More Da Vinci Dishonesty - Ron Howard snuck a camera into the Vatican: Report

[jfhh]

So, a directive from the Vatican is now simply a “wish?”

It is fairly clear he “snuck” the cameras in after the ban, read the statements.

I do wonder, if he did (in fact) sneak small cameras in after the ban, could the Vatican sue the film production company if any of that illicitly obtained film is included in the theatrical release…? The Vatican, imo, would not sue, nor will they say anymore on the subject because they do not want bad PR, nor do they want to give the film attention…I just wonder if they could sue if they desired.

I see no evidence that he “snuck” any to inside a church. In the trailer I’ve seen, no church inside the Vatican is part of the footage. There’s footage within the Vatican, but the Vatican is not a church.

Unless he violated Vatican City State law, there’s no obligation on his part to obey Vatican wishes. Why should he? I assume he’s not Catholic. So what did he do wrong?

 

[irishpatrick]

I see no evidence that he “snuck” any to inside a church. In the trailer I’ve seen, no church inside the Vatican is part of the footage. There’s footage within the Vatican, but the Vatican is not a church.

Unless he violated Vatican City State law, there’s no obligation on his part to obey Vatican wishes. Why should he? I assume he’s not Catholic. So what did he do wrong?

If the Vatican told him not to film there, then he was most definitely wrong to film there. It seems clear the Vatican banned him from filming, he ignored that ban.

 

[CatholicCid]

The question would be is there any legal precedent for a need of permission to use footage of such buildings as churches or the such.

I do believe one needs a waiver for general shots of people.

Does the same apply to the interior of buildings?

I’m guessing yes, otherwise why would there be a need to have permission besides to clear the buildings of tourists for the day?

Can the Vatican do anything? If it was illegal, then I’m sure they have some means they could utilize if they wish.

 

[RobbyS]

There’s a thread about the book/movie Angels and Demons in one of the other forums. According to someone who has read the book, he/she says it is not anti-Catholic and does not have the perceived anti-Catholicism of Da Vinci Code.

I myself have not read the book, though I have read the Da Vinci Code which wasn’t quite my cup of tea and also Digital Fortress and Deception Point. The latter two books by Dan Brown are both excellent and are not anti-Catholic at all. They barely if at all even mention religion. They are more espionage/military thrillers than anything else.

Caution: in that thread that person posts a spoiler.

As for Ron Howard. I’d like some facts please. Was he told to not bring a camera to the Vatican? If so, was this footage filmed prior to that or after that? Was he told that by anyone in legal authority in the Vatican? Legally does the Lateran Treaty allow for such legal action by the Vatican? (the sovereignty of the Vatican is constrained by that treaty; the Vatican for example is limited in the number of Vatican passports it is allowed to grant)

Howard is a jerk. There is no law against that, so why do you try to make it a legal matter?

 

[vocatio]

Pray for him and Dan Brown and Tom Hanks and all of the other sad, misguided leaders of “Hope and Change”.

Dan Brown’s lies did a great deal of good as they helped me return to the Church. Because of their lies, I had to search out the real Truth of Jesus Christ our Savior.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus.

Mark

Nunc et in hora mortis nostrae, Amen.

DITTO. My Saint name is Mark. And I had the same experience in October 2006 where after watching the movie it caused me great strife to try to learn the truth once and for all. It sent me in search of ancient church documents and asking the age old question…“which books belong in the bible and why?”. In the end, I reverted back to Catholicism and my wife converted after discovering the same truths. Now our family of 5 is a very Catholic family.

As much as Dan Brown is responsible for much dishonesty, God used Dan Brown’s evil for good. I’m excited to hear of a similar experience.

PAX Christi tecum.

 

[jfhh]

Howard is a jerk. There is no law against that, so why do you try to make it a legal matter?

I was responding to those who were trying to make it a legal matter, suggesting ludicrously that the Vatican sue him.

 

[irishpatrick]

Nunc et in hora mortis nostrae, Amen.

DITTO. My Saint name is Mark. And I had the same experience in October 2006 where after watching the movie it caused me great strife to try to learn the truth once and for all. It sent me in search of ancient church documents and asking the age old question…“which books belong in the bible and why?”. In the end, I reverted back to Catholicism and my wife converted after discovering the same truths. Now our family of 5 is a very Catholic family.

As much as Dan Brown is responsible for much dishonesty, God used Dan Brown’s evil for good. I’m excited to hear of a similar experience.

PAX Christi tecum.

Dan Brown’s evil was also used for evil. God used it to turn some people, no doubt, yet it certainly helped affirm many people’s wrongful thoughts about the Church…imo there was far more harm than good done.

 

[irishpatrick]

I was responding to those who were trying to make it a legal matter, suggesting ludicrously that the Vatican sue him.

That was me, thank you very much.

If the Vatican gave Howard a ban on filming in writing, and if Howard then snuck cameras in to film after receiving that ban, that is a form of theft and I would think the Vatican could sue, though I know they would not do that. I am not a lawyer, so I can easily be 100% wrong.

It seems you want to defend Howard, not sure why you would do that, but if Howard did what the article claims, that is just plain wrong and he should not be using any of that film in his movie. After all, the Vatican is a sovereign state and they have a right to ban anyone from filming there. The Vatican is not bound to help Howard make a profit, nor is it bound to help Howard propogate his anti-Catholic lies.

I wonder, why would a major film maker ask for permission to film in the Vatican if he was just going to spit in the Vatican’s face and film there anyway?

 

[KathleenElsie]

That was me, thank you very much.

If the Vatican gave Howard a ban on filming in writing, and if Howard then snuck cameras in to film after receiving that ban, that is a form of theft and I would think the Vatican could sue, though I know they would not do that. I am not a lawyer, so I can easily be 100% wrong.

