Darwin film fails to find US distributor

Are US distributors ignoring Creation because evolution is too controversial – or because the film is boring

LAST UPDATED 9:50 PM, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

A new film about Charles Darwin, the 19th-century naturalist whose theory of evolution revolutionised our view of nature and religion, may never be seen in the United States, despite opening last week's Toronto Film Festival.

Creation, which stars Paul Bettany, has so far failed to find a US distributor. According to the film's producer, Jeremy Thomas, this is because Darwin's theory is still too controversial for 21st-century American audiences. But some critics believe that's an excuse - and that the real reason no one has bought it is that it's too worthy by half.

Directed by Jon Amiel, who made Dennis Potter's seminal 1986 TV series The Singing Detective, the film is set in the period just before On the Origin of Species was published in 1859.

Creation shows Darwin trying to find a balance between his revolutionary theories and his relationship with his religious wife Emma - played by Bettany's real-life spouse Jennifer Connelly. The death of Darwin's favourite child, 10-year-old Annie - played by Martha West, the daughter of The Wire star Dominic West - also leaves Charles struggling to keep his faith in God.

A recent Gallup poll found only 39 per cent of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Thomas told the Daily Telegraph that he was astonished that such attitudes pertained. "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."

Creation is based on the book Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution by Darwin's great-great-grandson Randal Keynes. The filmmakers tried to be "very even-handed" in adapting the book, Thomas said. "Darwin wasn't saying 'kill all religion', he never said such a thing, but he is a totem for people."

But others have questioned whether the film is a victim of puritanism or a casualty of trying too hard. Variety's Dennis Harvey called the film a "handsome historical piece" which was likely to garner "respectable critical support," but predicted it would only earn middling success at the box office.

The film's leads were also a "little monotonous", Harvey noted. "Bettany is appealing but this Charles is at times nearly a sickly bore, while Connelly, not an actor with much lightness, is OK but emphasises Emma's grave concern and disapproval to the exclusion of nearly every other quality."

Creation opens in Britain on September 25.

More People stories

Comments

Hide comments

...and this should surprise you how?

Posted by Midyola at 1:21pm on September 17, 2009

How many ways is this film controversial? Well lots of scientists, including lots of world famous biologists do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution - gradual change by natural selection - because they believe that evolution is not gradual but saltational (by jumps) - this would include Stephen J. Gould and Lynn Margulis. Many more believe that natural selection explains very little as it removes the unfit, but does not create new characteristics - it only acts on what is there. Again Lynn Margulis' analysis of the role of genomic symbiogenisis (such as bacteria invading other cells and ending up living there, playing a useful like role in the cell, like mitochondria releasing energy in animal cells, and chloroplasts handling photosynthesis for plant cells). Darwin's theory is totally against such symbiotic processes. Mathematicians as a profession really dislike the sole reliance on random processes ('selection' = waiting for dumb luck mutations), to produce directional processes such as the creation of organs such as the eye - one bad step and it is all ruined, but billions of years later here we are! Paleontologists as a profession have always had a Darwin joke: "The book 'On the Origin of Species' is not really on that subject!" - the fossil record has a radical lack of smooth transitional series of fossils for any animal, let alone all of them, as Darwin's theory demands. Darwin's theory of evolution is on the wane, others' theories are on the up.

Posted by michael jose at 12:29am on September 18, 2009

Contrary to the assertions of Midyola, virtually no credible peer reviewed biologists disagree with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. The only flaw to Darwin's original theory was that he didn't know about DNA transcription errors because DNA had not yet been discovered. To the contrary though, there is no evidence to suggest that natural selection (via genetic mutations) is false and there are millions and millions of facts and discoveries that all simultaneously suggest that natural selection cannot be wrong. The massive amount of data that supports natural selection is increasing every day. "such as bacteria invading other cells and ending up living there" Bacteria without the capability of invading other cells would not be able to live there would they? Cell walls make for good protection which is why this is a perfect example of environmental differences that contribute to natural selection. "like mitochondria releasing energy in animal cells" At a very early stage in evolution, mitochondria were derived from bacteria that lived within the first eukaryotic cells. This is a very recent discovery. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.htm "to produce directional processes such as the creation of organs such as the eye - one bad step and it is all ruined, but billions of years later here we are" Did you take this from the creationist handbook? The evolution of the eye is perfectly explained by natural selection and this is very well established. "one bad step and it is all ruined" Indeed, this is the "selection" part of natural selection. "the fossil record has a radical lack of smooth transitional series of fossils for any animal" This is due to the sporadic way that fossils come to exist. How often do animals slip and fall to the bottom of a muddy sink hole only to be found again 100 million years later? In rock that has not been preserved somehow, you will find no fossils, transitional or otherwise. The number of exposed geological areas where such preservation can be found is very rare. With that in mind, the extent of our fossil record is truly amazing.

Posted by Eric Stubbs at 12:52am on September 19, 2009