The new movie Creation (movie website, Adobe Flash 10 required | IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes), a British drama about of key moments in Darwin's professional and personal life, just opened at the Toronto Film Festival and will soon be released in the UK. NCSE staff were invited to a pre-screening of the movie. Genie Scott's review and commentary are below.
Update: Roger Ebert has posted some comments on his online journal (and I guess he's quite the Darwin fan!).
I and NCSE staff were invited to view the new Jon Amiel movie, Creation, starring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connolly. I believe it to be a thoughtful, well-made film that will change many views of Darwin held by the public---for the good. The acting is strong, the visuals are wonderful, and it treats with loving care the Victorian details of the furnishings at Down house and other sites (such as Malvern), and the local church.
The movie takes place after Darwin has returned from the Beagle voyage, and has settled down with his wife, Emma. It concentrates on their relationship, on the growth of their family, and of course, on the production of his most famous scientific work, On the Origin of Species. It looks hard at Darwin's growing disenchantment with Christianity, especially the concept of Providence, and how poorly it fits Darwin the naturalist's knowledge of a very unpeaceable kingdom. Darwin's frequent illness is portrayed with brutal honesty. Sometimes pale, nauseated, unable even to eat dinner with his family, much less work on his science, Darwin is shown suffering from vague symptoms which he attempts to cure with what we would recognize as quack treatments.
A centerpiece of the movie is the death of Annie, the Darwins' beloved 10 year old daughter, and how it affected the relationship of Charles and Emma. Much of the movie takes place as flashbacks to when Annie was alive; much takes place after her death, when her father imagines conversations with her. In some reviews the later Annie is described as a ghost. Not really. Creation is not a ghost story. Rather, the filmmakers are taking dramatic license to make Darwin's thoughts about her visible to us. Also given much attention is Darwin's reluctance to set down his scientific ideas on evolution and natural selection for fear of upsetting the devout Emma, and society in general. Huxley and Hooker encourage him to publish, but Darwin procrastinates.
As someone with a stake in how the public understands evolution and its most famous proponent, the bottom line for me was that the science be presented accurately. The second was that the story of Darwin's life be presented accurately.
I have no problems with the former: natural selection and evolution (common descent, expressed in the movie by the tree of life metaphor) are both presented accurately, and although the movie does not dwell a great deal on the actual science, the importance of science to Darwin was apparent. Darwin was accurately presented as a curious naturalist (engaging his kids in natural history---geology, beetles, nature walks---even scientifically studying his baby! etc). Darwin is seen as a careful scientist---lots of microscope work, lots of careful record-keeping of pigeons, barnacles, etc. It is also clear---which is historically accurate---that Darwin was held in high regard as a scientist by his colleagues. The scientific part was fine.
How about the historical part? I have just read Randal Keynes's Annie's Box, the book upon which the movie is based, refreshing my memory on the details of the period of Darwin's life covered by the movie. Plus I already know a bit about Darwin's time, given my odd line of work, and my former career as a university professor teaching evolution. I am satisfied with the historical presentation, though not fully in agreement with all of it. But that's OK. This isn't a documentary about Darwin, it's a movie about Darwin. And there's a difference. With the latter, you don't expect absolute fealty to the historical record---though you don't have to---and shouldn't---accept wholesale violations.
I could nitpick on historical details (Annie was not the eldest child; Darwin's visits to Malvern are not in correct sequence; Origin of Species was his 9th book, not his first; historians legitimately debate how important Annie's death was to Darwin's rejection of Christianity) but it's a movie, not a documentary. A movie, as opposed to a documentary, goes for the spirit, not the letter: you can't get bent out of shape because timelines are changed. Movies operate on emotions---as Randy Olson says, movies aren't about the head, but the heart, the gut, and the crotch. If you want a historical documentary, don't go to movies.
Yet much of Creation's dialogue is taken directly from Darwin's correspondence or that of his contemporaries. There is a TON of real history here: I loved the depiction of the quack water cures at Malvern, and Darwin did indeed have his servants build a water tower for him at Down so that he could "take the cure" between visits to the spa. The presentation of his relationship with Hooker, Darwin's closest friend, who was adored by the Darwin children, was accurate and excellent. BTW, the actor playing Hooker was superb, and the physical likeness is startling. The physical likeness of the actor playing Huxley---less so, but the Bulldog's pugnacious spirit certainly is well-done.
