TIFF #4: Darwin walks out on Genesis

If the Supreme Court rules the way it seems poised to on campaign finance, 2012 will be the end of the world for American democracy.

I think the Mayans grew tired of making a calender. They just figured they wouldn't make it past 2012 anyway and called it quis. Hand cramps are just not fun.

But a more important question: Does the movie include a scene with Jennifer Connolly standing on a pier looking out at the ocean?

I can't wait to see both movies: Creation and 2012.

Having now seen "Creation", can you explain the title to me? Is it about the creation of his theory? The creation of life, naturally? Other?

Also, you asked:

I ask myself, do we really need to watch the Darwins edging around the substance of their disagreement?

I have two thoughts here:

- Is that a function of the era? Would a wife have "edged" around topics in an 1859 household?

- It doesn't need to be 1859. I have experience with that in my house. You know me - I read books on both sides of the Evolution / ID debate. When my wife sees me sitting in a chair reading Darwin or Dawkins, she worries that I might be drifting from the faith. She's told me so. I really don't discuss the topic much at home. Only on The Longest Thread, and it's sequel!

On 2012, I'm doing a lot of reading on that too. I think that I'll be going to work on Dec 22, 2012 - unless it's a day off for holiday time. A name of an "age" might change. Age of Aquarius and all. But we'll be here. But, I do love a good conspiracy theory...

Are you having fun there?

Randy

Ebert: The title is left in a general sense, unless it refers to the creation of his book.

I love that opening paragraph. I'm not quite sure you're right about many [American] Christians feeling fine with evolution vs religion. I mean, you would be hard pressed to find many who would volubly express their feelings but I believe that many of them feel evolution is wrong/untrue...but because of the height it's taken in our world especially school's science etc they're not incredibly wont to say it's bad or whatever. But I think if it came down to end they'd probably say they DON'T believe in it.

I want to see this though. Bettany has been flirting with excellence for a while and I really want to see Jennifer C. in a movie where she impresses me. Does this film have distribution though?

Was Creation the only film you saw today, or was it the only film that had such an impact on you that you needed to do a preview write up on it?

As a catholic i agree with darwin. People walking out on a film should either walk out if its entirely bad, or else why attend the damn film at all. Darwin wasn't 100% but he got the ball rolling and had alot of other vital roles in science.
2012 thats just offensive to me considering there have been found further dates in some calenders, Thats just as bad as ben stein saying that creationism is the correct method. Maybe ill pity the walkouts, just like the people who bought tickets to see Norbit.

Ha! I plan to read the rest immediately following this comment, but weaving that Wilson reference into the first paragraph was spot on! What can't the Ebert do?

Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?

Because they knew that Roland Emmerich would come along, their society committed suicide. They had one look at the 21st century and went, oh bugger, this ain't worth it, let's all die.

I appreciate you referring to Darwin's "theory of the origin of species" rather than some "Theory of Evolution." I'm as much a Darwin cheerleader as you are, but again, his achievement was explaining how evolution worked, not postulating that it existed. (It's true to say he "codified" evolution, not discovered it). He didn't even see the full picture, which Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould largely filled in with their theory of punctuated equilibrium. That is, when evolution doubters pointed out the lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record, Eldridge and Gould said, no, Darwin was wrong in assuming species only changed little by little, and that they often changed in rapid bursts due to sudden geological isolation or a radical genetic mutation that was enormously advantageous for a strain of the species.

What wonderful things to think about. It's hard to think of a better lens than natural selection for pondering physics, society and philosophical notions such as determinism, and it doesn't take much for thoughts to turn to our own biographies. As Herzog would say, how do we live in this world? Are the paths of our lives better representations of gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?

I saw that preview and I said, "please don't be another deathly serious melodrama about the life of a famous person struck by tragedy, and only gloss over the controversial issues that are actually relevant and interesting." From what you said, it sounds like that is what happened. I'll still see it.... Maybe I'll even like it. But I really, really wanted it to be an examination of the religious sensibilities he was up against, and how he overcame them, and how he addressed issues intelligently that would really speak to people today.... Maybe it does all that too. I just feel like, from the preview and from what you said, it's too "understanding" to the people who may disagree with his theory. Like, I feel that it may dumb down the ToE and maybe elevate the creationist viewpoint so that they are at an (almost) even keel.

Rog, I don't think you're ever going to get your fix from a motion picture on this topic. You will get more nourishment from a conversation, This Blog, or reading a book.
Or maybe we can write and film a quasi-docu/drama starring you and Wallace Shawn "My Dinner With Roger"

I'd give it three thumbs up, since two's copyrighted

P.S Loved the 'Troll' comment to the faux
Rob Schneider.

The Mayans may not have foreseen the end of their civilization, but surly we should have all the confidence in the end of their calendar that we do in the start- August 11, 3114 BC.

Mr. Ebert,

I noticed from the Creation website, Wikipedia and other sources that as of now it will only be released in the U.K. Have you heard anything about a U.S. release date at the Toronto FF?

Thank you. Always a pleasure reading your thoughts.

Ebert: No U.S. release date yet.

Reply to: Roger Ebert: Today, no major religion finds conflict between God and the theory of evolution. The majority of Christians can live with both ideas; religious opposition to Darwin is limited to a fundamentalist minority of American Christians.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

In the results of 8 Gallup polls taken between June, 1993 and May, 2008:

Which statement comes closest to your views:

1) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so? (44% in 1997, steady at 44% in 2008)

2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, (Between 36% and 39% of Americans)

3) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, (9% in 1999, up to 14 percent in 2007 and 2008)

GALLUP QUESTION #2: What do you think should be taught in public school science classes? (2005)

Evolution 61%

Creationism 54%

Intelligent Design 43%

According to the 2005 Gallup poll, more Americans thought Creationism should be taught than Intelligent Design.

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/03/gallup-more-than-half-of-americans.html

NEW YORK A Gallup poll, in September 2005, posed the question this way:

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings."

53% "God created man exactly how Bible describes it,"

31% "Humans did evolve, but God guided."

12% "Humans did evolve and God had no part."

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from."

Darwin rejected the idea of God guiding the process:

"Darwin wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249.)

============

If we define "Religious opposition to Darwin's ideas" by the individuals who responded to Gallup's polls, the figure is ~80% of Americans. Which is pretty close to the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Christian.

By no means is this a minority opinion.. and that suggests why the producers of "Creation" were afraid to state the conflict in greater detail.

Ebert: They are entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't reflect the theology of their church leaders.

I personally haven't seen the film, I will admit, but it sounds to me based on what you said that it's just another typical biopic about another famous historical person. The fact that it's about Darwin makes little difference to me.

"I expected the film to be focused on Darwin's theory of the origin of species and the controversy it provoked in mid-19th century, but it is primarily about his domestic life, centering on Down House, Bromley, where he and his wife Emma lived from 1842 until until his death in 1882."

Wouldn't it had been better if the film was about the controversy provoked in the mid-19th century instead of focusing on his domestic life? Now that would be a movie I would pay to see. I like movies that challenge me and make think and force me to evaluate my ideas and beliefs. It sounds like, based on reading this, that doesn't take that daring approach and it just sounds like another biopic.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of biopics. I'm not saying biopics are a bad thing, but now in days, I've seen so many biopics that they have become a parody of themselves. If a filmmaker is going to make a biopic about somebody, I kindly ask that person take some risks and raise it about the average biopic. "Capote" a couple years ago was a step in the right direction in terms of biopics because 1) it focused only on an important event on Truman Capote's life and 2) it showed fascinating and heartbreaking themes about the nature of art and writing for the soul. But that was four years ago. Where's the next great biopic?

Now we have "Creation", which is about Charles Darwin, a very controversial figure. You would think that with a such a controversial figure, you would eventually have a movie that would take the biopic genre and make it an avenue for discussion about the nature of human existence (Evolution vs. Intelligent Design). Instead, it sounds another typical biopic where it follows the story of his life and how he came about writing "Origin of the Species", and blah, blah, blah. No offense, but that's boring. How does that add anything to the discussion? How does that make people want to talk about the theological points that still cause controversy today? If I wanted a domestic drama, I would pop in "Kramer Vs. Kramer."

I know that I haven't seen the film, so I know I'm not in a position to judge the film's quality, but to be brutally honest, I'm sick of biopics that are mainly about "This born was born, he led this life, he did this that made him famous" and blah, blah, blah. Okay. I get it. If I wanted to know that, I go pick up the biography or watch a biography special on it on TV. When I go to the movies, I want something new brought to the table that will come and challenge my thinking, and with Darwin being such a controversial figure, you would think that would be the perfect opportunity to do something like that. Alas, that doesn't sound the case.

2012 is about as likely as Y2K, and in the terms of the Mayan calendar, it amounts to the same thing. Just like our calendar is divided into days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and millenia, the Mayan calendar is broken up, and what happens in 2012 is essentially the equivalent of the new millennium of the Mayan calendar. It will be a time of celebration, not the apocalypse.

I don't understand why we have to keep getting into hysterics about something we have no control over (unless we have Bruce Willis and a nifty team of American oil drillers that is). If the world ends during my lifetime, so be it.

I, for one, refuse to spend my life living in fear.

"Today, no major religion finds conflict between God and the theory of evolution. The majority of Christians can live with both ideas; religious opposition to Darwin is limited to a fundamentalist minority of American Christians."

I, for one, have absolutely no idea why some Christians have no problem reconciling the notion of evolution with Bibical Christianity. This does not have anything to do with being a fundamentalist or not; it just seems to me to be very inconsistent to believe both:

A. Death has existed ever since life began, and before humans came on to the scene. (I.e. Death was the process used by God to create.)

B. Death came to be only after sin.

To reject A is to reject evolution; to reject B is to reject Biblical Christianity. I have no problem whatsoever with people who reject one or the other, but find it perplexing that people can believe both. Sloppy science and sloppy faith, I maintain.

Roger: Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?

After 2012, let's all breathe a sigh of relief. I know I did when nothing happened to my computer at the turn of the century.

I too would worry about how Jennifer would feel :P.

Anyway. I would be relieved to watch this movie after Antichrist (I SAW it!). To step away from the primordial mess of that movie, and bask in reality. It must have been a great relief :).

Also.

I had no idea 2012 was opening on Friday the 13.

What.

I'm going to be pissed if 2012 is really the end. Hopefully the next singularity happens FAST.

I think that most movies I've seen have cast debates as mere conflicts instead of actual polemics. Contact is perhaps one that tries for debate, but I thought it came maddeningly short of some conclusions. Goodnight, and Good Luck, maybe? But that assumed from the outset that McCarthy was wrong, as it should have. 12 Angry Men, definitely...that's the entire point of the movie. A few others: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and To Kill a Mockingbird. Just about any courtroom drama. But a lot of the classic films have dueling perspectives of larger than life characters rather than true intellectual debates.

Anyway, I was kind of hoping that the movie would be shot with a naturalist's eye. Following the emergence of his theory through his voyages would be interesting, but perhaps that's too wide a scope for this film as imagined by its director.

Ha! Great comment about the Mayans not being able to predict their own demise, which would of been a lot more current news of the time... Maybe the guy doing the calendars just got lazy or knew that their culture wouldn't live to enjoy the TIFF.

Its really gratifying to hear all the amazingly positive press about the TIFF (though as a Canadian, I have to act humbly surprised). I am a Hamiltonian, which is just down the QEW south east of Toronto, now living in New Zealand. I would love to enjoy some SPLENDID Tim Horton's coffee and a vanilla dip donut, just before taking in Bad Lieutenant.

Hope you're enjoying my province of Ontario as good as I remember it and I will continue to read your updates. All the best Mr. Ebert

"Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?"

Obvious, when you think about it. Like every other movie civilization conceived, real or imagined, they were much more concerned with helping us than themselves. And isn't that the way it should be?

I still think that it is amazing that the two of the most influential men of the nineteenth century, Darwin and Lincoln, were born on the same day.

Mr. Emmerich just can't get aroused unless he sees things explode, that's the only conclusion in my mind given his obsession with what I can only call "Disaster porn".

Wow, I really need to see "Inherit the Wind". While I am kind of disappointed that a movie about Darwin doesn't do justice to the Theory itself, it is nevertheless a very good thing that more people will see that the man himself wasn't some cold, ruthless ogre out to assassinate God. His theory does, of course, eliminate all reason to believe in a supernatural creator, but I don't think Darwin was all together gratified with that particular implication of his research. What alarms me is that Charles' and Emma's disagreements are portrayed as "personality characteristics" - there were very, VERY specific reasons for the disagreement, and they have to do with science and theology. If the movie just doesn't focus on that aspect of their lives, that's okay - but if it actively shrinks away from it, I am appalled. Anyway, I absolutely must watch the film.

By the way, am I first? No, I'm not. You read stuff before it goes up. Damn.

Mr. Ebert, I always enjoy reading your work, and I feel a bit callous asking for this. But I live in the UK, and Creation comes out there (in two weeks) before it comes out in the US. I would really like to know if you recommend this or not, especially since in this article you have a mixed opinion. Perhaps one of the old thumbs up or thumbs down. Again, thank you so much for writing and I look forward to the rest of your coverage.

I can't help but wonder if Randy Masters was the guy walking out.

A few people have remarked about 2012's similarity to a lot of the 1970s disaster porn movies. If it's true that history repeats itself, can we please skip ahead to the next decade so we can get the equivalent of the early 1980s?

Yes, its quite clear. The brown-dwarf distant companion to the Sun, about which circles the destroyer, Nibiru, will come within the inner parts of our solar system late in 2012, just as the Mayans predicted and destroy the Earth. Oh yeah, except there is not a shread of evidence to support this assertion, and the barest 'evidence' that we have a dark star companion or an additional planet Nibiru comes from ancient Sumarian tablets, which are neat to be sure, but we can't really base such precise prediction on a 5,000 years old civilization, albeit the first one.

So, death by some other method at least, or else we can all keep our day jobs well in to 2013, which nicely coincides with President Obama's second term, we can rest easy :)

Miles Blanton

"Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?"

A lot of my college classmates are fretting about the 2012 Mayan prophecy, and I ask them this very question.

I have yet to get a valid response.

So, "Creation" is sort of "Becoming Charles". Maybe it can be interesting, I think. It's funny that 21th century movie is less outspoken than "Inherit the Wind". I watched DVD several years ago, and I am considering watching it again.

I learned about Alfred Russell Wallace for the first time from some Ellery Queen mystery book and have heard about him from biology classes again and again. Queen took advantage of the fact that Wallace has been far more obscure compared to Darwin. I wonder whether the movie can be made from Wallace's life, but, as far as I know, his life was far less dramatic.

I find it funny that the people least concerned about this Mayan 'prophecy' are Mayan scholars themselves; they understand best that there was no prediction of doomsday or apocalypse for the end of the calendar, it's just the end of one cycle and the start of the next.

