Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors

Having read history I see us repeating it. The cycle of "great civilization" sliding into ruin is one that has been repeated over & over & over & over again. Persia with all of its magnificence fell into the superstitious backwater that it was (& had been for several centuries) in the 18th century & is now grappling slowly its way out of, an effort which had to include a name change to Iran.

Rome was the queen of cities, the history of the past two millennia should be familiar to us all. Or is it?

And even in the present day we see nations rise & fall in dominance & importance. Yet somehow we, in the US, have a firm belief in our own uniqueness, "that can't happen here, this is America & anyone who says otherwise is a traitor."

Problem is, it can, & unless we buckle down & stop making ineffectual those who can stop it, stop lauding & praising those with no gleam of genius or even intellectual capacity, it will.

Will our grandchildren look back at the Golden Age of the US? will there even be a US by then? I cannot say, but the fact that there is no distributor for a movie which seeks to enlighten us all, even if we disagree with it (first amendment does go both ways you know) is a sad commentary on where we stand in that slide towards being an international backwater.

Of course that WOULD solve the illegal immigrant problem, they won't come here if there are more wealthy places elsewhere, like maybe China.

Kathy - come on. If anything, publishing is dominated by the left. How else do you explain almost no mention ANYWHERE except in very right-leaning places of the top-selling non-fiction book of 2009 (by a HUGE margin), which has spent an amazing 19 weeks as the New York Times #1 best selling non-fiction book?

Do you know what book that is (without having to Google?)

Maybe the movie just sucks.

http://www.movieline.com/2009/09/jennifer-conne...

Had they left him to his crisis of faith — begun by Annie’s death at age 10 but most radically dimensionalized in the years leading up to his seminal book The Origin of Species — they might have had a movie. But their heavy investment in that father-daughter dynamic yields the stuff of exposition, not drama, and Darwin the scientist (and the husband) is reduced to a brooding, whimpering intellectual parody who wouldn’t be so out of place in a Woody Allen movie.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/...

Flat, dull, and painful to sit through, Creation brings none of the excitement, energy and radical thought that went into Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. I’m sure that book was difficult to write, but that’s not what we want to see in a movie about Darwin. Put some exotic exploration, science and ideas up there! Let him debate his theories with his friends, religious wife and minister, not mope around looking for a water cure and imagining his dead daughter. This movie bears all the earmarks of a group of people trying not to churn out yet another biopic, desperately searching for drama and conjuring up nothing but flapping boredom.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941016.html...

Amiel, demonstrating some of the visual panache more creatively deployed in earlier work ("Queen of Hearts," the "Singing Detective" mini) than later genre projects "The Core" or "Entrapment," finds opportunities to illustrate theories of natural selection and such in brief montages, sometimes deploying digital and time-lapse effects. But despite that and pleasant (if modestly scaled) period trappings, "Creation" feels somewhat static in storytelling terms. Once basic conflicts are established, we simply wait for Darwin to come to terms with his grief, marriage and imminent notoriety. Not much "happens," though the pic does its best to maintain energy in both physical presentation and mixed-chronology structure.

Leads are also a little monotonous: Bettany is appealing but this Charles is at times nearly a sickly bore, while Connelly, not an actor with much lightness, is OK but emphasizes Emma's grave concern and disapproval to the exclusion of nearly every other quality. (The real Mrs. Darwin was a highly accomplished person in her own right.) In the weird tradition of so many real-life acting couples, onscreen these two stars don't have much chemistry.

Not everything is a right-wing conspiracy.

Leonidas,
I'm apt to agree with you that this movie was probably rejected more because it stinks than because of pressure from creationists. But why would the very conservative Telegraph run a story designed to mock American religious conservatives?

Elrod,

Just because the telegraph leans conservative does not mean that its showbusiness editor leans that way. Also not all political conservatives are religious conservatives, myself as an example. I'm also not surprised that a British paper, or at least its showbusiness editor would be promoting a British film. Also, if you have a film that is not recieving good reviews, and having trouble marketing itself, it makes sense to try to play up any controversy to get it more attention, and hopefully a buyer.

