…and this is a 
That new Darwin film, Creation (reviews here and here) doesn't look like it will get to my neighborhood theater — it hasn't got a US distributor, for familiar reasons.
A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.
Creation, starring Briton Paul Bettany, details the naturalist'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 after the death of his daughter, Annie, 10.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere today. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors turned down the film that will prove divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll taken in February, only 39 per cent of people believe in the theory of evolution.
Movieguide.org, an influential site that 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" influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.
Although, to be fair, this is only part of the story. One reason it probably isn't getting picked up is that it isn't a blockbuster story — it's a small film with a personal story. That's not to say it's a bad movie, but it's not a Michael Bay noisemaker with car chases and explosions, or giant robots, or a remake of a 1970s cheesy TV show. That makes it a tougher sell.
Also, while it's going to generate a little controversy from the know-nothing brigades, it's not a movie that embraces the controversy and makes a lot of PR waves. I suspect it's falling into the valley of the dead movies, where it's got just enough negative vibe to turn away a segment (a small, stupid segment, of course, but theaters don't care about the IQ of the people buying popcorn) of the population, but not enough shock value to make it a must-see movie for the controversy alone.
Comments
Posted by: twirlgrl | September 12, 2009 1:16 PM
Can someone please tell me what I need to do to emmigrate to Australia?
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 12, 2009 1:16 PM
... well, it is awfully helpful of 'em to so clearly show how this 'Christian perspective' is pretty much just 'a bullshitting asshole's perspective', anyway...
Posted by: Pareidolius | September 12, 2009 1:16 PM
Maybe if they had included mega shark and the giant octopus and provided him with an invisible robot monkey best friend we could see it here. Oh, and Mrs. Darwin would have to be hawt.
Posted by: dusty | September 12, 2009 1:19 PM
Is that 39 % number accurate ?
Posted by: Robert Wilson | September 12, 2009 1:28 PM
@3: I've been lurking here for a long time without contributing, but I can't resist mentioning that in my latest novel ("Julian Comstock: A Story of 22nd-Century America") the hero produces a musical about the life of Charles Darwin, including not only pirates but an octopus! Well, sort of. (The publishers were prescient enough to include a few octopus tentacles in the cover illustration.) I consider it a subtle tribute to P.Z.
Shameless self-promotion, sorry.
Posted by: Stanton | September 12, 2009 1:38 PM
It's like I said over at Panda's Thumb, in that, if you aren't going to have tacky, tasteless bathroom humor, shameless sex and nudity, disgustingly gratuitous gore, or blatant lying/slandering/hate-mongering for Jesus, why bother with the American Audience?
Posted by: bobxxxx | September 12, 2009 1:41 PM
A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.
I continue to be ashamed to be an American. This is not a country. It's an insane asylum.
Posted by: Sara | September 12, 2009 1:42 PM
Um. Is this a mainstream sort of thing? Or just fundies having a go at the reality-based world view? 'Cause I can't tell, not being USian, and all.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 12, 2009 1:45 PM
Sara @ #8
It's not really mainstream, but it is what that fundie Christians constantly dribble out of their lying mouth in order to support their dogma. As an American, I fear we have too much of them.
Posted by: BIA | September 12, 2009 1:48 PM
...and aren't we all lucky that "half-baked theory" by Christian theologians and the like has never "led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity".
Never ever.
Of course...
Posted by: Rich Orman | September 12, 2009 1:50 PM
I am not sure that the original story from the Telegraph is very believable. The only source of information cited is the movie's producer, who may or may not have an ax to grind. There does not appear to be any attempt to confirm this story with any actual movie distribution companies. It does not indicate how many distribution companies he pitched the movie to, much less which companies turned him down. If Religious could get a distribution deal, it seems hard to believe that there is not one company around that would distribute this movie in the states. The producer's assertion makes even less sense when you consider that there are distribution companies out there that cater almost entirely to the art house distribution model--and surely not all of of them are afraid of controversy. Indeed, a controversial film would garner a lot of free publicity, and you would think that art film distributors would jump at the bit. It all makes me suspicious that either the movie is a dog, or that the producer was holding out for a deal that the distribution companies would not agree to, and that the article in the Telegraph is a combination of the producer's sour grapes and the British media's penchant for "aren't Americans stupid and provincial" stories.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 12, 2009 1:51 PM
... it's not a Michael Bay noisemaker with car chases and explosions, or giant robots, or a remake of a 1970s cheesy TV show.
Tsk, tsk, simply a matter of proper framing...
Coming soon to a multiplex near you -
Transformers: Galapagos!
The Day the Beagle Stood Still!
The Darwin Bunch!
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 12, 2009 1:54 PM
...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" influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.
Those god-botherin' nutjobs sure are deluded.
Posted by: Insightful Apem | September 12, 2009 2:04 PM
I have to say I second #11. It is hard to imagine that this movie could not find a distributor, if Religulous did. But I also hope I am not guilty of wishful thinking.
Posted by: Sara | September 12, 2009 2:14 PM
@ Gyeong Hwa Pak #9
Well, the fundies, they suck. We'll get them though, with our awesome powers of science and evolution.
Sooner or later :)
Posted by: Stellar Moose | September 12, 2009 2:15 PM
Wait, what?
