Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[Tisket]

link (includes movie trailer) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html)


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.

By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
Published: 4:53PM BST 11 Sep 2009

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".

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.

What a shame. I love historical movies. And to those whose faith is so weak and shaky that they find themselves threatened by a movie I say: tsk tsk.

[Latrinsorm]

1) I've never even heard of movieguide.org. Who still reads movie reviews anyway?
2) What are the odds the movie just stinks and Mr. Thomas wants publicity?
3) It strains credulity to hear things like "It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about."

[Some Rogue]

And the fact that the UK isn't much better...


Half of British adults do not believe in evolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/evolution), with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/creationism) or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

[Kranar]

Oh yeah, I'm sure it was rejected because it's too controversial.

Considering Religulous, a documentary I happened to enjoy, which shows how much of a fraud religion is managed to find a distributor along with many many controversial films, I really doubt controversy was why this movie can't find a distributor.

I haven't seen the movie, it may be great, but on the other hand it may just be a complete bore and not worth it for a distributor to take up.

I definitely give props to the producer for giving the appearance that this is a film that's too controversial for Americans. By making it seem that way he's trying to increase the controversy and stir hype around his movie so that it will be picked up.

The irony may be that this film isn't controversial enough to get people to talk about it and see it.

[Gelston]

I agreed with this comment made by a user on the news site:

I'm surprised that only a few commenters have pointed out that this article is rather poor, lazy journalism.

The reporter provides absolutely no evidence that religious controversy is the main reason the film failed to find a US distributor. The article is be built solely around a few quotes by a producer prone to sweeping generalizations (Religion rules outside of NY/LA?? The highest concentration of non-believers are actually in the Northwest and New England, not NY or LA, according to the Census Bureau!)

Some American Christianist websites are quoted, but there is no indication that these sites had any influence on distributors. This seems more like an attempt at guilt by association.

I can't say whether the producer is right. Maybe he is, or maybe they've just done a poor job marketing the film in the US so far. Either way it will be a shame if this film isn't shown here. What is clear is that this article desperately needs an editor.

[StrayRogue]

What does a poll in a left wing paper about UK religious beliefs have to do with a film being banned in America?

[Latrinsorm]

What does a poll in a left wing paper about UK religious beliefs have to do with a film being banned in America?It is the producer's assertion that popular American belief is the cause of his film not being picked up. If popular British belief is relatively the same as popular American belief and the film has been picked up in Britain, it suggests that the producer's assertion is not factually correct.

[CrystalTears]

What does a poll in a left wing paper about UK religious beliefs have to do with a film being banned in America?Because the film worked fine in the UK, where the percentages of people who believe in creationism is around the same as that in the US. The reason it was banned was a weak argument.

[StrayRogue]

Oh so you people actually believed that article. I see.

[Back]

This comment is particularly ironic...


I am a Christian. I do not believe in evolution. There are two sides to every story and argument. America was founded on Christian principles and to expect that those principles would just disappear so that "intelligent" people can have their way is ludicrous. This is a poorly written article and I can hardly believe Ms. Singh is a show business Editor. Either way, if film promoters truly shunned this movie it boils down to the alimighty dollar and the fact that the movie wouldn't make them enough of them to make it worth their while. And those rejecting this movie probably believe in evolution. You can fiercely defend "intelligence", but in the end, we all die and with us goes our intelligence. I think the most important piece of information we should spend investigating during our lifetime is what might happen to us once we leave here. That would be intelligent.

[CrystalTears]

Oh so you people actually believed that article. I see.
Where do you get the idea that WE believed the article?

[Drew]

What does a poll in a left wing paper about UK religious beliefs have to do with a film being banned in America?

There's really no mechanism for a film to be banned in America*. I know you probably were just using it for short hand as "not picked up", but since a lot of countries (including the UK) can actually ban material I think it's an important distinction to make.



*It could happen in the courts on the basis of child pornography, libel, etc. But there's no board of review or similar body that can actually ban a film like in any other number of countries.

[StrayRogue]

Where do you get the idea that WE believed the article?

By considering it had some relevence to the point at hand.

[Kuyuk]

I'd like to see the movie.

Jennifer Connely was way hotter when she wasnt old though.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh so you people actually believed that article. I see.The point is not that the article (or the producer's claim) is 100% accurate, the point is that roughly speaking there are lots of people who don't believe in evolution in both countries. If you wanted to say that either claim qualitatively misrepresents the countries in question, that would be a point worth pursuing.

[Tisket]

What the mother fuck...I go to work fully content in the knowledge that I set the tinder for a good old-fashioned religion-bashing thread only to come home and find you guys being all fucking reasonable and civilized. Blaming Hollywood and profit margins for christ's sake. You sound like a bunch of pussy accountants.

:P

But seriously, c'mon. When did Hollywood ever decide not to back a film because it was crap?

