QuoteCreation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.
The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".
Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.
"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.
"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.
"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.
"Charles Darwin is, I suppose, the hero of the film. But we tried to make the film in a very even-handed way. Darwin wasn't saying 'kill all religion', he never said such a thing, but he is a totem for people."
Creation was developed by BBC Films and the UK Film Council, and stars Bettany's real-life wife Jennifer Connelly as Darwin's deeply religious wife, Emma. It is based on the book, Annie's Box, by Darwin's great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes, and portrays the naturalist as a family man tormented by the death in 1851 of Annie, his favourite child. She is played in the film by 10-year-old newcomer Martha West, the daughter of The Wire star Dominic West.
Early reviews have raved about the film. The Hollywood Reporter said: "It would be a great shame if those with religious convictions spurned the film out of hand as they will find it even-handed and wise."
Mr Thomas, whose previous films include The Last Emperor and Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence, said he hoped the reviews would help to secure a distributor. In the UK, special screenings have been set up for Christian groups
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html
This is amazing.
I'm betting the lack of distributor has more to do with our reluctance to see dry low-budget indies than any fear of boycott.
They might have bothered to ask a distributor or two why they weren't showing the film.
Like the Georgia restaurant king just said.
The quote about religion ruling outside of NY and LA might be interpreted by some as, you know, a certain different perspective.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fevolutionspace.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F08%2F374001094_560cbdffd0_o.gif&hash=f783cba33e61af14fec9b3ae5716ea85e23dff08)
Been there, done that...over 150 years ago.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2009, 02:56:06 PM
The quote about religion ruling outside of NY and LA might be interpreted by some as, you know, a certain different perspective.
Religion is very strong here in SF!
I don't see anything new coming out of a debate that took place more than a century ago.
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2009, 03:10:35 PM
Religion is very strong here in SF!
I don't think he was talking about militant Buddhism.
From the LA Times about its critical reception:
QuoteVariety reports "Creation" as "handsome" but describes leads Bettany and real-life wife Jennifer Connelly as "a little monotonous," but The Hollywood Reporter offers a more positive take, citing the film as "thoughtful and memorable." Movieline is less charitable -- Bettany's Darwin is "whimpering," while Thompson on Hollywood spares no quarter: "flat, dull, and painful to sit through." Ouch.
I noticed that wikipedia links to a positive review from the National Center for Science Education Director. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2009, 03:12:17 PM
I don't think he was talking about militant Buddhism.
I was invited to a gay shamanistic drum circle the other day. :o
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2009, 03:19:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2009, 03:12:17 PM
I don't think he was talking about militant Buddhism.
I was invited to a gay shamanistic drum circle the other day. :o
"Gay" seems utterly redundant.
Well, well, well... this one I just _HAVE_ to watch, for the love of Darwin, because Paul Bettany is a superb actor (he was great as Chaucer and even greater as Dr. Maturin) and, last but not least, because the Victorian era is fascinating.
Now, perhaps they should have marketed the movie in the USA as the history of a racist scheming bigot, a card carrying, cat-caressing evil mastermind planning a century of wars, the fall of dynasties and empires, the collapse of social order and religion, and the murder of untold millions, all just by the sheer force of his genius - and worse still, as a democrat at heart!
I bet they would have found a big distributor that way... and, hey, they could have said Darwin was actually Moriarty!!!!
Quote from: Alatriste on September 13, 2009, 03:33:16 PM
Now, perhaps they should have marketed the movie in the USA as the history of a racist scheming bigot, a card carrying, cat-caressing evil mastermind planning a century of wars, the fall of dynasties and empires, the collapse of social order and religion, and the murder of untold millions, all just by the sheer force of his genius - and worse still, as a democrat at heart!
No, I don't think that would have workedl. The producer is actually marketing it pretty well. Now there's a chance that a few art houses will pick it up so that the viewers can snicker to themselves about how enlightened they are compared to everyone else.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 13, 2009, 02:53:32 PM
I'm betting the lack of distributor has more to do with our reluctance to see dry low-budget indies than any fear of boycott.
Yeah, a proper statement would be that "profit rules" rather then "religion rules".
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 13, 2009, 02:53:32 PM
I'm betting the lack of distributor has more to do with our reluctance to see dry low-budget indies than any fear of boycott.
Yeah, a proper statement would be that "profit rules" rather then "religion rules".
I have to agree; I don't think it's got as much to do about anti-Darwinism as it does anti-shitty-low-budget-indie-thinker-flick. We have Hollywood here, you know. If it's not a Bruckheimer/Bay tittie bombfest, Yankees don't care.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 13, 2009, 02:53:32 PM
I'm betting the lack of distributor has more to do with our reluctance to see dry low-budget indies than any fear of boycott.
but there is a demonstrated profitable market for "low budget indies" in America.
it may not be a homerun, but it more likely could be a man on base.
the other thing about indies, if it does become a hit, it often means insane profits. see Blair Witch.
It would do better on cable than in theaters. Indie theaters, even in the best of economic times, isn't nearly as profitable as cable, like Sundance or IFC or IndieNet.