If the film was really good, it would have been picked up quick.

Austin wrote:

How else do you explain almost no mention ANYWHERE except in very right-leaning places of the top-selling non-fiction book of 2009 (by a HUGE margin), which has spent an amazing 19 weeks as the New York Times #1 best selling non-fiction book?

Mostly in jest: does this mean that the New York Times will lose the "leftist" halo that those on the right bestowed it? :)

I also noticed the asterisk the NYT gave to denote the bulk sales which were counted in the tally for Glenn Beck's book. Mind you, I'm not going to fly off the handle as others do to decry all sales as coming from these. Rather, I'm instead intrigued: what is the percentage of bulk to individual? what is the definition of bulk? why by through booksellers at bulk and not the distributor? These valid questions would be asked of any author, due to that little sidenote that they put on it :).

I tend not to agree with the man's more extreme viewpoints, but kudos to him on the sales.

AR, totally off topic- how's your daughter?

I have no idea why the movie isn't picked up yet and so won't speculate. However, as someone who has gotten in several evolution debates, I still am fascinated by the need among many creationists to focus specifically upon Darwin and his writings.

Someone else, but I can't remember who so can't cite, argued that it's because many creationists are used to drawing knowledge from an authority who is trustworthy and wise, with the Bible being the ultimate one. And so they assume people believe in evolution because of Darwin's great authority, not because tons of evidence support the basic tenets that he articulated.

Or they simply might be unaware of the 150 years of research since then.

Or perhaps it's because Darwin is readable with enough patience by the educated lay reader, while dating techniques, DNA patterns, and fossil reconstruction takes a lot of specific knowledge.

Who knows.... The point I am making is that Darwin could have been the demon controlling Hitler, and the theory of evolution is still well supported by the evidence. Scientific theories don't depend upon moral virtue, while religious ones do (or are often thought to).

The point I am making is that Darwin could have been the demon controlling Hitler, and the theory of evolution is still well supported by the evidence.

Agreed. For myself I don't dispute Darwin'd theory, seems pretty sound to me, , I just have faith that there is a divine hand guiding what he discovered. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I leave it to everyone to make up their own mind and wont try preaching to anyone unsolicited. I view faith as a private matter, If you want to convert someone don't preach in their face but use your life as an example and if folks are drawn to you and ask what makes you tick, then you can tell them, but let the way you live your life do your advertising for you.

Last year I went on a mission trip to Nicaragua, I couldn't speak much Spanish, but the people knew why we were there building homes for the poor and distributing medicine to folks who hadn't seen a doctor in 2 years. One old man who probably hadn't seen clearly in over 20 years or more who received glasses at out eye clinic was crying because he could see his grandchildren clearly for the first time came up to thank us one by one. When he came to me and said "Gracias" I shook my head and pointed to the sky, then I said "Gracias". We both shared a blessing then and there, I had been blessed just as he had, perhaps more. Live it, don't just preach it. You may fail, I do all the time, but every once in a while I get it right.

Sorry if I bored any of you with my personal story, but I think it illustrated the point i was trying to make.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency among fundamentalist Christians to put God and science into a head-on collision, as if you have to choose one or the other. Theistic evolution is my position, i.e. God is the Creator, and used (and still uses) evolution as the creative mechanism. Sadly, there have also been some among the scientific community who have made theological pronouncements they have no business making. For example, the late Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan often opened up his PBS series, "Cosmos," with an affirmation that the cosmos is all there "ever was or is." By stepping beyond science to make a theological pronouncement, he did everyone a disservice. In the same way, I've seen too many creationists without scientific credentials pronounce on scientific subjects.

Bring the movie about Darwin here. I'd gladly watch it.