But all but a tiny percentage of the people who will watch this movie will know far less about Darwin than I know---or that most of the PT readers know. Most of the people watching the movie think of Darwin as a cardboard figure---especially the stern, elderly Victorian guy with a long white beard in the black coat. They aren't going to think about Darwin as a tall and vigorous man very much devoted to his pretty wife, with a houseful of noisy children who adored him. In my experience, much of the public, following the Creationists, thinks he wrote one not-very-good book, and is unaware that Darwin devoted his life to science, conducting experiments and making observations and being held in high regard by his contemporaries. In particular, Darwin as a passionate, loving human being is far from how most Americans picture him. And that's too bad, because cardboard cutouts aren't real---and the real is so much more interesting. I like to think that someone seeing this movie will be stimulated to read one of the many biographies found on the movie's excellent website (www.creationthemovie.com), or otherwise easily accessible.
Creation is first and foremost a movie about the relationship between Charles and Emma. The actors, married in real life, and themselves parents, do an excellent job portraying the range of emotions that must have been part of the Darwins' life together---from tenderness as they hold their baby Annie, through their shared grief over her death, to the tension over their different attitudes towards religion, and other aspects of their relationship. Darwin wrote several times about his concern that the death(s) of his children (two died in addition to Annie, alas) was the result of the close familial relationship shared by him and his cousin, Emma. As a breeder of pigeons and livestock, he knew that close inbreeding could bring out "weaknesses", even if he didn't understand particulate inheritance.
Charles feared that Annie's painful, lingering illness and death was his fault---that she had inherited what he considered a disposition to bad digestion. In one especially poignant scene in a tavern, Darwin is told about the successes of a pigeon breeder who can produce new traits "in four generations!" He does it, of course, through close inbreeding, noting that, of course, there is higher mortality. When the cheerful tradesman comments with a hearty laugh, "A wealthy gentleman like yourself, sir, can certainly afford to lose a couple of chicks!" It's understandable that Darwin struggles to maintain composure.
The scene where Charles years later sobs as he visits the room where Annie died should touch anyone watching the movie. Keynes talks about Darwin sometimes feeling he was neglecting his other children during Annie's sickness and after her death, and his "return" to them as their loving father is handled in the movie with great tenderness. And indeed, Annie's death did strain the marriage of Emma and Charles, though it also brought them closer.
By telling an interesting story, and making Darwin human, Creation will I think encourage some viewers to find out more about the historical Darwin and his ideas. From my standpoint as director of NCSE, that's useful, indeed. The more people know about evolution and its most famous proponent, the less they will fear it. I'd like to see this movie get distributed in the US. Unfortunately, although Canadians and British will see it, there is not yet a US distributor. We can only speculate why, but the well-known American nervousness about evolution is probably and unfortunately part of the mix.
This movie deserves to be seen in movie theaters, not relegated merely to Netflix on DVD. I hope the reviews following the North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 10 are good, and also the reviews following the British premiere September 25. If a bomb like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed can get a distributor, a well-made movie with an excellent script, actors, direction, and cinematography like Creation surely should.
Maybe people who care about science should do what the promoters of Expelled did: get lots of people to show up on opening weekend to give the movie a big ratings boost.
Of course, it has to get a distributor first, and there isn't a lot we can do about that. If anyone has contacts with someone associated with movie distribution, send them to Creation!'Creation:' A drama about the life of Charles Darwin
by Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education
The new movie Creation (movie website, Adobe Flash 10 required | IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes), a British drama about of key moments in Darwin's professional and personal life, just opened at the Toronto Film Festival and will soon be released in the UK. NCSE staff were invited to a pre-screening of the movie. Genie Scott's review and commentary are below.
Update: Roger Ebert has posted some comments on his online journal (and I guess he's quite the Darwin fan!).
I and NCSE staff were invited to view the new Jon Amiel movie, Creation, starring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connolly. I believe it to be a thoughtful, well-made film that will change many views of Darwin held by the public---for the good. The acting is strong, the visuals are wonderful, and it treats with loving care the Victorian details of the furnishings at Down house and other sites (such as Malvern), and the local church.
The movie takes place after Darwin has returned from the Beagle voyage, and has settled down with his wife, Emma. It concentrates on their relationship, on the growth of their family, and of course, on the production of his most famous scientific work, On the Origin of Species. It looks hard at Darwin's growing disenchantment with Christianity, especially the concept of Providence, and how poorly it fits Darwin the naturalist's knowledge of a very unpeaceable kingdom. Darwin's frequent illness is portrayed with brutal honesty. Sometimes pale, nauseated, unable even to eat dinner with his family, much less work on his science, Darwin is shown suffering from vague symptoms which he attempts to cure with what we would recognize as quack treatments.
