New Charles Darwin film is 'too controversial' for religious American audiences

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
A new British movie about Charles Darwin may bomb in the US as it may be too controversial for religious Americans.

The film - which marks 200 years since Darwin's birth - is set at the time that Darwin wrote his book On The Origin of Species, which was published in 1859.

But US distributors have turned down the film that could cause uproar in a country that, even in the 21st Century, dismisses scientific theories of the way we evolved.

Incredibly, Christian film review website Movieguide.org described Darwin as 'a racist, a bigot and a 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder.'

New Charles Darwin film is 'too controversial' for religious American audiences

By Daily Mail Reporter
13th September 2009
Daily Mail

A new British film about Charles Darwin has failed to land a distribution deal in the States because his theories on human evolution are too controversial for religious American audiences, according to the film's producer.

Creation follows the British naturalist's 'struggle between faith and reason' as he wrote his 1859 book, On The Origin Of The Species.

The film, directed by Jon Amielm was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has now been sold to almost every territory in the world.

Enlarge Dynasty: Martha West, daughter of The Wire star Dominic, will star alongside Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin in Creation

Enlarge
Well received: But new film Creation is deemed too controversial for American audiences and has failed to land a distribution deal in the States

But US distributors have turned down the film that could cause uproar in a country that, on the whole, dismisses scientific theories of the way we evolved.

Christian film review website Movieguide.org described Darwin as 'a racist, a bigot and a 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder.'

The site also stated that his 'half-baked theory' influenced Adolf Hitler and led to 'atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and generic engineering.'

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.


The real Charles Darwin, in 1854

'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.'

Earlier this week it was revealed how the daughter of The Wire star Dominic West will have her own taste of stardom thanks to the film.

Martha West, 10, will join co-stars Paul Bettany and his wife Jennifer Connelly at the British premiere of Creation, a film about Charles Darwin.

Making her film debut, Martha plays Darwin's daughter Annie, whose death pushed him towards writing about natural selection in The Origin Of Species.

She won the role after attending open auditions at the suggestion of her father's agent - despite the British actor's initial misgivings.

West, who plays Detective Jimmy McNulty in the cult American crime series, said: 'It's not something I'd instantly want my children to do, but she's always wanted to act.

'I took her to the audition so she could see what a nightmare it is and she blew the doors off.

The film's director, Jon Amiel, said: 'I only found out after I cast her that she was Dominic West's daughter.

'It tends to indicate that talent for acting could possibly be genetic - something I'm sure Mr Darwin would have something to say about.'

Martha is West's child with his former partner, Polly Astor. They split when she was a toddler but will both accompany her to the West End premiere at the Curzon Mayfair.

Here are some strange facts about Darwin:

Stinky feet — At age 12, Darwin confessed in a letter that he only washed his feet once a month at school, due to a lack of anything with which to wash.

Tough dad — Darwin's father Robert thought Charles was a failure as a young man at times, prior to the Beagle voyage. The elder Darwin, himself a physician, sent Charles to Edinburgh University to study medicine, but Charles later showed no interest in becoming a doctor. The elder Darwin exploded: "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family."

Seasick — Darwin was sick to his stomach most of the time on the Beagle, which is one of the main reasons he spent as much time as possible on land and not on the ship. That illness probably helped him collect more data than he might have.

Missing the boat — Darwin almost missed the boat (OK, the ship) that took him to the Galapagos Islands and beyond, where he discovered evidence for evolution and started to realize its mechanism — natural selection. First, he wasn't Captain Robert FitzRoy's first choice when seeking a science companion for the survey of the South American coastline. Then, when the 22-year-old Darwin was invited, his father rejected the offer. Luckily, Darwin's uncle persuaded Robert Darwin to relent. Meanwhile, FitzRoy promised the job to a friend, but he turned the job down just five minutes before Darwin showed up to interview. The two spent a week together until they judged each other agreeable, and the ship set sail before the year’s end.

Iffy on marriage — As a young man, Darwin made a list of marriage's pros and cons. Cons included loss of time and no reading in the evening. Pros included companionship ("better than a dog anyhow") and children. In the end, he concluded: "Marry — Marry. Marry Q.E.D." Q.E.D. stands for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum," which is used at the end of mathematical proofs to indicate that the proof is complete.

Foot-dragger — Darwin delayed the publication of On the Origin of Species for more than two decades after he was convinced of his theory, because he was nervous about how it would be received.

Almost scooped — In the late 1850s, it became clear to Darwin that British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace also had come up with a similar theory of evolution. This sparked Darwin into high gear to finish On the Origin of Species. Scientists with the Linnean Society of London resolved the "who was first" question by presenting both men's work jointly in July 1858. Darwin later got most of the credit for evolutionary theory, because he had worked out the theory in greater detail.

Ho-hum reaction — The publication of Darwin's and Wallace's work was a non-event at first. The president of the Linnean Society said in May 1859 that there had been no big discoveries in the past year.

Family losses — Darwin and his wife had 10 children, but three of them died at young ages — two as infants and one at age 10. Darwin was known to be quite devoted to his children.

Christian, then agnostic — Darwin was a conventional Christian for much of his life. He studied at the University of Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, just prior to the Beagle voyage. Later in life, he described himself as agnostic, not atheist.