So Paul Bettany's upcoming action vehicle Legion, which is certain to piss Christians off due to its Michael versus God setup, has no problem getting distributed in the United States but Creation does?
Is Creation being rejected because there aren't explosions or because Jennifer Connelly doesn't wear something super skimpy?
Posted by: JHS
|
September 12, 2009 2:15 PM
It's actually not all that unusual for one or two relatively high profile films to come out of Cannes/Venice/Toronto/Sundance/etc without a distributor, often for one of two reasons: they were seriously disappointing, or like you say, they fall into that "valley of dead movies," ie: quiet, small films that simply get lost in the shuffle of the mega-deals and flashier fare. From some of the reviews I've read, I'm pretty confident that Creation will pick up a distributor soon enough...just not in the high-profile atmosphere of the festival itself.
I'd even bet that new venture Apparition picks it up...the company was just formed this year and will be releasing Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life," Jane Campion's "Bright Star," and "The Young Victoria," all of which have a similar profile to "Creation."
Needless to say, it is extremely depressing that the producer should even have to consider that general know-nothingness of American audiences when it comes to evolution. That 39% figure, as well as the quote from movieguide, are pretty depressing.
Posted by: Flavin | September 12, 2009 2:23 PM
I'll import the DVD. Hopefully the movie's producers sell it on their personal site and get more money out of it than on an Amazon.
Posted by: F | September 12, 2009 2:23 PM
@ 14 & 11:
Yes, but not only is the film going to get poo-poo'd in the U.S. for having anything remotely to do with the Theory of Evolution, it doesn't have enough attraction for the remaining demographic - no mockery, no explosions. From what I remember last time I looked at the movie's site, it could almost pass as a sort of "chick-flick" for "sensitive" and thoughtful men and women.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | September 12, 2009 2:28 PM
"twirlgrl" (#1) asked "Can someone please tell me what I need to do to emmigrate to Australia?"
http://www.visabureau.com/australia/emigrate-to-australia.aspx
Posted by: Jack | September 12, 2009 2:29 PM
A little research into the article about Creation reveals some very poor journalism. It appears that the quote about Darwin are in fact not from a review of the movie creation, as the writer would have you believe, but instead part of a book review for "Darwin's Racists - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow". It appears the journalist has an ulterior motive to her article and it isn't to inform the readership that the movie hasn't yet been carried in the USA.
Posted by: Margaret | September 12, 2009 2:30 PM
Get your own tour organised! It might be nice not to be an organised group, but sometimes, just sometimes...
Get a movie truck and take a scenic tour as shown on the BBC
Posted by: Stellar Moose | September 12, 2009 2:39 PM
Here's the trailer for Legion.
I can't see the Catholic League being too supportive of it.
Posted by: raven | September 12, 2009 2:41 PM
The movie being controversial has nothing to do with it. It's all about money.
If the distributors thought they could make a buck off of it, they would. Theaters don't care about the IQs or religions of their patrons. They do care a lot about making money.
Movieguide isn't giving a "xian" perspective on Darwin. It is just fundie Death Cult routine babbling.
Posted by: Amanda | September 12, 2009 2:54 PM
I fail to see a difference between this movie and The Passion of the Christ.
Actually, I take that back. I DO see a difference. They don't think they could make money off of a movie based on the theory of evolution, since so few believe in it. But the Christians and Passion of the Christ....ka-ching!
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 12, 2009 2:54 PM
Hey, you say that like there's normally a distinction between the two...Posted by: eandh99
|
September 12, 2009 3:10 PM
I think it's at least plausible that they're having trouble finding a distributor, given how much trouble the Darwin touring exhibition had finding a sponsor. Even here in Canada it ran into trouble - and amusingly enough the United Church of Canada ended up being one of the sponsors for the exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum.
Posted by: Sir Eccles | September 12, 2009 3:18 PM
It also lacks stick thin anorexic sorority girls running around the woods in yet another boring "horror" flick.
Posted by: ArmandTanzarian
|
September 12, 2009 3:19 PM
Who needs official censorship when you have religious nuts?
Posted by: James F | September 12, 2009 3:26 PM
This annoys me to no end, I wanted to see it in the theater - and I almost never see films in the theater. Well, I'll buy the DVD for sure.
Posted by: Ender | September 12, 2009 3:26 PM
Here in the UK this film was reviewed on Newsnight Review last night (which is the weekly arts section of the nightly BBC news round-up and analysis show Newsnight). Nobody seemed that excited about the film, and there was no controversy or argument despite Dawkins sitting opposite a Christian priest.
Posted by: MrFire | September 12, 2009 3:29 PM
A movie about Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" is controversial, but creo-porn like Ex*****d is ok.
Posted by: Widgetas | September 12, 2009 3:34 PM
Heaven forbid a large number of Americans are encouraged to watch a film that might make them think for a change. Perish the thought...
Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 12, 2009 3:35 PM
Wow -- a biographical film about one of the greatest scientists in history doesn't merit US distribution, but a bio about CS Lewis (Shadowlands) gets made twice?
And there have been how many movies about Jebus, distributed in the US?
I'm so glad that I live in the UK nowadays. Yes, we have the Daily Mail and the soon-to-be cancelled Big Brother, but at least Darwin is accorded some honour and attention.
Posted by: amk | September 12, 2009 3:49 PM
Speaking of which I want to see a faithful filming of the Book of Joshua.
