MOVIE TALK: Angels & Demons

Author:
Publish date:

Hey, guys--

So sorry I've been awol for several days... we upgraded our software, and due to some unforeseen technical glitches, I haven't been able to post!

But I'm glad to be back, and wanted to take today to talk a bit about Angels & Demons, Imagine and Ron Howard's sequel to The Da Vinci Code which opens tonight.

The movie picks up a couple years after The Da Vinci Code (unlike Dan Brown’s book, this movie is a Da Vinci sequel, not a prequel), and follows symbologist Robert Langdon as he races to unlock another Vatican-centric puzzle. This mystery takes place almost entirely in Rome, and Langdon has six hours to track down four kidnapped cardinals and stop a terrorist from blowing up Vatican City with an antimatter bomb. Like its predecessor, he must find the priests by find the hostages and their captors by solving ancient religious codes, symbols, and hidden texts. (I’m guessing we’ve all read The Da Vinci Code or know how it works…)

Well, I hated the first Da Vinci Code movie. And this made me miss it.

There are a million things wrong with this particular movie, but there was one thing in particular that it made me think about, especially from when it comes to screenwriting…

I HATE IT WHEN WRITERS DON’T THINK ABOUT THEIR STORIES FROM THE BAD GUYS’ PERSPECTIVE.

I find this happens most with mysteries and thrillers (probably because they’re so logic-based and procedural), and here’s what I mean…

Writers devise an intriguing, complicated mystery for their protagonist to solve. The clues all lead to one another. The puzzles engage the audience and make them think. It all makes sense… except for: the antagonist who perpetrates the whole thing has no logical reason to set the mystery in motion.

In other words, the mystery exists solely because the writer wanted to create fun puzzles for the hero to solve, not because those puzzles stem from the bad guy’s relatable human behavior.

This happens in Angels & Demons in two disturbing ways… (and before you read on: I will try not to give away anything major that happens in the movie, but if you’re dying to see it and don’t want anything revealed or hinted at—DON’T READ THIS)…

1) The antagonists, who are either the ancient Illuminati (an omnipotent secret organization of anti-Catholic scientists and scholars) or someone framing the Illuminati, are threatening to blow up Rome so they can either make a power grab for the Papacy… or discredit it. Either way, they lead Langdon and the police through an obstacle course of ancient codes and puzzles, trying to kill them every step of the way.

BUT WHY??? Looking at this from the bad guys’ perspective, there’s almost no rational motivation for them to do any of this! Let’s look at this from each perspective…

First, say the bad guys have gone to all this trouble simply to frame the Illuminati. Surely, there’s an easier way to destroy the Vatican than by constructing a mind-boggling mystery singling out an ancient organization.

I mean, why bring any attention to yourselves at all? Wouldn’t it be easier to leave as few clues as possible? Just kidnap the priests and blow up the Vatican. What’s the point of creating a giant red herring? And second of all, what if it fails? What if Langdon and the detectives never crack your clues and realize you’re framing the Illuminati? (Which very well could’ve happened) Then you’ve gone to all the trouble for nothing, and the group you were trying to frame never gets framed.

Not to mention… if the antagonists went to all the pains to construct this nearly-impossible obstacle course—why are they trying to kill Langdon and the cops as they try to solve it? If they don’t want the cops to solve it… DON’T CREATE IT TO BEGIN WITH! And if they DO want the cops to solve it, in order to frame the Illuminati, WHY ARE THEY KILLING THEM OFF?

Now, let’s say the Illuminati are real, and they’re actually trying to destroy the Catholic Church. This is an ancient underground society of thinkers and researchers who “worship” only science and fact. So, A) Wouldn’t they be smarter than to leave an intentional trail of clues? And B) They’re scientists and thinkers living in 2009, not 1609. Why aren’t they using computers, technology, email? They’re scientific geniuses trying to commit a crime… the LAST thing they would do is concoct some bizarre, solve-able sideshow indulging in religious symbols and rituals.

So those are the first reasons the story makes little sense from the bad guys’ perspective, and secondly…

2) Robert Langdon, world-renowned symbologist, solves this mystery in about five hours. FIVE HOURS. And we’re to believe that while it takes Langdon only FIVE HOURS to unravel half the ancient secrets of the Catholic Church…

A) No one else has been able to do this in hundreds of years,
B) These puzzles are so mind-rattling no other detective in Europe could figure them out, and
C) The criminals themselves were able to solve all these mysteries FIRST in order to “reconstruct” them for their wild goose chase.

Sorry, Dan Brown, David Koepp, and Akiva Goldsman—I just don’t buy it. I do thank you, however, because you guys have reminded me of one of the important rules of storytelling…

THE BAD GUYS HAVE TO BE AS UNDERSTANDABLE AND RELATABLE AS THE GOOD GUYS.

Bad guys can’t do things simply because they’re “evil” and the writer wants to give the hero a nice challenge. Bad guys have to do things because they’re people… with rational human behaviors and motivations… not merely puppets of someone telling a tale.

So next time you’re outlining your next blockbuster thriller, and you’re choreographing the bad guys’ moves, ask yourself: Do these moves genuinely help the antagonist achieve his/her goal… and how? Is this what you would do if you were performing this crime… and why or why not? Is there an easier way to accomplish what the villain is trying to accomplish? Is this the best way to achieve their goal?

And now, folks, to either entice or frustrate you, here’s the trailer for Angels & Demons

Poetry Prompt

Wednesday Poetry Prompts: 576

Every Wednesday, Robert Lee Brewer shares a prompt and an example poem to get things started on the Poetic Asides blog. This week, write a back to blank poem.

Where Are the Toxic Families in Children's Books?

Where Are the Toxic Families in Children's Books?

Christina Wyman discusses how for children who suffer difficult family dynamics, seeing their experiences reflected in books is few and far between.

the island

The Island

Every writer needs a little inspiration once in a while. For today's prompt, build yourself an island.

Nawaaz Ahmed: On Personal Identity in Literary Fiction

Nawaaz Ahmed: On Personal Identity in Literary Fiction

Nawaaz Ahmed discusses how his personal experiences acted as the impetus for his new book, Radiant Fugitives, and how it went from novella to novel.

Comedy vs. Comity (Grammar Rules)

Comedy vs. Comity (Grammar Rules)

There's nothing funny about learning when to use comedy and comity (OK, maybe a little humor) with Grammar Rules from the Writer's Digest editors, including a few examples of correct usages.

Shugri Said Salh: On Writing the Coming-Of-Age Story

Shugri Said Salh: On Writing the Coming-Of-Age Story

Debut author Shugri Said Salh discusses how wanting to know her mother lead her to writing her coming-of-age novel, The Last Nomad.

100 Ways to Buff Your Book

100 Ways to Buff Your Book

Does your manuscript need a little more definition, but you’re not sure where to begin? Try these 100 tips to give your words more power.

Kaia Alderson: On Internal Roadblocks and Not Giving Up

Kaia Alderson: On Internal Roadblocks and Not Giving Up

Kaia Alderson discusses how she never gave up on her story, how she worked through internal doubts, and how research lead her out of romance and into historical fiction.

writer's digest wd presents

WD Presents: Seven New Courses, Writing Prompts, and More!

This week, we’re excited to announce seven new courses, our Editorial Calendar, and more!