A centerpiece of the movie is the death of Annie, the Darwins' beloved 10 year old daughter, and how it affected the relationship of Charles and Emma. Much of the movie takes place as flashbacks to when Annie was alive; much takes place after her death, when her father imagines conversations with her. In some reviews the later Annie is described as a ghost. Not really. Creation is not a ghost story. Rather, the filmmakers are taking dramatic license to make Darwin's thoughts about her visible to us. Also given much attention is Darwin's reluctance to set down his scientific ideas on evolution and natural selection for fear of upsetting the devout Emma, and society in general. Huxley and Hooker encourage him to publish, but Darwin procrastinates.
As someone with a stake in how the public understands evolution and its most famous proponent, the bottom line for me was that the science be presented accurately. The second was that the story of Darwin's life be presented accurately.
I have no problems with the former: natural selection and evolution (common descent, expressed in the movie by the tree of life metaphor) are both presented accurately, and although the movie does not dwell a great deal on the actual science, the importance of science to Darwin was apparent. Darwin was accurately presented as a curious naturalist (engaging his kids in natural history---geology, beetles, nature walks---even scientifically studying his baby! etc). Darwin is seen as a careful scientist---lots of microscope work, lots of careful record-keeping of pigeons, barnacles, etc. It is also clear---which is historically accurate---that Darwin was held in high regard as a scientist by his colleagues. The scientific part was fine.
How about the historical part? I have just read Randal Keynes's Annie's Box, the book upon which the movie is based, refreshing my memory on the details of the period of Darwin's life covered by the movie. Plus I already know a bit about Darwin's time, given my odd line of work, and my former career as a university professor teaching evolution. I am satisfied with the historical presentation, though not fully in agreement with all of it. But that's OK. This isn't a documentary about Darwin, it's a movie about Darwin. And there's a difference. With the latter, you don't expect absolute fealty to the historical record---though you don't have to---and shouldn't---accept wholesale violations.
I could nitpick on historical details (Annie was not the eldest child; Darwin's visits to Malvern are not in correct sequence; Origin of Species was his 9th book, not his first; historians legitimately debate how important Annie's death was to Darwin's rejection of Christianity) but it's a movie, not a documentary. A movie, as opposed to a documentary, goes for the spirit, not the letter: you can't get bent out of shape because timelines are changed. Movies operate on emotions---as Randy Olson says, movies aren't about the head, but the heart, the gut, and the crotch. If you want a historical documentary, don't go to movies.
Yet much of Creation's dialogue is taken directly from Darwin's correspondence or that of his contemporaries. There is a TON of real history here: I loved the depiction of the quack water cures at Malvern, and Darwin did indeed have his servants build a water tower for him at Down so that he could "take the cure" between visits to the spa. The presentation of his relationship with Hooker, Darwin's closest friend, who was adored by the Darwin children, was accurate and excellent. BTW, the actor playing Hooker was superb, and the physical likeness is startling. The physical likeness of the actor playing Huxley---less so, but the Bulldog's pugnacious spirit certainly is well-done.
But all but a tiny percentage of the people who will watch this movie will know far less about Darwin than I know---or that most of the PT readers know. Most of the people watching the movie think of Darwin as a cardboard figure---especially the stern, elderly Victorian guy with a long white beard in the black coat. They aren't going to think about Darwin as a tall and vigorous man very much devoted to his pretty wife, with a houseful of noisy children who adored him. In my experience, much of the public, following the Creationists, thinks he wrote one not-very-good book, and is unaware that Darwin devoted his life to science, conducting experiments and making observations and being held in high regard by his contemporaries. In particular, Darwin as a passionate, loving human being is far from how most Americans picture him. And that's too bad, because cardboard cutouts aren't real---and the real is so much more interesting. I like to think that someone seeing this movie will be stimulated to read one of the many biographies found on the movie's excellent website (www.creationthemovie.com), or otherwise easily accessible.
Creation is first and foremost a movie about the relationship between Charles and Emma. The actors, married in real life, and themselves parents, do an excellent job portraying the range of emotions that must have been part of the Darwins' life together---from tenderness as they hold their baby Annie, through their shared grief over her death, to the tension over their different attitudes towards religion, and other aspects of their relationship. Darwin wrote several times about his concern that the death(s) of his children (two died in addition to Annie, alas) was the result of the close familial relationship shared by him and his cousin, Emma. As a breeder of pigeons and livestock, he knew that close inbreeding could bring out "weaknesses", even if he didn't understand particulate inheritance.