But as Joshua explicitly says that children were killed by God's army with the edge of the sword it wouldn't be gratuitous at all!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 12, 2009 4:03 PM
http://www.visabureau.com/australia/emigrate-to-australia.aspx
Shucky darn, I'm too old to emigrate to Australia. I guess I'll have to settle for New Zealand.
Posted by: Adam Rutherford | September 12, 2009 4:08 PM
Not really relevant, but I simply HAVE to tell someone: I'm going to the red carpet premier tomorrow night. Anything you want me to ask Jen or Paul?
Posted by: AVSN | September 12, 2009 4:11 PM
I doubt we will miss much. Movies like this have a trend toward being slow, ploding and wayyyyyy too emotive. We know enough about Darwin already. Don't really need a movie about him.
Sandi
http://www.greatjourneyblog.blogspot.com
Posted by: Michael Dickens | September 12, 2009 4:15 PM
How come a movie like Religulous (sp?) can become wildly popular, but a movie about Darwin's life is "controversial"?
Posted by: llewelly | September 12, 2009 4:18 PM
Darwin's Origin contains a long and difficult chapter on how mega shark evolved the ability to leap thousands of feet into the air, and eat an airliner.Posted by: mgafm | September 12, 2009 4:46 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that controversy has nothing to do with the film not getting picked up. Distributors are driven solely by their bottom line and American film audiences are very different from foreign ones. We don't go to the theatres for small movies, that's why we have TVs. The American market picks up less films because it's much more competitive. Hundreds and hundreds of films get made thanks to Foreign Distribution money and we just never see them here because America has got 'better' films to spend their money on.
Don't forget, most foreign countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK have tons of government money to support filmmaking that's considered artistic or educational or otherwise important. The US does not.
I'm 100% sure that, if the film is any good, it will get distribution. Probably on television or DVD, maybe with a small theatrical run, but maybe not. There are hundreds of great, small movies that are distributed in foreign markets and not here. I think that the evolution content has absolutely nothing to do with it.
And I'm sure that the producer is trying to drum up some false outrage to make the film seem more marketable. Controversy sells. But a film with this logline, "A man who loses faith in God after the death of his daughter," sounds boring. Darwin doesn't actually mean it's interesting.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 12, 2009 4:55 PM
Really? The author of Spin and Darwinia has made an inadvertent and second-hand tribute to me? Gosh, now I'll have to buy the book.
Posted by: jose | September 12, 2009 5:03 PM
And we're talking about a first world country, with nice schools and a lot of world's top rank universities. Wow. Fundamentalism is scary.Posted by: cmflyer | September 12, 2009 5:21 PM
Would you marry your cousin if she wasn't hawt?
Posted by: GMH | September 12, 2009 5:28 PM
"Oh, and Mrs. Darwin would have to be hawt."
Umm... Hello? Jennifer Connelly? How much hawter do you NEED?
Fine movie. Caught it at the TIFF yesterday. It's a small movie, dealing with Darwin coping with the death of his daughter and pressures both to publish and to NOT publish his Origin.
It's not particularly controversial - though there's an amusing scene where Thomas Henry Huxley is trying to push Charles into publishing with the gleeful exhortation (paraphrased): "You've KILLED god with this! Well done old boy..."
The director mentioned a lack of American Distribution, but it could certainly still land such. The Festival is far from overr and the movie was well received.
Posted by: JefFlyingV, Stop | September 12, 2009 5:32 PM
I figure a distribution of the picture in the U.S. will occurr if the movie is a hit overseas. If there is money to be made there will be a distributor.
Posted by: John C. Snider | September 12, 2009 5:36 PM
I'm not so sure Creation's failure to get a distribution deal is because the film industry is afraid of the Creationists. Controversial films get distributed ALL THE TIME. I suspect more may be at play here:
http://bit.ly/s1s2C
Posted by: Glenn | September 12, 2009 5:36 PM
Hey, America, remember that time you were actually known for being a great scientific center? Whatever happened to that?
Posted by: Lyr
|
September 12, 2009 5:50 PM
One thing I've noticed about fundies and wingnuts is how hard they try to keep opposing ideas from being discussed, or even acknowledged. Disrupting honest, open conversation with their hysterical screaming (the teabaggers and the health care debate) is the more obvious way they do it, but another method is to block access to information they don't approve of (keeping their kids home from school so they couldn't hear the president's message). This movie could present ideas that are threatening to their beliefs...I'm sure they're relieved it most likely won't be released here.
Posted by: Dano Johnson | September 12, 2009 6:16 PM
One thing Creation's UK producer doesn't mention is how bad this recession is for indie filmmakers (I'm one myself and trust me everyone is feeling the pinch). Lots of the independent distribution arms of the big studios are closing down. So while Creation's producer may have a point and evolution might keep some people away from the theaters, there are tons of other non-controversial, good movies that are not being made or distributed right now. Go to your local film festival and you'll see some great films that have no national distribution and might never come to theaters or DVD (nobody was buying films at Sundance or Cannes this year). I think over the next few years the general public will suddenly notice, "Hey, where did all those small indie movies go?" and its because they didn't get greenlit in 2008-9.
