Angels & Demons discussion

my feelings about camerlengo carlo ventresca are all mixed up. i admired him and he was my favourite character for being strong and pensive in the chaos, honoring his religion and acknowledging science. but at the end when i figured out his true role-- i didnt know if to take him as a compassionate man just taking his passion way too far or as a killer to the core...

your thoughts?

He was insane, maybe? Or he was someone who started to think that whatever he WANTED to do was RIGHT.

But I think the whole plan with the helicopter and the parachute - pretty crazy.

He was definitley insane. But I loved his character and when I heard the news of what he did, I just...I was shocked and felt like I lost a REAL friend.

I'd call him a villain who thought he was an anti-hero.

i liked this character even after i found out he was the villain. I tried to understand his reason for causing such chaos but this is another one of those times when people think that using religion as an excuse is ok. As sweet as he was, there was obviously some dark things going on in his head.

is he the character played by ewan macgregor in the film ... its been a while since i read the book

Sandy wrote: "is he the character played by ewan macgregor in the film ... its been a while since i read the book" It is and ewan macgregor is great. because he is such a sweet guy, it makes it hard to believe he's a bit of a crazy.

when i started reading this book i loved the carmelengos character i thought he was such a good person.but towards the end i was really shoked and stunned about the carmelengo.

From the starting, I somehow had this feeling that the Camerlengo might have murdered the Pope. I mean, who else has such direct, personal contact with the Pope? However, his character is kind of creepy. It gave me chills when I read that he was actually the Pope's son and yet killed his own father...

I had my suspicions about his relationship with the Pope, thinking maybe it was another adoption situation (or even worse), but did not expect the villainous nature! And, I didn't think Brown would have done a double adoption in one story.

When I found out it was Carmelengos, it was a huge *GASP* moment for me. I could hardly believe it. I thought the story was so well constructed. I didn't personally feel that anything was given away. Brown did an amazing job in so many avenues. I think he made us like him and care for him on purpose. It kind of gave us the kind of feeling the pope most certainly had when he died by his son's own hands. We trusted him like the people of the church he killed trusted him. I think that added to the experience of the story...

He was just doing what he thought was RIGHT.... no matter how twisted it was, he had in his own messed up head that it was right.

I loved the character straight away but halfway through I did start feeling a bit suspicious. What really made me think "He's definatley not a good guy" was when he jumped out the helicopter with the parachute, leaving Robert. Throughout the book he was upholding the Christian morals and actions, yet he left Robert to die? Wouldn't he of given the parachute to Robert so he could live or tried to think of a way to save them both?
I was shocked when I found out he killed the Pope but I pitied him too.

*definately

The camerlengo´s character is quite amaizing although a bit carboard-y: he starts asa shiny beacon of the Christian Church and ends up a mad, homicidal with delusions of grandure man....what a fall!
The fact that he didn´t listen what the Pope had to say when he started the conversation with him and said that he had a son setted the whole wheels in motion and from that point on, since the time that he is at the Necropolis, at the tomb of Peter, that the train is already on his way to get out of the rails - just a amtter of time and chance: if Robert and Vittoria hadn´t come in to the picture he would have been a Pope for more than 17 minutes and no one would ever knew what happened - the 4 murderedcardinals would be forgotten, for sure and he would be celebrated as the rightfull sucessor of Peter, in the Vatican - quite devlish plan!

The same mixed feelings like you Brighid, the same.

I remember that I wanted to cry when he was self-sacrificing for everyone, and how he was depicted like a holy man since the beginning.

It's interesting the twist of the plot almost in the end. He turned out to be an insane man who got confused and traumatized when he discovered his real origins and considered less the last Pope's will and love.

I understood in the book that in the end, he killed himself before everyone knew the true. Or was it like the movie?

A twist I definitely didnt see coming. I was sad that he ended up being the baddie but a great twist for the book, i loved it

It was a wonderful plot twist to an already twist filled plot. There was always so much going on it seemed you questioned everything, except the camerlengo. He seemed the one character that was holding true throughout. To then find out how he was actually the one behind it all was a great shocker and had me actually gasping with surprise as I was reading. A great job by Brown.

I'm glad I wasn't the only person who honestly felt like I lost a friend when the camerlengo's true colours were revealed. What really crushed me was that his INCREDIBLE speech in the Sistine Chapel, aired for all the world by BBC, was the whole point of the book to me. Then to have it completely negated was really disappointing. At the same time, it begs the question: are true words any less true just because they're spoken by a bad person? (Which is the question we often have to ask regarding religious issues)

Why is there a need to serve GOD? I do not understand. We praise people who (so called) serve GOD. Frankly, there are much better things to do than that. Helping the ones in need being one of them.... People donate millions to these religious institutions just to make sure that when they die, they are taken to heaven irrespective of how many evil deeds they have done to other human beings. And these so called religious preachers also accept the same and forgive those sinners on behalf of GOD. This has been made into some kind of business which I personally do not approve.

