Singing with the ‘Angels’, Hangin’ with the ‘Demons’
By Ben McNeely | bmcneely@modernfilmzine.com
At some point, we’re going to have to get over this religion vs. science thing. It just keeps creeping into our entertainment.
And really, folks, who needs all this existential dilemmas in our movie theaters right at the beginning of summertime?
We’re in an economic crisis as it is, isn’t that enough?
Well OK, guess not, because Ron Howard brings us the next installment of the Robert Langdon series, ‘Angels & Demons’ by the irascible pop author Dan Brown.
Brown, who makes a killing off weaving suspense thrillers from ancient conspiracy theories and mumbo-jumbo, sends his agnostic professor off to Rome on another quest to bring down the Catholic Church … in order to save it.
Which plays well here in America, where most of us are Protestant and have no clue what Langdon (Tom Hanks) is talking about when he goes on and on about obscure medieval history, but it makes us feel smarter when we leave the theater.
It also plays into our deep-seeded need to rebel against our most sacred of cows, Christianity.
The duality of the American public, and human nature in general, is certainly illogical, but oh so entertaining.
On one hand, we go to church on Sunday, worship a god that sent his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, dead and buried, and where he rose again on the third day and now we have to go through him for our salvation from sin and evil.
WHEW.
On the other hand, we also believe in science that has brought advances such as (in no particular order): fire, the wheel, space shuttles, Tang, swine flu, the personal computer, Twitter and Facebook, the vaccine, the pacemaker, stem cell research, Tamagochi, the steam engine, the combustible engine, radio, T.V., cable T.V., satellite T.V., the C-section, plasma-screen T.V., cell phones, the Interwebs (The TUBES!), laser pointers, particle physics, the laws of gravity, abortion, Joe The Plumber, and the theory of Atlantis … among other things.
When religion and science seem to collide, we always separate into two groups: those who believe in God and those who don’t.
It is always fun to watch, though, the grand ironies trickle out when the shouting starts.
For example, the Jesus freaks who protested against taking Terri Schiavo off the machines that were keeping her alive took for granted the fact that modern medical science gave us the knowledge to keep someone who is a vegetable, with no brain waves, technically alive indefinitely.
And the atheists that wanted to take her off the machines looked like heartless monsters instead of the rational thinkers they claim to be.
Hollywood has always been fascinated by this age-old conflict and, despite its obvious leanings, Hollywood is split on the issue, as are most artists.
The most obvious example of Hollywood’s foray into the moral topic is ‘Inherit The Wind’ based on the Scopes monkey trial of the 1920s.
Here, science and the theory of evolution is on trial, literally, with Spencer Tracy’s atheistic Clarance Darrow defending Dick York’s schoolteacher John Scopes against Fredric March’s evangelistic William Jennings Bryan and a town full of religious folk.
The film (which started out as a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee) sets religion and science at odds with each other, poking fun at the ‘blind-leading-the-blind’ mentality of the townsfolk, who harass Tracy for being an atheist and York for teaching such a godless theory.
It culminates in a shouting match between Tracy and March in the courtroom, where Tracy pretty much refutes the existence of God under the law and March ranting off the book of Bible to prove the worthiness of his cause.
In the end, though, we all know, science won out, even though Scopes was fined.
The film treats religious folk as rubes and suckers, mindless sheep that can be blindly lead around by a charismatic character. Then again, there have been stories that warn against scientists ‘playing God’ in the laboratory (i.e., Frankenstein, Jurassic Park).
Is it art imitating life? Yes, in a crude way, but I would think we have evolved (pardon the pun) from that sort of storytelling into something more nuanced.
And that is what ‘Angels and Demons’ seems to have done. It puts the Catholic Church squarely in the hands of an agnostic academic to save it from certain destruction, but it leads the viewer down a path where they least expect to show up, and makes the viewer re-examine what they believe.
Do you side with the Illuminati, who are hell-bent on destroying the Church for centuries-past wrongs?
Or do you side with the Church, because, despite its faults, it does give hope to millions who otherwise would have none?
I won’t spoil the film, or the book, if you have not seen nor read either one, but the story does, despite its factual inaccuracies, does make you rethink just where good and evil can lie.
Science is not necessarily evil or godless all the time, and the Church isn’t necessarily good all the time. In fact, wherever humans inhabit, the potential for good or evil exists.
‘Angels and Demons’ breaks the tired ‘us vs them’ mold (to the chagrin of the Republican Party) and makes us think about, deep down in our heart of hearts and mind of minds, what we really do believe.
Hey, not a bad way to spend two and a half hours this summer.