Posted by: mikecbraun | September 12, 2009 6:21 PM
Good thing people and organizations like movieguide.org are there to imply that, while Darwin was a racist and a bigot and contributed to mass murder, people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and multiple popes have been decent fellows with nothing but kind words and love for their fellow humans. Revisionist history and the ability to stick one's head up one's own ass are wonderful things.
Posted by: Curious | September 12, 2009 6:24 PM
These days America is all about intolerance, whether about healthcare or Darwin. The accepted strategy is to simply bray loudly and shout down people with whom you disagree. You think this is madness?? THIS! IS! AMERICA!
Posted by: dargang | September 12, 2009 6:40 PM
"twirlgrl" (#1) asked "Can someone please tell me what I need to do to emmigrate to Australia?"
She could start by learning to spell immigrate. Here in Oztraylya we have a literacy test for potential migrants. Most Australians would fail it. On second thoughts maybe twirlgrl could emigrate after all.
Posted by: Steve | September 12, 2009 6:51 PM
WTF?? The movies "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Life of Brian" found US distributors, and "Creation" can't??? I have so had it with this freakin' country. Can some clever bioweapons engineer not develop a virus that only kills Christians!? Arrrgh!
Posted by: pough | September 12, 2009 7:08 PM
Not to mention the correct word from her perspective: emigrate.
Posted by: strangebrew | September 12, 2009 7:10 PM
It would seem that the christian god is so bankrupt of super deity power that it hides behind a handy form of censorship...
Incapable of taking on Evolutionary theory it relies on prejudice and intolerance to silence the competition.
It would appear that distributors in the US are a little short of good evolutionary backbone...so much for faith being an answer to all things...seems it requires a little cowardice and ignorance to actually support the delusion!
Shock horror...a god that cannot stand on its own two
holy footsies...what a useless dollop of nonsense!
Posted by: speedweasel | September 12, 2009 7:22 PM
@twirlrgl #1
"Can someone please tell me what I need to do to emmigrate to Australia?"
It helps if you’re a world class athlete and you drink 52 cans of beer on the flight over here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boon#Drinking
Posted by: jwc | September 12, 2009 7:23 PM
I take issue with this: "One reason it probably isn't getting picked up is that it isn't a blockbuster story". "I've Loved You So Long" got distribution here, so you don't have to be a blockbuster to make it worthwhile -- and in that movie KST plays a woman who murdered her child. Maybe A) it wasn't that great and B) it's about a Brit. So C) it wouldn't do well enough here to justify the cost.
Posted by: jwc | September 12, 2009 7:26 PM
@dargang #53: LOL, you screwed that up. Emigrate was what she was going for.
Posted by: JMk2 | September 12, 2009 7:31 PM
Ender wrote at #31
Both Friday evening's Newsnight and Newsnight Review programme are on the BBC's iPlayer - the latter segment at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight_review/ - (the default is apparently the last edition) I don't know for how long, and whether there are viewing restrictions based on where you are browsing. The Review is 40 minutes long. Certainly this UK resident is able to watch the programme again.
From what I recall from watching the original transmission, Rev. Richard Coles and Dr Dawkins had no disagreement - the Rev. called the Theory of Evolution "not only true, but beautiful as well". Margaret Atwood made interesting contributions, as did Ruth Padel, a poet and descendant of Darwin (he was her great-great-grandfather). The group didn't think the portrayal of the Darwin family wasn't true to what we know of the Victorian family. Rev. Coles' biggest objection was the various technical errors he'd apparently spotted in the portrayal of Anglican religious observances in the movie!
GMH wrote at #45:
I recall that some of the guests discussing the movie didn't like this portrayal of Huxley, pointing out that the movie portrayed him as forcing Darwin to publish The Origin of Species, rather than wondering (as I have heard he did) why he hadn't thought of evolution bv natural selection himself. Dr Dawkins thought that the movie had wrongly portrayed Huxley as a "malignant dwarf"! He did not recognise the influence of the book "Annie's Box" on which the movie is allegedly based.
I can't get over how Paul Bettany, playing Darwin, looks as I imagine the younger Darwin to have looked! A film (sorry, movie) worth seeing, whatever its flaws.
Posted by: JMk2 | September 12, 2009 7:47 PM
i wrote:
Aargh; unintended double negative. Correction: The group thought that the portrayal of the Darwin family wasn't true to what we know of the (generalised) Victorian family.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 12, 2009 7:52 PM
These days? You've seen better?
Posted by: Evolving Squid | September 12, 2009 8:07 PM
It does seem like there are groups in the USA who really would love to turn the US into the Republic of Gilead
Posted by: John Marley | September 12, 2009 8:15 PM
@twirlgrl (#1)
Look here.
Posted by: Dave Wisker | September 12, 2009 8:36 PM
The Home of the Brave is now a refugium for pussies.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 12, 2009 8:45 PM
Tis Himself, you may be too old to get points on the immigration test, but there are plenty of other ways of getting the points. Right now I'd say being a doctor or nurse would be excellent, we have a terrible shortage. Especially in rural areas. Computing is also a good one.
See this list:
http://www.visabureau.com/australia/critical-skills-list.aspx
Posted by: Marcus B. | September 12, 2009 8:46 PM
Gah. That quote from movieguide.org just got me thinking about "ChildCare Action Project" - a site that is apparently popular with a certain kind of people, where hundreds of movies have been "evaluated from a Christian perspective."