If I recall, the Mayans did not even have calendar-based celebrations; it was merely used by the priests to track the flow of the seasons. As often occurs, the truth is underwhelming next to the created fiction.

I was always hoping someone would make a Darwin drama that was about the Origin of the Species, not necessarily Darwin and his wife and their religious views but I think you have to be right in assuming that there are pressures on this, even still. The Passion of the Christ on one hand, Darwin on the other. Follow the money.

My understanding is that 2012 represents a numerical symmetry in the formal or ceremonial Mayan calendar. It is true the Mayans, like many pre Columbian civilizations, thought of history as a cylindrical series of creation and destruction cycles. I believe the symmetries of 2012 prompted speculation as a possible Apocalypse but it was more akin to idle ideas about the year 2000 or 1000 AD in the west. It was not a serious or central tenant in their theology.

It was my understanding that the Mayan calendar does not really "end" in 2012; it was more like what happens when the odometer of your car reaches 999,999.9. Your car doesn't "end" when you drive the next 0.2 miles; and neither does their calendar. I wonder if 12-22-2012 will even be as traumatic as Y2K was......

As far as Darwin and "Creation", Olivia Judson in the NY Times had an interesting take on this film: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/the-creation-of-charles-darwin/

The creation OF charles darwin.

I can't wait to see this.

Regarding these prophecies, I find it so annoying that they are almost always cryptic. Why can't they just give us the date and time, and we'll avoid going there. You know, like traffic reports. From beyond the grave...

Ebert [on the faithful who reject evolution]: "They are entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't reflect the theology of their church leaders."

Happens all the time. Consider Scalia's open disparagement of Pope John Paull II's anti-capital punishment position. Let's not even get into the widespread disregard among Catholics for JPII's anti-Iraq war statements. I guess they're waiting for something they can really get behind, like a Crusade or Inquisition.

*****

Ebert: "Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?"

Given their views on the role of blood sacrifice in creation, maybe their particular deaths were not all that important. But the end of time means the end of creation; now there's an attention-grabber.

"religious opposition to Darwin is limited to a fundamentalist minority of American Christians." Bzzt! Wrong-o. Not only are there Christian groups outside America that also denounce it, but many other religions are hardly any more hospitable to the concepts.

As long as the Mayan prophecy doesn't mention Sarah Palin, I think we'll be okay.

It is interesting that there may be some 'pressures' upon the films makers to withhold the full force of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
I'd find that very disappointing if the presumed sensitivity of the audience pressured the movie's makers to distort the original history.
We live in a period of emotion as opposed to one of 'Realism,' and if one looks through Western history since the Dark Ages there has been a very clear rocking back and forth every generation between reason and emotion. The rest of the world hasn't really been on board with this post Dark Age 'modernism' other nations and cultures are just a consumer of it, or an enabler of it's worst aspects.
But this flip flop called by some as Romanticism vs Realism, isn't, as is assumed by a pipe smoking historian, a perpetual orderly process; it's, in my estimation, like a chimp rocking the fridge back and forth; too stupid to figure out how to open it for the bananas it wants to steal before its keeper gets back -- with some very unsettling results in store for both.
It's been a fast and frantic effort without much consciousness or intelligence behind man's 'modern' progress, and it's affected the whole of life on earth just with the oil production alone. The 'ape' is likely going to destroy the fridge.
The chimp is basically ignorant greedy people who misuse the inventions, ideas and discoveries of such as Newton, Darwin, Einstein and others provided (nourishment within the fridge). The ape's muscles likened as traditions, religions and basic instincts...very strong indeed -- and, they may well tear the whole thing to pieces.
Or is it to 'kill the goose that lays the golden eggs' a better analogy?
If this sounds like pessimism; my brother went to Chicago last week to buy a large boat he thinks will float him during this 2012 end of world prediction from those Mayans (sounds like a potential updated story in the Cantebury Tales) He is very certain doomsday will come to pass. Why he thinks being at sea will save him for a time is beyond me?
Mayans who couldn't even for.etell their own demise. Ha!
Doesn't he realize it'll be the giant turtles underpinning the earth ... running amuck, and that'll cause the oceans to splish splash -- only Air Force One will survive

The Mayans quit with their calendar-making because of the difficulty of finding hot girls or firemen to feature in them every month.

And a real evolution aficionado would have understood that nothing ever really "collapses." It only changes form. Indeed, Mayan culture reappears in the crowning achievement of western culture, movies. (I speak facetiously, of course.)

So-called evolution, driven by the principle "survival of the fittest," faces some problems given that no individual entity or life form, no matter how fit, survives. But the entire purpose of evolution must be survival, in other words, immortality.

Therefore, the only really relevant question to be asked by an astute evolutionist, has to be "What is immortality? What actually survives?" That this inquiry is never even entertained, indicates that the whole field remains in, at best, its early adolescence.

That website for the movie was amazing. The way these websites have evolved -- admittedly over a very long period of time -- is just so interesting. There are some websites, however, that look like monkeys designed them.

Omer M

He didn't even see the full picture, which Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould largely filled in with their theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Not to get over pedantic here, but PE was hardly a hole filler. In fact, a good many biologists don't particularly even see the need for it. Certainly speciation is a lot more complex than Darwin envisioned, but the real guy who "filled in the holes" was Ernst Mayr, probably one of the greatest biologists, or scientists, for that matter, who ever lived, who laid the groundwork for the New Synthesis, combing Darwinian evolution and genetics.

Punctuated Equilibrium solves a problem that most likely doesn't actually exist.

I'll likely go see 2012 if only for the visuals, but I'm going to be so sick of the pop misleading and misunderstanding about that date. The Mayans predicted the end of the world in 2012 the same way my calendar predicts it will end on December 31 2009 :)

Well, I'm definitely interested in seeing Creation and I hope the release date is not too far off, but these things seem to take awhile.

I have thought for some time that if over half of our population believes that the earth and its creatures were originally created in their current from as in Genesis (and they do), we were doomed. 2012 seems a bit early for that path towards destruction to end though. Meanwhile, I see the publicity-seeking meteorites are at it again, this time in the trailer to 2012.

And speaking of multiple universes, string theory and adajacent realities, rumor has it on one of those other earths God has a name.
It is Russ Meyer.
Yowza!!!!!

Gotta wonder if Bettany was cast for his performance in _Master and Commander_, given that that's the Darwin "type".. Though he does look uncannily like that portrait of Darwin as a young man..

ps: _Master and Commander_ was my 'buy Bluray player' title, while _The Big Lebowski_ was my 'buy HDDVD player' title..

I don't think there was anything ominous about the Mayan calendar ending where it does. Their civilization simply died out before they got around to creating a new one beyond the year 2012. After all, there were still several centuries left for them perform the task.

"Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?"

A lot of my college classmates are fretting about the 2012 Mayan prophecy, and I ask them this very question.

I have yet to get a valid response."

Now, before I say anything, I want to make clear that I am not a doomsday freak, nor saying that December 21, 2012 is the end of the world.

Having said that, in response to the above poster, it is very simple.
If with our technology we were able to identify a comet or an asteroid which would without a doubt intersect the orbit of the earth in, say, 2219 we would be able to make preperations and try to avert disaster, pass the information down to our future generations, etc...but if along the way two countries with nuclear capabilities got really pissed at each other and started world war three, it could destroy our civilization before the 2219 impact.

In one case we are extrapolating information from observable phenomenon which, if left unchanged, would result in a verifiable result.
In the second case we can extrapolate potential outcomes based on current conditions, but if the conditions change the date of nuclear Armegeddon would be moved forward or backward.

Nuclear destruction would be a variable. Impact from an observed comet would be a constant. (Unless we cheated and changed the rules, as in sent Bruce Willis with some warheads to blow the thing up).

In the case of the Mayans, there is the potential (not certainity) that they knew something that we don't because it was lost through the ages and the way they preserved that information was through a cyclical calendar. Knowing that something which would spell the end for humanity would not affect a mass infection of smallpox 200 years down the road which would be a random event with catastrophic results (for them, not us).

This is all based on a lot of conjecture. Could they have known about astounding astronomical observation handed down from a previous civilation greater than ours which has been lost, who knew about (fill in the blank --- dark star, 12th planet Zechariah Sitchin theory, planetary/cosmic/solar alignments)?

Could they have seen the passing of a heavenly body and extrapolated position, timing, etc. to forecast a future impact?

Could they have just had REALLY good vision? Ok, joking on that one.

Regardless, you are comparing apples to oranges. They would not have been predicting the future. They would have been recording an inevitable event and passing that information to future generations.

Knowing when your civilization will die of starvation, disease, invaders, etc. has nothing to do with the 2012 end calendar date.

Oddly, (you can flame me on this one, feel free) the end date is supposed to be 12/21/2012 at 11:11 GMT. Not to sound like an idiot (have I failed at that already?) but for the past 10 years I have been seeing those damned numbers 11:11 everywhere, when I least expect it, and supposedly there are tons of people who are saying the same thing about their personal lives. Glance at a watch and it says 11:11, etc.

Now THAT I find weird. But, 12/21/2012? Well, I will definitely take the time to glance at my watch and watch the news as 11:11 GMT approaches on 12/21/2012, but yeah, I suspect with a 99.99% degree of confidence that I will have to go back to work in Jan. 2013.

Sigh. All work and no play makes Jack a......uh, wait....might be best not to quote a lunatic at this point.

Does Paul Bettany actively pursue roles in movies offensive to the Christian viewpoint? "The DaVinci Code," "Legion," "Priest," "Creation." Maybe there are some I'm missing. It seems like he's not simply acting in movies anymore, but has some sort of vendetta he's carrying out via his film work.

I'm sure I'm just being silly.

Ebert: I think you are. Like any actor, he must be happy to take a promising project. He'd play a saint in a good screenplay.

vincent wrote:

"I, for one, have absolutely no idea why some Christians have no problem reconciling the notion of evolution with Bibical Christianity. This does not have anything to do with being a fundamentalist or not; it just seems to me to be very inconsistent to believe both:
A. Death has existed ever since life began, and before humans came on to the scene. (I.e. Death was the process used by God to create.)
B. Death came to be only after sin.
To reject A is to reject evolution; to reject B is to reject Biblical Christianity. I have no problem whatsoever with people who reject one or the other, but find it perplexing that people can believe both. Sloppy science and sloppy faith, I maintain."

that would be me.

as a christian, i find this kind of thinking presumptuous, at best, and maddeningly patronizing at worst. first of all, "death was the process used by God to create" -what...the...hell...does..that...mean? such a canned, trite, seemingly theologically bullet proof statement is way too loaded for one to write and not explain. "sloppy" writing??? could you care to expand on that for all us sloppy people?

"death coming only after sin". say more about this please, and how i cannot buy into evolution and this idea simultaneously. here you tread on more familiar ground, but again, you are seemingly aiming for something that you are thinking is the size of a barn, when in fact the whole "problem of evolution" is nothing but a less than significant blip on the screen for many many christians who do just fine with the bible. jesus is alright with us, as it were, and the bible is the best story ever told.

i would also argue that when people throw around terms like "biblical christianity", it is seldom ever, ever explained just who gets to decide what is biblical or not. it is sheer arrogance to think that if one does not adhere to one way of reading scripture than it is surely lack of intellect, or mushy faith. it is here where you truly offend. the line you draw in the sand has the intent of corralling orthodox belief, but does little more than create an elite, correct us and a sloppy, immature them. or was that really the intent all along?
fighting a theological monster and becoming a spiritual one to do so???? i believe jesus would have a word or two about that.

cinematic side note: paul bettany was FANTASTIC in "master and commander" as the ships doctor and "naturalist". the scenes of him exploring the galopagos islands were worth admission alone...

Roger says: "This will adamantly not be a review of "Creation," which will await its opening. It will be a discussion of some of the thoughts it inspires."

Hmmm.

Anyway, I'm glad you were able to abstain -- adamantly! -- from reviewing the film. Actually, as much as I'm enjoying the TIFF posts, I'm equally enjoying your indefensible but utterly charming angst about the distinction between a "review" and blogging your "impressions." You're plainly losing the battle to come up with some coherent, bright line principle that harmonizes your impulses to talk about the films you see with an Earnest and Julio Gallo dedication to sell no wine before its time. That you find it a fight worth fighting and, better still, have laid on the table your psychic tug of war on this issue is what matters.

Perhaps Jeff Dowd will induce someone to punch him again, and you will be taken off the hook in some of your next installments!

Ebert: Oh, I'm completely confused.

Quoth Wikipedia, "Most Maya inscriptions are strictly historical and do not make any prophetic declarations." and "[M]ore recent academic scholars have specifically disputed the apocalyptic interpretation of the Long Count calendar end-date, saying instead that it would be a cause for celebration but [sic] that the cycle would continue uninterrupted by any cataclysmic event."

It sounds like "Creation" isn't about science so much as people. Maybe some were disappointed for that reason, wishing it more akin to "Evolution" on PBS? Or maybe it's a problem with the script, not enough meat on its bones, Darwin "lite" and all that?

This much I do know: seeing mention of the following in Roger's entry made me smile broadly...

"The rather beautiful "Creation" web site.."

YES! FINALLY! (Someone has noticed.)

Oh, but we want something to debate, something to argue about, goes up the cry! We don't want to see his domestic life! Blech! Did you know that actor Paul Bettany is married to Jennifer Connolly? I did. And so if nothing else, I'm sure they had chemistry. :)

"The film is much concerned with his grief at the loss of Anne (1841-51) who was one of the brightest and most delightful, and whose direct questions perhaps helped embolden him to publish On the Origin of Species in 1859, after a 20-year delay."

There's a magnifying glass on the website for "Creation" and it moves with your mouse, offering you a close-up look at beetles and butterflies so that you might marvel at their creation; and isn't God in the details? Not argue about how they evolved. Perhaps Darwin was inspired by more than what he studied to study it in the first place, moreover, eh? Maybe, just maybe, his home life played a part too, and his book "Creation" was created by something more than most men tend to celebrate. The wonder and awe of it all, and as seen through the eyes of children - and this has no currency for some film goers?

The film secured a Canadian distributor this week via Toronto-based upstart "D Films", so we'll get to see it. I'm looking forward to it. For even if the script is weak, I can see an apothecary jar next to Paul Bettany in that photo Roger's used! And when I played the trailer, I saw all kinds of things to admire! True; I'm reacting to colors and textures and light, to the cinematography and art direction, but that said and again:

"Initially, I never felt any closer to Darwin than any other figure [in history],” explained Amiel, explaining how the idea for the project evolved. “Initially to me, he was this edifice who hid behind this beard and crazy eyebrows.” For Amiel, Darwin grew from simply being a figure he admired to someone he “deeply loved” after slowly growing to understand the vexing questions behind the process which lead to “Origin.”