I think that's likely right, that there's something about this film that isnt compelling. Given 'irreligious' by Bill Maher about his world view on 'religious' (sorry I dont have the spelling of his name or movie at my fingertips) and sasha cohen's 'borat' et al, and 'the passion,' and the ongoing popularity of 'I am a camera,' and 'I am curious, yellow,' and the film on Kinsey, and the ubiquitousness of 'rocky horror' etc, -- a bouquet of art and skunk cabbages, depending on one's point of view... I'd say the distribs are never ones to pass on a buck.

and Dear Shard, just from a bit of witness... the asterisk usually means one or more othings:1. the book is being used heavily in study groups. 2. the book is required reading at present in a school or seminary (or a city). 3. the book is being given in volume as gifts, say by a corp at Christmas. 4. the book is being ordered in bulk from 'reporting source bookstores' to the NYT, and some books might be kept, but most / many returned later. The premise is to artificially force the book to climb the NYT list.

Its useful to note, I think, that it takes around 1000 books sold per week in a single title, to hit the NYT or PW list. I am not sure re definition of bulk, I would think maybe 10+ books at a time? The reason they are bought from bookstores instead of distributor, is twofold, 1. the distributor might not sell/ discount to the public, and some of the big distribs are owned BY the bookstore chain, OR by the publisher. 2. Only 'some' bookstores report their weekly sales to the NYT, not all bookstores. The secret of which stores report is speculated on by authors all the time; we think we know, but in reality, people who are cunning have prob figured it out far better than anyone. Thus, if they are trying to force the book into 1000+ sales per week, they'll order from, or go to those 'nyt reporting' bookstores to order bulk.

Author might not know the answers to the good questions you asked... unless they studied the industry and its history... which are contained in three or four books that written by publishing insiders, specifically re NYT list. I think Michael Korda, one of the older editors, might be author of one such book.

Re NYT losing its leftist halo as you so aptly put it, Shard, that halo is only photoshopped on. The NYT has been known for decades as showing caring of what I sometimes call, "the popular poor" and mostly ignoring all the other poor, most often the poorest of the poor.

I think many do not realize that as within the conservative movement, it is also so within the progressive or liberal movement... there is often a three and four tiered culture, with tops and bottoms, invisibles and untouchables.

I think some call the people who belong to the top economic layer 'elites' or limosine liberals or cadallac conservatives? Just my personal observation/ experience; the tops almost never bend far enough or deep enough to see the rest of the people in the bottom, invisible, untouchable layers of their own parties. I hold hope that someday, all will.

thanks,
dr.e

i liked your story Leonidas.

I think Kathy's point is that distributors are not picking up the film (and it could be fear of a backlash, I suppose, but Harper Collins, for instance (Rupert Murdock) publishes Rush Limbaugh and Barbara Kingsolver... oil and water for certain... so not sure film distribs would be different) but also that the belief among some Christians is that creation story cannot be compatible with science.

I must be simple. I just thought Creator created creation and also created science. I mean that in all gravity and levity, both. I also hope that made you laugh.

thanks,
dr.e

She is doing very well. Very, very happy to be home. Definitely has a limp, which gets worse when she is tired. Right now she tires easily, too. But she has her spirits up.

You may have noticed a large drop in my postings since Thursday afternoon! That is no coincidence. I have had better use of my time the past few days. It has been great for all of us as well spending time and lavishing love and affection on her.

Thanks for asking SB, and take care.

If you are implying it was a book by Glenn Beck, wrong answer!

The movie distributors are only concerned about one religion, and that's worshiping pieces of green paper with pictures of presidents on them. If they thought they could make a buck on this, they would distribute it. Other controversial religion-oriented films have been distributed with no qualms.

I'm having trouble getting the linked article to open, but it sounds like the one complaining the film isn't being released for religious reasons is the film's producer, who obviously has a dog in this fight.

It is horrible Kathy.

Religion is the opiate of the masses, to steal a phase. Maybe we can get Michael Moore to make another thriller. This time he could focus on the homosexual pedophilia of priests. He might include the sexual exploits of Baptist preachers. Or simply how much of the good congregation’s money is spent on nefarious religious cover-ups. We won't ask him to mention gerbils. Sometimes to much is just to much.

Religion is the opiate of the masses

I think TV has displaced religion, myself.

Of course evolution doesn't exist. These people have never changed throughout the ages.