They have different categories of bad things they find in movies, like Violence, Hate, Sex/Homosexuality and so on, and they give gory lists of every occurrence that they can find of such things.
One of the categories is "Offense to God" and under that heading I found at one movie: "promotion of evolution, repeatedly."
So, promotion of evolution is a frickin' offense against God!? How? It is sad how the fundie-squad has so thoroughly kidnapped the theory of evolution and turned it, in the eyes of a large percentage of the general public, from a scientific theory to religious dogma. Dogma that is an offense against God, even.
And it gets worst. The movie in question is one of the X-Men-movies. Yep, they think that X-Men is promoting evolution. The truth is of course that the movie doesn't represent the theory of evolution in any way whatsoever (at least no realistic or scientific way); they merely mention the word evolution a few times. And this is apparently an offense against God.
I checked out some other movies where I guessed the word would be mentioned, like Pokémon. And yup, even the goddamn Pokémon-movie is an offense against God. Because pokémons "evolve". Again it has nothing at all to do with the actual theory of evolution, but the word is mentioned so it's an offense against God.
I get quite exasperated with these people. And it's not like they are the only "Christian movie review"-site that talks like that. I've seen several, but fortunately for my mental health I've at least forgotten about the rest of them.
I often wonder, do the fundies ever pick on any other well-established and well-researched scientific theory? Do they ever say that the mention of any other theory is an offense against God? Does relativity or germ theory make baby Jesus cry?
Posted by: Fox Lee | September 12, 2009 8:55 PM
So wait, should I see this film or not? I saw it screening at my local theater last time I went (see Red Cliff!) and heard from my friends that it was kind of poorly done, that it was supposed to make Darwin unsympathetic but Paul Bettany just missed the memo. Reading this, though, I feel like I'm wasting a chance if I don't see it. Is it a worthwhile film, from a pro-evolutionary perspective?
I mean, aside from featuring Paul Bettany and Jennifer *swwon* Connelly.
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | September 12, 2009 9:17 PM
What became of Inguniose Busterds , Quentin Tarantino's account of how,once upon a time in Methodist-occupied Britain, young Darwin and his Cambridge Shooting buddies set out to liberate the countryside from anti-hunt activists by lobbying the Lunar Society to declare an open season on Quakers?
Posted by: applescrapple | September 12, 2009 9:19 PM
Certainly is discouraging. If the primitive hordes of armed ignoramuses want to destroy the Country they will. It won't be the first time in history that a civilization self destructs.
What a shame!!!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 12, 2009 9:39 PM
Applescrapple @ 70;
"If the primitive hordes of armed ignoramuses want to destroy the Country they will. It won't be the first time in history that a civilization self destructs."
I hope in this instance that you are wrong, but if I have learned anything it is that jawdropping, rampant, willful, self righteous stupidity plus readily available firearms = extremely bad things.
The USA has a constitutionally enshrined right to bear firearms (as a Brit, I know it is not my place, but to me this particular provision seems like an archaic and dangerous holdover from the age of the War of Independence. I do not see how it safeguards freedom against any government oppression. A bunch of ordinary citizens, even if they are packing saturday night sepcials, would be no match for professional soldiers). Thre trouble begins, however, when people choose to combine this with the decision to bear dangerous quantities of teh stoopid at the same time.
Posted by: raven | September 12, 2009 9:51 PM
Well, yes. They reject most of modern science and history because it all conflicts with 2 pages of bronze age mythology. Some of them reject medicine as well.
The current list of demons is evolution, The Big Bang, neuroscience, geology, archaeology, ....everything really.
Don't get too worked up. These are just lunatic fringe anti-intellectuals. The USA is a world leader in many fields, including lunatic fringes.
Posted by: raven | September 12, 2009 10:01 PM
It's not quite that bad. Polls show most citizens are sick of the fundies. Most of those are other xians.
They are busy destroying xianity in the USA. It will be a race between whether they self destruct before or after destroying the country. They had a great start with Bush but blew it by being themselves. The New Dark Age isn't going to be popular with many of us.
It won't be the first time in history that a civilization self destructs."
According to Toynbee, 18 of 22 previous civilizations fell from within. And it seems like every civilization falls eventually. I'm just hoping ours holds together for the rest of my life.
Posted by: rozmit | September 12, 2009 10:02 PM
Where can I order the DVD??? Don't see it on Amazom.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 12, 2009 10:06 PM
The single biggest mistake this movie made was not its controvercial (in the US anyway) content, but its failure to be sufficiently commercial. That is to say, to appeal to enough of the base instincts and lowest common denominators of the general public.
A multitude of sins (like thought provoking content that makes the baby jebus cry) may be forgiven if you are just prepared to worship hard enough at Hollywood's altar to Mamon, where artistic integrity and the dignity of the cinematic industry is sacrificed for bigger opening week takings on a regular basis.
You see, a savvy film maker would have forseen this problem and would have taken a few simple precautions. Taking a few leaves out of the book of the perenially popular teen slasher genre could not be simpler. You simply add a half dozen or so oddly perpetually half-naked teenage girls, a few breast shots (don't worry if this is not supported by the plot, no one cares about plot at this juncture) and finish with a smattering of violence so ridiculously overdone it is more comic than shocking.