Charles feared that Annie's painful, lingering illness and death was his fault---that she had inherited what he considered a disposition to bad digestion. In one especially poignant scene in a tavern, Darwin is told about the successes of a pigeon breeder who can produce new traits "in four generations!" He does it, of course, through close inbreeding, noting that, of course, there is higher mortality. When the cheerful tradesman comments with a hearty laugh, "A wealthy gentleman like yourself, sir, can certainly afford to lose a couple of chicks!" It's understandable that Darwin struggles to maintain composure.
The scene where Charles years later sobs as he visits the room where Annie died should touch anyone watching the movie. Keynes talks about Darwin sometimes feeling he was neglecting his other children during Annie's sickness and after her death, and his "return" to them as their loving father is handled in the movie with great tenderness. And indeed, Annie's death did strain the marriage of Emma and Charles, though it also brought them closer.
By telling an interesting story, and making Darwin human, Creation will I think encourage some viewers to find out more about the historical Darwin and his ideas. From my standpoint as director of NCSE, that's useful, indeed. The more people know about evolution and its most famous proponent, the less they will fear it. I'd like to see this movie get distributed in the US. Unfortunately, although Canadians and British will see it, there is not yet a US distributor. We can only speculate why, but the well-known American nervousness about evolution is probably and unfortunately part of the mix.
This movie deserves to be seen in movie theaters, not relegated merely to Netflix on DVD. I hope the reviews following the North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 10 are good, and also the reviews following the British premiere September 25. If a bomb like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed can get a distributor, a well-made movie with an excellent script, actors, direction, and cinematography like Creation surely should.
Maybe people who care about science should do what the promoters of Expelled did: get lots of people to show up on opening weekend to give the movie a big ratings boost.
Of course, it has to get a distributor first, and there isn't a lot we can do about that. If anyone has contacts with someone associated with movie distribution, send them to Creation!
The new movie Creation (movie website, Adobe Flash 10 required | IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes), a British drama about of key moments in Darwin's professional and personal life, just opened at the Toronto Film Festival and will soon be released in the UK. NCSE staff were invited to a pre-screening of the movie. Genie Scott's review and commentary are below.
Update: Roger Ebert has posted some comments on his online journal (and I guess he's quite the Darwin fan!).
I and NCSE staff were invited to view the new Jon Amiel movie, Creation, starring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connolly. I believe it to be a thoughtful, well-made film that will change many views of Darwin held by the public---for the good. The acting is strong, the visuals are wonderful, and it treats with loving care the Victorian details of the furnishings at Down house and other sites (such as Malvern), and the local church.
The movie takes place after Darwin has returned from the Beagle voyage, and has settled down with his wife, Emma. It concentrates on their relationship, on the growth of their family, and of course, on the production of his most famous scientific work, On the Origin of Species. It looks hard at Darwin's growing disenchantment with Christianity, especially the concept of Providence, and how poorly it fits Darwin the naturalist's knowledge of a very unpeaceable kingdom. Darwin's frequent illness is portrayed with brutal honesty. Sometimes pale, nauseated, unable even to eat dinner with his family, much less work on his science, Darwin is shown suffering from vague symptoms which he attempts to cure with what we would recognize as quack treatments.
A centerpiece of the movie is the death of Annie, the Darwins' beloved 10 year old daughter, and how it affected the relationship of Charles and Emma. Much of the movie takes place as flashbacks to when Annie was alive; much takes place after her death, when her father imagines conversations with her. In some reviews the later Annie is described as a ghost. Not really. Creation is not a ghost story. Rather, the filmmakers are taking dramatic license to make Darwin's thoughts about her visible to us. Also given much attention is Darwin's reluctance to set down his scientific ideas on evolution and natural selection for fear of upsetting the devout Emma, and society in general. Huxley and Hooker encourage him to publish, but Darwin procrastinates.
As someone with a stake in how the public understands evolution and its most famous proponent, the bottom line for me was that the science be presented accurately. The second was that the story of Darwin's life be presented accurately.
I have no problems with the former: natural selection and evolution (common descent, expressed in the movie by the tree of life metaphor) are both presented accurately, and although the movie does not dwell a great deal on the actual science, the importance of science to Darwin was apparent. Darwin was accurately presented as a curious naturalist (engaging his kids in natural history---geology, beetles, nature walks---even scientifically studying his baby! etc). Darwin is seen as a careful scientist---lots of microscope work, lots of careful record-keeping of pigeons, barnacles, etc. It is also clear---which is historically accurate---that Darwin was held in high regard as a scientist by his colleagues. The scientific part was fine.