Well, I agree that TV has been the opiate of the masses for a long time now, what Harlan Ellison long ago referred to as the Glass Teat. In any case, religion and TV have much in common, in that neither really inspire most of their flock to think critically about anything so much as to be entertained or soothed. Now, I realize there are many people who have spent portions of their lives scratching at their souls, trying to figure out what it all means and what the purpose is, the big why, etc. but I believe those folks tend to be in the minority.

I'm afraid I have to concur with Kathy, the populace is getting dumber, or at least less interested in improving their minds, which is especially unfortunate and ironic given that we have more access than ever to good information. But why are they also getting noisier?

Rush Limbaugh and Barbara Kingsolver... oil and water for certain.

Dr. E, surely you have broken some natural law or other by invoking both of those people in the same phrase. I hope you knew what you were doing. ;-)

Just imagine politics with its dumbbell element subtracted. There would be no Republican candidates. There would be no Democratic voters. The whole system would collapse. P. J. O'Rourke

"a nation that was founded on Enlightenment principles of reason and open intellectual inquiry — is now sliding back into a primeval muck of ignorance, superstition, and religious zealotry"

It began with the excesses of the Progressive (capital P) Era and the fundamental change of liberalism in modern times, and has been with us ever since.

We see it best illustrated with the "global warming" movement (religion) and to a sillier celebrity extreme currently with the Obama personality cult.

Next...

Is anyone else surprised by the 39% number? I had always thought it was generally just the fringe elements of the very strict Christian groups that didn't believe in evolution. I guess science isn't really everyone's cup of tea, but aren't people at least taught about the basics? We are still all on the same page about the Earth being round and NOT the center of the universe right? We understand there are no fixed light-emitting orbs rotating around us?

I guess science isn't really everyone's cup of tea ~ roro

That's about the kindest thing you can say about folks who continue to believe in certain kinds of nonsense, such as: humans once having ridden dinosaurs like horses, witches, global warming being a religion or conspiracy, flat earth, a faux moonwalk, etc. Nope, science isn't everyone's cup of tea, but flaunting a lack of knowledge is another thing altogether and is hard to spin in any positive way.

Roro -

We are still all on the same page about the Earth being round and NOT the center of the universe right?

Well, 20% of people in a 2008 poll actually said that the Sun revolves around the Earth, if you want to REALLY feel depressed about education in the U.S of A.

BTW - the Earth technically is an oblate spheroid, but that is round enough for me!

AR -- I guess, in a weird way, that does actually make me feel better. AND worse. Perhaps there were some people who just heard/read the question incorrectly (less likely for the evolution question), but still, if 1 of 5 knows absolutely nothing about science, so maybe it's ok that 1 of 4 "knows" that there is no evolution (it was 39% believe in evolution, 25% don't, and the rest neither do nor don't or are unsure.). Maybe some of those remaining 36% said to themselves "I don't 'believe' in evolution, any more than I 'believe' in gravity...it just 'is' whether I believe in it or not..."

And yes, thanks for the correction. I prefer the technical term "round-y". :)

"global warming being a religion or conspiracy"

Fortunately, some of us have the intellectual power to distinguish between science and politics.

"Perhaps there were some people who just heard/read the question incorrectly [...], but"

Consider the typical results of geography tests that people take and which get reported from time to time. (Not being able to find the United States on a world map is especially bad for U.S. citizens!)

Also consider informal "on the street" radio or TV quizzes of the public. Many can't name the Vice President, the Secretary of State, etc., and when they realize they don't know, they laugh about it.

"some of us have the intellectual power to distinguish between science and politics"

I'm curious, DLS, where you come up with your very special global-warming-as-liberal-conspiracy-theory theory? I mean, weighing all the science on the subject, there is some room for doubt, but the evidence falls very heavily against what you are saying. Very, very heavily. So it seems that, while you try to come off as a dispassionate though cynical observer of facts, you must be heavily cherry picking your data to come up with your ideas that global climate change is just a big hoax.

"Rush Limbaugh and Barbara Kingsolver... oil and water for certain.

Dr. E, surely you have broken some natural law or other by invoking both of those people in the same phrase. I hope you knew what you were doing. ;-)"

you're right JSpencer. I think last night when I wrote that, comets collided and that fellow, you know, whatshisname? who has the weirdness of the world show on radio at night? I think his face was inside the moon.