Any way if it was a dry biopic of Einstein trying to get his theory of general relativity perfected while he's a complete asshole to his wife I doubt many distributors in Europe would pick it up. He's a Jew after all.
ok, if its a good film, someone will pick it up, and profit for the controversy. I imagine the experts here will pretend it never happened and if pressed, deny their previous statements.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 13, 2009, 06:51:07 PM
ok, if its a good film, someone will pick it up, and profit for the controversy. I imagine the experts here will pretend it never happened and if pressed, deny their previous statements.
I think you missed the point. It wasn't that it wouldn't profit. It was that distributors didn't want to take a risk on a movie that might not profit.
QuoteBut in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.
Even if that bizarre belief is true not every single religion in the United States is a super conservative insane literalist evolution denying religion.
I find it rather sad an article that is supposed to be in favor of rational discourse over evolution would find it necessary to lie and misrepresent not only the status of religion in America but the religions themselves. How bizarre.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 13, 2009, 06:46:22 PM
but there is a demonstrated profitable market for "low budget indies" in America.
Sure, but generally not the people on the AFA's mailing list.
This sounds like a director trying to stir up controversy & publicity. If he really believes what he's saying, he's clueless.
Didn't Darwin's experiences in the American South also have an impact on his loss of faith? I hope they include that. Those idiots drove the Christianity out of Jesus in the first place. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 06:55:47 PM
QuoteBut in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.
Even if that bizarre belief is true not every single religion in the United States is a super conservative insane literalist evolution denying religion.
I find it rather sad an article that is supposed to be in favor of rational discourse over evolution would find it necessary to lie and misrepresent not only the status of religion in America but the religions themselves. How bizarre.
It's pretty common to do that. I think it stems from honest ignorance rather then malice.
Something seems odd about this to me. There's a market for gay horror movies, for Christ's sake. Were they demanding too much money?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 07:06:36 PM
It's pretty common to do that. I think it stems from honest ignorance rather then malice.
Well even if it was true you would think New York and Los Angeles, the two biggest media markets in the country, would be worth releasing a film.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 13, 2009, 07:24:18 PM
Something seems odd about this to me. There's a market for gay horror movies, for Christ's sake. Were they demanding too much money?
Do gay horror movies have movie star
sts in them? (I've honestly no idea)
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2009, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 13, 2009, 07:24:18 PM
Something seems odd about this to me. There's a market for gay horror movies, for Christ's sake. Were they demanding too much money?
Do gay horror movies have movie starts in them? (I've honestly no idea)
And stops!
:blush:
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 06:55:47 PM
Even if that bizarre belief is true not every single religion in the United States is a super conservative insane literalist evolution denying religion.
Religion and truth are fundamentally incompatible.
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Religion and truth are fundamentally incompatible.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 09:59:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2009, 09:57:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 09:07:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2009, 09:00:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Religion and truth are fundamentally incompatible.
:rolleyes:
What?
You heard me.
I am truth, and I know what is and isn't Me.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Faeelin on September 13, 2009, 07:24:18 PM
Something seems odd about this to me. There's a market for gay horror movies, for Christ's sake. Were they demanding too much money?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the producer didn't even offer the film for distribution in the US for the specific purpose of being able to stir up controvery over the lack of a US distributor, as Peter Wiggin suggests.
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 06:55:47 PM
Even if that bizarre belief is true not every single religion in the United States is a super conservative insane literalist evolution denying religion.
Religion and truth are fundamentally incompatible.
On the contrary, every religion I know of deals extensively with defining the truth.
Keep that Darwinistic shit out of my country :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2009, 11:55:26 PM
Keep that Darwinistic shit out of my country :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJN3PGqDRNg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJN3PGqDRNg) :punk:
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2009, 11:55:26 PM
Keep that Darwinistic shit out of my country :mad:
No Australians in the US!
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2009, 11:47:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 06:55:47 PM
Even if that bizarre belief is true not every single religion in the United States is a super conservative insane literalist evolution denying religion.
Religion and truth are fundamentally incompatible.
On the contrary, every religion I know of deals extensively with defining the truth.
The truth that can be defined is not the definitive truth, as Lao Tze could have said.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 14, 2009, 12:26:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2009, 11:47:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 06:55:47 PM
Even if that bizarre belief is true not every single religion in the United States is a super conservative insane literalist evolution denying religion.
Religion and truth are fundamentally incompatible.
On the contrary, every religion I know of deals extensively with defining the truth.
The truth that can be defined is not the definitive truth, as Lao Tze could have said.
Or Tarski.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 06:55:47 PM
QuoteBut in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.
Even if that bizarre belief is true not every single religion in the United States is a super conservative insane literalist evolution denying religion.
I find it rather sad an article that is supposed to be in favor of rational discourse over evolution would find it necessary to lie and misrepresent not only the status of religion in America but the religions themselves. How bizarre.
The article states that only 38% of Americans think the theory of evolution is correct. Do you dispute this number? Because if it is true, it is pretty much crazy and extraordinary, your claims about benevolent and sane denominations notwithstanding.