With these elements in the bag, you have a guarenteed core audience of hormonal teenage boys and men with nothing better to do, from whom you will more than make back your outlay. You also don't have to worry about complexities like characterisation, plot, pacing or cinematography that are the downfall of so many less astute film makers. Not after tha mammaries hit the screen, anyway
Ludicrous Hollywood-style violence and gratuitous nudity. With these things commercial success is assured. Now, I know that there will be those who will want to claim that it would be difficult to shoehorn such elements into a film about Charles Darwin. To these naysayers the retort is simple. A commercially successful film would not really be about Charles Darwin at all. It would be about making money, pure and simple. You only run into problems if you are the kind of purist who insists on historical accuracy. Mel Gibson did not let such minor considerations stop him and, if you want commercial success, neither should you.
Posted by: Irukandji | September 12, 2009 10:07 PM
According to Movieguide.org, the only morally acceptable movie currently in wide release (with a score of +3, whereas all other movies have a score of -1 or less) is - wait for it - G-Force. Yeah, the Jerry Bruckner flick with the talking CG guinea pigs who are also super-spies. That's the one.
Apparently, one of the reviewer's few quarrels with this cinematic masterpiece is its occasional hints of political correctness:
We all know that conservative Christians tend to be dogmatically anti-environmentalist -- but apparently they also dismiss animal abuse as some sort of absurd far-left concern. Real Christian boys torment small animals!
(It's not mentioned in the review, but G-Force is also decidedly politically incorrect vis-a-vis racial issues. The "hero" guinea pig -- whose name, oddly enough, is "Darwin" -- speaks "standard" American English. His two sidekicks, however, do not: the impulsive, "shoot-'em-up"-type guinea pig speaks stereotypical African American vernacular English, and the manipulative sexpot guinea pig has a pronounced Latina accent.)
Political correctness appears to be a recurring complaint of the reviewers; the site also criticizes the infinitely superior District 9 for its "politically correct" portrayal of soldiers. (The soldiers we see in the film are a bunch of vicious thugs; I'm not sure this depiction counts as "politically correct" by mainstream standards, but whatever.) After all, real life soldiers never commit atrocities -- only some sort of pinko communist hippie would dare to suggest that.
(Long and off-topic - sorry! I'm just so flabbergasted by the sheer aesthetic and ethical backwardness of their reviews.)
Posted by: Jim A | September 12, 2009 10:20 PM
Serves the right. They should have bought the rights to http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Adventure-Scientists-Novel/dp/0375423214 Which has pirates and darwin and..ham.
Posted by: ivo | September 12, 2009 10:29 PM
#5, #42: Spin is really good. I'm hesitating to buy the follow up... quite scared it will let me down, as it so often happens with follow ups to really good novels [insert your own example here].
Posted by: TastesLikeChicken | September 12, 2009 11:49 PM
@#11/14
I think some are forgetting the available $$ for religious films (money from churches and such that all these religitards freely hand over) that films about science/evolution do not have. Hell, we can't even get funding for the space program (if god had wanted us to leave earth he would have attached rockets to our asses) and you want main stream film companies to pick up a movie about the guy who made evolution reachable by all? HAHA!!
Posted by: Xenithrys | September 13, 2009 12:06 AM
Gregory Greenwood # 71:
But what about when the professional soldiers are also fundie christian fanatics, what then? Will the rest of the world have to rescue the USA?
Posted by: Kugelblitz | September 13, 2009 3:50 AM
Somehow I'm not surprised either.
Let's see if I'm following this...In a country where folks can say "God bless America" with a straight face, as if god couldn't bless any other country, or if god would bless any country at all, if there were an invisible Sky Buddy to begin with...why should anyone be surprised that "only 39 per cent of people believe in the theory of evolution" and that such a fact might influence what sort of pablum they get to see on a movie screen?
Empires come and go and some crash and burn and some just fade away and the funny part is that few recognize the pivotal moment when it takes place, however obvious it becomes in hindsight. So now some folks are worried about the US becoming irrelevant, not realizing that the process is well underway and already past the point of no return; folks are just arguing about where the deck chairs should be while the ship is headed underwater.
It's true what they say...if you're going to lead you should check once in awhile to see if anyone's following or if most everyone else is just sloping off in another direction altogether. Good luck with that...
Posted by: shonny | September 13, 2009 4:20 AM
So it is not a movie for the brain-dead, i.e. totally unsuitable for the general US audience?
Considering all the crap that is churned out by the US TV and film industry, not so strange maybe.
Thankfully there are US Americans who are not zombies, but it seems like your number is dwindling, as reports from the anti-health reform demonstrations truly indicate.
Gegen die Dummheit . . .
Look forward to the movie hitting my shores (Norway), although ACTM (American CrapTM) programs and movies seem to have taken over many TV channels here too, - sadly.
Posted by: Jim | September 13, 2009 4:22 AM
Once again, I am shamed to be an american.
Posted by: XD | September 13, 2009 4:56 AM
I note that the director of Creation is Jon Amiel. His output has been varied, from the wonderful BBC TV adaptation of The Singing Detective, to the embarrassingly awful The Core. However, on the Wikipedia page for the latter film, there is this ray of sunshine:
Posted by: Vole | September 13, 2009 5:32 AM
Paul Bettany, the star of "Creation", was on TV in the UK this morning. According to him, following its success at the Toronto film festival, there is now a "bidding war" for the film in "north America". So maybe we should wait and see.
