joielicious… bloodythoughts…

(warning: lubricate your eyes with visine before reading and read at your own risk… hahahaha)

john and i had the chance to watch the movie “Angels & Demons” last may 15. i am not a dan brown fan (i haven’t read the books) but john convinced me to watch the movie because it involved three things that are very close to my heart: (1) the catholic church, (2) science, and (3) broadcast journalism. i know it’s fiction but knowing how impressionable people are, some things definitely need explaining or should be put in the right perspective.

A. ON SCIENCE

well, i can’t comment much about the science part since i’m an information design specialist slash hopeless beauty queen (hahahaha)  not much of a physicist to affirm or dispute the use of “anti-matter” in the movie.  as i have said, i also love science subjects especially those being shown at national georgraphic and discovery channels.

B. ON BROADCAST JOURNALISM

as for the broadcasting part, i have 2 observations:

(1) most of the news scenes in the movie involved international news-gathering teams using a microwave van (the one which has a mast for an antenna.) from what i’ve been taught by my colleagues, such vans work on the idea of “line of sight,” meaning microwave vans are able to transmit images only if they detect the signal from their station’s main transmitter. (in abs-cbn’s case, such a van is able to broadcast from a remote point if it is able to establish a connection with the tower along sgt. esguerra.)

if the idea was to make it appear that the international journalists came all the way from their native countries to do live reports, then something is amiss. the teams could not possibly be broadcasting using those vans, assuming they are beaming directly to their countries.

giving them the benefit of the doubt, however, the presupposition is, those media organizations have a local station in rome to which the vans are transmitting their feeds. these rome-based stations then relay the feed to the news organization’s country of origin using bigger satellite dishes.

otherwise, the big dishes (or videophones) should have been shown on st. peter’s square instead.

(2) the journalists who were assigned to that coverage obviously didn’t do their homework?. why? in the case of the cardinal who was killed at st. peter’s square (the one connected to the “wind” element), one of the reports that circulated as fact was that “authorities are still verifying the identity of the man who was mugged” or something like that. first of all, if the cardinal was “preferiti” (preferred to be elected pope) then vatican media, or those who have been embedded in the beat, would have recognized him as a cardinal.

secondly, there is ought to be someone from that cardinal’s country, his aide or some other countryman, who was in the square and would have recognized him. these people would have caused a stir. and wasn’t there a report about the four “preferiti” being kidnapped? surely their pictures would have made the front page of broadsheets at the very least. (kaya nga fiction eh..)

C. ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

(pardon me for the scrutiny and details, i have conclave books and 3 dvd of national geographic channel’s “inside vatican” aside from being best in religion for 3 consecutive years in high-school… kaso nung 4th year na hindi ko na nakuha ang best in religion because i was caught bringing movie magazine in school with gabby concepcion at the centerfold wearing skimpy white trunks… hahahah)

ok. here we go,

(1) the most recent apostolic constitution dictates that the camerlengo (or camerlingo) should always be a cardinal. someone told me that making the camerlengo a priest (in the movie) shows how liberal the deceased pope was. whatever! i don’t think a pope would entrust the temporal affairs of the church during “sede vacante” to someone who is not already a member of his so-called “senate.” (but then again, he was close daw to this priest…his son in the book. again, whatever.)

(2) it seems this camerlengo has many other important functions. a scene shows he was also master of ceremonies, who assisted a cardinal in the funeral mass for the pope.

(3) many times, we hear the camerlengo asking the cardinals to break the conclave, to which the senior cardinal said no. the mere fact that the camerlengo barged into the sistine chapel to deliver a speech about the “bomb” has in effect breaking the conclave. the conclave (”with a key”) was specifically institutionalized to prevent such interferences or external influences from taking place (although the reason was extraordinary nga pala…a “bomb” will explode.)

but then, there were two other breaches in the conclave despite the fact that the cardinals said they would not dissolve it. one was when the policeman who almost suffocated with tom hanks in the vatican archives went in, apparently convincing the cardinals to elect the camerlengo, “who saved the church.” this brought one cardinal prod the others to elect the camerlengo, not by secret ballot, but by “acclamation.” in short, they were influenced to elect someone as pope.

the other breach or intrusion was when the cardinals were made to watch the cctv videos of the camerlengo’s “deception.” again, the decision not to elect the camerlengo as pope (as the cardinals were about to do) came from an external influence. and yet, the cardinals said they were still in conclave, eventually electing luke. nakakaloka talaga!

(4) we watch a scene where a bishop (who is killed towards the end when the “branded” camerlengo accuses him of being an illuminati), concurs with the senior cardinal to remove or waive the rule which prevents that cardinal from being elected pope. it was established beforehand that since that cardinal was the one presiding over the college, he was ineligible for election. in real life, all cardinals under 80 years old at the time of the conclave can be candidates for pope. there is no such ban on the dean or the one who presides, as far as i know. (the bishop talking to the cardinal is also another breach!!!)

(3) and finally, we come to the last scene which has 3 key details that would make the office of the papal master of ceremonies squirm.

we see the new pope being vested with the pontificalia (vestments) in an area near the central loggia or balcony, a few minutes before he was set to make his first public appearance. vesting the newly elected pope (assuming that the scene was about him making his first public appearance) should have been done in the “room of tears,” so called because it elicits either tears of joy or sadness to the one elected to the throne of st. peter. that room is, i believe, to the left of the sistine chapel, when facing the altar. after being vested, the pope sits himself upon the throne in front of the altar and the cardinals pay him homage and swear their allegiance to him. then the “balcony” appearance follows.

secondly, a ring was placed on the new pope’s finger. the intention was to show that he has the authority now (in contrast to the opening scene, where the ring of the deceased pope was defaced after his death). as far as I know and base on the documentary “inside vatican” by national geographic channel , the church has separate “ring ceremonies,” which usually take place during the pope’s installation or inauguration into the petrine ministry. the ring also doubles as a seal used to authenticate papal documents. i don’t think a ring for “luke” was made that fast immediately after the new pope’s election. (unless of course, the ring that was shown was the new pope’s ring when he was still a cardinal. but I doubt it. that final ring scene was intended to give cinematic closure in relation to the opening ring scene.)

lastly, after being vested with abito paonazzo (choral dress consisting of that lacey vestment called a rochet, cassock, shoulder length cape or mozzetta, state stole and the white zucchetto or skull cap), a miter (pointed bivalve hat) was imposed on the new pope’s head. that is a no-no!!! the choir dress is the most formal dress at liturgical celebrations when the cleric wearing it is not the one presiding over the liturgy (obviously, Luke will not celebrate mass at the balcony). A miter, therefore, is out of place, because the event (not a liturgical celebration) does not call for it.

hay naku kaya nga fiction eh . (dami talagang inconsistencies parang yung da vinci code) no one can really bring the catholic church down!