You are truly funny JSpencer.

thanks,
dr.e

AR,

What on earth does this have to do with my post?

I said nothing about conspiracies, right- or left-wing, but when did a movie sucking have anything to do with whether it was distributed or not?

You surprise me, elrod. The movie didn't even get the chance to experience pressure from creationists.

Um, Leonidas, the film has received great reviews and has been picked up by distributors all over the world -- almost everywhere except here. The movie has had NO trouble "marketing itself." Do you even read before slapping down your right-wing template?

LOL, Redbus. Of all the people to say something sensible on this issue, I would not have expected it to be you, since I know from other posts that you are a devout Christian, and also politically conservative. Your response surprises me, just as elrod's did, but in the opposite direction.

I'd say the distribs are never ones to pass on a buck.

I am surprised again. It's true that distributors never put quality above making a buck, but history should tell you how much pressure the Christian religious right can bring to bear on anyone who encroaches on one of their sacred cows. Even the desire for bucks often cannot overcome fear of that avalanche.

Dr. E., you are completely missing the point. Rush Limbaugh's books and Barbara Kingsolver's books don't trigger the firestorm of anger, and political and economic pressure, that comes from the Christian religious right in this country when it is merely even suggested that Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientifically sound, or when Charles Darwin is portrayed in a positive light. Obviously, Rush Limbaugh creates controversy, which helps sell his books, but the controversy that U.S. distributors fear will be engendered by a film like this biopic of Charles Darwin, even though it might get more people to see the movie, is not viewed as that kind of positive "buzz." To my knowledge, no one on the religious right is organizing massive boycotts against HarperCollins for publishing either Rush Limbaugh or Barbara Kingsolver. These distributors are afraid that if they bring the film into the U.S., they will be destroyed economically. And they very well might be. It's just a shame that they don't have more courage, because as we all know, giving in to a bully only makes them worse.

I am glad to hear this, too. I *have* noticed a recent drop-off in your posting, and figured that this was the reason.

DaGoat, your argument is absurd on its face. Movies that create huge buzz at major film festivals and that are picked up by film distributors in every major market in the world are not normally considered as unable to make a buck. Even more to the point, if the film has been picked up by distributors in every market worldwide except for this one, and if the reason for that is that US distributors think it won't be profitable, then perhaps you are suggesting that all those film distributors all over the world are uninterested in making money? Only US film distributors have any interest in making money?

dear Kathy, for me personally to weigh this, I have to look for more specifics about which specific US distrib companies are declining to invest the dollars in bringing the film and why. That the far right is abuzz, is true, as it says in the article.

My experience too is distributors are not afraid of any segment of the population, including way far over, the Index in Rome which attempts to dictate to the many M catholics in the US what films are not to be seen for they are affronts to the faith, or occasions of sin.

Being a-feared: That's not my understanding of the film distribs I know personally. There also, in my world of book publishing, have been many boycotts against publishers by many groups over these many decades. Some publishers caved, most did not, never do, never will.

Film distibs have brought many films, including Last Temptation of Christ that definitely brought active protesters right to the ticket box screaming hell and damnation at anyone buying a ticket. Witnessed it. Film distribs went ahead regardless.



just my two cents worth. Need more facts about which distribs and why. Big film distribs dont often take on film festival awardees from Sundance or Tribeca or Canada or Cannes or elsewhere. That they cruise the festivals window-shopping, that all film-makers are hoping to be discovered for their hard work... that's true. Yet occasionally, very occasionally, a major distrib picks up a fest film... and when they do, some may only be optioned for a few months and a few dollars, and then cut loose after something better comes along.

All that re big distribs, I think, has to be added into the measurement of this, too. That a film from a film festival not being picked up by major distrib is more the rule, than the oddity.

As I said, just my .02
Thanks Kathy.
dr.e

LOL

Roro,

I *was* a bit surprised that the number of Americans who believe the earth and everything on it was created in six days and is only about 10,000 years old, yeah. I didn't know it was actually a majority of Americans. Pretty scary. What's even scarier is that many of these people want to teach religious mythology to our children -- in the public schools -- as if it were scientific truth.