Posted by: Scott M | September 13, 2009 6:00 AM
I suspect that there is more to its lack of distribution than simply running afoul of fundie values...but if this is the case then it says far more about what the distributors think of their audience than it does about America.
Seriously: The fundies have not taken over the country
Posted by: Will | September 13, 2009 10:59 AM
What country are we living in? Saudi Arabia? This is more then a disgrace, it's more proof our our great country, and it's sad decline. Someone needs to step up and get this movie into our country to show we still have a will for this country to be democratic, not socialist. What's next, burning books?
Posted by: Jules | September 13, 2009 11:08 AM
How stupid to say Theory of Evolution led to racism and eugenics.
Before the Theory of Evolution, people just blamed Satan or Demons for humans they considered sub-par. Or believed God had chosen to punish that person or their family.
Genocide happens in religious civilizations on quite a regular basis. How are they going to blame Darwin for that?
Posted by: caerbannog | September 13, 2009 11:31 AM
I think that PZ may being a bit too kind to the distributors here.
Movies with even smaller box-office potential are shown every week at art-house theaters all across America; heck, there are three of these theaters within a 20-minute drive of my place here in San Diego (not the most liberal city in California by a long-shot).
It would cost relatively little to distribute/market the movie to these American art-house theaters and the liberal elites who patronize them. Creation would certainly not be a blockbuster here, but I'm sure that it would do well enough to earn a distributer at least a modest profit, as do lots of other small "indy" movies.
Posted by: Kristine | September 13, 2009 12:21 PM
Everyone:
You can request it on Netflix (for the future - it's a "save" option). Get a Netflix account and request it. (We dumped cable and don't miss it.)
We can sponsor the film in the same manner that Ben Stein pleaded for parents to sponsor their own "Expelled" film screenings. University students and professors can jump on this.
Torrent will be all over this.
Make the U.S. distributors sorry that they missed a critical audience. They understand money. Pennies "evolve" into dollars when the public gets involved; surely the movie industry can grasp that.
Posted by: haroldmh | September 13, 2009 12:49 PM
Netfix will have it available when issued in DVD format. I just ordered it. Thanks for making it known to me.
Posted by: Irene Delse | September 13, 2009 1:20 PM
John Scalzi, who in addition to blogger and sci-fi author is a savvy movie critic, has an interesting take on the debacle here:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/09/13/they-should-have-called-it-darwin-the-revengination/
Alternately, and leaving aside any discussion of the actual quality of the film, it may be that a quiet story about the difficult relationship between an increasingly agnostic 19th Century British scientist and his increasingly devout wife, thrown into sharp relief by the death of their beloved 10-year-old daughter, performed by mid-list stars, is not exactly the sort of film that’s going to draw in a huge winter holiday crowd, regardless of whether that scientist happens to be Darwin or not, and that these facts are rather more pertinent, from a potential distributor’s point of view. The major US studios are no longer really tuned to distribute films like this in any event.
[...] A bit of controversy would actually be lovely for this film; it’ll get it talked about, which means lots of press and so on, and more awareness of the film in the movie industry. The film was the opening film of the Toronto Film Festival, which is not an insignificant thing to be. It almost certainly will find a distributor in the US, probably one that focuses on smaller films [...] Some savvy tweaking of Oscar marketing materials (”see the controversial film about Darwin that almost didn’t show in the US, aren’t we brave in bringing it to you!”) will appeal to the reflexively progressive elements of the Academy, and perhaps the screener DVD of Creation for Academy members will go out in a handsome facsimile first edition of On the Origin of Species.
One can only hope. ;-)
Posted by: Alec | September 13, 2009 1:58 PM
Anyone know if there is a Canadian distribution deal yet?
Posted by: Cyberdraco | September 13, 2009 3:09 PM
I went to that movieguide site (very bad idea if you want to keep your sanity) and was instantaneously filled with disdain and disgust as their hypocrisy holds no bounds.
When will the detractors ever pick up and read his works? He was/is responsible for ENDING arbitrary racism. I can quote numerous passages in "The Voyage of the Beagle" where he was disgusted by slavery and these douchebags throw around hate words like they actually care about people and their families.
AAHHHHHHH Why must I live in a country with such intolerant assholes!!!!????
Common descent fucktards, no current humans are superior...grrrrrrr
Posted by: Alan | September 13, 2009 4:17 PM
Same actor as the doc in Master & Commander. I thought that part was a bit of a nod to Darwin, anyway.
Posted by: cliffton | September 13, 2009 5:28 PM
"according to its producer."
That's all you need to know. This is a blatant publicity ploy. America is a country with a large population, with millions of people who are fine with Darwin (look at the comments here FFS).
Look at all you lemmings, you sheep. The movie's producer says it's because all Americans are intolerant, and like Pavlov's dogs you immediately start wailing and gnashing your teeth and bawling about how all Americans are intolerant, ignoring the fucking counterexample: YOURSELVES and the millions like you.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 13, 2009 5:35 PM
Dear Brother Cliffotn,
Thank you for you impassioned invective. At the end of the day your use of angry cliche's shows us the absolute consequence of thinking outside the box.
Yours in support of lemming language
Smoggy
Posted by: Last Hussar | September 13, 2009 6:39 PM
Who ever brought up Mel Gibson should think this through. If Mel made it Darwin would run around euthanising every non-Englishman he could lay his hands on, all the while shouting "I hate God".