How about the historical part? I have just read Randal Keynes's Annie's Box, the book upon which the movie is based, refreshing my memory on the details of the period of Darwin's life covered by the movie. Plus I already know a bit about Darwin's time, given my odd line of work, and my former career as a university professor teaching evolution. I am satisfied with the historical presentation, though not fully in agreement with all of it. But that's OK. This isn't a documentary about Darwin, it's a movie about Darwin. And there's a difference. With the latter, you don't expect absolute fealty to the historical record---though you don't have to---and shouldn't---accept wholesale violations.
I could nitpick on historical details (Annie was not the eldest child; Darwin's visits to Malvern are not in correct sequence; Origin of Species was his 9th book, not his first; historians legitimately debate how important Annie's death was to Darwin's rejection of Christianity) but it's a movie, not a documentary. A movie, as opposed to a documentary, goes for the spirit, not the letter: you can't get bent out of shape because timelines are changed. Movies operate on emotions---as Randy Olson says, movies aren't about the head, but the heart, the gut, and the crotch. If you want a historical documentary, don't go to movies.
Yet much of Creation's dialogue is taken directly from Darwin's correspondence or that of his contemporaries. There is a TON of real history here: I loved the depiction of the quack water cures at Malvern, and Darwin did indeed have his servants build a water tower for him at Down so that he could "take the cure" between visits to the spa. The presentation of his relationship with Hooker, Darwin's closest friend, who was adored by the Darwin children, was accurate and excellent. BTW, the actor playing Hooker was superb, and the physical likeness is startling. The physical likeness of the actor playing Huxley---less so, but the Bulldog's pugnacious spirit certainly is well-done.
But all but a tiny percentage of the people who will watch this movie will know far less about Darwin than I know---or that most of the PT readers know. Most of the people watching the movie think of Darwin as a cardboard figure---especially the stern, elderly Victorian guy with a long white beard in the black coat. They aren't going to think about Darwin as a tall and vigorous man very much devoted to his pretty wife, with a houseful of noisy children who adored him. In my experience, much of the public, following the Creationists, thinks he wrote one not-very-good book, and is unaware that Darwin devoted his life to science, conducting experiments and making observations and being held in high regard by his contemporaries. In particular, Darwin as a passionate, loving human being is far from how most Americans picture him. And that's too bad, because cardboard cutouts aren't real---and the real is so much more interesting. I like to think that someone seeing this movie will be stimulated to read one of the many biographies found on the movie's excellent website (www.creationthemovie.com), or otherwise easily accessible.
Creation is first and foremost a movie about the relationship between Charles and Emma. The actors, married in real life, and themselves parents, do an excellent job portraying the range of emotions that must have been part of the Darwins' life together---from tenderness as they hold their baby Annie, through their shared grief over her death, to the tension over their different attitudes towards religion, and other aspects of their relationship. Darwin wrote several times about his concern that the death(s) of his children (two died in addition to Annie, alas) was the result of the close familial relationship shared by him and his cousin, Emma. As a breeder of pigeons and livestock, he knew that close inbreeding could bring out "weaknesses", even if he didn't understand particulate inheritance.
Charles feared that Annie's painful, lingering illness and death was his fault---that she had inherited what he considered a disposition to bad digestion. In one especially poignant scene in a tavern, Darwin is told about the successes of a pigeon breeder who can produce new traits "in four generations!" He does it, of course, through close inbreeding, noting that, of course, there is higher mortality. When the cheerful tradesman comments with a hearty laugh, "A wealthy gentleman like yourself, sir, can certainly afford to lose a couple of chicks!" It's understandable that Darwin struggles to maintain composure.
The scene where Charles years later sobs as he visits the room where Annie died should touch anyone watching the movie. Keynes talks about Darwin sometimes feeling he was neglecting his other children during Annie's sickness and after her death, and his "return" to them as their loving father is handled in the movie with great tenderness. And indeed, Annie's death did strain the marriage of Emma and Charles, though it also brought them closer.
By telling an interesting story, and making Darwin human, Creation will I think encourage some viewers to find out more about the historical Darwin and his ideas. From my standpoint as director of NCSE, that's useful, indeed. The more people know about evolution and its most famous proponent, the less they will fear it. I'd like to see this movie get distributed in the US. Unfortunately, although Canadians and British will see it, there is not yet a US distributor. We can only speculate why, but the well-known American nervousness about evolution is probably and unfortunately part of the mix.
This movie deserves to be seen in movie theaters, not relegated merely to Netflix on DVD. I hope the reviews following the North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 10 are good, and also the reviews following the British premiere September 25. If a bomb like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed can get a distributor, a well-made movie with an excellent script, actors, direction, and cinematography like Creation surely should.
Maybe people who care about science should do what the promoters of Expelled did: get lots of people to show up on opening weekend to give the movie a big ratings boost.