Roro,

The truly intelligent, dispassionate observers of fact, like DLS, know that all that evidence was created in the CNN situation room by liberals.

Kathy -

What on earth does this have to do with my post?

Not much. But, not having front-page posting privileges, I have to look for narrow windows of opportunity to get some discussion going that I think have merit, and are at least tangently related! :)

Kathy -

How about not all movies get distributed? And when they don't there isn't always a conspiracy?

Economic times are bad, and the indie film market has been hit hard. I am lucky to live in Austin which is very supportive of it and has a lot of filmmakers here, but even so they are all talking about how hard it is to get a film made these days, and even of you do, getting it distributed is even harder.

AR! Why aren't you always this charming? :-)

How about not all movies get distributed? And when they don't there isn't always a conspiracy?

Here, you make it sound as though I thought a conspiracy was behind the refusal of US film distributors to pick up the Darwin biopic, and I don't know what in my post made you think this. I mean, unless I'm not understanding what the word "conspiracy" means.

I'm glad to know I guessed right, anyhow. It had occurred to me that your first name might be the city, and not your given name. :-)

AR! Why aren't you always this charming? :-)

Ahhh, you're making me blush.

I said I was going to be more positive for a while with my daughter home now. And I am bi-polar (medicated), so sometimes I can go off the deep end a little.

Not that you can notice that much difference when I do, mind you. :)

Here, you make it sound as though I thought a conspiracy was behind the refusal

Um, well, yeah you kind of did imply that Christian organizations were driving a refusal of distributors to bring this film to market.

'Conspiracy' can mean "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result." I though you meant it in that way. Not all, nor even a majority, of conspiracies are illegal or even necessarily detrimental.

Um, well, yeah you kind of did imply that Christian organizations were driving a refusal of distributors to bring this film to market.

What I said was that U.S. film distributors would not touch the Darwin movie because they feared an uproar from right-wing Christian sources. They know how rabid these fundamentalist Christian groups are -- and even more to the point, how powerful and well-organized they are. The article in the Telegraph doesn't spell this out, but one assumes the reason the producer said that Biblical literalists and creationists made the film "too hot to touch" for U.S. distributors is because *the U.S. distributors told him so.* You think he just made it up that U.S. film distributors all rejected the film because of opposition to anything that puts Darwin in a positive light?

Since the distributors acted preemptively, Christianists didn't organize any campaign this time, but they certainly have in the past on similar issues and I have no doubt they would have on this one. If that is a conspiracy, then perhaps all organized political advocacy is conspiratorial -- I don't know.

And I am clinically depressed -- we make a great debating team! :-)

I guess I'm just chopped liver.

FT -

To steal a phrase, if life hands you chopped liver, make pate!

Actually, yes, by definition all organized political activity and advocacy IS conspiratorial.

Okay, then I stand corrected on that definitional point.

And what's wrong with chopped liver?

Austin wrote:

If you are implying it was a book by Glenn Beck, wrong answer!

I was stating, not implying. Glenn Beck currently holds the #1 spot for paperback non-fiction. Michelle Malkin holds the #1 spot for hardcover non-fiction. If it is not these two, then which non-fiction might it be?

By the way, I don't accept books of mythology as non-fiction. As such, the Christian Bible, Koran, Tanakh, Sruti, or a dozen others don't apply.

THE #1 selling non-fiction book of ALL of 2009, which entered the NYT's list in March at the # 1 spot, spent 12 weeks as #1, 6 weeks as #2 book, and has not left the top ten all year, is Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto".

The fact that it is that popular, has sold well over a million copies (may be closing in on 2M by now), and no one here could name it speaks to EXACTLY what I was talking about. And this is an academic book, not a page-turner, which makes its success even more incredible.

Have you heard the book mentioned as a publishing phenomenon (which it is)? No.

Have you seen Mark interviewed on any major TV show, like almost every other writer with a fraction of those sales? No.