Posted by: Zen Druid | September 13, 2009 7:12 PM
...A screenplay based on Randal Keynes' Annie's Box.
I'll put that on my library list. Fuck the eyewash.
Posted by: Cliffton | September 13, 2009 8:35 PM
@Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
Any time. I'm just surprised at the way so many people here are taking the producer's word at face value. What the heck does he know? He could as easily be trying to stir up controversy (hello publicity), or just simply be wrong.
I'm mostly disgusted by all the martyrs in here who are so certain they are much more enlightened than everyone else in this country (that producer said they are all religious bigots!) and are quick to assume the worst about the 300 million people that live here.
And thinking outside the box? That's rich. I suppose you think that's what everyone here is doing (while they all parrot each other in their denunciation of America as a scienceless bastion of retardedness).
Obviously there are some fanatics in this country, but I don't think it serves anyone to overreact like most of the people in this thread are.
*swear words go here*
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 8:43 PM
The movie's producer says it's because all Americans are intolerant, and like Pavlov's dogs you immediately start wailing and gnashing your teeth and bawling about how all Americans are intolerant, ignoring the fucking counterexample: YOURSELVES and the millions like you.
which account for what percent of the US population these days, as opposed to the fucktards who think Darwin=Hitler is a cogent thesis?
It's a generalization, accurately noted, but a fair argument when so little of the US population supports the ToE as fundamentally well supported.
recall, in comparison with other countries, the US ranks only behind Turkey in rejection of the ToE.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 8:46 PM
Obviously there are some fanatics in this country, but I don't think it serves anyone to overreact like most of the people in this thread are.
nor does it serve to hide your fucking head in the sand.
Posted by: Paul Murray | September 13, 2009 10:22 PM
@15 Sara: "Well, the fundies, they suck. We'll get them though, with our awesome powers of science and evolution."
Well, fear and stupidity is the most powerful societical force on the planet. The only time science managed to judo antiscience was back in the '50s, when the russians launched the Sputnik and suddenly fear was on the side of reason. People could look into the sky and *see* that only science would protect them from the commie threat.
That's why they accuse climate-change prponents of alarmism and fearmongering. They know that that's the only thing that gets a population moving, and think that the environnmentalists are intentionally using that strategy.
Posted by: Paul Murray | September 13, 2009 10:43 PM
@53 - dargang: "She could start by learning to spell immigrate. Here in Oztraylya we have a literacy test for potential migrants."
I'd like to apologise for my fellow countryman, Dargang. Many aussies know perfectly well that you emigrate from one place and immigrate to another. (I imagine the relevant cognate is "emit").
Kindly don't let this put you off. You have to assume the worst of people when you are on the intertubes, you know, and dargang was merely being careless and rude.
Posted by: Adam Rutherford | September 14, 2009 6:33 AM
Don't know if anyone is still on this thread, but I spoke to the director last night and he said that they were close to signing with one of 3 US distributors.
I think that this whole story about it not being touched because of the subject is a bit of hoo-haa. Many indie films are seriously struggling to find distributors right now, and as PZ points out, this film is rather small and niche. It is wonderful and much needed right now, but the bottom line is it will almost certainly not turn a profit in the US.
Posted by: AKobold | September 14, 2009 7:19 AM
WTF? What is wrong with you Americans? Well, with 61% of you Americans anyway? I have always knew that there are a lot of Evolution Denialists in America, but I had no idea that these assholes were over 60 per cent of the population. I feel soooo sorry for the US now.
Posted by: Virigl | September 14, 2009 10:24 AM
Dumb Question, but does anyone know WHICH US distributors turnedit down, and is anyone interested in setting up an online petition to get them to change their minds. Everyone blasting off here about it is unlikely to change matters. Direct emails to the CEOs of said companies however, might ruffle some feathers?
Posted by: Ian Adams | September 14, 2009 3:23 PM
I don't get it; we're in the 21st century. If you can't find a distributor, put it on BitTorrent and throw up a donations page.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 14, 2009 4:32 PM
The situation has recently changed:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/movies/Gibsons-Creation-May-Cause-Big-Bang-in-US-59246832.html
I did not know that Gibson's company was behind this film. Watch for changing views of Gibson--on both sides.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: william e emba | September 15, 2009 12:29 PM
In addition to the late breaking bidding war news for Creation, Tuesday's NYT (9/15) has an article about the dismal prospects for pretty much all of the films at the Toronto Film Festival. Whereas in the past there would typically be immediate sales and hot auctions, distributors are pretty much going very slowly with everyone.
In short, blaming Creation's troubles on the nutcases is inaccurate, or at least premature. It's the wrong economy.
Posted by: Michiel Smit | September 15, 2009 3:35 PM
Just as I figured; give it a week and the money will start talking:
"There is now a bidding war for the film in the US. A US deal will be in place by the end of the week."
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/movies/Creation-May-Cause-Big-Bang-in-US-59246832.html
Posted by: AmyD
|
September 15, 2009 9:50 PM
That's just great, now none of us can see it because some drooling zealots have a problem?
Posted by: John Tomaszewski | September 16, 2009 12:54 PM
There is a petition here to try and get the film released in the US:
http://action.americanhumanist.org/t/9133/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2101