Videos of crap Hollywood films abound.

[Tsa`ah]

If it were as controversial as the producer claims ... the US distributors would not only line up for it, but deliver brown eye punches to anyone in front of them just to move ahead faster.

Believe me, you'll be able to buy it on DVD once it's released.

[Tisket]

Considering Religulous, a documentary I happened to enjoy, which shows how much of a fraud religion is managed to find a distributor along with many many controversial films, I really doubt controversy was why this movie can't find a distributor.

I've never even heard of Religulous.

Coincidence? I think not...

[Sweets]

What the mother fuck...I go to work fully content in the knowledge that I set the tinder for a good old-fashioned religion-bashing thread only to come home and find you guys being all fucking reasonable and civilized. Blaming Hollywood and profit margins for christ's sake. You sound like a bunch of pussy accountants.

:P

But seriously, c'mon. When did Hollywood ever decide not to back a film because it was crap?

Videos of crap Hollywood films abound.


I felt the same way when I opened up the thread. Woohooo, lots of eye scratching and hair pulling...wait...what? Reasonable argument!? Get the HELL OUT OF PC!

[StrayRogue]

It's not new to have a new film/book/piece of art banned or deeply criticized in America or any part of Western civilization. This is not the first time. Look at Kevin Smith's Dogma - this was nearly banned entirely. The Profit was blocked by Scientologists. There was a vocal protestation of The Passion of the Christ.

The director, the producers, the execs - everyone would have known that this film would spark controversy. To say different is a lie. It not getting a distributor is unsuprising. Films of this nature are big risks and can risk places like Miramax (and their applicable parent companies, if any) theatre closings, mass complaint and a whole shit storm of hate/anger.

Now for a small movie without two big name stars (they're both B-list at best) that to me doesn't sound too exciting, such a theme is a death sentence. And they're stupid to think otherwise. It's just bad buisness.

[Tsa`ah]

It's not new to have a new film/book/piece of art banned or deeply criticized in America or any part of Western civilization. This is not the first time. Look at Kevin Smith's Dogma - this was nearly banned entirely.

Nothing is "banned" in the US, at least not in the last three decades. Dogma never even came close. What you heard about were over hyped protests that were so scattered and so under attended that it created a moderate stir. Hell, Smith attended one of these protests in his home town as a protester .... like one of 10 ... and was interviewed by the local news station.


The Profit was blocked by Scientologists.

The Profit was at first prevented from being released by the judge presiding over a wrongful death case to prevent it from influencing any jury that would be selected. Minton then, apparently after returning to Scientology or caving into the church, gave his legal council power of attorney over the movie.


There was a vocal protestation of The Passion of the Christ.

But not banned ... in fact the movie was shown in more theatres than Fahrenheit 9/11


The director, the producers, the execs - everyone would have known that this film would spark controversy. To say different is a lie. It not getting a distributor is unsuprising. Films of this nature are big risks and can risk places like Miramax (and their applicable parent companies, if any) theatre closings, mass complaint and a whole shit storm of hate/anger.

Eh ... no. Not here.


Now for a small movie without two big name stars (they're both B-list at best) that to me doesn't sound too exciting, such a theme is a death sentence. And they're stupid to think otherwise. It's just bad buisness.

B list?

[Ashliana]

It's not new to have a new film/book/piece of art banned or deeply criticized in America or any part of Western civilization. This is not the first time. Look at Kevin Smith's Dogma - this was nearly banned entirely. The Profit was blocked by Scientologists. There was a vocal protestation of The Passion of the Christ.

The director, the producers, the execs - everyone would have known that this film would spark controversy. To say different is a lie. It not getting a distributor is unsuprising. Films of this nature are big risks and can risk places like Miramax (and their applicable parent companies, if any) theatre closings, mass complaint and a whole shit storm of hate/anger.

Now for a small movie without two big name stars (they're both B-list at best) that to me doesn't sound too exciting, such a theme is a death sentence. And they're stupid to think otherwise. It's just bad buisness.

There's an enormous distinction between a private company deciding that there could be free market consequences for publishing a highly controversial piece, and some governmental entity/censorship board censoring films from airing. The US has no such board. Basically anything may be released as long as it doesn't have pedophilia/murder/etc.

Even our ratings system is entirely industry-run; not a function of the government, like it is in other western democracies (Canada, France, Norway, Austria, Brazil, New Zealand, Norway, India, etc), starting with the SCOTUS case, Freedman v. Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedman_v._Maryland). The current ratings body, the MPAA, has no mechanism for "banning" a film. They can simply rate it NC-17; which many chains are simply unwilling, for either ideological reasons, or fear of damaging their profits by angering religious groups, to air.

