24 replies to this topic

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Creation [2009; Director Jon Amiel]

Don't know how many have heard of this film, as it apparently isn't getting a very wide release in the United States. I believe it's only getting theater releases in 6 U.S. cities, as it seems we Americans think it's too controversial to make a large profit here.

The ever-so controversial movie follows Charles Darwin as he raises his family and writes Origin of the Species.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Some have said the "controversy" stems from it's stance on Evolution. But, as we know, the theory of Evolution has been a widely accepted scientific theory, and has made several appearances in Hollywood films before. I have no idea why it suddenly makes such a big splash now.

The only other thing I could think of is that the man, Charles Darwin, has become much more controversial than the Greek theory he popularized. Which, again, doesn't make sense, as everything I've heard about the character's portrayal in this film seems pretty factual and puts greater emphasis on his family relations. (I haven't seen the film yet, due to it's limited release, so I can't really say for sure.)

So, what do you guys think? Is this the age-old Creation vs. Evolution battle? Or is Darwin himself just that controversial?

[randomizer]

Evolution seems to be controversial only when it becomes the focus of the film.

[Tristan Palmgren]

Are we sure the "controversy" hasn't been manufactured to generate interest in a biopic that would be getting a limited release anyway? It's a tactic a lot of filmmakers use to spread word-of-mouth. It worked for Passion of the Christ, after all.

[randomizer]

The only thing controversial about PotC was that the whole film was subtitled and in Hebrew...

Oh, and I've never heard of this film btw.

[John Roberts]

The only thing controversial about PotC was that the whole film was subtitled and in Hebrew...

Yeah, those bastards. I protested for four days and nights because of that! Not sure what the other Jewish people was protesting about though...

Haven't heard of this film either.

[Massagraf]

Ah, this gotta be my favourite culture clash. I never heard of this movie before, but for a country that has done so much for the world economically, scientifically and culturally, I never understood why they never got with their time when it comes to religion.

For example, 92% of the Americans believe in God (source: Washington Post) to a decreasing 52% in the Netherlands (source: Kennislink.nl). Why is that? Are they really that gullible or stubborn? And than stuff like this happens. I think this movie would've been positively received here. And still there are teachers over there who go apeshit when they hear they have to teach their students evolution, while here, it's been part of the education program for years. I never knew what Americans thought of what other countries think about them (though a lot of them don't even know there are other countries than the USA), but in here I know they're mostly a subject of mockery and ridicule (and their classic defense: 'You're just jealous!' I love that.)

I certainly believe there are thousands of Americans who at least think about what they believe in and wouldn't doubt a second about this movie. For those who think America is still the most free and up-to-date country in the world: ...you should go to Amsterdam...

[randomizer]

I seriously doubt 92% of Americans really believe in God, or to be more precise, have a real commitment to a religion. 92% probably just believe in God when it's convenient, like after disasters. In Australia most people put themselves down as Christian in censuses if they don't say they're Atheist because Atheist sounds "bad" and they aren't Muslim or Hindu. God is pretty deeply rooted in American tradition as well, so if you are an American it's almost obligatory to "believe" in God.

[John Roberts]

I believe in God when I bash my knee into a chair, or slam my fingers in a car door. God gets the wrong side of that cursing stick when I let loose.

[randomizer]

I think the funny thing is that you slam your fingers in the car door enough to make a mention of it.

[John Roberts]

See? Just goes to show how dedicated I am to the belief of God.

(And sorry for high-jacking your thread, FreakyFilms)

[Ratty Randnums]

I seriously doubt 92% of Americans really believe in God, or to be more precise, have a real commitment to a religion. 92% probably just believe in God when it's convenient, like after disasters. In Australia most people put themselves down as Christian in censuses if they don't say they're Atheist because Atheist sounds "bad" and they aren't Muslim or Hindu. God is pretty deeply rooted in American tradition as well, so if you are an American it's almost obligatory to "believe" in God.

Speaking as an American, Christianity is in my experience largely used as a tool to make bashing certain groups (gays, non-christians or Catholics) socially acceptable. And making the Christians feel like they're part of the club, they know everything that has and will happen. And that they're superior to everyone else no matter how they act.

Ah, this gotta be my favourite culture clash. I never heard of this movie before, but for a country that has done so much for the world economically, scientifically and culturally, I never understood why they never got with their time when it comes to religion.

For example, 92% of the Americans believe in God (source: Washington Post) to a decreasing 52% in the Netherlands (source: Kennislink.nl). Why is that? Are they really that gullible or stubborn? And than stuff like this happens. I think this movie would've been positively received here. And still there are teachers over there who go apeshit when they hear they have to teach their students evolution, while here, it's been part of the education program for years. I never knew what Americans thought of what other countries think about them (though a lot of them don't even know there are other countries than the USA), but in here I know they're mostly a subject of mockery and ridicule (and their classic defense: 'You're just jealous!' I love that.)

I certainly believe there are thousands of Americans who at least think about what they believe in and wouldn't doubt a second about this movie. For those who think America is still the most free and up-to-date country in the world: ...you should go to Amsterdam...

