Via the Daily Telegraph:
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 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. However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
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”….
Hmmm. Not an encouraging story. However it’s important to be careful with reports like this. After all, Religulous found a distributor.
Perhaps those unamed US distributors simply thought that the film wouldn’t sell. Equally, I don’t know how “typical” that comment from a “US Christian website” really was. I do know, however, that describing evolution as “a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying” is a phrase that could prompt a rather obvious retort…
Add a few “adult” scenes to the movie and call it “Sexual Selection”. The movie will be sure to sell.
yeah, i’m sure it didn’t find a distributor b/c “people in america finds evolution too controversial.” In times like this where people don’t have tons of money to dish out on movie tickets, and considering the small audience this would have attracted (even I probably would have given this a miss…because, I’m not really interested in Darwin’s struggle between faith and reason, even as an atheist). I can only conclude that it would have been an imprudent business move to distribute the movie. Try again in the future, I say.
But the whole “it’s too controversial” is nothing but a back-handed mockery of this country – a disguised jealousy, if you will. “Everywhere but the US” is a tiresome sound-byte I hear quite often, most notably in regards to healthcare. Yeah, I suppose some evangelical cliques would not like this movie, but it’s hardly a reason why distributors would not pick it up. It’s about the bottom line.
Even if Darwin’s work did influence tyrannical leaders, it should not be held against him for observing and recording his study of what has become a scientifically validated mechanism. To me, that is the legitimate attack on this.
It simply cannot be true that only 39 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution; it can’t be anything like true. I’m a little surprised that the Telegraph would run with this sort of tripe, but then again there does tend to be a wide swathe of near-reflexive anti-Americanism in some Tory circles as well, doesn’t there?
The GSS only has 47% saying that “human beings developed from earlier species of animals” is probably or definitely true. Another question (with a small-ish sample) has 54% saying that man evolved, but that includes 42% that think that the process was God-guided. Only 12% prefer “man has evolved” to “man has evolved, but God guided”. Depending on the question you ask, how much emphasis you place on randomness, etc, I think you could legitimately get 39%.
First, I’m not surprised at the relatively low percentage of folks who believe in Darwinism, strictly understood. Truth be told, I’m surprised that the number is as high as 39%.
Second, how many movies about historical science figures are bizillion-dollar block-busters in the American cinema marketplace? Good night. The movie could be great, and it would still bomb with the American public simply because of its topic. For good or ill, it will be a yawner. Popular in Norway? No doubt. Popular in New York? No way.
Third, movies that don’t resonate with popular culture can still be successful, but only if they can tap into a major sub-culture. The Passion of the the Christ by Mel Gibson certainly was not a mainstream movie, but it was made by an Oscar-winning director and tapped into a huge, vast, underserved market in the States. People went to see that movie who never go to see movies. Churches bought out whole showings of that movie in individual theaters. There simply isn’t equivalent to that, either institutionally or culturally, for Darwinism. The local biology professor at the community college might give her students some extra credit to go see a movie about Darwin, but that ain’t gonna be enough to pack the seats down at the Cineplex.
Fourth, that inability to draw a big crowd leads the studios to make a cost-benefit analysis — how much grief will we get from anti-Darwinists if we market this movie, compared to how much money we will make from the movie. Not surprising the distributors are saying “thanks but no thanks.”
That all said, I bet it will eventually get picked up — but not by a major distributor. Even the Passion of the Christ wasn’t picked up by a big distributor at first….
>>His “half-baked theory” directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to “atrocities, crimes against humanity
Its quite true that a muddled notion of Darwinism did heavily influence Hitler – known to Ukranians during WW2 as the ‘little mustache’
Less well known is the PROFOUND influence of Darwin on the ‘big mustache’
As a young teenager Josep Jughashvili read Origin of the Species cover to cover. He later told his associates that from this reading he became an atheist and a revolutionary.
It is a grotesque irony of history that a gentle soul like Darwin should become a patron saint of the 20th century’s 2 greatest monsters.
OOPS! Sorry Mao for leaving you out! When did you read Darwin?
Gotchaye —
What difference would it make if people believed in “god-guided” evolution or unguided evolution? They still believe in evolution. The theory of evolution pretty much can’t have anything to say about whether the process itself is god-guided, can it?
Per a point that Derb has made before on these pages, I’d be interested to know what percentage of American or western populaces generally think that evolution somehow stopped in humans in the last 5-50,000 years.
“That all said, I bet it will eventually get picked up — but not by a major distributor.”
=== When I hear about an interesting film that won’t be in the theaters (or that I’m not intrigued enough about to shell out money for a ticket), I just put it in my list of movies to rent from Netflix. Can’t imagine this one won’t be available there. But I agree with the guy above, even as an atheist I’ve little desire to see this particular film.
With respect to “religious correctness” America is the next Saudia Arabia! 😀
(I know, I know, a cheap shot, but there are times where it is enjoyable not to be a ‘Murikan)
Rule of thumb. Never, ever believe a film’s producer when he makes such a sweeping claim as this. The fact is, the movie received only mild reviews at Toronto and the biggest criticism was the film’s tame and complex-shy approach. This is just Thomas’ way of publicly daring the distribution companies to make make him an offer. He may very well be in negotiations now and is just upping the stakes. Who knows?
The Toronto festival still has another week to go. It’s sure to be picked up before it’s over.
“complex-shy approach”. Hmmm, that read pretty awkwardly, didn’t it? Sorry.
FWIW, Movieguide.org hasn’t reviewed “Creation.” The goofy comments about Darwin apparently come from their review of the book “Darwin’s Racists,” which explains how anyone who believes in evolution is evil.
Hasn’t got a distributor, yet. Couldn’t you say that about any movie before there is actual ink on the contract? Sounds like hype.
Shep – it matters because there are a variety of questions you could ask people which could reasonably be interpreted as getting at belief in evolution. It can be as generous as using the word “evolved” with no explanation and explicitly offering God-guided evolution as a choice, as with the GSS question that got 54% agreement. You can just ask about certainty about the proposition “humans developed from earlier species of animals” without drawing attention to the possibility that God had a hand in that development, which only got 49% agreement. You could ask whether or not “humans evolved by means of random mutation and natural selection”, and the word ‘random’ would probably cause your agreement rate to plummet. It makes sense to speak about all of these results as reflecting belief in evolution, but, depending on the particular question you’ve asked, you’re going to see a range of agreement rates from around 12% to 54%.
I agree with CC and SG. The best way for the producer to get distribution is to claim that the philistines are trying to suppress art. Works like a charm in terms of garnering favorable publicity. Look at Andres Serrano. He titled his crucifix photo “Piss Christ,” sat back and waited for the uproar to start, and became an overnight sensation. If he’d titled it “Crucifix in Aerated Liquid Medium,” he’d probably be taking baby photos at the Rome WalMart.
Gotchaye —
Ah; I see your point. Thanks for the explanation.
Creation, 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.
I can see a problem finding a distributor here. The controversy isn’t the problem so much as the marketing. I mean, we’re not talking about a feel-good film here. It’s box office poison. I’m sure it’ll still make the arthouse rounds, and it’ll get out on DVD.