"The film is about the creative process to creating a masterpiece - and the process for being in touch with one’s own creativity,” said Amiel. “On one level, it’s a portrait of a great thinker, but it’s also a portrait of an artist and the journey Darwin traveled to make this great work.” Although mostly unknown to the generations of scientists and admirers of Darwin, he dealt with issues of guilt and love as well as the conflict between faith and thought while writing his thoughts on natural selection in the book published in 1859. “He was a deeply tormented man and incredibly sensitive man,” added Amiel." - www.indiewire.com

Yeah, yeah... but we want to ARGUE about stuff, Marie! We don't want to watch a chic movie - we want to talk about how stuff evolved and who made it and be last man standing once we're done!

FINE. Here, also from the TIFF - argue about something you can actually win. :)

"The Damned United" - Tom Hooper (Britain)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYzsswqPk6s

"Set in 1960s and 1970s England, THE DAMNED UNITED tells the confrontational and darkly humorous story of Brian Cloughs doomed 44 day tenure as manager of the reigning champions of English football Leeds United. Previously managed by his bitter rival Don Revie (Colm Meaney), and on the back of their most successful period ever as a football club, Leeds had an aggressive and cynical style of football - an anathema to the principled yet flamboyant Brian Clough, who had achieved astonishing success as manager of Hartlepool and Derby County building teams in his own vision with trusty lieutenant Peter Taylor. Taking the Leeds job without Taylor by his side, with a changing room full of Dons boys, would lead to an unheralded examination of Cloughs belligerence and brilliance over 44 days. This is that story. The story of The Damned United."

Chuckle!

Reply to: Ebert: They are entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't reflect the theology of their church leaders.

For this blog, I don't mind going for a stricter definition.

Reply to: Ebert: Did it occur to Darwin or his wife that nothing in his ideas precluded the existence of God? Today, no major religion finds conflict between God and the theory of evolution. The majority of Christians can live with both ideas; religious opposition to Darwin is limited to a fundamentalist minority of American Christians.

The point of the movie was that EVERYTHING in Natural Selection precluded the interference of God in the process.

Catholic Church says that Evolution may have happened, but if it happened, then it was guided by God. That is exactly the position that Darwin found unacceptable.

If his scientific theories had not required him to find it unacceptable, his dispute with his wife wouldn't have weighed so heavily on him.

Let me give a better source for that letter:

Charles Darwin: I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition ‘of new powers and attributes and forces,’ or of any ‘principle of improvement’, except in so far as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. . . I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.

Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II (Basic Books: New York, 1959), 6-7.

Darwin explicitly rejected the possibility of divine intervention in his version of evolution.

Actor Paul Bettany: "...Darwin has been demonized by the conservative Christian right as sort of anti-Christ. I would hope that anybody who had that image of Darwin would have those ideas dispelled by the portrait of a man in enormous conflict, basically a socially conservative man who found himself drawn to seemingly deeply subversive conclusions. (The movie is about) what happens to a man who is married to a devoutly Christian woman — who he adores — and how he manages to reconcile his scientific beliefs with his love for his wife when his daughter dies and shatters his belief in a benign deity. .... we were interested in making a very passionate portrait of an extraordinary mind in a state of extraordinary conflict. My hope is audiences come away inspired to think about Darwin’s ideas and carry them forward."

Bettany: ....a book by Randal [Hume] Keynes (Darwin’s great-great-grandson (and production consultant for the film). This book is built of family memoirs (diaries, letters and objects) rather than out of a big ideological or theoretical base. Suddenly, when you start reading his letters and you start hearing the story of his relationship with his 10-year-old daughter who died, you find yourself

Actor Paul Bettany: Darwin was a social conservative who had a revolutionary idea, and it was very difficult for him. I think once he had this idea, he couldn't help seeing how it fit like a glove everywhere he looked, in the indifferent cruelty of nature. I am an atheist. But I don't think it's a film about atheism, I think it's a film about a man who became at least agnostic, as I think he always called himself. The film is set up to do all of that. When their child dies, he goes to science and she goes to religion. And the exact thing that he is working on is potentially going to take her solace away. So I think that's an incredibly moving and dynamic thing to play.... Like I say, I don't think it is a film about atheism, but for me, as an atheist, to have a viable alternative is incredibly important. The difficulty of looking at a system like natural selection if you have any sort of moral sense yourself, is almost what makes it beautiful. It's a spur to try and rise above our own nature. Human beings have brains that are big enough to take them out of that brutality, and that is a faith of sorts, because it's in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (end)

From an interview with Adam Rutherford in The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/12/charles-darwin-rutherford

I think my point is, Organized Religion rejects the conclusions about Natural Selection that Darwin considered essential to HIS version of Evolution. And there were other scientists and authors who published different books... but we're talking about Charles Darwin, and Darwin rejected the idea of a God who assisted evolution.

If we're talking about the Catholic Church, I need to document the position of the current Pope:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God." The first Thou that – however stammeringly – was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

– Joseph Ratzinger
Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, S.D.S. Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16

The Christian position hinges on the existence of a spirit, a Holy Spirit, a supernatural entity... and there's where the conflict with Darwin is centered.

Personally, I agree with Bettany. If God does not exist, there's an extraordinary moral dilemma with a Church that claims authority from God. When the local minister starts quoting from Genesis, I'd be tempted to walk out the door. I might even shout "You lie!" In fact, I'd probably walk up to the pulpit and shout "You lie."

I really don't understand why this is such a big deal to the religious types:

Darwin and evolution only refer to the physical vehicle of man--not the soul, the spiritual vehicle of man, which is what really counts.

Is everyone clear now?

"I ask myself, do we really need to watch the Darwins edging around the substance of their disagreement?"

What would you have them do, something more cinematically engaging? What if this is what they actually did? Can we know for sure? When lacking knowledge of private details like this is it appropriate to fill out such scenes with characterizations that are unlikely or unsupported rather then those that are entertaining or engaging. I mean, when you are going to have a discussion with your spouse, do you pause and think "hmm, I better make this witty and engaging for posterity should someone film my biography years hence"?

It is certainly appropriate to have such a film during 2009, but not just because of the contrived importance of it being a 200th anniversary, but because this has happened, the film can capitalize on the public's awareness and interest.

I think the title is very clever and challenging, anyway. To name a film about a man whose theories undermined the notion of Creation would be itself called "Creation" is a subtle work of genius because the word, as you say, could simply mean the creation of his book. How many other films would such a gimmick work on? A film about Satan called "Jesus" or a film about Republicans called "Democrat" or, well, you get the idea.

There were two quotes in the preview which bothered me a little. The first is where he is told "congratulations, you have just killed God." I found that a bit... smarmy? Such a phrase is uttered today, and although he may have very well been told that, it sounds like the screenplay is reaching out to slap us with dialogue we are familiar with even if the characters didn't say it.

The second and worse one is when his daughter says "what are you so scared of, its ONLY a theory." That made me cringe for two reasons. First, it is even less likely that this would be said (by a child, no less) back then than the previous quote, and so it is more obviously a nod to the modern (but foolish) criticism, and this makes it a cheap attempt at being "relative." Second, Darwin's response suggests that even he didn't think very highly of the term "theory" in a scientific context. Perhaps he also gives her that lecture and it was left out of the preview.

Your writing has made me very excited to see Creation and AntiChrist. I know the latter is playing in the CIFF but I'm not sure yet about the former. Also, I know you enjoy a good Onion piece, so I thought you'd appreciate this one about our alma mater. Enjoy!

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/university_of_illinois?utm_source=a-section

"Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?"

Perhaps they did. Predicting your world will far apart doesn't mean you can do anything about it. That's why Cassandra was a tragic figure and not a hopeful one.

They better be wrong, I'm planning a trip to Hawaii in 2013!

Okay, Roger. I have let it pass a few times, but I must now take a stand. Jennifer Connelly has been my favorite actress since I was in elementary school in the 80's. Everytime I found a clipping of her from a magazine, or a poster of her from a theater willing to give it away, I pasted it on my wall. In high school, my friend came into my room and said "I really hope that she never sees this, because you look like a serial killer." Well, my brother got tired of looking at her and tore it all down while I was in college. I am still irked about that. Oh yes, my point, my point...

It is ConnElly. Not ConnOlly. ConnElly. E. E...e. Got it?

PS. I am disheartened that she has lost so much weight. Is it peer pressure from Hollywood? The last film I saw her in was "He's Just Not That Into You" and she looked terribly thin. I like My Jennifer Connellys voluptuous and sensual, like in "The Rocketeer." Your Marilyn Monroe "candy store for a young boy" quote comes to mind.

Ebert: At least I got it right once.

Hi Roger, Watching the trailer for "2012" I was shocked at how poorly coneived the destruction was. The Sistine Chapel wouldn't fall over and skid forward. Miles and miles of land don't lever upward in one piece and slide into the ocean like a sinking ship. Were the storyboards taken from a childs drawings? These scenes are simply not credible enough to suspend my disbelief, much like the predatory flash freezing in "The Day After Tomorrow". When will filmmakers get proportion, gravity and speed correct. When you see a huge cloud of smoke from miles away, it doesn't appear to move much, but I've come accustomed to seeing superfast smoke like in Lord of the Rings and others because it's not a main focus of the film. But these latest violations of logic by Emmeric are lame. Could they be a part of a child's dream sequence within the film?

I just finished Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Everything." The section on evolution in Bryson's book had me thinking that a biopic about Darwin would be great. The movie you describe sounds like they blew a great opportunity and instead develpoed a candle-lit yawn-fest.

From Bryson I learned that Darwin was a medical school drop out (couldn't stomach an autopsy performed on a child) and seminary drop-out. Darwin's religious background was THE reason why the Captain of the Beagle asked him to accompany him on the expedition - to prove the Genesis story. Darwin also became fascinated with genetics because he suspected the poor health of his children was a direct result of marrying his first cousin. All great stuff for a movie!

I'm glad no one shouted "You lie!" during your screening. It's bad form in a theater and incredibly tacky in a joint session of Congress. But the President did lie repeatedly Wednesday night about healthcare reform (CBS outlines the whoppers here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/politics/main5300380.shtml). As an American I'm disgusted by President Obama's lies and Representative Wilson's manners. Are these people in Washington the best we can do?

"Religious opposition to Darwin is limited to a fundamentalist minority of American Christians."

I don't know, Roger. I think that a little more research is necessary on this statement. I know there was a guy from Turkey in here who stated that evolution is widely taught there, and I know that Turkey is primarily a Muslim country, but it's also worlds away from ideas spread through the Gulf countries. I discussed this last week with my Saudi friend and he claimed that he was hearing about evolution for the very first time from me!

I know that many Muslims believe in forms of evolution- they consider that God made Adam from clay (or blood, or dust, or mix of those) "evolution" in the sense that God took one thing to form another. But Darwin's evolution, eh- I do agree that religious or spiritual people would tend to be its opponents, but not limited to just a minority of American Christians.

I think Roland Emmerich should spread his wings and do a period piece. I could be about Y2K and how all the computers turn against us.
I wouldn't be upset is a meteor was involved.

I like to think Emmerich's release date is an homage to Plath. This is one of many things I think that are not true. I also like to think that Plath's villanelle is an homage to the Mayans (another one of those things I think):

Doomsday by Syliva Plath

The idiot bird leaps out and drunken leans
Atop the broken universal clock:
The hour is crowed in lunatic thirteens.
Out painted stages fall apart by scenes
While all the actors halt in mortal shock:
The idiot bird leaps out and drunken leans.

Streets crack through in havoc-split ravines
As the doomstruck city crumbles block by block:
The hour is crowed in lunatic thirteens.

Fractured glass flies down in smithereens;
Our lucky relics have been put in hock:
The idiot bird leaps out and drunken leans.

The monkey's wrench has blasted all machines;
We never thought to hear the holy cock:
The hour is crowed in lunatic thirteens.

Too late to ask if end was worth the means,
Too late to calculate the toppling stock:
The idiot bird leaps out and drunken leans,
The hour is crowed in lunatic thirteens.

This strikes me as a diffficult movie to make because of what he ended up doing, regardless of how he is portrayed leading up to it. Some people will hate him from the onset (though I suppose those people will just stay home) and others may be disappointed that the film doesn't delve into the Evolution stuff. I guess it's like Neverland was for people who liked Peter Pan, not enough Pan.

I'm sure that thsi post will evoke a passionate bunch of comments like your previous Darwin post, but I still don't get why we can't assume God and evlotuion worked together. But even evolutionists have to admit it took one smart Dude to come up with Jennifer Connolly. Impress a fan Mr. Ebert, ever meet Miss Connelly? Va-va-va-Voom!

I was reading up on Darwin last night on wikipedia, and I found it to be very interesting stuff. He actually helped out the church for a long time, even if though he didn't believe in a lot of it. Also according to the article, he never supported full atheist versions of his theory. I'm a Christain, and I think Darwin's theory is probably true, but it still hasn't been proven, which is why it's only a theory.

And about the Mayan calendar, I will definitely be one of those people who won't even bother to look at the time when 12/21/2012 arrives.

The Mayan calendar ends in 2012. However, it doesn't claim that date will be the end of the world. That date is the end of one era and the beginning of another in Mayan cosmology. We're in the third era now. We will go into the fourth era when the calendar ends. Now, whatever that means, the fourth era IS still an era, and not "apocalyptic nonexistence."

Just saying.

Hi Roger,

Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?

How's this as a stab at it - they were excellent at calendars and their calendars were not linear but all about cycles (short year long cycles or long 29,000 year cycles), but they weren't good at one-time events, like let's say their demise!

Richard said:

I don't think there was anything ominous about the Mayan calendar ending where it does.

Actually, there is - if I read "Apocalypse 2012" correctly.

True, the calendars document "ages", and Mayan time would be moving from one age through to another. The ages on this particular calendar were something like 540,000 year cycles. There have been 4 ages, now moving into the 5th.

The ominous part was the special star alignment that eclipses the center of the galaxy from Earth on that day. What catastrophic thing happes during that eclipse, that happens every 540,000 years?

So, the calendar might be moving into another age but without people! That's one theory, anyway.

Not to let that ruin your weekend... :)

Randy

I once had an girlfriend in the military, who claimed to have top secret security clearance. She told me Osama Bin Laden was dead, and that dinosaurs were fake.

Don't make that face. She said it, not me.

Ebert:

I once had a girl in the Marines
Who liked foreplay on two trampolines.
She claimed that Osama
Had sex with a llama
To prepare for his video routines.

I haven't done a ton of research into the whole end of the Mayan calendar deal, but at least one guy who did and believed (Terrance McKenna), didn't necessarily believe it would be apocalyptic, but would herald some sort of evolutionary leap forward. Why is it that people like to believe that the world will end in their lifetime? Is it fear of death?

