Ron Howard is an Oscar-winning director of such movies as A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon, Splash, and The DaVinci Code. He’s one of the most successful directors and producers working today, and he pretty much has his pick of any script and actor he wants. So many questioned Howard’s decision to make the film The Dilemma, starring actors like Vince Vaughn and Kevin James. My problem with the film – as I noted when I covered the trailer – was that it seems like there’s not really any story there. Vaughn plays the best friend of Kevin James, and Vaughn discovers that Kevin’s wife is cheating on him. Does Vince tell his friend? That’s it. That’s the premise. The rest of the film is just poop jokes and people calling each other “gay”.

It was the “it’s gay” jokes (“jokes”) that upset people. Those “jokes” are featured prominently in the trailer, and though gay-advocacy groups protested the “humor,” those jokes have not been edited out of the final film, it seems (although they were taken out of the trailer). Vince Vaughn already defended himself and his usage of the “saying something is gay is funny, because being gay is something that should be mocked” premise. Note: as I said before, what I find even more offensive than the “it’s so gay” premise is just the sheer hack stupidity of it all. I mean, get a screenwriter who can write a funny script without falling into a “let’s mock an inanimate object as gay” crutch.

In any case, immediately following Vince Vaughn’s “this rebuttal is so gay” there wasn’t much of anything. Now, for some reason, Ron Howard is defending leaving in the gay jokes in an open letter to the Los Angeles Times‘ Patrick Goldstein:

Patrick-

I’ve been reading your posts about THE DILEMMA with a lot of interest. In the couple of weeks since you started covering the debate over our joke, it seems a larger conversation made up of many questions about all sorts of freedoms of expression has broken out: When’s it okay to walk off of a talk show if you disagree with the guest? Who is appropriate to cast in a movie and who gets to decide that? Should news people be held to a different standard in what they say? How risqué can a photo shoot be for a men’s magazine promoting an all-audience show? What role does comedy play in both pointing out differences and unifying us through laughter?

They’re all good questions and I’m certainly not the person who has definitive answers to all of them. The debate about what is appropriate in films and advertising has been going on since well before I started in the business — which is to say a very long time — and will never have a conclusion. But I do have some answers to the five questions you put forth in your post. I suppose you’re right that since our movie about two friends trying to do right for each other has been caught up in this larger debate, I’ll have to face these questions as we start to promote THE DILEMMA. I figured I’d address your questions here and maybe answer them once and not from, as you said, “every reporter with a
functioning brain.” So here we go.

So why was the joke in the movie? Our lead character of Ronny Valentine has a mouth that sometimes gets him into trouble and he definitely flirts with the line of what’s okay to say. He tries to do what’s right but sometimes falls short. Who can’t relate to that? I am drawn to films that have a variety of characters with different points of view who clash, conflict and learn to live with each other. THE DILEMMA is a story full of flawed characters whose lives are complicated by the things they say to and hide from each other. Ronny is far from perfect and he does and says some outrageous things along the way.

Was it in the script or was it a Vince Vaughn ad lib? Vince is a brilliant improvisational actor, but in this case It was always in the script. THE DILEMMA is a comedy for grown-ups, not kids. It’s true that the moment took on extra significance in light of some events that surrounded the release of the trailer and the studio made the decision to remove it from advertising, which I think was appropriate. I believe in sensitivity but not censorship.

I feel that our film is taking additional heat as an emblem for many movies and TV shows that preceded it that have even more provocative characterizations and language. It is a slight moment in THE DILEMMA meant to demonstrate an aspect of our lead character’s personality, and we never expected it to represent our intentions or the point of view of the movie or those of us who made it.

Did you think it wasn’t offensive? I don’t strip my films of everything that I might personally find inappropriate. Comedy or drama, I’m always trying to make choices that stir the audience in all kinds of ways. This Ronny Valentine character can be offensive and inappropriate at times and those traits are fundamental to his personality and the way our story works. Will comedy be neutered if everyone gets to complain about every potentially offensive joke in every comedy that’s made? Anybody can complain about anything in our country. It’s what I love about this place. I defend the right for some people to express offense at a joke as strongly as I do the right for that joke to be in a film. But if storytellers, comedians, actors and artists are strong armed into making creative changes, it will endanger comedy as both entertainment and a provoker of thought.

And what do you have against electric cars anyway? Nothing! We have a couple of them in our family including the one I primarily and happily drive. Guess what that makes me in the eyes of our lead character? But then again, I don’t agree with everything Ronny Valentine says and does in this comedy any more than Vince Vaughn, the screenwriter or any member of the audience should for that matter.

[From The Los Angeles Times]

Okay, to reiterate two points of Howard’s: this film “is a comedy for grown-ups, not kids.” Sure. Because you can always tell the quality of an adult comedy by how much time is given to the poop jokes. The film hasn’t been rated yet, but my guess is that the push will be for a “PG-13” rating, as opposed to a more Judd Apatow-esque “Hard R” rating for language. I think Ron Howard was trying to make an adult comedy (like Judd Apatow makes) but within a more family-friendly vibe, as Howard has done so many times throughout his history as a director. So, is this really an “adult” comedy? Or was Howard just trying to hack out and tap into the same audience of teenagers and 20-somethings that love Apptow’s comedies?