My opinion on Carlo Ventresca is that he's not that passionate about his religion than obsessed. History already told us about crappy things 'religious' people did.

The Camerlengo is one of the best character I have ever read. How can anyone forgot the speech which he delivered in Sistin Chapel?..Really inspiring.
I got completely love this priest at that moment.
But when his true color revealed, I never felt hatred...only sadness.
Like many other anti-heros, he is also confused with the meaning of love and power.
How sad...I think there is no way we can remove the darknes from his mind, because he is that much headstrong and his own justifications for his actions...
Anyway, Hatsoff to to Dan Brown for his wonderful creation.

2/10/25 I've not read the book but I have the DVD & have seen the movie a "million" times - including today. I will admit that it has taken me several years to warm up to the story & I finally did in 2024! I decided to do comparison research today & was SHOCKED by how different the book & the movie are. I was even more shocked that Brown, as a producer, gave his blessings on the changes. I can't understand why there are so many name changes - the biggest being the MAIN antagonist - the camerlengo! In the book he is CARLO & of Italian ancestry. In the movie he is PATRICK, of Irish ancestry, from Ulster. In the movie it glosses over that he was left an orphan by a bombing in Ulster & the now deceased Pope, then a parish priest, adopted him. I read that the producers & writers changed the ethnicity of the camerlengo simply because Ewan MacGregor is Scottish. ???? Who does that? IT'S CALLED ACTING & actors are called upon to play different ethnic groups every minute of every day. What, they didnt think MacGregor had the skills to play an Italian national? By deleting Carlo's true ancestry & changing his name, they had to also delete half the backstory! That backstory made Carlo the unbalanced psychotic & religious fanatic that he was. If you recall his father, then a priest, fell in love with a nun named María. It happens! But ... this is where it gets incredibly twisted with the most bizarre rationalizations I've ever heard! The priest & the nun really wanted a child together - but they still wanted to remain in good standing in their vocations - & not get caught, of course. And never mind who or how they would properly raise a child for 18 yrs as two "consecrated religious." These 2 refused to "break their vows" by having "normal sex" together. No, instead, they actually thought they found a way around both "carnal knowledge" & "sinning" to remain "pure & clean." They wanted to be able to remain a nun & a priest w/o anyone knowing what they had plotted. The priest & the nun had a "brilliant" idea to have their baby via the brand new "IVF" treatments at that time. More plotting & scheming - a trait of many of the characters in this book! I might add that this shows a serious lapse in knowledge of basic catechism by these two, not to mention having the 8 -10 yrs of additional "nun school" education known as convent formation & the minimum of 6 yrs of seminary college. Did they not know the Catholic Church has been adamantly opposed to IVF from its inception (pun intended)? And w/o going into a long dissertation, those two broke every rule in the book, so to speak. They should've just had sex together - like normal people. But, THOSE were Carlo's parents. He may have inherited their inability to think rationally & logically. In the book, the Pope not only reveals to Carlo that he is his biological father, but also HOW he became his father. Carlo, being both overly religious & rigid was absolutely repulsed after learning this. In both the book & movie, he devised an extremely detailed & wildly convoluted plot to murder his father as an act of revenge & "divine retribution" for the many "sins" he committed, especially breaking his priestly vows. He began to take on the role of God, or how HE perceives God to be, as one who punishes, but never forgives. Carlo/Patrick went so far as to even hire a contract killer to help with his plot. BTW, how & when to hire a contract killer is not covered in the Baltimore Catechism. I think Carlo/Patrick had a God-complex, a hero-complex & he was a "control freak." He did not have the ability to show compassion, empathy or tolerance & was unable to accept differing opinions, beliefs or points of view. Carlo/Patrick wanted full control over the Catholic Church & how it's run & what it teaches. He thought the best way to accomplish his twisted goals was to become the Pope. He knew he could/would NEVER be elected to the papacy immediately - too young, too inexperienced, too impulsive, too intolerant, & NOT a diplomat - so he plotted & schemed to be made Pope by "declaration of adoration." IMO, from the book, Carlo's character had a psychotic break when he found out WHO both of his biological parents were &, worse, HOW he was conceived. The lies, the secrecy, the deception - all "sins" in the Catholic faith - along with BOTH of his parents "breaking their vows" of chastity & celibacy (not the same thing) & obedience were the '"straws that broke the camels' back." As for the movie version of Carlo - Patrick - because his entire background & even his ethnicity has been changed, it's very murky as to what finally triggered him to formulate such a complex plot & even go so far as to hire a professional to go on a killing spree for him. I would say the God-complex, the hero-complex & being a control freak fueled his actions. It's just too bad that the movie downplayed or totally left out the reasons that caused Patrick to do what he did. To say that Carlo/Patrick was a troubled soul is an understatement. He was very complex & interesting, to say the least!