Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors
Sep 13th, 2009 | 64 responses
I don’t know what to say about this. Obviously, it’s extraordinary, disturbing, deeply depressing, that the one country in the world that for so long was known for innovation and technological brilliance — 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:
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.
Dear God, you want to cringe. What a shameful reflection on this country.
64 Responses to “Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors”
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:
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.
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.