Second point: “This Ronny Valentine character can be offensive and inappropriate at times and those traits are fundamental to his personality and the way our story works.” Sure, I’ll buy that one more than I would buy the “adult movie” argument. And I think Ron Howard is being honest – he doesn’t think “Ronny Valentine” is funny, nor does he think the character is a good person, perhaps. Ron Howard is patronizing us, maybe? Because he thinks we will think it’s funny, because we’re so dumb and we enjoy hearing about cars being gay? That brings me back to the larger point: Ron Howard was trying to make a dirty, offensive, not politically correct film, but he pussed out. Instead of being bold, it just became hackneyed (operative word: HACK) and stupid.

Last point: for those who make the “first amendment” argument – look, I’m not saying “censorship is totally gay, and people who censor are gaylords.” I’m giving my opinion, just as Ron Howard has. This is a discussion, with opinions being bandied about all over the place. My opinion is that Vince Vaughn and whoever wrote this poop-filled screenplay are hacks. And it’s also my opinion that Ron Howard should be ashamed of himself.

Here’s the original “electric cars are gay” trailer:

Photos courtesy of WENN.

The cast of Angels & Demons is gearing up for the international press tour for the film, which gets a worldwide release May 15th. The premiere of the film will be held in Rome tonight, but director Ron Howard and the cast (including Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor and Israeli-born actress Ayelet Zurer) participated in a photo call and press conference in Rome over the weekend. Obviously, there were a lot of questions from the international press about just how pissed the Vatican is about Angels & Demons.

Ron Howard didn’t pull any punches, basically saying the Vatican pulled strings to make filming in Rome as difficult as possible. What’s weird is that Ron Howard is like the nicest guy in Hollywood, and he has a long history of never making any enemies within the professional community. For him to be so open about his problems with the Vatican is a pretty big deal. Perhaps that’s because this is his second time around with Vatican controversy? With The DaVinci Code, the Church went all out on a media campaign bashing the film, and Ron Howard barely said anything other than “it’s fiction, get over it.” Of course, the strongest language Ron Howard uses this time is “frustrated”:

Director Ron Howard claimed Sunday that the Vatican interfered with efforts to get permits to shoot certain scenes of his “Angels & Demons” religious thriller in Rome — a charge the Vatican said was purely a publicity stunt.

The film, which stars Tom Hanks and is based on the best-selling novel by Dan Brown, has its world premiere Monday in Rome.

“Angels & Demons” combines an ancient secret brotherhood called the Illuminati, a papal conclave and a high-tech weapon threatening to destroy the Vatican.

At a press conference Sunday, Howard said he hadn’t sought cooperation from the Vatican based on the opposition he encountered filming “The Da Vinci Code,” another Brown novel that angered many Catholic leaders.

But he said the Vatican nevertheless exerted influence regarding his filming permits, and he was told it would not be possible even to shoot scenes in Rome that had churches in the background.

“When you come to film in Rome, the official statement to you is that the Vatican has no influence,” he said. “Everything progressed very smoothly, but unofficially a couple of days before we were to start filming in several of our locations, it was explained to us that through back channels and so forth that the Vatican had exerted some influence.”

“Was I surprised? No. Am I a little frustrated at times? Sure,” he said.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, refused to comment on Howard’s allegations about church interference, saying his charges were purely designed to drum up publicity for the film.

Last summer, Rome’s diocese confirmed it had barred producers from filming inside two churches because the movie didn’t conform to the church’s views.

In addition to Hanks, the film stars Ewan McGregor as the camerlengo, the prelate who takes care of matters dealing with a papal death and runs the Vatican until a new pontiff is elected. Israeli-born actress Ayelet Zurer plays Dr. Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who helps Langdon crack the codes to save the cardinals.

Reaction from church leaders to “Angels & Demons” has been more muted, though one Italian bishop, Monsignor Antonio Rosario Mennonna, said Saturday the film was “highly denigrating, defamatory and offensive” to the Catholic Church, the ANSA news agency reported.

At the press conference, Hanks drew laughs when was asked what the toughest stunt was during filming. His answer? Simply running.

“There is not a regular cobblestone, there is not a straight step, there is not an easy way to cross any street in all of the Eternal City,” he said. “Essentially death traps and twisted ankles await you any time you try to go out for a slow stroll. How we did not come out with shin splints and ace bandages around our limbs I will never ever know.”

“It must have been divine intervention,” he said.

From The Associated Press Hosted by Google

It makes some sort of sense that the Vatican would be able to pull rank within Rome. Even though Vatican City is its own little fiefdom within Rome, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and there are many Vatican-controlled historic sites within Rome.

