Creation Opens Friday

| 37 Comments

Creation, the true story of Charles Darwin, based on the book by Randal Keynes, Darwin’s great-great-grandson, opens in theaters this Friday in New York, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, and D.C.

“His love for his wife, his observations of his children, his friendships with gardeners, schoolteachers and pigeon fanciers, his fears about death, revolution, bankruptcy, inbreeding … all these things found their way into his theory. He was the most inclusive of thinkers.” Randal Keynes, Annie’s Box

Support the film! The distributors will gladly link back to your organization from their Facebook and Twitter pages if you link to them. Help us spread the word.

Become a fan of Creation on Facebook.

Follow Creation on Twitter.

For theater information, check http://creationthemovie.com/.

This post was modified from a press release we received today.

37 Comments

Well, I have to admit, I absolutely hate that tagline. And it’s getting mixed reviews. But if it comes to Austin I’ll do my best to give it a shot.

The New York Times carried an interesting article on the movie, which is evidently about Darwin as a person, rather than as an icon. The director, who said he did not want to make a period piece, commented

The man that emerges from his letters and diaries and those of the people around him was so dramatically different from anything that his public image had led me to know. This was an intensely emotional man who was given to weeping quite freely, who listened to Chopin and Liszt, who read the Romantic poets, who loved and played with and reared his children in a most surprisingly contemporary fashion. I felt increasingly excited at the thought of bringing that man to the screen.

By contrast, he says he shows Huxley, whose views he largely shares, as “irksome, pugnacious and in some ways dangerous.”

What I want to know, is will we get it in the BIBLE BELT, or will I have to start getting NASTY with some theater managers?

The problem for filmmakers is that Darwin’s work was immensely important and enormously upsetting, but Darwin, as nice a fellow as he was, was hardly Mr. Excitement. I heard somewhere that he said that it took him three days to get over meeting a new person. Not too easy to make good box-office draw out of that. There have been few good films made about Isaac Newton too.

Interesting review Matt. Thanks for the link. I was planning on seeing this movie anyhow. I really liked the character of Bettany in Master and Commander (also really liked that movie.)

I wonder if any of the creationist crowd will go and see it.

Fortunately I live close enough to NYC that it will be easy to go an see it. Just checked and it is only opening in two theaters in all of NYC!

It’s already available on DVD in the UK, so if you’re player can do multi-region just zoom across to Amazon.co.uk

Am disappointed that it is not screening at the Angelika near the corner of Broadway and Houston Street. Thought it would have been picked up for screening there.

I saw in a newspaper article yesterday that Bettany became interested in Darwin’s life and work while he was filming “Master and Commander” in the Galapagos Islands (BTW, his character in “Master and Commander”, Dr. Stephen Maturin, was based on the real-life Charles Darwin, and, to a lesser extent, Thomas Huxley.):

David Utidjian said:

Interesting review Matt. Thanks for the link. I was planning on seeing this movie anyhow. I really liked the character of Bettany in Master and Commander (also really liked that movie.)

I wonder if any of the creationist crowd will go and see it.

Fortunately I live close enough to NYC that it will be easy to go an see it. Just checked and it is only opening in two theaters in all of NYC!

If this review from Rottentomatoes is indicative of the movie in any way, shape, or form we may have a stinker on our hands:

Creation’s power lies in its layers, in the way it makes distinctions between religion and faith, and the ways it beautifully (save for one clunky bit of overexplanation) lays out the similarities between religion and science.

Team Science just can’t get a media break, can it?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]um-nightline

On Friday, we will post a movie review of Creation

I doubt very much that it’ll be favourable.

I predict that AiG will complain that Creation fails to present Darwin with the Nazi armband he was so fond of.

And if it’s not them, then it will be either David Klinghoffer or Richard Weikart from the Dishonesty Institute who will note, in the latest issue of Nota Bene (the DI agitprop e-mail newsletter), that film director Jon Amiel and the cast of “Creation” somehow forgot to emphasize the ties which “bind” Darwin to Hitler:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

I predict that AiG will complain that Creation fails to present Darwin with the Nazi armband he was so fond of.

apparently, though, this well made movie ultimately propagates a lie that is easily disproved in a mere two paragraphs:

http://www.movieguide.org/box-offic[…]085/creation

I will be shielding my vulnerable soul from this abomination, and wondering what science might have spent the last century achieving if this reviewer had been around to correct this easily refuted error [/green ink]

Ah, yes, no transitional fossils, and Darwin said he couldn’t see how the eye could have evolved. Creationists, just keep your ears plugged and hum.