Only hearing what you want to hear is a way of life in America. And what is faith (which is still held up as a MAJOR virtue here) but wanting something to be true so badly you "decide" you're going to believe it?

I think this film is controversial because it sounds like it gives a more serious evaluation of Evolution. Sure you can mention evolution in a way that completely misunderstands what it actually is in a popcorn movie like "The X-Men". But something with a scientific and historical basis? That would drive the christ fanbois NUTS. Fundie Fucktar- er, Christian fundamentalists, who accept a literal interpretation of the bible, and ONLY a literal interpretation. Have turned "disproving" things like evolution and the big bang theory (which was proposed by a Catholic priest btw) into a cottage industry.** They're a very loud minority here and people are loath to offend them. Both because they're seen as "fellow Christians", which is to say also protestant. And because everyone else knows they'll never freakin' shut up.

Some of the most open minded people in my high school asked me if I really believed evolution was true. And were a little shocked when I said yes. One of the biology teachers would always start off saying that she thought it wasn't before talking about it.

Man, this is a backwards ass country. At least in the south.


**To be fair there are Muslims and others who try to disprove scientific theory with the word of their holy scripture, but they all make pretty much the same mistakes.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

@ John Roberts: Nah, it's cool. It was fun to read.

I think this film is controversial because it sounds like it gives a more serious evaluation of Evolution. Sure you can mention evolution in a way that completely misunderstands what it actually is in a popcorn movie like "The X-Men". But something with a scientific and historical basis? That would drive the christ fanbois NUTS. Fundie Fucktar- er, Christian fundamentalists, who accept a literal interpretation of the bible, and ONLY a literal interpretation. Have turned "disproving" things like evolution and the big bang theory (which was proposed by a Catholic priest btw) into a cottage industry.** They're a very loud minority here and people are loath to offend them. Both because they're seen as "fellow Christians", which is to say also protestant. And because everyone else knows they'll never freakin' shut up.

Speaking as a Christian, I will admit that we tend to do ourselves more harm than good. A lot of 'em are way too hot-headed about what they believe in to actually be any good at what they like to call "witnessing". And the few that aren't that hot-headed just tend to come off as car salesmen. I believe what I believe in, but don't really want to be associated with the insensitive Bible-thumpers out there that claim to "love people in the name of Christ", or the get-rich-quick TV preachers out there. They just come off as shallow and hypocritical to me.

As for the film topic at hand, it does seem odd that still, in today's day and age, that Evolution still seems to be best accepted in the States as a foundation for science fiction, rather than the foundation for a credible period-piece drama. I don't believe in Evolution myself, but I would expect the theory to be more widely accepted in the States. A film like Creation should NOT be so "controversial" in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Are we sure the "controversy" hasn't been manufactured to generate interest in a biopic that would be getting a limited release anyway? It's a tactic a lot of filmmakers use to spread word-of-mouth. It worked for Passion of the Christ, after all.

The film does seem to want to be swimming in controversy. Previous working titles for the movie include Annie's Box, Nature, and Origin. Choosing a title like Creation, rather than something more fitting for the theory in question, seems to try to invite people from "the other side", as it were, to watch and argue over the film. (Evolution isn't about anything being "created", but rather "happening by chance".) But seeing as how very few people seem to have heard about this film, it doesn't seem to be a very successful means of word-of-mouth advertisement. (Unless you count the few out there like me, who just happened to hear of it on NightLine one night, and think it's odd that it's being so widely snubbed.)

[Ratty Randnums]

I don't believe in Evolution myself,

...(Evolution isn't about anything being "created", but rather "happening by chance".) But seeing as how very few people seem to have heard about this film, it doesn't seem to be a very successful means of word-of-mouth advertisement. (Unless you count the few out there like me, who just happened to hear of it on NightLine one night, and think it's odd that it's being so widely snubbed.)

I appreciate that you're trying to be egalitarian, buuut that's a big oversimplification of what evolution is.
And tells me you might misunderstand what evolution actually is.
Not to get too long winded but evolution isn't just things happening "by chance" or "change over time". Evolution is the result of changes in a species or population of organisms due to environmental pressures. That's all it is. If a member of a species has (due to mutation) a new trait that allows it to more effectively survive to maturity and reproduce in it's environment, it will do so. These beneficial trait(s) will be passed on to it's offspring and become more and more common. While members of the species without this trait slowly become more rare and die off. Just as happens with non-beneficial mutations.
Give this process the millenia it has had to work in, and it's perfectly understandable how we arrive at the diversity of life we see today.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Oh, I know. I taken courses and such. I actually own PBS documentaries and books on the subject matter. (Haven't actually read Darwin's book, but mainly because the theory has progressed in research over the years than it was at the time of Darwin's writings.) My point was Evolution wasn't a form of Creation, so titling a film about the evolutionary writings "Creation" seems to try and invite controversy.

But I guess it did come out over simplistic, didn't it?