I actually have my doubts about Angels & Demons. Will it be as big of a hit as The DaVinci Code? Probably not. That’s why the Vatican is being so much more subdued and passive-aggressive in its attacks – they probably think the film is going bomb anyway. Dan Brown’s not a particularly great writer, and Angels & Demons wasn’t the best, most cohesive book. Still, the film has Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor, so you know it’s going to make some money!

Here’s the cast of “Angels and Demons” at the photo call in front of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome yesterday. Images thanks to Fame Pictures .

Director Ron Howard is fighting back against claims that he is “anti-Catholic”. As the director of The DaVinci Code and the soon-to-be-released Angels & Demons, Howard has been battling charges that he makes anti-Catholic films. One of the Howard’s biggest critics is this guy named William Donohue and his “Catholic League”. Donohue’s main claim to fame is his appearances on Larry King Live and Hardball, where he criticizes anyone and anything who does not move in lock-step with every conservative Catholic dogma.

Donohue has tried to pick fights with everyone from Kathy Griffin to all the Jews in the world. The Catholic League isn’t even an officially sanctioned branch of the Church or anything, it seems to be just a couple of blowhards who issue press releases. Donohue has been yelling about Ron Howard lately, and Donahue even issued a booklet called Angels & Demons: More Demonic Than Angelic. Ron Howard has had enough, and he’s written a statement of defense to The Huffington Post:

William Donohue of the Catholic League is on a mission. Whether it is a “mission from God,” as the Blues Brothers would say, only God knows, but the goal of his mission is clear: to paint me and the movie I directed, Angels & Demons, as anti-Catholic.

For a $5 donation to his organization, Mr. Donohue will send you his glossy new booklet (Angels & Demons: More Demonic Than Angelic), in which he writes that I and the people who made this thriller “do not hide their animus against all things Catholic.”

He’s been making these assertions for years, going back to the theatrical release of The Da Vinci Code. He stepped up his campaign more than a month ago with a series of press releases. And there he goes again, in New York Daily News, saying that Dan Brown and I “have collaborated in smearing the Catholic Church….”

Let me be clear: neither I nor Angels & Demons are anti-Catholic. And let me be a little controversial: I believe Catholics, including most in the hierarchy of the Church, will enjoy the movie for what it is: an exciting mystery, set in the awe-inspiring beauty of Rome. After all, in Angels & Demons, Professor Robert Langdon teams up with the Catholic Church to thwart a vicious attack against the Vatican. What, exactly, is anti-Catholic about that?

Mr. Donohue’s booklet accuses us of lying when our movie trailer says the Catholic Church ordered a brutal massacre to silence the Illuminati centuries ago. It would be a lie if we had ever suggested our movie is anything other than a work of fiction (if it were a documentary, our talk of massacres would have referenced the Inquisition or the Crusades). And if fictional movies could never take liberties with reality, then there would have been no Ben-Hur, no Barabbas, The Robe, Gone With The Wind, or Titanic. Not to mention Splash!

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.

Mr. Donohue’s op-ed and booklet also suggest that we paint the Church as “anti-reason.” There is plenty of debate over what the Church did or didn’t do with Galileo, but I for one do recognize that the Church did much throughout the ages to encourage and preserve education, the arts and the sciences.

Had Mr. Donohue and his allies waited to see Angels & Demons before criticizing it, they would have seen references to struggles within the Church between faith and science, but they would also have seen clear signs of support for the pursuit of science at the highest levels of the Vatican. Indeed, one of the first scenes of the movie depicts a scientist at the high-tech CERN laboratory…and he is a priest.

And it’s a two-way street. As Dr. Rolf Landua of CERN said during my visit to their facilities in February, “Most physicists which I know are very, very tolerant towards all kinds of religious beliefs, many of them are themselves religious believers….When you look at the scientific way we are looking at these questions, you come to the conclusion that there’s always some part which we cannot explain.”

Even the current “faith vs. science” debate over embryonic stem cells is briefly depicted in Angels & Demons in a balanced way.

But since Mr. Donohue has, in effect, smeared me by claiming I am smearing his Church, I want him to know this: I have respect for Catholics and their Church, and know they accomplish many good works throughout the world. And I believe Angels & Demons treats the Church with respect — even a degree of reverence — for its traditions and beliefs.

I know faith is believing without seeing (and a boycott would be disbelieving without seeing). But I don’t expect William Donohue to have faith in me, so I encourage him to see Angels & Demons for himself. Then he will finally witness, and perhaps believe, that what I say is true.

From The Huffington Post

This statement is very well-written, and I feel the overwhelming urge to yell “Don’t mess with Opie!” Here’s the statement I would have written: “It’s fiction. Get over yourselves, wingnuts.” Do you think The Huffington Post would have published that?

If the Catholic League’s only goal is to get some press, pull out the “mission accomplished” banner. But if their goal is to, oh, I don’t know, stop people from seeing Angels & Demons, they should try not to offer cross-promotional pamphlets! But one of the unexpected consequences of this whole ordeal is that people might actually start talking about the real issues confronting science v. religion, and everything in between. Gasp!

Ron Howard is shown on 2/14/09 at the Directors Guild Awards. Credit: WENN.com