It would be sad to think that 38% of Americans can believe a theory to be "correct". A scientific theory can't be proven only disproven.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 14, 2009, 12:26:28 AM
The truth that can be defined is not the definitive truth, as Lao Tze could have said.
I guess that depends on how you define definitive truth, doesn't it?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2009, 01:47:38 AM
It would be sad to think that 38% of Americans can believe a theory to be "correct". A scientific theory can't be proven only disproven.
Correct is not a synonym of proven.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2009, 02:36:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2009, 01:47:38 AM
It would be sad to think that 38% of Americans can believe a theory to be "correct". A scientific theory can't be proven only disproven.
Correct is not a synonym of proven.
In fact, I did a search for "synonym", "correct", and "prove". Apparently it is.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2009, 01:44:08 AM
The article states that only 38% of Americans think the theory of evolution is correct. Do you dispute this number?
I'll dispute that. The article states 39%, not 38%. :P
Ok, on a serious note, I suspect that the poll worded the question strangely. Probably something along the lines of, "Do you think it's possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is not correct?" and only 39% said "no" and then that got reported as "61% said that it's possible that Darwin's theory is wrong". But you can think that Darwin was right, and still say that it's possible that he was wrong.
I bet you think "not guilty" is the same as innocent as well.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2009, 03:39:44 AM
I bet you think "not guilty" is the same as innocent as well.
Close enough for government work.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2009, 03:43:37 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2009, 03:39:44 AM
I bet you think "not guilty" is the same as innocent as well.
Close enough for government work.
I have a hunch that you don't know what that phrase means, either.
QuoteMovieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.
:x
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2009, 03:48:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2009, 03:43:37 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2009, 03:39:44 AM
I bet you think "not guilty" is the same as innocent as well.
Close enough for government work.
I have a hunch that you don't know what that phrase means, either.
I have a hunch you missed the joke.
If nothing else, I think the casting's pretty controverisal. Paul Bettany as a sexy strawberry blonde Darwin?
A scientific theory is a set of theorems, postulates and laws which are consistent with each other, explain all observations and are contradicted by none. It is the closest we can get to truth outside of mathematics.
You do not get to vote on it though. It is either a theory or it fails one of the three tests above and thus is garbage. Voting doesn't change any of this.
If Americans who want to watch that movie can't in the theatres, they can probably catch it on PBS or BBC America next year some time.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2009, 01:44:08 AM
The article states that only 38% of Americans think the theory of evolution is correct. Do you dispute this number? Because if it is true, it is pretty much crazy and extraordinary, your claims about benevolent and sane denominations notwithstanding.
What the article said is that 39% of the Americans believe in evolution. I am not sure of the nuances of that.
Frankly 39% of Americans being intelligent enough to have an opinion on the subject is sort of refreshing.
But that does not mean everybody outside of New York and LA is religious and follows a religion that includes explicit rejection of the theory of evolution as part of its dogma.
Bettany-Connelly lost whatever indie cred they still have left when they left Brooklyn and moved to Tribeca like every other DeNiro wannabe Hollywood hipster. No wonder they can't get their precious distribution.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2009, 11:55:26 PM
Keep that Darwinistic shit out of my country :mad:
yeah since The USA has no interest in freedom of religion, or speech. :rolleyes:
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2009, 03:34:47 AM
Ok, on a serious note, I suspect that the poll worded the question strangely. Probably something along the lines of, "Do you think it's possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is not correct?" and only 39% said "no" and then that got reported as "61% said that it's possible that Darwin's theory is wrong". But you can think that Darwin was right, and still say that it's possible that he was wrong.
You could also have the question be "do you think God had no hand in the development of mankind" - the strictly atheistic interpretation of evolution, and postulate that everyone who answers "no, I think God might have played a role" does not "think the theory of evolution is correct."
Not that any of this actually matters all that much. Generally, the Euros who disdain religion do so for the same empty set of reasons as those Americans who worship - that's what they have been trained to think.
Quote from: Brazen on September 14, 2009, 04:37:03 AM
If nothing else, I think the casting's pretty controverisal. Paul Bettany as a sexy strawberry blonde Darwin?
Charles Darwin around 1838, when he was barely 30
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1a%2FCharles_Darwin_by_G._Richmond.jpg%2F200px-Charles_Darwin_by_G._Richmond.jpg&hash=d95dafb4cbdfd68d6f0ed885b6ea0dd2fcedd635)
Sorry, Darw cannot meet Brazen's internet standards.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2009, 12:30:39 PM
Sorry, Darw cannot meet Brazen's internet standards.
Indeed his waistcoat is too pointy.
You know, if the film actually does get distributed in the US (and I figure that it will), there's likely to be more controversy over its alleged portrayal of Darwin as a sex symbol than over its take on evolution and religion.
:lol:
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2009, 01:24:06 PM
You know, if the film actually does get distributed in the US (and I figure that it will), there's likely to be more controversy over its alleged portrayal of Darwin as a sex symbol than over its take on evolution and religion.
:lol:
Which is just as well. Everyone knows that sex was invented in the 1970s by the porn industry and that until then people multiplied by mytosis.