by KC MulvilleWell, that's just the sort of stupid, ignorant, slapped ass anti-Catholic bigotry we've come to expect from you, bbaster.
Hold on! I only said that to portray the difference between insult and criticism. What I just said to you is insult, and if I had meant it (which I don't), I would be wrong. It isn't criticism. By the same token, the movie is just a long line of cheap shots, and the cheap shotters hide behind the protection of the media.
The issue here isn't Catholicism. It's the media. They picked whom they liked, and they presented the insults as good clean fun.
What we're saying is that this incident, once again, shows why we can't allow the media to referee the national conversation. They fix the game. Their game is rigged. This is just another example.
KC, entertainment to some, an affront to others.
May 16, 2009 - 09:59 ET by bubbasterKC,
No offense taken. Dan Brown like so many others make money from what they do. He's quite successful. Should the Pope sign off on a death decree like the Ayatollah did for Salman Rushdie?
BUBBA
No
May 16, 2009 - 14:36 ET by KC MulvilleThe Vatican itself, by the way, has avoided this. But what's wrong with raising an objection, like we're doing here? No one is censoring the film, or calling for the books to be taken from the shelves. We're just objecting to the content.
Controversy fuels the machine.
May 16, 2009 - 15:59 ET by bubbasterKC,
If there were less controversy, the film wouldn't rank high on the interest meter. The DVC enterprise is following the same playbook. For example, photos of the fallen soldiers arriving at Dover were verboten. Everyone covered the controversy. Now the restrictions have been lifted, the media could careless.
BUBBA
Action Films.
May 15, 2009 - 22:36 ET by someloudthunderA lot of action films had Armenian terrorists in the late 80s early 90s.
Does that make those movie anti-Armenian? No. Quit crying.
not anti-Catholic?
May 16, 2009 - 15:35 ET by konoAm not! Are too! Am not! Are too! I know you are, but what am I! ...
The argument is getting nowhere. We might be able to settle it if Brown, Hanks, et al, make the evil super-villain in their next two movies be a gay PETA leader and Greenpeace zealot, and see whether the apologists here will insist it doesn't sow mistrust toward the environmentalist movement.
It's typical of contemporary Hollywood to cast traditional heros as villains and traditional villains as heros. Killers are sympathetic figures and cops are crooks. I wish we could say it's just an entertainment fad, but it goes hand-in-hand with the Liberal inversion of cultural values and norms since the Sixties. It's really just mental illness packaged as "progressivism". And it needs to stop.
I watched Angels & Demons!
May 16, 2009 - 18:47 ET by balboaI did my part for attacking Christianity today and saw the evilspawn Angels & Demons. Not as good as Star Trek, but a decent movie. Book was better.
The whole 'church killing the illuminati' is obviously a part of the movie, but it's mentioned maybe twice. It's more about science v. religion and the middle ground that some want to find, others don't.
science v. religion?? Bal
May 16, 2009 - 19:05 ET by botgscience v. religion??
Bal they are complementary, presenting them as conflicting is part of the bias
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Not to everyone, botg,
May 16, 2009 - 20:40 ET by balboaNot to everyone, botg, including people on both sides of the equation.
And the DVC blitzkrieg
May 16, 2009 - 21:04 ET by lotrAnd the DVC blitzkrieg certainly sees to it that that misconception persists
The Church (that the DVC defames) has absolutely no issues with natural science as a means to an end (i.e., the betterment of the human condition).
Science, by its very definition, is limited to the physical. Faith, by its defintion, deals with the meta-physical.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
well duh Bal
May 16, 2009 - 21:04 ET by botgthere's always the pink-skyers, flat-earthers like you
That however does not change the truth.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Truth being what, botg? That
May 16, 2009 - 21:26 ET by balboaTruth being what, botg? That science and religion have never disagreed?
that when we
May 16, 2009 - 21:37 ET by botgmake mistakes with either there is a seeming contradiction.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
What do they
May 16, 2009 - 21:38 ET by general companyDisagree on?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Evolution / creationism for
May 16, 2009 - 21:52 ET by balboaEvolution / creationism for one. They used to disagree on whether we orbited the sun or the sun orbited us. Some religions don't believe in medicine, that God will heal them.
Theory
May 16, 2009 - 22:32 ET by general companyNiether has the science to prove or disprove the other. Far cry from not beleiving in science.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
gc I didn't say that one
May 16, 2009 - 23:00 ET by balboagc I didn't say that one doesn't believe in the other, I said that there are topics where they don't see eye-to-eye, where they disagree.
Very good
May 17, 2009 - 10:12 ET by general companyBecause this nonsense about Catholics not believing in science is getting as old as it is false
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
science v. religion??
May 16, 2009 - 20:43 ET by lotrExactly -- thanks for articulating. Natural philosphy (aka, "science") arose in the West under Christendom. This is not cooincidental.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Not to everyone, botg,
May 16, 2009 - 20:45 ET by balboaNot to everyone, botg, including people on both sides of the equation.
:)
May 16, 2009 - 23:18 ET by Kelly72...presenting them as conflicting is part of the bias
Exactly. :)