Of course, it has to get a distributor first, and there isn't a lot we can do about that. If anyone has contacts with someone associated with movie distribution, send them to Creation!
60 Comments
Ferrous Patella · 11 September 2009
"Darwin is seen as a careful scientist – lots of microscope work, lots of careful record–keeping of pigeons, barnacles, etc."
What? No earthworms in the movie?
Nick (Matzke) · 11 September 2009
No worms (I think Darwin got into that when he was old), but there are lots of maggots!
Marion Delgado · 11 September 2009
There were fascinating hours involving earthworms, but for some reason the film editor cut them out, Ferrous!
wile coyote · 11 September 2009
Oh! If they could have just persuaded Dawkins to play Huxley! I have always wanted to see Dawkins in that role, with mutton-chop whiskers and a frock coat.
I suppose if they considered it the answer was: "No, the script calls for a BULLDOG, not a ROTTWEILER!"
Stacy · 11 September 2009
I'm really looking forward to seeing it.
Star Umbehant · 11 September 2009
Looks like a great film, and I PRAY that we get a US distributor. lol
Doug Chaplin · 11 September 2009
Thanks for a great review. I'm looking forward to this film. I was stunned to hear you haven't got a US distributor. I really hope you get one.
GrrlScientist · 11 September 2009
wah, i want to see it, too! i've heard all sorts of good things about it, so why don't they show movies like this in the USA??
Paul Burnett · 11 September 2009
Uncommon Dissent doesn't like Creation for some reason. Denyse O'Leary, "science" journalist extraordinaire, brings out the tired old creationist cliche that evolution = religion. See http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/darwinism-and-popular-culture-tell-me-again-that-darwinism-isnt-a-religion/
FastEddie · 11 September 2009
Interesting that Bettany was chosen to play Darwin. Bettany also played the ship's doctor and naturalist in the movie Master & Commander, set before Darwin's time in the Napoleonic wars (terrific flick, btw). In that film his character was keenly interested in collecting and studying samples of this or that and even got to romp around the Galapagos for spell.
I was struck by a memorable line his character uttered. He and a young student were examining some insects skilled a disguising themselves as a stick, thorn, or whatever and the student asked whether God caused the insects to change like that. "Certainly," his character replied, "but do they also change themselves? That's the real mystery."
wile coyote · 11 September 2009
Karen S. · 11 September 2009
This looks like a very good film and the website was very cool. Thanks for posting!
It looks like Nova will be celebrating Darwin's birth also: on October 6 they will air a 2-hour program called Darwin's Darkest Hour
calyptephile · 11 September 2009
This summer, I had the wonderful experience to go to Down House and see for myself what I'd been reading about my whole life (although it was fairly hard to find on those tiny roads the width of a bike lane). What a nerd's nerd! I'm glad to hear that the movie seems to do him justice.
John Kwok · 11 September 2009
FastEddie,
You may not know that Patrick O'Brian, the English novelist (O'Brian was his most famous pen name) who created the Aubrey / Maturin series, had envisioned ship's surgeon Stephen Maturin (Bettany's character) as a fictional precursor to both Darwin and Huxley. I believe he did acknowledge in interviews that he was inspried to create Maturin as a homage to both Darwin and Huxley.
BTW, Nick Matzke is right about Darwin's late in life "fetish" for worms, which was the subject of one of his very last books.
Regards,
John
John Kwok · 11 September 2009
Genie -
Thanks for such a great review (I regret that you didn't have space to comment on that Tribeca Film Festival round table discussion held immediately after Creation's screening last spring, here in New York City, during the festival.
I hope a major Hollywood film distributor will read yours and Roger Ebert's comments and move with alacrity to ensure that "Creation" has a nationwide release in a few months.
Appreciatively yours,
John
Joel · 11 September 2009
Sounds good! But an Australian release date unspecified in 2010? This will not stand...
Jedidiah Palosaari · 11 September 2009
I'm shocked. I can't believe there's no US distributor.
Mark Pallen · 12 September 2009
I am going to take this down on Monday because I am going to submit it for publication in a journal, but before you swallow the movie's line on how Annie's death affected Darwin's attitude to religion or his work on evolution, take a look at this article I have written:
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2009/07/annie-paper-in-one-continuous-posting.html
And with luck I will get to see the movie on Tuesday--and will try to remember it is a work of fiction!
Thanatos · 12 September 2009
Jennifer Connelly...
Joel · 12 September 2009
This looks bad...
Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'
joanie · 12 September 2009
I wonder about the title "Creation". Seems such a title is just asking for conflict with creationists. For possible distribution in US maybe a title change is in order.
boldra · 12 September 2009
For those interested in the historical Darwin, if they happen to go to London at any time I would recommend a visit to Burlington House in Piccadilly.
In there you will find the Reynolds room in which the Darwin/Wallace joint paper was first presented to the Royal Society. And do you know (and don't spread this around) you can wander in free of charge to this almost invariably empty room and quietly contemplate the significance of what what started in that very place. It's enough to give you goosebumps
Joe Felsenstein · 12 September 2009
Gary Hurd · 12 September 2009
Thanks for the review. I had qualms based on advertising copy which were apparently needless.
Stanton · 12 September 2009
Wheels · 12 September 2009
I wish Ebert would do a proper review. Perhaps that would light some fire under distributors?
John Kwok · 12 September 2009
Dave Wisker · 12 September 2009
SYP · 12 September 2009
You can actually help prove there is an audience for the Creation movie! Join the Darwin Facebook group (already 250,000 strong):
http://bit.ly/darwin150
The Creation movie, NatGeo, and NCSE have partnered with The Darwin150 Project in cheering the 150th anniversary of "On the Origin of Species" with a series of events in Fall 2009 aimed at the general public and a goal to get the Darwin Facebook Group to 1 million members.
http://bit.ly/darwin150
Our first FREE event (live at Harvard and via webcast and phone) is next Wed 9/16 with Professor Everett Mendelsohn. Don't miss it.
http://bit.ly/darwin150com
Stanton · 12 September 2009
Dave Luckett · 12 September 2009
Let's face it, it can't be because the film is "too controversial".
Distributors and exhibitors dream of having a genuinely controversial film to show. Skin, explosions, chainsaws, insanity, incest, blood, mayhem, torture, flying body parts, all that, they don't cut it any more. If the life of Charles Darwin and the (supposed) reasons for his loss of Christian faith were merely controversial - meaning the subject of popular discussion and debate - the distributors would be lining up. You don't seriously think that these people would be saying to each other, "Profit be damned! There's a principle involved here!", do you?
No, there's something more going on. I wonder who's been whispering in their ears, and what they've been saying.
Scott M · 13 September 2009
I think that it is the U.S. distributers who are severely underestimating the American public. This speaks more about them and their opinion of their customers than it does about Americans.
Dave Wisker · 13 September 2009
Eugenie Scott · 13 September 2009
to Mark:
Thanks for posting the whole essay -- it is very thoughtful and thought-provoking. I learned a lot from it.
But remember when you see the movie, that it's a movie. The purpose of a movie is to make you feel -- and sometimes some movies make you think, though that's frosting, for the most part.
The grief of the Darwins over the loss of Annie should touch the heart of anyone who has a neuron's worth of feeling. And considering that over here there's a well-funded industry spreading the view that Darwin was "racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder" with a "half-baked theory" responsible for Hitler and the familiar laundry-list of "isms", I'm willing to cut a little slack on exact historical treatment to dramatic license in favor of a more rounded view of the man.
Darwin lost his faith in Christianity doubtless for many reasons, and the movie doesn't actually pin it all on Annie's death. There is much attention paid to nature being a warring place full of death and pain, and how this doesn't fit with the Rev. Innis's pieties about God's providence. And no one disputes that Darwin's death was a hard blow. (Interestingly, Annie's death might have undone his rejection of Christianity: it isn't unknown that a grieving parent becomes religious rather than losing faith.)
Of course scholars should express their views on the interesting historical issue of when Darwin turned away from Christianity, whether they suport the Desmond and Moore perspective or that of their critics.
But I hope they don't lose sight of the fact that this is a movie, not a documentary. The writers chose Randal Keynes' book because it presented such a personal picture of Darwin the husband and father. Keynes' book does favor one side of the Annie/Charles Christianity link (though not as strong as Jim Moore's). And for their purposes, which is to tell the STORY of Darwin and thus his humanity, it works.
So I hope you and other viewers look at the movie as a whole, and consider its effect.
Of course -- you actually get to see it, and thus far, movie-goers in the US won't be able to, unless there's a distributor. And none is on the horizon.
Genie
Barbara iverson · 13 September 2009
Join my campaign to get the movie show in Chicago, and maybe get it a distributor. If enough folks sign up and say they will buy a ticket, maybe a distributor will come forward.
You can see it here.