Sickly life — Darwin was incapacitated by various illnesses of unknown origin for much of his adult life, once he settled down with his family in a rural area outside of London. Some suggest it was the result of the stress from fathering the theory of evolution and its social impact.

dailymail.co.uk
livescience.com
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
It does not surprise me in the least, Blackleaf. After all, in USA they put a teacher on trial (and convicted him) for daring to teach evolution in public school, not that long ago (the Scopes Monkey Trial). Creationism has always been strong in USA, along with its cousin fraud, Intelligent Design.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,973
2,070
113
New Brunswick
If the story is true - and it wouldn't surprise me if it is - then really, the US is going the way of Iran and other religious hardline countries; "Believe what we tell you to." Anything else is BS and deserves no recognition at all.

So much for "Land of the Free".
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I'm just curious if they will present it as all being his idea and his alone with no influence from the research of others. Just, a single light bulb going on in a single mind? It will be interesting to watch.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
It would seem that American movie audiences aren't expected (or perhaps allowed is a better word) to think about their world with any thought whatsoever.

Pitiful. Maybe they should have made the movie into a 'Darwin supports gun owners' type of thing, with lots of blood and gore. That's always acceptable, but thinking isn't.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
It would seem that American movie audiences aren't expected (or perhaps allowed is a better word) to think about their world with any thought whatsoever.

Pitiful. Maybe they should have made the movie into a 'Darwin supports gun owners' type of thing, with lots of blood and gore. That's always acceptable, but thinking isn't.


To be fair TenPenny, I don't see anywhere in there that states that the American film companies said the reason they turned it down was religious. That's all the film company that made it saying it. And frankly, it reads like promotional material. The only place they quoted directly was a lunatic fringe group. It could be just as likely that the distribution deal didn't go through because the execs watched it and said 'this is dry British crap that Americans don't typically like, and it's going to cost us too much money'.

They manage to cleverly hide the lack of reason from the distribution company with phrases like this one... "
But US distributors have turned down the film that could cause uproar in a country that, even in the 21st Century, dismisses scientific theories of the way we evolved."

which manages to imply that they turned it down 'because' of the potential uproar, while not actually saying it at all.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
To be fair TenPenny, I don't see anywhere in there that states that the American film companies said the reason they turned it down was religious.

That's certainly true. There's no such thing as bad publicity, as they say. Perhaps they have SJP writing the press items.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Big companies hate controversy, they can be such cowards.

"Oh, it's not the religious aspect that bothers us, it just might not be profitable." The business dittoheads bow and the US wonders why it is losing clout in the world. Prostrating to ignorance is ultimately bad for business.

This is great publicity for the film. It will take a Michael Moore type company to make the deal and distribute it.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
But US distributors have turned down the film that could cause uproar in a country that, on the whole, dismisses scientific theories of the way we evolved.

That's bs. There has always been widespread support for Darwin's theories in American educational and scientific establishments. They in fact are taught to the exclusion of anything else, even Evolution as having the imprint of a Creator.

The main opposition of it comes from Protestant Groups who adhere to a rigidly literal interpretation of the Bible (which excludes many denominations, including Catholic), but could hardly be described as in control of the political agenda.

It sounds like it might be a controversial film, but the controversy already exists in the U.S.. Certainly its worthwhile looking at the extremely linear, reductively rationalistic construction of Darwin's thesis, and the fact that it is self contained quantity, that does not address any aspect of real origins.. in the context of his own struggle with Faith.

But banning these films is futile. America has always bordered on hysteria.. going back to the Salem Witch Trials, various Religious Awakenings and social political vendettas, McCarthyism. This is more of the same old.. same old.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Apparently there is a bidding war for distribution rights in the US right now. They expect to have a deal inked soon.
"Creation" May Cause Big Bang in U.S. | NBC Bay Area

It may be that all the adverse publicity worked to their advantage, Tonnington. As somebody pointed out, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Incidentally, the same link says that only 39 % of Americans believe in evolution (according to a Gallop poll), so I suppose all the outrage on the part of Americans was justified.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I can understand people not believing that evolution is the start of life, it isn't. Sensible people never claimed evolution was the start of life. But not believing that evolution is what happens is just ignorant. That's all. People need education. As to the start of life, no-one knows...... yet. But Creationism contains an awful lot of nonsense; IE, eyes were created and not evolved, the 6000 year old Earth idea, etc.
Movies are just entertainment.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Before this phoney (and any and all of his blind sycophants) could or should have come up with the pretentious, empty, unproven and non-provable nonsense of the "Origin of Species", maybe they should have come up with "The Origin of Life".
 

A4NoOb

Nominee Member
Feb 27, 2009
83
3
8
I find it extremely hard to believe that after satirical garbage like Religulous makes a box office hit. You want to have an American distributor? Prove that your movie will actually make money. It's as simple as that.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Perhaps people should lighten up and realize that the majority of movies is entertainment and the movie makers are only sometimes putting forth their opinions on stuff the best way they know how. That doesn't make their opinions any more valid than anyone else's, it just makes them more visible. Big deal. People should quit being pansies and refuse to be offended so easily. If someone is secure in their faith, they have no reason to be offended or scared of ridicule, criticism, or whatever.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"lmao You're hilarious sometimes, Jack."

AnnaG, I suppose this laconic message was meant for me, but you were either too lazy or too dumb to spell out my entire handle. Congratulations, you saved five key strokes.

Is that hilarious enough?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
"lmao You're hilarious sometimes, Jack."

AnnaG, I suppose this laconic message was meant for me, but you were either too lazy or too dumb to spell out my entire handle. Congratulations, you saved five key strokes.

Is that hilarious enough?
Jack, that was so funny I peed my pants! (not!) For someone who claims to be not offended by anything, you sure fly off the handle easily and call people names a lot. That is a sure sign of someone with an inferiority complex.