US courts are generally highly protective of media, including video games. How many state decisions have their been striking down even light restrictions on the sale of violent video games? I don't think many people realize how free our systems are, even compared to other western democracies--Australia's video game board is irrationally reactionary. Refused to classify (meaning it was illegal to sell) even Fallout 3 for drug references, until they edited the non-fictional ones out.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, saying our books/movies/video games are restricted in any significant way is not true.

Although Tisket, to address your point: crap movies are released every day. If this is a crap movie that also might cause random controversy, that might be reason enough to pass on it.

And Religulous was good, but it could have been better. The two most reasonable people he interviewed in the movie, btw, were Catholic priests. If he had engaged a more serious discussion, a better movie could have been made. Cornel West, the liberation theologians, etc, etc.

Personally, I can't wait to see if Capitalism: A Love Story will stir any bullshit. I'd hope by this point that the right knows that Moore feeds off of press about his films, but no one ever accused the lunatic fringe of intelligence.

[Warriorbird]

I thought the Creationism Theme Park Jesus seemed like a pretty cool guy too.

[StrayRogue]

Nothing is "banned" in the US, at least not in the last three decades. Dogma never even came close. What you heard about were over hyped protests that were so scattered and so under attended that it created a moderate stir. Hell, Smith attended one of these protests in his home town as a protester .... like one of 10 ... and was interviewed by the local news station.



Dogma very much did not come close to being released. Go read a book (and not wikipedia) and find out for yourself. It came more directly from Miramax (RE from Disney) than any outside "threat". The execs were conscious of the possible ramifications of the film and were very close to pulling the plug. Whatever protests you're talking about has nothing to do with it.

Numerous other films with similar content have not been picked up for similar reasons. Again, go read a book. The reason you don't know about these films is because they don't get a cinema release, and barely scrape their money back in the straight to dvd bin. Try reading something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Down-Dirty-Pictures-Sundance-Independent/dp/068486259X. It mentions dozens of movies not picked up due to "questionable content".

There is also a distinction between Country-Wide ban (which is effectively impossible due to the independants) and region banning, which has occured numerous tmes over the last three decades.

[radamanthys]

Dogma very much did not come close to being released. Go read a book (and not wikipedia) and find out for yourself. It came more directly from Miramax (RE from Disney) than any outside "threat". The execs were conscious of the possible ramifications of the film and were very close to pulling the plug. Whatever protests you're talking about has nothing to do with it.


That would have been a shame. I loved Dogma.

[Gelston]

Dogma very much did not come close to being released. Go read a book (and not wikipedia) and find out for yourself. It came more directly from Miramax (RE from Disney) than any outside "threat". The execs were conscious of the possible ramifications of the film and were very close to pulling the plug. Whatever protests you're talking about has nothing to do with it.
.

That is not "banned" then. That has nothing to do with the Government not allowing it to be released. That is Disney's call, and their right, whether or not to release it.

[StrayRogue]

Where did I even mention anything about the government?

[Gelston]

Well, Disney isn't capable of "banning" a movie from a nation. So I don't really know what you were referring to when you said it was almost banned in America.

[StrayRogue]

Disney could have very much "buried it". Theatres can also choose not to screen the movie just as well. Some states can also "ban" films.

What I'm saying is that there is no suprise this movie has not gotten a distribution deal.

The Big Studio's tend to just do their own stuff anyway, whilst the Indies battle it out over the small scraps (like this film). The reason it wouldn't be picked up is 99% because they don't think it will make any money. The story might be too vague, the style too artistic, or, like this, it will spark contraversy that the distributor is unable to spin.

Yes it sucks. Yes it's stupid people get pissed off and cry like babies about such things. Yes it's stupid other people even listen to them.

[Tsa`ah]

Dogma very much did not come close to being released. Go read a book (and not wikipedia) and find out for yourself. It came more directly from Miramax (RE from Disney) than any outside "threat". The execs were conscious of the possible ramifications of the film and were very close to pulling the plug. Whatever protests you're talking about has nothing to do with it.

Why read a book, I heard it from the horse's mouth at it were ... go rent An Evening with Kevin Smith.

[Ashlander]

I've never even heard of Religulous.

Coincidence? I think not...

Only cause no one's made a shirt about it for you to post on yet :wink:

[Daniel]

Where did I even mention anything about the government?

Well, you implied it when you used the word "banned" which requires the authority to do so.

[Back]

This topic is funny when you consider the success of “The Producers” both on stage, in film, then back on stage.

[StrayRogue]

Why read a book, I heard it from the horse's mouth at it were ... go rent An Evening with Kevin Smith.

Why would he have any control over the distribution of the film? Oh wait, he doesn't.

[Latrinsorm]

While he obviously did not control its distribution, it stands to reason that he had more direct involvement than you (or another third party).

[StrayRogue]

In terms of third party, Miramax called the shots. They cut what they want how they want, and distributed how they wanted, when they wanted.