Joel · 14 September 2009
derek hudson · 14 September 2009
I am greatly looking forward to seeing this film here in the UK, and share your disappointment that it will not be shown in the USA, surely the ONE place it should be seen! Your point about the very human, and humane, side of Darwin is hugely important. Once people see that this so called 'monster, the father of eugenics and facism', according to one film review, was a humble, likeable, faithful, caring human being I am sure that this would serve, alas, as a stronger argument than the actual evidential one. One of the major elements in creationism, racism and other irrational, prejudiced views, is ignorance. What a shame that this film will only 'preach', mostly, to the 'converted'.
wile coyote · 14 September 2009
Aagcobb · 14 September 2009
John Kwok · 14 September 2009
For those of you who are on Facebook, there is a Facebook page intended to help increase public support for a US distributor to pick up finally "Creation" so it can be shown here in the United States:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=132022932739&ref=share
Please join and ask others you know on Facebook to do so too.
Dave Thomas · 14 September 2009
John Kwok · 14 September 2009
Dave,
Am delighted that "Creation" was featured at last spring's Tribeca Film Festival, as part of an event that concluded with a roundtable discussion featuring Genie Scott and the film's director, Jon Amiel (Alas I wasn't able to attend.). I remain utterly dumbfounded that Hollywood has chosen to ignore it, though I have heard that the film may have found a potential USA distributor at the Toronto Film Festival (This is as of yet unconfirmed rumor, of which no more shall be said.).
I have no doubt that the performances of Bettany and Connelly as the Darwins will be exceptional, based on their prior work (Again, as I noted a few days ago to FastEddie, Bettany's character in the film "Master and Commander", Dr. Stephen Maturin, was meant to be a fictional precursor of both Darwin and Huxley, according to the English novelist who created the Aubrey / Maturin series of novels, Patrick O'Brian.
Appreciatively yours,
John
Dave Thomas · 14 September 2009
MPW · 15 September 2009
I hate to say it, but I think the "we can't get a distributor because evolution is too controversial in America" thing might have been a bit of publicity-seeking exaggeration from the filmmakers. The free publicity that comes with such controversy is catnip to distributors. If there was initial reluctance to take on the movie, more likely it's because, well, it's a period costume drama about a Victorian scientist and his family. Not exactly "Transformers."
I fully expected someone would pick it up, and sooner rather than later, so I wasn't really worried. Glad to see I was right. The timing worries me a bit, though. The gears of the Hollywood machine grind slowly, and I would think this is too down to the wire for a release before the end of the year, which would be ideal, with the fall and early winter being prime Oscar bait season as well as having plenty of media chatter over the Origins anniversary.
Notwithstanding all of this, reviews from the recent screening at the Toronto Film Festival were decidedly mixed, from what I gather.
Romartus · 15 September 2009
It does seem remarkable that 'Creation' will probably be seen in every country except perhaps USA (and possibly Sudan, Iran or any other place where the religious lobby has great political power). I trust this movie does get a full release in America.
Frank J · 17 September 2009
Ray Martinez · 22 September 2009
We know for an absolute fact that Darwin became an Atheist-Materialist by 1839, that is, during the same two years in which his theory was "clearly conceived" (Autobio: 124).
Notebooks M and N on man, mind and materialism were written 1838 and 1839. In these writings Darwin freely admits to be a Materialist. Of course his theory is fully materialist, meaning the total absence of Intelligent agencies causing biological production.
In his autobiography Darwin admits to renouncing the Bible and Christianity in the context of during or before the late 1830s (pages 85-87). Again this is the same period in which he conceived his theory.
Just Bob · 28 September 2009
Dave Luckett · 28 September 2009
wile coyote · 28 September 2009
Mae · 28 December 2009
I was reading about because a friend saw it in San Francisco - and along came some thread in which someone made the comment about Darwin's "incestuous" relationship with his daughter. Please tell me that person was sickly twisting history.
DS · 28 December 2009
Dave Luckett · 28 December 2009
stevaroni · 28 December 2009
John Kwok · 28 December 2009
John Kwok · 28 December 2009
Carl · 12 January 2010
While I am a devoted Christian, and, incidentally a retired pastor, I believe that many who also call themselves Christian are wasting an awful lot of energy they could be using to make the world a better place and, environmentally, a healthier place for all creatures. Come off it folks, let Christ live in you through your love and stop trying to prove the unprovable.
Blessings,
Carl
Stanton · 12 January 2010
Dr. Mahbubur Rahman · 30 April 2010
Dear Mr Eugenie Scott,
Is there any historical basis of the scene in the movie `creation' as Darwin knelt down in church begging for life of Annie and in return be faithful for the rest of his life?
As my little knowledge goes, there was no such abrupt change linked to death of Annie.
I would like to know your opinion.
Regards
Mahbub
J · 8 July 2010
What a bad movie. I am embarrassed for the people that produced this. A complete fraud!