It is my understanding that the Mayan calender ends in 2012, but does not predict the end of the world outright. My desk calender ends in December, does this mean I won't be around in January?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Mayans didn't bother to draft their calender past 2012, merely because they couldn't draft it out to infinity and seeing as how Mayan cycles last 5,000 plus years can you blame them? Clearly they all just died out before the obligatory update. Modern society made the same mistake with early computers only programing dates until 1999. Luckily we were around for the update.

I'm not that familiar with Mayan prophecy so I could be way off.

The consensus I'm getting on Genises is it's another Biopic 101 film.
The type of alternate universe where everything is filled with portentious drama, overraccentuated period costumes and characters talk about how important their discoveries are.

A realistic portrayal of Darwins life that doesn't condescend to my intelligence would have been nice

To Robert H.

Did you even read the link you provided? I'm no Obama apologist, but none of those supposed whopper outlines condemn Obama that much. No doubt that there were some half-truths and stretches (not that those are alright, but I'm long past getting outraged by hearing them from politicians, and I expect them at this point) but if a prosecutor used evidence that strong in court, the defense would laugh themselves silly.

Unless the walk-out was premeditated to make a statement, it would take a real reject not to know what shock and awe await in a film called "Creation" about the life of Darwin.

I apologize; your Marilyn Monroe quote was not "candy store for young boys." It was "jolly treats for needy boys." Much more poetic.

Reply to: Jay Faulconer: but I still don't get why we can't assume God and evlotuion worked together.

The easy answer is that Darwin's theory includes a common direct ancestor for humans, chimpanzees, apes and orangutans.

The Church, at that time, held that human beings had been created in their current form, and they could not trace their ancestry back beyond a few thousand years. (To the year 4,004 BC, if you check the math.)

Reply to: There were two quotes.. where he is told "congratulations, you have just killed God." I found that a bit... smarmy? Such a phrase is uttered today, and although he may have very well been told that, it sounds like the screenplay is reaching out to slap us with dialogue we are familiar with even if the characters didn't say it.

I think that's a great line. Because that's what Darwin did.

You have to think back 150 years, to the positions held by the Catholic and Anglican Churches (shall i say it?) B.D. Before Darwin.

(1) Special Creationism (2) The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (3) Genesis as an authoratative text.

Was the Bible an actual text given to humanity by the Creator God? If Darwin was right, that claim was out the window.

WIKI: Frederick Temple, later to be Archbishop of Canterbury, preached a sermon welcoming the insights of evolution. There was by no means uniform opposition to Darwin’s ideas from within the Church.

Thomas Huxley was strongly motivated by non-intellectual considerations, such as the desire to reduce the traditional influence of the clergy and to establish the authority of the newly emerging class of professional scientists.

(In other words, to kill God.)(In other words, he coined the word "agnostic" to explain why churchmen had no authority over him.)

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/brooke/lecture2.html

The Anglican Archbishop of Oxford "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce was emphatically not a scientific ignoramus. Ten years before his faux pas he had been attending Richard Owen's celebrated Hunterian Lectures, Owen himself noting in 1850: "I could give the Bishop of Oxford a certificate for the most regular attendance".

Wilberforce: Man's derived supremacy over the earth; man's power of absolute speech; man's gift of reason; man's free will and responsibility; man's fall and man's redemption; the incarnation of the Eternal Son; the indwelling of the Eternal Spirit, - all are equally and utterly irreconcilable with the degrading notion of the brute origin of him who was created in the image of God, and redeemed by the Eternal Son.

The established Church was facing challenges to its authority. As the Bishop of Oxford on his home turf he doubtless felt a heavy responsibility to defend the faith as he understood it.

In 1844 there had appeared an anonymous book arguing for the development of organic forms through natural causes. Its title was Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Its author (though this was a tantalising secret) was the Edinburgh publisher Robert Chambers. It was widely perceived as damaging to faith because of the continuity it proposed between animals and humans.

The Revd. Adam Sedgwick devoted ninety pages to a thrashing review. Sedgwick complained of "base materialism", "rank infidelity"; if this book be true "religion is a lie"; morality is "moonshine". In desperation and resorting to Shakespeare's Lear, he cried out for "an ounce of civet good apothecary to sweeten my imagination." He was afraid that "half-baked science in the wrong hands" could be part of the secular challenge.

Darwin's notion that existing species, including man, had developed over time due to constant and random change seemed to be in clear opposition to the idea that

all creatures had been created "according to their kind" by God, as described in the first chapter of the biblical book of Genesis.

Before Darwin, the prevailing scientific theory of life's origins and development had held that species were fixed and that they never changed. This theory, known as "special creationism," comported well with the biblical account of God creating the fish, fowl and mammals without mention of subsequent alteration.

Darwinian thinking also appeared to contradict the notion, central to Christianity and many other faiths, that man had a special, God-given place in the natural order. Instead, proponents of evolution pointed to signs in human anatomy - remnants of a tailbone, for instance - showing common ancestry with other mammals.(end)

We've had 150 years to accumulate more evidence on the common ancestry between humans and other primates. We have scientific tools that Darwin scarcely dreamed of... and even less respect for the authority of Book of Genesis and the various churches.

Hope that answers the question.

"During the first press screening here of "Creation," during a scene when Charles Darwin walks out of church during a sermon on the first book of Genesis, an audience member stood up and walked out."

Maybe it was Ken Turan.

Just making an official public statement concerning the TIFF website: it blows. Non-sufficient server room = s l o w response times and an odd buy tickets page that forces one to scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll to see if tix are still available. Cmon people, its the 000s!

Just left "Creation."

If I was making a movie on this material I am not sure I would have had a ghost. That said. I really thought from what I know from reading Darwin's autobiography that the focus on the death of his daughter was very important. I remember reading the autobiography my first year of university. I has grown up in a fundamentalist and creationist church. I was moved to tears by his description of the death of his daughter and how it left him with the sense that the life was nasty, brutish and short.

The movie really returned me to the crisis of faith I had as sheltered teen who discovered the full force of the theory in college. For me, what was difficult was the notion that God might not have my benevolent care in mind. That God's eye might not be on the sparrow and that did seem to imply a lot about why and how I should care for the least of these.

Anyway, I still believe that there is going to be a time when the Lion lies down with the Lamb.

When I visited Lamanai in Belize, the questions the tourist always asked the tour guides always came to, "what happened to the Maya? Where did they go?"

And I have to say that I like the answer the tour guides always gave. "The Mayans never left. They are all still here. What changed was their way of life."

They went on to show us how the Mayan culture blended in with current Central America. Why did the Mayan culture change?

Here's Today at Lamania

I do say, once you've been there, and then you see Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, that movie is extremely affective.

Have fun at TIFF Rog!

Daniel

I hate to be alarmist, regarding the Mayan calendar, but I have a calendar on my desk that ENDS in December of THIS YEAR!

It frightens me.

Ebert: It's the same old story every year: Nothing but false alarms.

Hi Roger,

Couldn't help but 'Devils Advocate' your comment about the Mayans being able to predict the end of the world in 2012, but no their own demise in the 9th Century. Who is to say they did not foretell their own end? Like a terminal illness, perhaps they knew but could do nothing to stop whatever it was they saw coming?

Like useless information, a useless argument! ;o)

Cheers,
SteveC.

Several posts back Bill Hays mentioned a book by Randal Keynes which was the primary inspiration for the film. The book is "Darwin, His Daughter & Human Evolution". It focuses on Darwin's relationship with his daughter Annie, who died at age 10, apparently from a variety of tuberculosis. Unfortunately, 'consumption' was one of those diseases that people of the Darwins' social class weren't supposed to get, so there was a kind of don't-ask-don't-tell attitude surrounding it, which may explain how it got so romanticised in Victorian literature ('La Traviata' for instance). Anyway, her long illness and early death was just one of the reasons Darwin came to doubt the existence of a loving and merciful god.

Another book worth reading is "Darwin's Sacred Cause" by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. They've written a general biography of Darwin, but this book deals specifically with the writing of "Origin of Species" in its religious and political context. Roger, in your post you don't say anything about this, so I wonder if the film touches on the fact that both sides of the Darwin/Wedgwood clan were active in the movement to abolish slavery, and had a great deal to do with ending British participation in the trade. Nowadays, we think of Darwin's five years on HMS Beagle mainly as the inspiration for the theory of natural selection, but Desmond & Moore argue that far more important was Darwin's contact with people of many races and social classes, and seeing up close the casual brutality of slavery. He believed that by proving the common ancestry of all humans through the process of evolution he would show that racism was not just morally wrong but scientifically false.

What we miss today is how much the religious lines of the argument have changed. It wasn't at all as simple as 'atheists for evolution, christians against'. Don't even think about whether we share ancestry with chimpanzees and gorillas; intellectuals who considered themselves hard-headed scientific thinkers at the time held that even the idea that all humans shared a common descent was the merest religious sentimentality, leftovers of the Adam and Eve myth. Anybody with two eyes and a brain could see that Europeans, Asians, and Africans had each arisen separately, and that Africans were destined to be at the bottom of the heap. Keeping them as slaves was probably the best thing we could have done for them.

I recommend reading "Darwin's Sacred Cause" before you see the movie. It wasn't simply his religious conflicts with Emma, or his daughter's illness that bore down on him. He was deeply involved in scientific, academic, and political arguments that affected him both intellectually and emotionally.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Kansas City, but the divide between fundamentalists and Darwinian believers is expansive. There are a few Christians I know that have reconciled their religious beliefs with, as you say, an obviously and provably true theory. For the most part, however, Christians ‘round here in these parts are hard-line creationists. I’ve heard the quote, “I didn’t come from no monkey” from my co-worker and friend who told her daughter to leave class when the teacher discussed Evolution.

I’m inundated with religious emails that rail against atheism, evolution and the evildoers who attempt to steal God’s divine presence from classrooms. The emails are from my boss. This puts me in an uncomfortable position, considering I’m an atheist that defends my views as well as fervently as a preacher does his.

A few weeks ago, Fred Phelps’ klan was picketing outside my office building because Jews operated a business in one of the lower floors. My mother has told me I’m going to hell (In case you couldn’t guess, it’s an experience one never forgets). To give you a better idea of the area I live in, you can think back to the film ‘Jesus Camp’ if you’ve seen it. The church operated by those crazy people is in my hometown. I have sat next to some of them at Perkins when they tried to convince to believe in God. I have tried to have civilized debates with Christians, but have found them unresponsive or hostile…mostly hostile.

I simply do not believe that Christians believe in both. I don’t know if your opinion or mine is incorrectly swayed by our geography but our experiences seem quite divergent.

Ebert: And they say everything's up to date in Kansas City!

Though I am about the biggest evolution nerd I know, and I will definitely be seeing Creation when it arrives, I'd rather comment on 2012, and the disaster movie genre in general.

2012 is the newest film from Mr. Disaster, Roland Emmerich of Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow, and Godzilla fame. Once again people will be banding together in the end after narrowly escaping CGI explosions/monsters and one impossible situation after another. And when I say impossible, I don't mean difficult, I mean they don't happen. There are no evil aliens wasting the technology and effort of interstellar travel by having never learned the art of diplomacy. There are no skyscraper sized reptiles laying eggs in Madison Square Garden as opposed to a muddy bank, where reptiles usually lay them. And never, by any stretch of the imagination, has the U.S. government ever been in a position to thwart these threats effectively as they invariably do in these films.

Now, I understand these films are fantasy. They are impossible, ridiculous things on purpose, to thrill us while still evoking a small bit of "what if" wonder at the prospect of said situation actually occuring, and they keep the CGI department busy while the writers take a nap. However, in the case of 2012, which is based on the doomsday prophecy of sorts caused by the Mayan calender ending in said year, I'm less dismissive of it's impact.

Movies like 2012 bring doomsday scenarios and apocalyptic thinking
into the foreground where they don't belong. Many people believe in a predestined end of the world, and some even look forward to it. Religions are big on this point. It's amazing that a species that has such a strong survival instinct as to develop a need to create stories and beliefs in which we even survive death, we can also find a way to be so cavalier about the destruction of ourselves, our world and all those close to us. When fantasy turns the corner to become paranoia or even hopeful anticipation in certain individuals, they may begin to act destructively as a means of fulfilling a prophecy.

I am reminded of a moment in "Religulous" where a U.S. Senator admits to Bill Maher that yes, he believes in the Rapture, and I was thinking to myself: "This man can affect how we wage wars, how we spend our resources, how we deal with other nations, and he has what may be a big incentive to see it all go belly up. Might that not affect his decisions?"

Armageddon is a big issue. It always has been. But there's no point in dwelling on it. If it comes, and it's anything like it's been marketed as, we can't do much to save ourselves. Yet, it would do well that we don't try to help it along or keep it on our minds, because the odds are, if it comes, it will come solely at our own hands.

BTW, I started this post talking about impossible scenarios, and doomsday prophecies are no exception. People have been forseeing the end ever since the beginning, and they've all been wrong. Case in point: there is a post at armageddononline.org titled "Whoops! Failed Armageddony Prophecies + Predictions" that lists 149 end of the world guesses that failed between 30 A.D. and 1998 A.D. Nobody knows how long we have, so put down the latest Nostradamus book, trade the 2012 ticket for one for Creation, and try focusing on your life as opposed to our death.

From what I've read of the Mayan beliefs, 2012 isn't necessarily an endpoint, but a transition. It's more akin to the alchemic symbol of the Ouroboros, a snake devouring it's own tale, a symbol of cyclical time, of rejuvenation. Everything in nature is blossoms, matures, dies, and contributes to the next cycle. And wasn't the world supposed to end, I don't know, nine years ago, or during the Crusades, and back whenever there was an eclipse. Stop fretting over the end as if you could do something about it. In fire or in ice? Who cares? And the movie, 2012, looks like nothing more than an overblown, hackneyed eyesore that will pass far quicker than any eclipse and leave us blind from plastered CGI and stunted characters. I know, don't judge a movie by its trailer, but for the love of Darwin, please, Hollywood (or at least Emmerich) evolve some storytelling habits. The current preoccupation with our visual prowess is disconcerting. It does not ever replace story, character, and good actors to pull it all through. I just watched Laurence Olivier's Hamlet. The man could outclass any actor today (and there are some damn fine actors today). The camera trick used when the King's ghost is set to appear (that shuddering blur zoom) is simple and chilling. Then there's the wispy ghost himself with the most haunting voice I've ever heard. He sounds so god-awfully sorrowful, so wracked with despair. It's Perfect! If anything Pixar has showed us, with its own technical wizardry, is that visuals accompany the story, give it extra flavoring. And, simple often works best. I know this is all off topic, but 2012 is a hack-fest. Emmerich reached his peak quickly with Independence Day. And although that's become a staple popcorn flick played on the 4th of July, all it really did was boost Smith's star-rating, gave us Bill Pullman saying, "Nuke the bastards", and one of the sweetest space-based nuclear explosions ever.