Why? Because not only is he conservative, he is very intelligent, well-spoken, and non-demonstrative. He would eat up and spit out any of the the light-weight morning hosts and make them look the platitude-spouting, non-thinking Leftist robots that they are.

The fact that it is that popular, has sold well over a million copies (may be closing in on 2M by now), and no one here could name it speaks to EXACTLY what I was talking about. And this is an academic book, not a page-turner, which makes its success even more incredible.

Not necessarily true at all. I am a voracious reader and could not tell you the name of even one book on the best-seller lists, fiction OR nonfiction -- although I'm sure I would recognize titles if I heard them or saw them. I don't ever look at the best-seller lists -- it's not how I choose the books I read.

Kathy -

Sure, it is easy to overlook individuals. But that doesn't negate the main point, which is the fawning of the MSM over left-leaning political writers when any book of theirs even sniff's the NYT #1 position (which for political books, 1 - 2 weeks there, and maybe 5 - 10 weeks in the top ten is doing REALLY well. Political books have a very short shelf life as a whole), but they are completely ignoring this one. That is my only point.

Sometimes us conservatives can actually be correct that the MSM is ignoring us if it isn't negative news!

And BTW, they love to have Ann Coulter and/or Michelle Malkin on, because they can make fun of them.

:)

Have you ever considered the possibility that the book isn't that good? After all, that wasn't such an outlandish conclusion for you when we were talking about why every film distributor in the U.S. passed on a hugely popular film about Charles Darwin.

I know the Mark Levin book is popular among conservatives, but that doesn't mean it's good. Harlequin Romances fly off the shelves too, you know.

Um, almost 2M copies sold, 4 1/2 stars on Amazon (1,690 out of 1,916 5-star), a surprising number of which claim to be democrats (you can never tell, obviously). Unfortunately I cannot link to any of the major reviewers, like the NYT, as they pretend this book was never published.

And you can make that same lame criticism against ANY book that sells well but is not your cup of tea. Harlequin Romances fly off the shelves because they are bought by lonely, overweight, depressed middle-age woman, not quite the same broader demographic this book garnered.

As usual, your response when I prove that my initial point was correct is to change the rules rather than just admit that you were wrong this time.

And what exactly made you say the film was 'hugely popular'? Where is the proof it is drawing large crowds anywhere? It still sounds like a small indie film of dubious distinction to me, as a film lover and pure believer in science and evolution.

And you can make that same lame criticism against ANY book that sells well but is not your cup of tea.

Sure. Just as you can make the identical criticism against a film that U.S. film distributors tell the producer they don't want because it's politically radioactive in the U.S. among a relatively small but well organized population of religious extremists. You can say that it has nothing to do with U.S. film distributors being afraid to challenge Christian fundamentalists; they just don't think the film is good, they just don't think the film will sell.

As usual, your response when I prove that my initial point was correct is to change the rules rather than just admit that you were wrong this time.

Austin, I'm not even sure what your point is, to be honest.How is a book by a conservative author that is a runaway best-seller, is being read by both Republicans and Democrats, and thus is obviously both a commercial and a popular success, have to do with a film that can't be seen by anyone in the U.S. because U.S. film distributors refuse to pick it up?

What is it you're upset about with this book? That it hasn't been reviewed by the New York Times?

And what exactly made you say the film was 'hugely popular'? Where is the proof it is drawing large crowds anywhere?

Well, I don't know for sure, but it's been picked up by distributors in every market in the world except for here. It opened the Toronto Film Festival, so it's certainly got to be popular with indy film buffs, which is not a massively huge market, but not a tiny market, either. It's apparently gotten a lot of word-of-mouth buzz from people who've seen it. And I would love to see it, but I can't. I think that gives me more cause to be grumpy than you have. :-)

Um, Leonidas, the film has received great reviews and has been picked up by distributors all over the world -- almost everywhere except here. The movie has had NO trouble "marketing itself." Do you even read before slapping down your right-wing template?

Well the reviews I posted above seem to indicate it was pretty boring.

If the film was really good or potentially very profitable, it would have been picked up, the bottom line is what distributors look at, their politics run green.