Of course, the worst part of the movie is that it contains “ implied sexual relations between married couple.” The horrors! But then, isn’t that the case every time the children of a couple are shown? It just hit me: Family movies are perverse!

David wrote:

“Of course, the worst part of the movie is that it contains “ implied sexual relations between married couple.” The horrors! But then, isn’t that the case every time the children of a couple are shown? It just hit me: Family movies are perverse!”

Right. That’s the definition of a fundamentalist. They are against sex before marriage and they are none too sure about after!

Thanks for the tip about ordering the DVD from Amazon.co.uk. I just placed an order, since I’m not in a major market and don’t expect the film to come to my area any time soon. It cost $20.00 USD with shipping.

Oh, yeah, also: Darwin was a racist and Unitarians are not Christians. Lotta Hitschmanova has a lot to answer for.

It’s like reading the script of a realy nasty horror movie- you want to stop, but you just can’t because you also want to see how much worse it gets…

Oh, and I love that “upper body male nudity” is considered noteworth by their rating standards.

So, has anyone seen it yet? What did you think?

Alex H said:

It’s like reading the script of a realy nasty horror movie- you want to stop, but you just can’t because you also want to see how much worse it gets…

Oh, and I love that “upper body male nudity” is considered noteworth by their rating standards.

What must they think about crucifixes? Damn near Total Male Frontal Nudity!

I was particularly interested in this part of the review:

In addition, CREATION uses fallacious “straw men” arguments by crudely depicting the Christians in its story as closed minded, cruel people. This convenient kind of portrayal is a primary technique of ill-conceived propaganda movies like this one. Not only does it hurt the movie’s humanist, anti-Christian arguments in support of Charles Darwin and evolution theory, it’s also bad filmmaking.

Yes.. umm.. heaven forbid anyone were to suggest that some Christians might be closed minded.

I suppose it would have been good filmmaking if Darwin spent most of his time eating babies and meeting with his dark master, Satan.

Nomad said:

I suppose it would have been good filmmaking if Darwin spent most of his time eating babies and meeting with his dark master, Satan.

Don’t forget about the part where Darwin stole HG Wells’ time machine in order to assume the identities of Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther.

Close-minded some Christians were, and some of them still are. I don’t know about the film depicting them as cruel, though. I’ll have to wait until I see it.

In addition, EXPELLED uses fallacious “straw men” arguments by crudely depicting the scientists in its story as closed minded, cruel people. This convenient kind of portrayal is a primary technique of ill-conceived propaganda movies like this one. Not only does it hurt the movie’s Christian arguments, it’s also bad filmmaking.

There, all fixed.

Now look, you can’t seriously produce a distorted piece of propaganda completely ignoring the last one hundred and fifty years of scientific research and demonizing science without expecting some sort of response. You can’t honestly accuse anyone else of being close minded when you paint all scientists as nazis out to brainwash everyone and take over the world. You can’t display that level of schizophrenic paranoia without someone pointing out that your are a dishonest charlatan with a persecution complex and delusions of grandeur. If you want to fight a culture war then you have to expect a response from the intelligent and educated segment of society. You don’t have to be a wus and cry about it. IF you want to see a quintessential example of close minded, take a look at how the so called CHristians behaved in Dover. Unfortunately that is all too typical of the behavior of the self proclaimed moral majority.

I thought it was Darwin, acting under the influence of The Master, who had “borrowed” the Doctor’s TARDIS to commit such dastardly deeds:

Stanton said:

Nomad said:

I suppose it would have been good filmmaking if Darwin spent most of his time eating babies and meeting with his dark master, Satan.

Don’t forget about the part where Darwin stole HG Wells’ time machine in order to assume the identities of Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther.

Agreed. I believe a fellow conservative, Judge John Jones, was mortified by the “civil” conduct from “Christian” spectators, especially those outside of the court building where the trial was held:

DS said:

In addition, EXPELLED uses fallacious “straw men” arguments by crudely depicting the scientists in its story as closed minded, cruel people. This convenient kind of portrayal is a primary technique of ill-conceived propaganda movies like this one. Not only does it hurt the movie’s Christian arguments, it’s also bad filmmaking.

There, all fixed.