[Valerie Valens]

I'll have to blow the whistle here, because there are proportionally 4 times as much credible historians who denied the holocaust compared to the number of scientists in the scientific community who reject evolution. The illusion of the controversy is founded by the Creationist/ID movement, whose members and supporters are intellectual vandals, which originated in the US. Therefore, you'll hear the "controversy" being bleated out most loudly there in the US. Do not be fooled by these intellectual vandals.

As a side note, there is no question as to whether evolution happened or can happen, we have seen it and even induced it ourselves many thousands of times, cats, dogs, fruit flies and corn being the most mundane of examples. As such, to deny belief of evolution would be nothing less than pure delusion. Why we still study evolution then? If you take a look at what has been done in labs in recent years, you can easily see that we are learning about the specifics of the phenomena, what happened and the mechanics of evolution et cetera. The knowledge gained from such research had helped us in many areas of our lives, and I am not talking about medicine and treating genetic diseases, I am talking design and architecture of machines.

This is why we have a saying here, "You do NOT believe in Evolution, you accept it."

[chief]

Well.. considering Vatican scientists belive in Evolution.. And there is so much evidence that points towards it.. Id say it happened.

I mean shit, you want to talk about evolution just look at us in the last few hundred years. In the middle ages the average height was like 5 foot. Now it is close to 6 foot. That is evolving.


And you know, I belive in a god, something out there and all that.

[Valerie Valens]

I personally doubt that the proponents of the Creationist/ID movement are true Christians, because their movement inherently misses the point of being religious and that having faith in that the texts are to be taken allegorically as opposed to literally and that they do NOT need any evidence to justify their faith.

As such, saying that god/ja'we'/elo'im/allah/ahura mazda/odin/siva quite literally farted the world out as described in their creation story makes no sense even in the context of their belief.

Also, science is not mutually exclusive to religion because religion deals with supernatural concepts and fantasies whereas science deals in the natural world and will not speak for any supernatural element. If science could, then it wouldn't be supernatural, would it?

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I could throw some arguments of Microevolution vs Macroevolution and whether or not the two are really related, but I think we've discussed similar issues everywhere but a thread dedicated to it. But then, it's hard not to discuss "controversial" films without touching on the issues dealt with in the film.

Valerie did make a good point, though. The term "controversy" does seemed to be tooted in the U.S., whereas the European countries really don't care either way. I remember hearing an interview with a scientist from Europe (forgive me, as I forget name and nationality), but he stated that the idea of Creationism, or a God, really isn't "banned" in the sense that it is in American public school systems. Scientists there are more free to come to whatever conclusion their research leads them to. As a result, there are many who have come to the conclusion of adaptations over millions of years, and (drastically) fewer scientists that have come to the conclusion of an Intelligent Designer. And there are many hybrid theories that incorporate the valid conclusions from both theories.

In other words, an opened mind lead to the conclusions that scientists have come to, and also the acceptance of other conclusions. Whereas in the States, there seems to be this do-or-die among the two "parties", for lack of a better word. The scientists have to prove that science has nothing to do with God, while the religious sects feel the need to push their thoughts and beliefs on the "opposing" scientists. And it leads to stuff like the Creation film becoming a limited release, or the Creation Museum being widely opposed to being built in Cincinnati.

Strange country when it come to "freedom of speech".

[Ratty Randnums]

I could throw some arguments of Microevolution vs Macroevolution and whether or not the two are really related, but I think we've discussed similar issues everywhere but a thread dedicated to it. But then, it's hard not to discuss "controversial" films without touching on the issues dealt with in the film.

Valerie did make a good point, though. The term "controversy" does seemed to be tooted in the U.S., whereas the European countries really don't care either way. I remember hearing an interview with a scientist from Europe (forgive me, as I forget name and nationality), but he stated that the idea of Creationism, or a God, really isn't "banned" in the sense that it is in American public school systems. Scientists there are more free to come to whatever conclusion their research leads them to. As a result, there are many who have come to the conclusion of adaptations over millions of years, and (drastically) fewer scientists that have come to the conclusion of an Intelligent Designer. And there are many hybrid theories that incorporate the valid conclusions from both theories.

In other words, an opened mind lead to the conclusions that scientists have come to, and also the acceptance of other conclusions. Whereas in the States, there seems to be this do-or-die among the two "parties", for lack of a better word. The scientists have to prove that science has nothing to do with God, while the religious sects feel the need to push their thoughts and beliefs on the "opposing" scientists. And it leads to stuff like the Creation film becoming a limited release, or the Creation Museum being widely opposed to being built in Cincinnati.

Strange country when it come to "freedom of speech".

No scientists have come to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. People start at God, call it intelligent design and set out to prove it. Despite what Ferris Buller's teacher might say, "intelligent design" or whatever you want to call it isn't "banned" in science classrooms because of some snobbery. Or hatred of religion by american scientists. It's not allowed in a science room because it's unscientific. Intelligent design isn't science, period.

[Valerie Valens]

The micro and macro parts are illusions perpetuated by ID-iots. The only real difference between them is the passage of time.

And yeah, it's a false dichotomy and it's bullshit.