Angels & Demons: a good film

I was in Dublin yesterday for an Institute of Physics meeting so I took the opportunity to see Angels & Demons in the Savoy afterwards.

Shock news: I found the film reasonably interesting and entertaining, in stark contrast with every review I have seen (see a scathing review inThe Irish Times here). What is with the critics? I am no fan of Hollywood, but as Hollywood blockbusters go, I found A&D well above average.

Granted, the plot is a bit far-fetched, not to mention convoluted (you really need to have read the book to keep track of the story, from the history of the Illuminati to the frantic chase around Rome from cryptic symbol to cryptic symbol). However, the film is an improvement on the book as the storyline is tighter, with many unnecessary scenes removed. The cinematography is good – Ron Howard makes great use of the architecture of Vatican City and of the pomp and ceremony of Church traditions such as Conclave. The fabulous tradition of the Catholic Church in art, architecture and music is also portrayed quite well. There are some nice crowd scenes in St Peter’s square; my favourite was an incidental scene depicting a riot over the rights and wrongs of stem cell research! The key scene of a bomb-laden helicopter ascending into the heavens from St Peter’s was also quite effective.

The cardinals on the way to Conclave

I can’t help wondering whether some critics missed the central point of the film. One problem with this sort of thriller is that the theme is often not revealed until the end. In this case, it only becomes becomes clear in the closing moments that the real topic of the story is the conflict within the Church between those who seek to reconcile religion with science (the elderly cardinals) and those who see science as an implacable enemy that must be overcome by any means (the young Camerlengo). An unusual theme for a blockbuster..

What about the science in the film? Again, it was better than I expected. The opening minutes are set in CERN, with a nice portrayal of an accelerator facility and a decent simulation of proton-proton collisions as the LHC is switched on. There is a reasonable explanation of Professor Vetra’s antimatter experiment and the routing of the proton beam to his lab is portrayed in realistic fashion. Yes, yes, the whole concept of an antimatter bomb is wrong-headed (see post below), but this is fiction, not fact.

However, given the worldwide attempts to use A&D to promote science (see here), I feel bound to point out that the whole antimatter/CERN angle is rather tangential to the plot - that is incidental, as Hannibal Lecter would say. It happens that the bomb is supposedly made of antimatter, but that’s about the extent of the particle physics connection. (There is also the Camerlengo’s objection to the ‘blasphemous’ term God particle). Even the gorgeous young scientist Vetra doesn’t get much of a role. The real theme of the film is the battle between science and religion, now and in the past, a topic it handles quite well (see Camerlengo’s speech and eldest cardinal’s rebuttal).

All in all, I enjoyed the film and would certainly watch it again sometime. I even liked the central character (played by Tom Hanks) – a non-believer who is respectful of the rich tradition of the Church, he was quite convincing in the role…

Angels, demons and antimatter

I’m re-reading Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons in preparation for the film release later this month. I’m quite enjoying it – if you’re going to write a fast-paced thriller, why not have lots of science and religion in it? Not many thrillers feature antimatter as a core part of the plot. Also, it’s great to see CERN feature in a book aimed primarily at an American market. In fact, the first 150 pages or so of the book are set in CERN.

However, it has to be said that much of the science is disappointing. First, there are the usual stereotypes – the CERN director is portrayed as a cold scientific type with few morals or empathy. The lab is full of all sorts of gadgetry incomprehensible to the hero Langton, a Harvard professor of religious iconology. More seriously, some of the science is poorly researched and inaccurate.

For example, a very basic component of the plot makes no sense. An anti-religious group is suspected of murdering a CERN scientist because he has discovered that ‘‘matter can be created out of pure energy, contradicting modern science and giving support for creationism”. Except that the creation of matter from pure energy is a standard prediction of both relativity and quantum physics (E = mc2) and we have been producing it in accelerator experiments for years. There are no implications for religion!

Such misconceptions run throughout the book. Elsewhere, it is explicitly stated that particle physics is about smashing things together in order to see what’s inside. This is completely wrong – in experimental particle physics, exotic new particles are created out of the energy of reaction (e.g. antiquarks do not exist inside protons, they are created out of the energy of proton-proton collisions). Much of the discussion of antimatter also contains errors – for example the ‘antimatter bomb’ of the plot makes little sense. While antimatter can and is created in accelerator experiments, only the tiniest amounts have ever been successfully stored (i.e. atoms of antimatter, not micrograms). Statements like ‘‘the electron is the antiparticle of the proton” don’t help either.

That said, I like the idea of a bestselling novel featuring antimatter heavily. Also, the ’struggle’ between science and religion, a central theme of the book, is an interesting theme for a bestseller – although it’s a pity that the emphasis is on the extreme views on either side of the debate.

As you know, the film is about to be released, with the usual heavy promotion. Sadly, I hear that the science in the film version is cut quite drastically – the CERN angle is limited to a few shots at the very beginning, Langton never visits the facility, and the CERN director, a central character of the novel, doesn’t feature in the film. Almost all scientists in the film are show wearing white coats, reducing their role to that of lab technicians..oh dear.

In summary, it’s easy to take potshots at science in novels like this. Overall, I’m glad to see science mentioned at all. Pity much of it is left out in the film..

Update: The particle physics community in the US have organised a series of public lectures on the science behind Angels&Demons in order to coincide with the release of the film. You can read more about this here and see the lecture timetable here.

I’m hoping to get involved in a similar lecture at the Science Gallery in Trinity College Dublin. I think it’s a good idea to tap into the anticipated public interest in antimatter. That said, I think such a lecture should also include a certain amount of discussion of science and religion, as this is a major theme of the book. More on this later…

Update II:

I just read that The Irish Times and the Royal Irish Academy are hosting a public a panel discussion on Angels, Demons and Antimatter at the RIA on June 2nd. The panel includes some very good particle physicists like Alex Montwill and Ronan Mc Nulty of UCD, well worth a visit for anyone in Dublin. You can find details of the event and book tickets on the RIA website.