It seems you want to defend Howard, not sure why you would do that, but if Howard did what the article claims, that is just plain wrong and he should not be using any of that film in his movie. After all, the Vatican is a sovereign state and they have a right to ban anyone from filming there. The Vatican is not bound to help Howard make a profit, nor is it bound to help Howard propogate his anti-Catholic lies.

I wonder, why would a major film maker ask for permission to film in the Vatican if he was just going to spit in the Vatican’s face and film there anyway?

Publicity.

 

[irishpatrick]

Publicity.

If that is correct, he is more vile than I even thought…

 

[TMC]

I’m not sure that Howard wasn’t joking when he mentioned little cameras. I know it was reported that when he was refused permission to film at the Vatican, the studio made mock-ups of the Churches featured in the movie and of other Vatican locations. What value would hidden pin-camera footage add when you have mock-up sets to film in?

 

[Digitonomy]

contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/howard%20shot%20secret%20scenes%20in%20vatican%20-%20despite%20ban_1087680
This is the kind of rubbish people do? This is the legacy they want to leave behind? It’s one thing to make movies; it’s another thing to do it dishonestly…

I’m not sure how his actions were dishonest. Disobedient, perhaps.

JesuXPIPassio:

The Vatican isn’t public property; it’s not like shooting the White House from the outside.

They do invite the public. A comparison to the White House exterior depends on what exactly he shot, but as a poster noted earlier, the Vatican is free to make almost whatever laws it chooses. However, most filmmakers do not put a lot of stock in the restrictions bureaucrats may enact - this doesn’t necessarily make it right, but I don’t see it as cause for outrage that a director did what I expect most directors would do in that situation.

 

[distracted]

P
Dan Brown’s lies did a great deal of good as they helped me return to the Church. Because of their lies, I had to search out the real Truth of Jesus Christ our Savior.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus.

Mark

could you elaborate?

I don’t know much about the movie except that D brown is … anti-Catholics and believes the pope has something to do with … or maybe IS the antiChrist… ???

anyway, i would like to know more about how you converted or reverted…

thanks…

 

[vocatio]

Dan Brown’s evil was also used for evil. God used it to turn some people, no doubt, yet it certainly helped affirm many people’s wrongful thoughts about the Church…imo there was far more harm than good done.

Those people would have jumped ship no matter what anyway. Many are just looking for a good excuse to live a sinful life. A lady at work drives me crazy over everything that comes out like that. She’s New Age. Ironically her father was a preacher.

 

[irishpatrick]

Those people would have jumped ship no matter what anyway. Many are just looking for a good excuse to live a sinful life. A lady at work drives me crazy over everything that comes out like that. She’s New Age. Ironically her father was a preacher.

Perhaps, yet Howard could be using his talents to push people towards Christ, now away from Him.

 

[Another_Mary]

Dan Brown’s lies did a great deal of good as they helped me return to the Church. Because of their lies, I had to search out the real Truth of Jesus Christ our Savior.

could you elaborate?

I don’t know much about the movie except that D brown is … anti-Catholics and believes the pope has something to do with … or maybe IS the anti[Christ… ???

anyway, i would like to know more about how you converted or reverted…

thanks…

I am not the original poster, but I also was helped along the path of returning to the church because of Dan Brown’s awful writing. As I read The Da Vinci Code I was incredulous that Brown could possibly be trying to pass off some of the “facts” presented in the book as true. Even with my elementary school Catholic education (okay, it was a long time ago) I knew his “facts” were “fiction”.

So I did a lot of reading about the church to refresh my mind. This was only one of many things that drew me back, but it did help.

I feel sorry for anyone who would take the drivel he presented as truth and use that as an excuse to leave the church.
[/quote]

 

[vocatio]

Perhaps, yet Howard could be using his talents to push people towards Christ, now away from Him.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you. Only in my case God did find a way to make something wrong to help me to find the fullness of truth. I’m not the only one. I’d be sitting in the pews of a church of Christ now sad that you guys are going to hell.

 

[irishpatrick]

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you. Only in my case God did find a way to make something wrong to help me to find the fullness of truth. I’m not the only one. I’d be sitting in the pews of a church of Christ now sad that you guys are going to hell.

That is wonderful. I just wonder how many people are on the other side of this, driven away from the Church, the last straw type of thing…

 

[irishpatrick]

I am not the original poster, but I also was helped along the path of returning to the church because of Dan Brown’s awful writing. As I read The Da Vinci Code I was incredulous that Brown could possibly be trying to pass off some of the “facts” presented in the book as true. Even with my elementary school Catholic education (okay, it was a long time ago) I knew his “facts” were “fiction”.

So I did a lot of reading about the church to refresh my mind. This was only one of many things that drew me back, but it did help.

I feel sorry for anyone who would take the drivel he presented as truth and use that as an excuse to leave the church.

The stuff Dan Brown writes and Howard produces ride a very thin line between seeming like real history, and being completely fictional. Of course, it is nearly complete fiction, yet many people just do not know their faith very well…a tried and true weapon to use against them, their own lack of knowledge.

 

[distracted]

I am not the original poster, but I also was helped along the path of returning to the church because of Dan Brown’s awful writing. As I read The Da Vinci Code I was incredulous that Brown could possibly be trying to pass off some of the “facts” presented in the book as true. Even with my elementary school Catholic education (okay, it was a long time ago) I knew his “facts” were “fiction”.

So I did a lot of reading about the church to refresh my mind. This was only one of many things that drew me back, but it did help.

I feel sorry for anyone who would take the drivel he presented as truth and use that as an excuse to leave the church.

do you remember what he passed off as facts?

Do you think your early Catholic education had anything to do with you seeing through that - meaning: do you think others not so blessed can also see that soemthing isn’t right??