Now look, you can’t seriously produce a distorted piece of propaganda completely ignoring the last one hundred and fifty years of scientific research and demonizing science without expecting some sort of response. You can’t honestly accuse anyone else of being close minded when you paint all scientists as nazis out to brainwash everyone and take over the world. You can’t display that level of schizophrenic paranoia without someone pointing out that your are a dishonest charlatan with a persecution complex and delusions of grandeur. If you want to fight a culture war then you have to expect a response from the intelligent and educated segment of society. You don’t have to be a wus and cry about it. IF you want to see a quintessential example of close minded, take a look at how the so called CHristians behaved in Dover. Unfortunately that is all too typical of the behavior of the self proclaimed moral majority.

John Kwok said:

I thought it was Darwin, acting under the influence of The Master, who had “borrowed” the Doctor’s TARDIS to commit such dastardly deeds

Don’t be childish, John. The Master couldn’t possibly conceive of a mind-crushing, soul-breaking evil as horrifyingly inconceivable as the concept of “descent with modification.”

Also, the movie does not mention that in his book, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Darwin Darwin wrote about the human eye, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Evolution scientists have never produced an adequate explanation for the creation of the human eye.….…

Ugh. Reading that review just made part of my brain weep out from between my ears.

Have these people no shame? Honestly. Or is that “dishonestly”?

Mike of Oz said:

Also, the movie does not mention that in his book, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Darwin Darwin wrote about the human eye, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Evolution scientists have never produced an adequate explanation for the creation of the human eye.….…

Ugh. Reading that review just made part of my brain weep out from between my ears.

Have these people no shame? Honestly. Or is that “dishonestly”?

I skipped over that part. I thought the review merely clueless. Now I know it is a shameless and deliberate lie. How these people can call themselves Christians defeats me.

Mike of Oz said:

Ugh. Reading that review just made part of my brain weep out from between my ears.

Have these people no shame? Honestly. Or is that “dishonestly”?

These people are humble Christians, ergo, they are arrogant, shameless, and free to speak any despicable slander so long as it’s supposed to help Jesus, somehow.

I’ve seen it. There’s next to no science in it. I suspect they’ve taken a lot of license to make for a more interesting film. I’m not sure I buy how the controversy between Emma & Charles played out. It absolutely is filmmakers right to dramatize but I’ll look for accuracy elsewhere. The clip with Huxley in the trailer, is the only time in the entire film we see Huxley.

For good films about Darwin, here’s two:

* PBS/Nova “Darwin’s Darkest Hour”, interviews on the PBS site state how much pain they taken to be accurate. I’ll take their word for it.

* The 1978 BBC series “The Voyage of Charles Darwin”. This contains lots of science. It portrays his life from just before the Beagle trip up until and the controversy after publication (including the Wilberforce smackdown). Narration sounded like taken from things Darwin himself wrote. Can be found on P2P

Haven’t seen it yet, but if anybody ever deserved some sweet, sweet Jennifer Connelly, it’s our boy Charlie D.

Creation: The True Story of Charles Darwin

Starring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly

http://www.creationthemovie.com/

Distributed in limited theaters through Newmarket Films

So apparently the movie ‘Creation’ opened in a whopping 7 theaters in the U.S. That’s right, 7!!! Oh how this angers me!! I guess the movie distributors are worried that this country just couldn’t handle a feature film about Charles Darwin! I guess they’re scared it’s going to turn us all into Atheists or something!! W…hat a joke! But on a positive note, apparently it sold out!!! Here’s to hoping! Still does not help us as the film is not showing in Utah! http://divine.blogs.starnewsonline.[…]s-the-south/

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?u[…];topic=13721

It probably just doesn’t have enough explosions, car crashes, or shootouts!

Henry J said:

It probably just doesn’t have enough explosions, car crashes, or shootouts!

But Charlie was cool enough that he wouldn’t even look at the explosion. He’d just turn around and walk away as it exploded in slow motion behind him.

misha said:

But Charlie was cool enough that he wouldn’t even look at the explosion. He’d just turn around and walk away as it exploded in slow motion behind him.

I can’t remember which book it’s in, but in one of S.J. Gould’s essays, he quotes from a couple of letters between “Charles D” and “The Hux,” and Darwin mentions doing exactly that. Huxley’s response was “DAMN CHARLES U R SO HARDCORE.” True story.

I saw Creation at a church in Clitheroe Lancashire.

It must be the worst and most inaccurate film ever produced on Darwin, probably exceeding the errors of the CMI film.

It would take too long to list all the historical inaccuracies.

Basically it was dishonest crap.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on January 20, 2010 1:18 PM.

Darwin’s finches was the previous entry in this blog.

Graduate Opportunities in EEB at Houston is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter