Comments on: Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'?

By: magistramorous

magistramorous — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:17:07 +0000

I’d definitely see it. I love historical dramas and science!

By: gillt

gillt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:46:13 +0000

I think it fairly obvious they want to turn Darwin to into the Abe Lincoln of science. Hero-myths are all the rage.

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:44:26 +0000

It would be interesting to see how a film about Motoo Kimura would do, though since he wasn’t a white Englishman it probably wouldn’t have gotten this far. Which is shameful in itself.

There are other figures in evolution that probably could use more exposure than Charles Darwin. It gets to be just more repetition. I’ll never understand why the public relations of science keeps putting all its eggs in that one basket.

By: Davo

Davo — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:28:31 +0000

As the website says, the fundies seem to be opposing this because it actually portrays Darwin as a kind and gentle human being (gasp!) and would make it so much harder for them to demonize him as the eugeneticist killer of humanity.

By: Erasmussimo

Erasmussimo — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:27:49 +0000

Oh, one other thing: they should have Darwin use his new theory to develop special tricks and devices so that he can travel around London wearing a mask, cape, and tights, fighting crime and saving innocent people. The film should be titled “EvoMan” And they should get that Chinese fellow who developed the nifty actor tricks for Matrix and Crouching Tiger, so that Darwin can climb up the sides of buildings and so forth using his “Evolutionary Advanced Climbing Skills”.

And don’t forget the action figures!

By: Erasmussimo

Erasmussimo — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:23:11 +0000

The problem with this film is not its topic but its presentation. If they had only taken a few simple steps to improve the cosmetics of the film, it would be a smash hit. The lead, for example, should have been played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, with his wife played by Julia Roberts and his mistress (what, you didn’t know that Darwin had a torrid affair for 20 years? Well, it’s a dramatic imperative, so there!) should be played by Candy “Bubbles” Lamour. The plot should be improved with some ninja attacks, a few swordfighting scenes, and several exploding houses, as well as a wild carriage chase scene through London in which countless bystander carriages are smashed, overturned, tossed into the Thames, and explode in flames.

Sheesh, these British just don’t know how to make movies that sell.

By: Walker

Walker — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:50:56 +0000

You are over a week late on this issue. The latest news is that there may now actually a bidding war for this film.

By: CW

CW — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:06:03 +0000

Yeah, I’m not so sure it’s because of the subject matter that is keeping it from being distributed. I think it may just not be commercially successful because it’s a biopic. Those seem to only do well when it has a young successful actor like DiCaprio in “The Aviator.” Paul Bettany doesn’t really have that same kind of fame.

This movie looks like it’ll be great (and I want to see it), but doesn’t it seem like a biopic about Charles Darwin is similar to a biopic on John Adams – to which it may have been more readily embraced in a cable network like HBO or Showtime?

By: Sorbet

Sorbet — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:40:55 +0000

The controversy is ridiculously overblown. The film does not seem to engage in any straight attacks on religion; in fact it seems to almost entirely focus on Darwin’s relationship with his family. I am sure it will find a distributor soon as many would probably want to see it. I certainly do since both Bettany and Connelly are fine actors and Bettany did a great job playing a Darwin-like naturalist and doctor in “Master and Commander”

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:46:11 +0000

Thinking more, how many of the film distributors in the United States ONLY show films that are in total accord with the biblical fundamentalists? My guess would be not a single one.

I think it’s probably a mix, including the overblown controversy. I’d guess it also wouldn’t be expected to do boffo box office in the mega-hit driven American movie industry that has kept so many of us out of the theaters. If they’re cowering behind the religion excuse, that’s the reason. Look how many movies they’ve shown that were controversial because of sexual content.