As for Darwin... Come on. Of course he's right. The past one hundred and fifty years of research, sweat, blood and tears on every continent, all the experiences and trials by error, experiments, ups and downs, all of that (Creationists will say) is nothing more than the Devil working his black magic? On that note, I'm off to read The Crucible. Goodnight, and good luck.

I saw “City of Life and Death (Nanjing Nanjing)” today at the beautiful Winter Garden Theater, and here are some of my rambling thoughts:

The new film by Lu Chuan (”Kekexili: Mountain Patrol”), will, I believe, illicit many comparisons to Spielberg’s, “Schindler’s List”, and not unduly. Mainly because Spielberg’s emotional juggernaut depicting horrific war crimes against innocent civilians is still fresh in the minds
of many, and also because unlike most films released today, Chuan’s film (like Spielbergs’) is in black and white (stunningly, I might add). But, for me, the similarities end there. This film would more appropriately be discussed in relation to Masaki Kobayashi’s trilogy of films (”The Human Condition”) or Akira Kurosawa’s, “Ikiru” (at least in regards to style and tone). Like Koayahi’s and Kurosawa’s films, the paradoxes of war and it’s aftermath are an inevitable by-product of premeditated violence, sans any fore-thought or malice. Violence is just the nature of the beast, and in war, nothing is out of bounds for even the most rational and free-thinking person. In fact, horrific violence is boringly commonplace, if not a means of entertainment from boredom, to those caught within this malestrom. “City of Life and Death” opens with the taking of China’s capital city, Nanking, by the Japanese in collaboration with the Nazis at the beginning of WWII (1937). Even peripheral knowlege of this historical event, for most, should evoke outrage and disgust, similar to the disdain felt for the treatment of European Jews and others who suffered the holocaust.
Shot seemingly like a sonata (and intercut with actual postcards preparing us for an upcoming scene) , Cuan’s film is divided in to three acts. The easily won victory of Nanking, then the subjugation of a city, and finally the denoument at war’s end. One would expect a sort of cohesion through each act, but order is not the norm within these perimeters. In fact, each act is markedly different in tone, which threatens to undermine the film, and, yet, it succeeds through the simplicty of it’s narrative. the absence of a typical hollywood-like score (in fact music is mostly absent here),
and minor,
or, if not predictable, revelations in it’s conclusion. The horror (of rape, infanticide, mass murder) here is for the most part generated on the expressionless face of Kadokawa (Hideo Nakaizumi), a young Japanese soldier who increasingly loses his ability to react to the atrocities unfolding before him. His final act of mercy and violence is indicative of a redemption that is as meanimgless as the forces that brought him to this end. Ultimately the film topples over one paradox after another, reminding us of the senselessness of war and the inevitability of unthinkable cruelity. Though not a perfect film, China would be foolish not to submit it for Oscar consideration.

I also saw two other films: one from the great Korean director, Hong Sang-soo (”Jal Aijido Motamyunseo”) and “El Traspatio”, the new film from the director of the Academy Award nominated, “The Crimes of Father Romero”. The former film, I need more time to digest, but the latter (which I was expecting to be Mexico’s version of such great American films on serial killers, like “Seven”, “Zodiac”, or “Silence of the Lambs”), is really nothing more than a more graphic episode of CSI.

Bill Hays (somewhere near the top of the comments) included this quote in his comment:
"Darwin wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249.)

True. A scientific theory that appeals to what would have to be recognized as miraculous intervention is no scientific theory at all. Assuming Dawkins' assessment of Darwin's thoughts on his conclusions' relationship to religious belief is correct, Darwin could not have been more right to exclude irrational beliefs from his conclusions.

In the interests of even-handedness, I would suggest a more measured use of language where discussion of evolution as a scientific explanation arises:
"Its underlying concepts were very much in the air during those years, and the theory, which is obviously and provably true, would certainly have been codified by someone."
There are somewhat distinct lines drawn in the use of language in science. For those theories offering descriptions (not necessarily, if ever, explanations), the word "Law" is reserved. Newton's Laws of Motion, for example, provide such thorough descriptions mechanics that they are assumed to be correct in all cases to which they pertain. At the same time, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, principles of which underly so much of modern technology, remain "theories" because their descriptions (and explanations) remain incomplete or incompatible on some level with other well-supported research.
My point is this: neither Newton nor Einstein's work can be responsibly classified as a statement of truth. For some (I dare say many), a hallmark of a legitimate scientific theory is its potential falsifiability. Doubt cast on evolution as "just a theory" is unreasonable, I think, given all that is required of a scientific description before it is ever referred to as a theory in the science community. However, failure to recognize the theory's status as a work in progress should make one pause, as well, since a theory, at least by definition and very possibly by nature, is inadmissible as a Truth statement.

Darwin kind of looked like Van Morrison.

anyways i look forward to seeing this film

p.s.

Roger Ebert! i must say i like you the most of all critics because you rarely sound condescending. i find a lot of critics to have Harold Bloom syndrome and look down upon a lot of films.

the only time i have ever disagreed with you was on the first two Wes Anderson films: they are definitely four-stars-ers.

sorry for getting off topic

Roger:

I once had a girl in the Marines
Who liked foreplay on two trampolines.
She claimed that Osama
Had sex with a llama
To prepare for his video routines.
_____

Man can delight on a llama's hind end.
But still, here's an issue I contend.
Do Noah and Moses,
(barring dogs and horses),
Regard the llama as Man's best friend?

From Bill Hays , Bettany says this:
'The difficulty of looking at a system like natural selection if you have any sort of moral sense yourself, is almost what makes it beautiful. It's a spur to try and rise above our own nature. Human beings have brains that are big enough to take them out of that brutality, and that is a faith of sorts, because it's in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (end)'
___________________________________________________________________
I recall a PBS production of Darwin's excursion on the Beagle where they stop for a time in a Central or South American forested area, occupied by tribal peoples.
One of the ships crew relates to Darwin his observation of a Native American and his daughter gathering fire wood. The little of girl eight year old kept dropping the limbs she gathered, this angered the father and he grabbed the girl about her ankles and swung her up, and then head down, dashing her brains out upon a rock; killed her over a hand full of rotting twigs.
Darwin agreed with the sailor that it is our 'nature' we must strive to rise above.
The topic of various 'moral' systems of belief is very much in the news these days.
The USA and Obama wants to be inclusive, and supportive of all, 'moral' in remembrance to those pointlessly murdered, on 9/11, yet, ironically some of them accommodate, as Islam, our worst, most primitive natures.

Ebert: Why didn't you say, "all religions can sometimes accommodate our worst, most primitive natures?"

Would you say a prejudice is at work?

Why are so many people convinced that primitive societies had The Answers to all the questions that elude us?

The common objection that seems to be raised against this "World ends in 2012" gibberish is "No, you see, the Mayan calendar just turns over in 2012, just like my desk calendar; that doesn't mean the world is going to end."

To me, that line of thinking ignores the bigger problem: why should we think the Mayans would have more sophisticated or accurate information about the distant future than we have about the immediate future? Your "well then why didn't they foresee their own end centuries earlier" is exactly right. Even if their calendar or their prophets or whatever DID predict that the world was going to end, it's entirely irrelevant. The Ancient Greeks (at least as sophisticated as the Mayans, if not more so) believed that the god Apollo possessed women in a temple in Delphi to chant riddles that were 100% accurate predictions of the future. That they believed this is indisputable, but no intelligent person today (I hope) would believe that this is or was a good way to get information.

And I don't think this "ancient people knew it all" mindset is limited to innocuous trivia like the Mayan calendar. Half of the US believes that Genesis gives a more accurate description of the origin of man than Darwin. This is exactly the same idea: believing that the ancient Hebrews are somehow a better source of scientific information than modern scientists. Why would a semi-nomadic Middle Eastern tribe that lived three thousand (or whatever, depending on how you date what part of Genesis) years ago know this sort of thing? Why should we seriously consider offering up their ideas in schools as an alternative to the work that thousands of modern scientists have done using research and logic?

I am not being coy; I truly don't understand why so many people think this way, that the best answers are to be found in a crusty old book written in Latin, tucked away in the back of an ancient library. Modern science has cured polio, split the atom, sent humans to outer space, made food cheaper and more abundant, allowed instant communication across the globe, doubled life expectancy, given us almost unlimited treasures, given us better answers to age-old questions about nature and the universe than we've ever had, and yet we reject it in favor of nonsense mysticism again and again. Why?

This will adamantly not be a review of "Creation," which will await its opening.

Well, it looks like it *won't* be opening in this country, so how about a review while we wait for the DVD?

Ebert: What makes you believe it won't be?

Ebert: What makes you believe it won't be?

I'm thinking that the film's producer probably knows what he's talking about when he says that "The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about."

Perhaps I lack faith. ;-)

Good God (or Random Chance), the rassling match continues.

Dunno if I wanna see this flick or not -- not for philosophical reasons, just... this Darwin sounds "sexy." I hate when they do that.

Hey, though: speaking for myself, I'm no "armchair authority." I'm an armchair observer and a soapbox authority. It may seem like too fine a distinction for SOME certain famous critics, but for us types, it is a matter of Pride, Tradition and getting to say "I told you so," hopefully before 2012.

2012 is 2 years off. Those of you who are actually serious about this thing, check back for major events that happened every year ending 14, 39, 64 and 89 the last few centuries. Those of you who just like scaring yourselves, carry on.

Hi Mr. Ebert,

One of your sentences here struck me as off: "There's no evidence that Darwin feared what society would think about On the Origin of Species."

There's a great quote to the contrary, but I couldn't remember it and went to my history prof for help. Here's his response:

Darwin's line was that "it felt like I was confessing a murder." There have been some interesting studies of the line lately, but I can't recall the key scholar looking at this.

There you have it...but perhaps not? Don't know what the studies are saying.

Hope you had fun in Toronto!

-Phil

P.S. The new Darwin/Obama image is funny.

Ebert: Why didn't you say, "all religions can sometimes accommodate our worst, most primitive natures?"
Would you say a prejudice is at work?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you, Mr. Ebert, and I offer my apologies to those I offended.
I stand corrected.
But, you'll not find stoning for adultery, amputations over trifling theft, beheadings for being a good non-Muslim helicopter mechanic, particularly from participation of the PUBLIC on religious grounds, in any other society I know of other than Islamic ones; and, state sponsored or fatwa ordered murder against Islam's offenders done so, likewise, in the in the name of Christianity these days.
Not to say given the enabling examples of devotion from the prophet's devotees (PBUH) Christians wouldn't follow suit ( the recent Mexican hijacking by a Christian fanatic thinking 999, was really a 666; and that was his call to action); many a Christian fanatic could indeed find snippets in the Bible motivational, as motivational as which much of the explicitly directed violence in the Koran is taken; or, in the case of murdering abortion doctors, simply no text at all.
Why is it so rare, and usually confined to the individual, fanatic or mentally unbalanced in other religions, as contrasted with mobs of angry Muslims out for someone's head in Islam? For example, that reporter who covered a beauty contest in Africa; had to run for her life from a mob of thousands after suggesting Mohammed might have found some of the beauty queens appealing.
Obviously 'accommodations exist' and are possible; just as a Pentecostal church devoted to handling poisonous snakes is available to believers in the name of some obscure snippet of the Bible -- religions, ALL, 'accommodate' some of our worst impulses.
I thought the movie 'Knowing' was a particularly good example and movie regarding the Catholic church's peccadillo to keep pedophile priests on hand. That, of course, too would be a sampling of 'our worst natures'.
My 'bias' in the bigger picture isn't unreasonable in light of the cultural clash I see between Islam and the West given the potentially ramifications to our future as a species -- though admittedly, many see no clash at all.

The Mayans were not all that smart - while Their Long Count calendar (supposedly) predicts numerous (some say all) eclipses of the Sun, our moon and the moons of various planets and some comets, that calendar begins on August 11, 3114, which is just 61 years after Adam died - and does not predict the Noahic Flood, nor the Mayan's own demise about the time of the European Crusades.

John Kingman wrote on September 12, 2009 11:49 AM

Ebert: What makes you believe it won't be?

"I'm thinking that the film's producer probably knows what he's talking about when he says that "The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about."

Perhaps I lack faith. :-)

Hi there;

I hadn't heard about this until now; ie: that the film may not find a U.S. distributor. I hope that's not the case. It serves to hand your neighbours yet another stick with which to poke you, be it form across the border or the pond.

Seriously; the United States does itself no favors here. It paints an image of "America" as a place where people rush towards ignorance like lemmings. And while I confess, I enjoy teasing you now and again, I don't enjoy watching other countries do it because they don't know you well enough to pull their punches.

You're more, far more, than the faults of failings of some of your countrymen. We only tend to hear about them moreover, because people tend to stop in general to gawk at a train wreck or house fire. It's more exciting when something's happening as opposed to not. Better still, if there's a controversy - it creates a dynamic many like; a war of words and ideas.

But take care; don't let the sound of the argument drown out the more enlightened among you - less the lasting impression you give of yourselves overseas is that "evolution" has passed you all by, eh?

Ie: according to the buzz on Creation, it's landed at the Festival with something of a "thud" and because the movie ironically doesn't really get into Darwin's work. It's about a man and his family.

But that becomes an argument in support of releasing the film int he States, surely? At least if you're easily bothered or offended by all the science stuff. Here's a way to show it then; by underscoring the truth of what it's actually about, no?

I think a film should sink or swim based on what it's about. And whether it tells "that" well or badly. And the ability to allow others to decide it for themselves; a sign of intelligent life. :)

I hope it gets shown in the U.S. so "not showing" it won't give you a black eye.

That aside...

I was painting last night and needed a break. I didn't want to break entirely from the subject in the painting however, and so to keep it in mind, I chose to watch an old favorite:

"THE MATCHMAKER" (1997) Directed by Mark Joffe. With Janeane Garofalo, David O'Hara and Milo O'Shea.

"Marcy is an assistant to Senator John McGlory, who's having problems with a re-election campaign. Desperate for Irish votes, McGlory's chief of staff Nick sends Marcy to Ireland to trace McGlory's relatives or ancestors. Marcy arrives at the village of Ballinagra as it's preparing for an annual Matchmaking Festival. A well-dressed, attractive single young lady, she becomes the center of attention for two professional matchmakers, Dermot and Millie, as well as for bartender Sean." - IMDB

The Official trailer "ironically" begins with a nod to Darwin's theory of evolution... chuckle!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBRsotXC4Ig&feature=related

P.S. David O'Hara plays "Sean". But the actor was born in Glasgow Scotland - not Ireland! He's of Irish Catholic decent however, and likely how he could fake the accent. (I've seen O'Hara in other projects, his real accent is a THICK Scottish brogue!)

And so there's irony everywhere! For in the film, they can't find any McGlory's - and so the Senator's Aid (Dennis Leary) hatches a plan wherein they'll get some locals to "pretend" they're related to him. And bartender Sean doesn't approve and takes issue with Janeane Garofalo for aiding and abetting the American Senator - Sean, as played by a Scotsman pretending to be an Irishman. :)

And the Senator actually turns out to be Hungarian; that's why they couldn't find any of McGlory's in Ireland who'd moved to Boston. But it all works out in the end for him - he meets a Kennedy at the festival and comes home with a trump card for a wife.

Afterward, I went back to my painting, happy not to live in a town where a dog greets strangers by taking a pea on your luggage, while extremely amused to see it happen to someone else. :)

You can actually help prove there is an audience for the Creation movie (and hopefully get US distribution)! The Creation movie has partnered with the Darwin Facebook Group to get to 1 million members:
http://bit.ly/darwin150

The Creation movie, NatGeo, and NCSE have also 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.
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

And the Senator actually turns out to be Hungarian; that's why they couldn't find any of McGlory's in Ireland who'd moved to Boston. But it all works out in the end for him - he meets a Kennedy at the festival and comes home with a trump card for a wife.

Except for the Kennedy wife, that sounds like he's based on John Kerry.

By Seongyong Cho on September 11, 2009 8:04 AM

I learned about Alfred Russell Wallace for the first time from some Ellery Queen mystery book and have heard about him from biology classes again and again. Queen took advantage of the fact that Wallace has been far more obscure compared to Darwin. I wonder whether the movie can be made from Wallace's life, but, as far as I know, his life was far less dramatic.

Wallace's adventures leading up to his independent discovery of evolution by natural selection are actually a lot more dramatic than Darwin's. He spent something like six years in Indonesia and Malaysia, encountering headhunters (with whom he got along very well), leeches, malaria and other tropical diseases, gorgeous butterflies, birds of paradise, keeping an orangutan baby for a while, meeting the White Rajah of Sarawak (whom he admired greatly for good reason). Whether it would make a good movie is problematical because (1) there's no love interest except for Mother Nature, and (2) Russell's job was collecting specimens for natural history museums. That meant he killed orangutans and birds of paradise and preserved them, and I don't think that would sit well with modern audiences. Herzog could do a killer documentary on him.

Darwin and Wallace both seem to have been very nice people, and Darwin also conked animals on the head and sent the remains back to England.) Not the great apes, though.

Let us hope we never again experience religious laws in the USA like the following:

Tennessee Evolution Statutes -
PUBLIC ACTS OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE PASSED BY THE SIXTY - FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1925
CHAPTER NO. 27 House Bill No. 185

(By Mr. Butler)

AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

Passed March 13, 1925
W. F. Barry, Speaker of the House of Representatives
L. D. Hill, Speaker of the Senate
Approved March 21, 1925.
Austin Peay, Governor.

(Note: The Butler Act, which formed the legal foundation for the Scopes Trial, was not removed from the Tennessee law books until 1967, repealed by the following Act):

PUBLIC ACTS OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE PASSED BY THE EIGHTY - FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1967
CHAPTER NO. 237 House Bill No. 48

(By Smith, Galbreath, Bradley)
SUBSTITUTED FOR : SENATE BILL NO. 46 (By Elam)

AN ACT to repeal Section 498 - 1922, Tennessee Code Annotated, prohibiting the teaching of evolution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee :

Section 1. Section 49 - 1922, Tennessee Code Annotated, is repealed.

Section 2. This Act shall take effect September 1, 1967.

Passed : May 13, 1967
James H. Cummings, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Frank C. Gorrell, Speaker of the Senate
Approved : May 17, 1967.
Buford Ellington, Governor.

Living in Tennessee since 1976, but educated in Michigan, I am constantly reminded of the power of early-life mis-education by persons my own age who were educated in Tennessee under the Butler Act, and who would love to see this type of religious eductation (Christian) restored to the public schools, as doing so would in their view solve all of the moral and ethical problems they see with today's youth (as if ignorance of natural science solves anything). Yet when asked if they have ever read anything by Darwin they always admit they have not, so I have started refering these friends to the collected works of Darwin online, but to date, none of them seem interested: http://darwin-online.org.uk/. The magnitude of the collected works of Charles Darwin is a testament to the fineness of a British education. In the future I would like to see an epic film or cable mini-series based upon the five year voyage of the Beagle.

Phil Gross tried the 'confessing a murder' play. {{WHISTLE}} Five yards penalty for out-of-context. I didn't have the proper quote at hand either, but rather than rely on someone else's recollection I went to the Darwin Correspondence Project (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk) and after a quick search found Letter 729 to Joseph Hooker, 11 January 1844 (15 years before Origin of Species). The thing to remember is that when Darwin wrote his books and scientific papers he was in Scholar Mode; sober, professional, always on topic. But in his personal letters to friends and family he was warm, expansive and quite funny. He had a modest, self-deprecating way of describing his work. If you use only a few words out of a paragraph you get a totally wrong impression of the man.

Here's what Darwin actually said:

Besides a general interest about the Southern lands, I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work & which I know no one individual who wd not say a very foolish one.— I was so struck with distribution of Galapagos organisms &c &c & with the character of the American fossil mammifers, &c &c that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which cd bear any way on what are species.— I have read heaps of agricultural & horticultural books, & have never ceased collecting facts— At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a “tendency to progression” “adaptations from the slow willing of animals” &c,—but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his—though the means of change are wholly so— I think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends.—You will now groan, & think to yourself ‘on what a man have I been wasting my time in writing to.’— I shd, five years ago, have thought so.— I fear you will also groan at the length of this letter—excuse me, I did not begin with malice prepense.

Roger,

This issue that commenters are raising of not having an American distributor puzzles me, and strikes me as completely wrong.

Is this the same Hollywood that relentlessly cranks out movies that are hostile to Christian values, whether they lose money (and most do) or not?

Is this the same Hollywood that misjudged American values and cranked out anti-Iraq War movies that flopped horribly?

Is this the same Hollywood where "Passion of the Christ" was shunned, yet made hundreds of millions.

Hollywood thrives on poking it's finger in middle-America's Christianity constantly even when they lose money on films. It's their merit badge.

As far as Americans / Christian's supposed hostility to the film - not true. I had the 4th comment on this thread, in which I said that I want to go see it. I'm both a movie buff and an American Christian. Once again, Hollywood misjudges American tastes.

Dave Van Dyke: I can't help but wonder if Randy Masters was the guy walking out.

Funny! But, please. I've only walked out of one movie in my life. I got to stay for a sneak preview once (without paying extra!) for "Home Alone" before it opened. I walked out because the smart aleck kids were so relentlessly disrespectful to their parents.

Robert H: The movie you describe sounds like they blew a great opportunity and instead develpoed a candle-lit yawn-fest.

If "Creation" doesn't have an American distributor, this is probably the real reason. It's a biopic, and a missed opportunity.

Sidenote: there are surprisingly a lot of missed opportunity pics. I'm thinking of "17 Again". Do most of think that if we were zapped back to 17 againg that that's what we would do? Or, would we use our grown-up knowledge to get more dates than we had when we were really 17? Just sayin'

Marie Haws: hadn't heard about this until now; ie: that the film may not find a U.S. distributor. I hope that's not the case. It serves to hand your neighbours yet another stick with which to poke you, be it form across the border or the pond.

Seriously; the United States does itself no favors here. It paints an image of "America" as a place where people rush towards ignorance like lemmings.

Marie, please, don't judge America based on the actions of Hollywood distributors & decision making. Hollywood consistently misjudges American values. This doesn't say anything about "America".

If it's a good movie, we'll go see it. Simple as that.

People, be charitable about your fellow man - even Americans!

Lastly, Roger - my favorite "Darwin" character in a movie to date is in "The Fall".

People, be charitable about your fellow man - even Americans!

Randy

The reason religious people (not just fundamentalists) have a problem with the theory of evolution is that it and the origin of life, we now know for sure, clearly does not require a god of any kind for it to work. Not only that, but if they accept evolution as true, their god is reduced to that of an incompetent bungler.

Can you believe in God and also believe in evolution? Of course (though I don't like the word believe when applied to a scientific theory). It's just not very comforting for them to have to deal with the idea of an imperfect god, and imperfect he would have to be to have designed mankind. Forget the imperfections in other species. Judging by humanity alone, God is as I said a bungler, and an incompetent. (Though no doubt an effort could be made by a believer in both God and evolution to say that the apparent mistakes in our design are part of some elaborate plan.)

God is not necessary for life forms to evolve, and is not necessary for life to have begun. The religious will have to retreat to safer and more remote things, like the origin of the universe itself. Until (hopefully, in time) that mystery too yields to science.

Has it ever occurred to people who fall for this 2012 junk that perhaps the Mayans stopped calculating the time at 2012 because they figured they would work on extending the calendar once they reached 2012? For instance Windows XP calendar only goes up to the date 2099, because the programmers didn't bother to calculate the date further. Why should they? No one expects people to be using computers to with Windows XP by 2099.

Roger, I'm pretty upset that a movie that's as good as _Creation_ looks to be can't even get a showing in the United States, while horribly boring historical revisionism / propaganda films, namely Ben Stein's ludicrous "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," CAN find American distributors. Has Hollywood lost all vestiges of integrity?

What's the best way we can stir up somebody in the movie business to get this film appearing on a few thousand screens? I know some bloggers - we can work on making it go viral - but what's the best way to make some noise? Whose chain can we pull?

Thanks for your thoughts, & kind regards, Dave Thomas
www.nmsr.org

Ebert: I expect it to find distribution. They don't have a deal, but haven't been shut out.

I'm not sure if this appears in the movie...

... but I wonder if Charles Darwin was dismayed at how powerful a hold the Church had on his wife.

He was on the verge of a monumental scientific advancement, and his wife said, "Don't publish."

And this is the same attitude I see, over and over, from religious folks.

It doesn't hurt anything to turn your brain on for a few minutes and consider new possibilities.

Possibility #1: God does not exist.

Just consider that. You don't have to believe it, but is there any harm in thinking about it?

When Darwin walked out of the church, he knew, absolutely, that the story in Genesis was wrong, and... even more important... a dishonest person was standing in the pulpit, telling lies, claiming to have authority by reading from a book with a supernatural origin.

That was the conflict, and conflicts are the heart of storytelling.

Darwin knew the Bishops and Archbishops had no authority, no basis for any kind of authority, when they read from Genesis.

Genesis is ridiculous because it's edited together from two different accounts that contradict each other on certain aspects.

It's like a text book that asks students to believe "5 is smaller than 7 AND 5 is larger than 7."

that's why Darwin's frustration is so important in the larger context. Maybe not in this particular movie, but in life.

Certain statements are LIES. Nothing could be better for humanity than to realize the Catholic Church has no credible basis for the authority they claim.

But if you stand up and say that out loud, you will be shunned by the woman you married, because (the Anglican church, I guess) has brainwashed her into thinking they are good, pure, and worthy.

Today, no major religion finds conflict between God and the theory of evolution.

Roger, I think this is disingenuous, in that today, also, no major religion is a major religion - ie, no major religion is taken seriously by most of the civilized world, and most of the cultured people in the world no longer even pretend to be religious. Or if they do, certainly not Christian.

Now why is that?

I know people will say it's not the responsibility of the scientific community to replace religion, to offer consolations that religion formerly offered, to give life meaning as religion formerly did. "That's not our province," they say. But the fact remains that science WAS a religion to many, a religion-killing cure-all.

Now look where we are.

Maybe we ought to have let someone with a compass steer the ship. I say all this as a follower of no faith. Scientism (if there is such a word) and the general belief in progress and strict rationality, left life empty of meaning for a lot of people. It's done incredible damage to the race and to the world. I don't say religion was the answer, or ought to have lasted forever unchanged, but the changes ought to have been incremental and to have remained fundamentally religious, ie, provided meaning and consolation, first and foremost. Science-as-religion was something else altogether. And it's proven to have been empty.

Still - there's always Thoreau and Nietzsche. THAT is what science should have offered, or steered us to, rather than to itself. Oh well.

@ Joe TCS - You beat me to it. I've always pictured some poor Mayan scribe chiseling away, carpal tunnel syndrome flaring, saying to his boss, "Look, I've gone all the way to December 2012, can't we leave the rest for somebody else?"

@ Roger - I think it's a shame that so far the movie hasn't found a US distributor yet. Hopefully it will get at least a limited release, or at the VERY least, release straight to video for those interested in seeing it.

Love the "Very gradual change..." poster at the top. Any info (please) on whether this is actually available? Aside from liking the humour in it, I think it would make a great addition to a science classroom.

In addition and disagreement with Paul's post:
Roger Ebert:
'...Today, no major religion finds conflict between God and the theory of evolution...'

Pauls said: 'Roger, I think this is disingenuous, in that today, also, no major religion is a major religion - ie, no major religion is taken seriously by most of the civilized world, and most of the cultured people in the world no longer even pretend to be religious. Or if they do, certainly not Christian'
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Regarding Mr. Ebert's assertion; that 'no major religion finds conflict between , God and the theory of evolution' is this the fact that God/Allah can do anything since He's God/Allah? -- Such as beat a straight flush with a pair of queens?
There are indeed 'MAJOR religions', and I strongly suspect major religions claim to have no conflict with evolution just to garner converts or keep those they have. Those belonging to major religions should and often do find themselves in a conflict with the tenants of their faith and the theory of evolution -- such as laws that mandate ID be taught along side the theory of evolution.
Ignorance, superstition, and the need for spiritual community, is still very much on religion's side, not to mention the voting majority of the believers in most areas.
(I think Bill Hays numbers and statistics on this matter of the public's religious adherence was spot on. His post with notations from a Gallop poll over recent years regarding their druthers with regard to evolution and ID, I think, is near the top of this thread.)

To speak of the two religions the we in the West are most familiar with: Islam and Christianity; they both have different strategies in the placation of their flocks in the face of reality ... and these 'peccadilloes' of science.
These two major religions, between them, have the about 1/2 the world's population -- populations that can and will tell those who believe in science and evolution to shut up and sit down; particularly, on issues such as abortion, marriage, as with Christians; and, respect for their beliefs 'or else' as with Islam.
Islam is far more aggressive in litigation regarding slander to it's 'feelings'.
Bridget Bardot in her efforts to prevent cruelty to animals found out Islam's 'feeling' are more important than any realities to animal cruelty. Islamic groups sued her in France for 'slander' and she lost.
Islam lacks a single authority, to speak for all it's practitioners like Catholicism's pope, or the various conventions in Protestant denominations: so, Islam can and does often play 'good cop bad cop' to achieve it's ends -- it's a collective cult held together by the Hadiths and abrogated interpretations of Mohammed's directives from Allah in the Koran, the Ummah is its strength, kinda like a spreading fungus networking outward -- where Christianity would be more likened to a team of Swedish diplomats as if to say, 'yaa, the Nazis have their point too, we must listen to both sides'.
Most Muslims I've spoken with claim there never was a conflict with Evolution.
Devoted Muslims, trot out nonsense that Mohammed already was in tune with evolution from the beginning.
Utter nonsense; but, just don't ask too many questions -- submit, and let them tell you how it all began with 'evolution' ... their version of course! You don't want to offend a Muslim or they might kill you.
On the other hand Christianity assures us it can work around whatever these scientists say; 'no more of this argument! Faith is all about spiritual matters' 'Render unto Ceasar!'.
In regard to a Christian strategy, the pope will even find common ground with Islam. 'Love is a many splendored thing' isn't it?
Where then is the courage of the pope's convictions, though? I don't think that's important for thsi argument.
'Evolution presents some problems, but let's leave the details of this matter to God' .
Jesus is after all, about 'turning the other cheek'.
But the pope does have a billion or so people to keep in the fold, and he will say anything to keep them Catholic. 'Faith' trumps reason.
The Europeans do believe evolutionary ideas, science and rationalism at the expense of their population growth. That Christian population that was 'fruitful and multiplied' is dwindling in numbers.
The void caused by science's conversion of believers into a rational intelligent liberal society has allowed Islam to make great inroads where they were once stopped cold.
The European industrial/agricultural machine is now filled with people who still need religion; and it is more and more Islamic. I do believe Allah is more up to beating a full house with a pair of queens -- he doesn't have to play nice or fair.
It's ironic that the more evolution is adopted into the social and educational systems the more likely semi-stone age religions once again will, govern that knowledge -- kind of like how the Christian Dark Ages governed the Greek and Roman knowledge for over a millennium.

Article Link

Hi Roger. I've read your writing and you blog for a long time, but have been a lurker herein up 'til now...

Just curious what you've heard about the above link. If I missed it in the comments section I apologize.

I am particularly concerned at the idea that US film distributors are afraid of the content of "Creation." Well, actually I am surprised. I know the US is full of well... confused folks.

But we are also a capitalist bunch and, I'd imagine, if there was money to be made, this thing would find a distributor.

So, should I be officially freaked out by the power of the crazies in the biblest part of the bible belt? Or is this a little bit of manufactured publicity? Where have I seen that before?

Thanks
Mason

Ebert: As far as I know, the film has not been deemed undistributable.

well...

apparently had I waited for the page to load itself, your comments on my previous question would have been found. Ho-hum. Anyway, keep up the good work. Looking forward to more posts...

-mason

Reply to: Paul: it's not the responsibility of the scientific community to replace religion, to offer consolations that religion formerly offered, to give life meaning as religion formerly did. "That's not our province," they say.

Paul, I don't know what you're talking about.

Religion started as a search for Truth. Instead of being animals, we wanted to be intelligent animals.

Somewhere along the way, religion went down the wrong path. Instead of seeking Truth, they tried to hide Truth and substituted lies and deception.

Since the name "Genesis" is in the title, let's start there:

Genesis 1:20 Elohiym creates birds and whales, on day 5
Genesis 1:25 The elohiym made the wild animals according to their kinds. Then elohiym said, Let us make man in our image

Genesis 2:7 /The YHWH elohiym formed man from the dust of the earth
Genesis 2:19 The YHWH elohiym formed out of the ground all the animals.

I've talked to lots of Catholic priests, and none of them were unaware of this. They KNEW Genesis was a false text, and yet, they devoted their lives to the authority of a Church resting on it.

Reply to: But the fact remains that science WAS a religion to many, a religion-killing cure-all. Now look where we are.

where are we? We have too many people, but otherwise, we are much closer to Truth than we were under "religion."

Reply to: Maybe we ought to have let someone with a compass steer the ship. I say all this as a follower of no faith. Scientism (if there is such a word) and the general belief in progress and strict rationality, left life empty of meaning for a lot of people. It's done incredible damage to the race and to the world.

Damage? Absolutely not.

Paul, here's the answer. Grow up. Stop clinging to your childhood where someone else is responsible for the important stuff.

You don't want anyone else to steer the ship. You need to find the meaning in your life that a False Religion used to pretend existed... and this time, make it real. Not Imaginary Jesus. Not Zombie Jesus. Not Imaginary Jesus. Find something real that gives your life meaning and run after it.

Roger:

Perplexing questions for proponents of intelligent design:

Why are there nipples on men?

Why is the human appendix without function?

Why put wings on the non-flying cormorants of the Galapagos?

public funds are improperly spent promoting the faith tenet of Darwinism (there is noGod, we are here, hence made ourselves.)
DNA is language, not the thing, but a description of how to make one. Language use requires a conscious mind to pick and place symbols to convey meaning to an adequate receiver.
Darwinism is bunk, because rocks can't write. They are content doing rock things all the time, forever. Just go look.
Real science is about observation first of all. Rocks don't care to become ferns, gerbils or butterflies. Designing the life cycle of migratory butterflies is too much for their limited IQ, even if they had volition. Nothing is so dumb as a box of rox. Maybe Darwinists.

I believe the notion of the Mayan calendar ending on 2012 has been thoroughly debunked. Wikipedia has a good entry on the "conspiracy theories" surrounding it and puts them all to rest. Of course, I don't expect that to stop anyone from continuing to bring up such nonsense when we can't even get people to believe the moon landings happened, despite thorough independent verification and recent photos that show our discarded equipment is still there.

Marc,

Evolution. Do you realize that a mini-version of evolution happens to a baby in the womb?

Conditions on the ground change and the purpose of some adaptations disappears or lessens. However, the presence of these things does not hinder reproduction, so they persist.

Marc,

The primary function of the appendix is to become severely infected inside of the human body and also to cause patients large sums of money to get it taken out.

Yours Truly,

Charles Darwin

Mason said:

So, should I be officially freaked out by the power of the crazies in the biblest part of the bible belt? Or is this a little bit of manufactured publicity?

Get a grip, lefties! Your meme that distributors are afraid of Christian America on this movie is not credible.

Have you no institutional memory of Hollywood? Does your memory start yesterday?

Hollywood thrives on sticking it to Christianity. Even if a film loses money. ESPECIALLY if a film loses money. It's how they get their I-stuck-my-finger-in-Christianity's-eye street cred and marriage badge. Examples abound.

Americans, Christians included, will see the film if it's a well made and interesting film, content notwithstanding. And it will flop at the box office if it's a missed-opportunity bio-pic that's boring. There is no censorship in America. Just criticism.

Why so uncharitable?

It will get a distributor, is my bet.

Randy

Hi Roger,

Although it's a movie with a good deal of talk, at least no one shouted out, "You lie!"

A witty line in your article, well told! I laughed.

I am, though, amazed that the "You lie" story has legs on the left a week later. Although, as usual, the story is mis-told in the media.

Wilson was not "heckling" Obama, as often reported. He was countering him.

What was Obama doing right before Wilson's outburst? He was standing in the chamber of the Congress as an invited guest and calling some of the liars. Read the transcript. After mentioning death panels ("It's a lie"), he said this:

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. (emphasis mine)

Wilson's outburst then, was a shorthand rebuttal meaning: we are not the liars, you are lying.

And he was right. Illegals will be covered unless you explicitly exclude them, which the bill does not do. The White House admitted such on Friday, when it announced that they would insert a provision to check IDs. (Not that I believe that they will).

So the President was rudely calling them liars. Wilson responded in kind.

Wilson has apologized. When will the President?

I am hoping that the Democrats in Congress make the serious mistake tomorrow of censuring Wilson in the House. Conservatives will rally around Wilson. Let it be so.

Randy

Although it's a movie with a good deal of talk, at least no one shouted out, "You lie!"
A witty line in your article, well told! I laughed.
I am, though, amazed that the "You lie" story has legs on the left a week later. Although, as usual, the story is mis-told in the media.
Wilson was not "heckling" Obama, as often reported. He was countering him.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for clarifying that. I had bought the assumption it was a political faux pas or a staged disruption.
And, at least no one threw a shoe at him either.
That guy in Iraq who threw his sandals at Bush is thought a hero -- even here in the USA among a great many fools.
He is out of prison today, and this guy will likely have a bright future in the Iraq government, if not at least get a parade in Baghdad.
Were I a Secret Service agent, I'd have felt justified to shoot that clown on the spot before he got the second shoe off -- guess they were not so devoted as Clint Eastwood was depicted in his role to protect the president.
Back to Darwin,
Did you see the story on the discoveries with the Y chromosome?
It's yet more support for Darwin in my view, and less that an 'intelligent creator/ designer is behind groups of or specific organisms. The article told of how we see so many sex related malfunctions in a males development. Do you believe that your 'Intelligent Designer' deliberately gives people bad genes or harmone induced behaviors?
Many Christians do think a hair lip is God's punishment to that person.
I find such beliefs to be repugnant, and I do thank Darwin for making such beliefs more difficult to sustain.

Did I really say last night that that's how Hollywood gets it's "marriage badge"?

Strike that. Merit badge, of course.

That's what I get for commenting when I'm bombed out on Nyquil. :)

The rest of it made sense though. Really.

Randy

It should be noted that, on December 21, 2012, there will NOT be any remarkable astronomical event that doesn't happen often. As it happens, the Sun (from our point of view) will cross the galactic equator -- just as it did on that date last year, this year, and will in 2013.

It will also be (approximately) the Winter Solstice (in the northern hemisphere). This also, unless I'm mistaken, happens every year. (It's sheer coincidence that the two events happen around the same time; that changes over time with precession.)

There will NOT be any unusual planetary alignment at the same time.

There's also absolutely no reason to expect either a shift the Earth's magnetic field. If there's somebody who can actually predict such a thing, he should be in Stockholm collecting his Nobel Prize in physics.

Ebert: Why do we take the Mayan calendar so seriously when we demur about human sacrifice?

When one interrupts, in order to contradict, somebody who's giving a speech, it's called heckling.

Democrats never did that to President Bush, even though he lied frequently and egregiously (without ever, in the time since then, acknowledging his lies, errors, and lapses in logic, let alone apologizing).

In any case, the President was not lying, and he was correct in his assertion that people like Wilson were spreading a falsehood.

The House bill explicitly forbids giving subsidies to illegal immigrants. That is a fact.

"Meanwhile, have you wondered why, if the Mayans were able to pinpoint the end of time in 2012, they were unable to see that their own civilization would collapse in the ninth century?"

For the sake of argument, I will say this: when you know a punch is coming, do you dodge it by default?

Ebert: That sounds as if it makes perfect sense. I'll have to read it again.

Randy Masters: "Examples abound."

How about a few? You should be able to rattle off half a dozen without even trying. I ask because I can't think of any myself. I can't see why you would haven't listed some right then and there.

I just think it's cool we have two movies dealing with a little of the "big stuff." I miss the good ol' thought-provoking sci-fi flicks of yesteryear. In recent years there have been a trickle of films that follow in the footsteps of classics like 2001. There was The Matrix trilogy and more recently The Fountain which was tragically overlooked.

I'm actually looking forward to these flicks because I've been tooling around with some of these ideas myself(just click the name).

For God's sake, lighten up.

Christianity Today online has a rather paranoid take on some of Roger’s comments about the movie “Creation”.
In Woody Allen's film "Curse of the Jade Scorpion", someone tells Woody, "You know there's a word for people who think like you." and Woody responds, "Yeah, perceptive."

But some of these people really aren’t anything to laugh about. As Jesus put it, “It was your fathers who . . .”
It was there ancestors who burned Bruno alive for saying God made other planets with people on them. On the same page they have a magazine cover with John Calvin on it: another sweetheart who burned someone alive for disagreeing with him.

By the way, when asked what he thought Christians might do after the resurrection, Billy Graham said: I don’t know. But we might witness to people on other planets.

Ebert: Christinity Today was fairly mild, and the comments were in my favor!

Reply to: Randy Masters: Get a grip, lefties! Your meme that distributors are afraid of Christian America on this movie is not credible.

Things have changed (a little) in the last five years. Distributors are going for the easy sell. They're not taking many chances on controversial material.

Reply to: Hollywood thrives on sticking it to Christianity. Even if a film loses money. ESPECIALLY if a film loses money.

Not really. "The Golden Compass" (December, 2007) was produced by New Line Cinema for $180 million

There was a boycott by Bob Donahue's Catholic League because of subject matter:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/414918/why_the_catholic_league_considers_the.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315248,00.html

Reply to: Americans, Christians included, will see the film if it's a well made and interesting film, content notwithstanding. And it will flop at the box office if it's a missed-opportunity bio-pic that's boring. Randy

This is slightly off-topic, but it might be important enough for a discussion.

Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that the McGuffin in the next Indiana Jones movie is the actual cross that Jesus was crucified on?

In much the same way Indiana Jones went searching for the Ark of the Covenant in "Raiders," the hero will learn that Chinese Communists know the location of the cross, and it has the same type of supernatural powers as the Ark. ie, a country that uses it for conquest will be unstoppable, or possibly trigger a global Armageddon.

Would there be a backlash against George Lucas?

Or would Christians like seeing Dr. Jones discover that a Christian relic has supernatural powers, too?

Ebert: Why do we take the Mayan calendar so seriously when we demur about human sacrifice?

What you mean "we," white man?

(PS the Aztecs had a prophecy where the White God would come and do great things. That's who they thought Cortez was. Guess he did do great things, but not for them. Learnt that in South American Colonial History)

I believe evolution as modern science describes it is the best theory of the variety of life on Earth and is almost certainly true. However, I have to take exception (as another reader did above) to your claim that evolution is "provably true." It is not. Theories are only provably false; exceptionally strong theories that hold up under many intellectual assaults and that are shown to hold true in many different circumstances may become LAWS. A physical law (like Newton's Laws of Motion or the Laws of Thermodynamics) is as big an endorsement of truthfulness that science can give. (Even so, I'd point out that Newton's Laws HAVE been modified by Einstein.)

But, as of today, we do not speak of a Law of Evolution, any more than we speak of Quantum Law or the Law of Relativity (even though all of these theories have been breathtakingly successful). It is still "just a theory."

on defending myself...

Bill Hays: Distributors are going for the easy sell. They're not taking many chances on controversial material...Not really. "The Golden Compass" (December, 2007) was produced by New Line Cinema for $180 million...There was a boycott by Bob Donahue's Catholic League because of subject matter:

Bill, you're kind of making my point for me. It was easy to predict a Christian boycott for "The Golden Compass", given that the author's purpose was to kill God, and to mock the "magisterium". They made it anyway. It got a distributor. Did it end up making money? I doubt it, but haven't looked.

Same thing with "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels and Demons". They knew they were going to offend, and did it anyway. I'm guessing those made big money.

Jim King: "Examples abound."

How about a few? You should be able to rattle off half a dozen without even trying. I ask because I can't think of any myself.

Well, you would have to start with "Religulous" of course.

Then, off of the top of my head, how about:

- Dogma
- Stigmata
- Saved!
- Jesus Camp
- Priest
- How about the DeNiro character in the remake of Cape Fear, who was way more whacko-religious than in the original
- How about the recent TV show Daniel - which crashed and burned?

Hollywood relentlessly portrays religious people as stupid or crazy or evil. It's the meme. It's their merit badge.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying any of these movies shouldn't have been made. I saw many myself.

I'm just saying that it's hysterical to claim that "Creation" won't get an American distributor because of pressure from American Christians. That's all.

It will get a distributor. And, I will go see it when it makes it's way to the Midwest. Can't wait.

Randy

P.S. Michael Medved makes the point well in "Hollywood vs. America" that wholesome movies make much more money than R-rated swill, yet R-Rated swill movies get made much more often than G-rated wholesome movies do. Why is that? When pressed, Hollywooders will say "we're just making the movies that people want to see", but the box-office story does not bear that out. They pursue a money losing strategy because they are idealogues before they are business people. Just my opinion.

Reply to: Bill, you're kind of making my point for me. It was easy to predict a Christian boycott for "The Golden Compass", given that the author's purpose was to kill God, and to mock the "magisterium". They made it anyway. It got a distributor. Did it end up making money? I doubt it, but haven't looked.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php

New Line Cinema pre-sold the overseas rights in order to get enough money to make the film. The film sold a lot of tickets overseas, but New Line didn't get any of it.

The budget was reported as $180 million. Or $ 205 million. Don't know what Nicole Kidman's back-end deal was. Prints and advertising cost an extra $ 59 million

Total US gross $ 70 million
Foreign gross $ 302 million

Worldwide gross $ 372 million

US DVD Sales $ 41 million

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/DARKM.php

As a result of "Golden Compass," New Line ceased to exist as a studio. After making (what we thought was) a studio-saving deal with Peter Jackson for "Lord of the Rings," taking on the Catholic church brought an end to New Line's independence.

And since then, no studio has released a big film that isn't pro-Christian. Chronicles of Narnia was based on Christian-favorite author C.S. Lewis.

Second point: Movies depend on conflict, and movies that include an element of religious conflict are usually more interesting.

George Lucas gave us "The Force" and a Jewish artifact that melted Nazis.

"Schindler's List". The end of "The Godfather" where Michael renounces Satan.

Hollywood studios haven't been anti-christian so much as trying to work basic conflict about religion into the story lines. In "The Exorcist," Father Damien had lost his faith, so he could regain it through his battle with the demon. Same for Father Merrin in the prequel.

Audiences seem to enjoy seeing a devout Christian who has lost his faith, regain it... rather than an atheist suddenly finding God.

As they say in Hollywood, "If you want to leave a message, call my answering machine." Don't risk your job and a studio's money by showing Darwin walking out of an Anglican Church.

Support for CREATION to receive US distribution, along with debate, can be found at the Facebook group 'Bring Creation to the US':

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=132022932739&ref=nf

I think I understand the reason a large number of people say they believe in the story of creation vs evolution. My thought is that they don't really understand that the two aren't comparable. Even those learned individuals posting comments here don't really understand. At least that's the impression I get from reading many of the comments.

It seems that no matter who I have a discussion/debate with, the first detour on the road to a conclusion is in the direction of creationism vs evolution and the belief that the two cannot be combined in any sensible way. Intelligent Design is a newcomer to the field but is usually mentioned as indistinguishable from creationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't believe that anyone has all of the answers simply because some of the answers are unknowable. This is not a religious enterpretation but a pragmatic one. It cannot be proven that the universe was created by an omnipotent being and it cannot be proven that the universe "appeared" out of nothing. I've mentioned that single point of super-dense matter in other comments but it bears repeating the question, "Where did that point of super-dense matter come from?" The supposition that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created it is as good as any other. Where did the FSM come from? While it is admirable to pursue these questions in an effort to discover a reasonable theory, there is no possible way for any of these theories to be proven. As a person who understands that life is fleeting and must be savored, why should I give it any consideration one way or another? If the potential for spontaneous generation of life is scientifically proven a possibility, that still doesn't address the issue of ultimate origin, and it certainly doesn't mean that life began in that exact way.

I would be interested to know if the film, "Creation" addresses these issues, which I suspect were of great importance to Darwin. It seems to me that there is also some confusion relating to "The Origin of Species" as a rebutal to Genesis. I do feel confident that the Church (regardless of denomination) would be accepting of the theory of evolution as it does not directly contradict the biblical interpretations usually associated with church doctrine. The bible is used as an explanation for creation itself, not as a definition of the mutation and adaption related to evolution. For those who trot out the Christian purists who say the Bible is "the word of God", I don't believe they are remotely close to a majority. I believe this is what you (Mr. Ebert) refer to when you suggest that the Church accepts that evolution and God can both be true. I also believe that Darwin understood this to some degree but was torn by what he thought his wife and those around him would understand. It would put him in the unenviable position of attempting to explain a very complex and previously unknown science to people who would see it as an attack on their faith. The fact that it wasn't and isn't an attack on that faith is difficult to convey today, let alone in the 19th century when graduating from the 6th grade was considered overkill for most people.

Whether individual Christians, or any other religion for that matter, believe one over the other, the important issue to me is that the leaders of the Church understand the issue. As scientists (and I believe most theologions are equal to scientists in their own way), theologians tend to accept science with the mystery of life. I believe that this is the primary reason Church leaders place such value on science and support it as they do. A Discover magazine article of some months ago discussed the Catholic Church and their funding of science as well as their support for individual luminaries in various scientific fields. The notables include Stephen Hawking, among others. Most people think that the Church, especially the Catholic Church, do not support science and will speak out against any science they don't agree with. The fact that the Church has spent millions supporting scientific endeavors is not a commonly known fact and therefore most people see them at odds with science. Sadly, that becomes part of the argument concerning the theory of evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design and all of the permutations.

Life, regardless of the faith imbued in science or religion, is a mystery that may be quantified in it's path but never in its origins.

Calabogie

Hi Bill Hays.

Interesting $ numbers on "The Golden Compass". From your numbers, it looks like it made money. ($413M revenue - $264M cost = $149M profit). Why did that take down New Line? Not enough profit?

I understand conflict being necessary to drama. Most of the films you mention do that quite well.

There is a qualitative difference though in crisis-of-faith dramas vs. open hostility to the church. You have to see that difference.

Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Excorcist, Shindler's List. Fine. Great even.

The Golden Compass - not so much. Openly hostile to the majority viewpoint in your release market. Not a smart bet.

Creation will fall into the former, not the latter. It may or may not make money - depends on how good of a movie it is. I don't see any boycotts on the horizon.

A short story:

I remember the day before Passion of the Christ hit the theaters. I was listening to Roe Conn on WLS AM on my way home from work. He was predicting $15M gross for it's run, tops. I knew from the way my church was pre-buying tickets and promoting it that Roe's number would be way off. I was predicting a $75M-100M opening weekend.

By Monday, everyone in the media seemed to be shocked that Passion had earned so much in a weekend. (I forget the actual number).

People seem to constantly misjudge the American market, is all I'm saying.

By the way, I was talking to a co-worker on the day before the 2004 election. He was freaking out. I said "Don't worry, it's Bush by at leat 2 points." How did I know that. "The same underestimated "Passion" audience will show up for Bush". My friend didn't believe me, but owed me a coke on election day.

Randy

Hi Steven Doyle.

The House bill explicitly forbids giving subsidies to illegal immigrants. That is a fact.

True. As far as it goes. But, let me quibble with it a bit.

The House bill has language to that regard. Not necessarily whatever Senate bill that emerges, certainly not as of the speech on Wednesday night. What is going to be in the final reconcilliation?

The language apparently didn't apply to the "Health Exchanges", whatever those are. The Whitehouse moved on Friday to shore that up - meaning that they hadn't done so as of the speech. Win for Joe Wilson.

What is the enforcement mechanism for the House bill language?

What in anything that the Democrats have done over the last decade makes you think that they will enforce not giving benefits to illegals? They don't even admit that there are illegals - just "undocumented workers". Democrats constantly fight ID checking, including voting down every effort to use the SAVE system that the states use for validating benefit eligibility. There is no enforcement mechanism - which makes the language in the House Bill worthless.

Lastly, implementation of that language would be up to the Presidential "Health Commision". Great, more Obama Czars. Just what we need.

Look, anyone who followed the McCain - Kennedy amnesty bill knows that the Democrats have no intention of denying benefits to illegal aliens. It's just a matter of what artifical language they have to use to sneak it in. Get real.

As long as we have this conversation - Joe Wilson wins. I'm with Joe.

Randy

I had never thought of evolution evolution being such a great idea just like i never thought much about chairs or tables.I am from India and i never thought that some body could believe in anything as silly as divine creation until I heard about the controversies in the US.That may be because i am not a Christian. (BTW- divine creation seems more feasible with Hinduism and 330 million gods,one guy creating everything is ridiculous)
The intellectuals by debating against creationism, are giving creationism far more credibility than it deserves.

Reply to: Interesting $ numbers on "The Golden Compass". From your numbers, it looks like it made money. ($413M revenue - $264M cost = $149M profit). Why did that take down New Line? Not enough profit?

First, the studio only gets HALF of the gross. To get revenue, you have to subtract what the theaters keep.

Second, New Line Cinema (or parent company Time Warner) pre-sold the overseas rights in order to get enough money to make the film.

$ 205 million to make the film.

Prints and advertising cost an extra $ 59 million

Total US gross $ 70 million

The theaters keep half the gross.

So, New Line earned $35 million on an investment of $264 million.

(2) imdb: First movie ever to gross over $300 millions, while failing to reach $100 millions in America.

After the domestic box office failure, only grossing $70,107,728 the movie captured to make $301,387,140 at the foreign box office, (as of May 4, 2008). The total box office is for the movie $371,494,868 (as of May 4, 2008).

NIKKI FINKE: My box office gurus are telling me that New Line Cinema's holiday tentpole The Golden Compass is going to be a huge bomb. They predict an opening domestic weekend starting today only in the high $20s million from 3,528 theaters. That's disastrous because, with a pricetag of $200+ million without P&A costs, the fantasy epic should be making a minimum $50 million debut. Not to mention that the studio has spent big bucks marketing

Problem is, Golden Compass has sparked the ire of the Catholic League, which is calling for a boycott of the film by parents with children due to Pullman's supposedly anti-Christian notions.

So much for NL chairman Bob Shaye's hopes for a fresh franchise. Seriously, he's had so many disappointments at the box office month after month after month, year after year (everything in 2007 except for Hairspray) that he should have a big "L" for "Loser" branded on his forehead.

Shaye's contract is set to expire in 2008. Time Warner is a public company, his New Line is no longer a private fiefdom, and he pisses away shareholder money. (end NF)

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/bob-shayes-big-gamble-wont-pay-off-golden-compass-looks-leaden-this-wkd/

When the corporate accountants at Time-Warner (TW) looked at the The Golden Compass numbers, a negative cost north of $180 million versus $70 million in domestic box office earnings and no foreign box office earnings, the die was cast. To cover the production cost, TW pre-sold foreign distribution rights. Whatever the amount TW got, it was too little, The Golden Compass had tremendous overseas earnings, over $300 million, breaking BO records in Japan and the UK.

Thanks to The Golden Compass's red ink, close to $50 million even after crediting the payments for overseas rights and the tax write off New Line got for filming the movie in Britain (with financing from the Royal Bank of Scotland), new TW CEO Jeffrey L. Bewkes dismantled New Line Cinema, firing 350 of the studio's 450 employees last month.

Nicole Kidman made over $15 million for appearing in The Golden Compass. This large sum was to guarantee her appearing in the next two movies in this planned trilogy, money for nothing. (end)

After building New Line from a small distribution company, Bob Shaye sold out to Time Warner, and was able to make one big movie using the studio's money.

if the gamble had paid off, he would have had a legacy.

but the gamble didn't pay off.

My point was, AFTER "Golden Compass," the studios changed their attitude toward films that openly mocked Christian beliefs.

Your comments may have been exactly right for films made prior to 2008.

Hi Bill Hays.

Thanks for the data on "The Golden Compass" box office and it's meaning.

One of your quotes further point to the cluelessness of Hollywood:

NIKKI FINKE: My box office gurus are telling me that New Line Cinema's holiday tentpole The Golden Compass is going to be a huge bomb...Problem is, Golden Compass has sparked the ire of the Catholic League, which is calling for a boycott of the film by parents with children due to Pullman's supposedly anti-Christian notions.

Supposedly anti-Christian notions?

From Snopes.com on Pullman:

"...Pullman has left little doubt about his books' intended thrust in discussions of his works such as noting in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God" and in a 2001 interview that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief".

Supposedly anti-Christian notions?

Did they think we wouldn't notice, and respond negatively at the box office? Wow. Who gave these people money to put at risk?

Having said that, I don't see "Creation" generating that reaction. And, I think I'm plugged into the groups that react.

Your comments may have been exactly right for films made prior to 2008.

I take your point there. They've been burned. They have no idea how those mysterious Christians will react. They may keep their money in their pocket for a while, before the ideology reasserts itself.

Good. We'll get better films for a while. :)

Randy

Note: the admirable Giordano Bruno was burned for his theological heresies, not for supporting the Copernican view and speculating about a plurality of worlds. In 1600 the Church had no position on the heliocentric model; it wasn't heresy.

I have an idea. Let's finish the Mayan calendar ourselves. Problem solved. If we start right now and we all work together, we can have that puppy spread out at least a century past 2012 before the fateful day even gets here. I'll take 2013. Wait, there won't be chiseling involved, will there? I'm not good at chiseling.

[Randy Masters]P.S. Michael Medved makes the point well in "Hollywood vs. America" that wholesome movies make much more money than R-rated swill, yet R-Rated swill movies get made much more often than G-rated wholesome movies do. Why is that? When pressed, Hollywooders will say "we're just making the movies that people want to see", but the box-office story does not bear that out. They pursue a money losing strategy because they are idealogues before they are business people. Just my opinion.

Michael Medved is a right wing ideologue. Who makes his money ranting to radio audiences about dem evil liberals.

By R rated swill, you mean of course movies like "The Passion of the Christ". Nasty snuff film that. Probably inspired the "Saw" series and other torture porn movies. Yup, they definitely shouldn't make more films like that one. What a horribly unchristian film that was.

More seriously, I hate to break it to you, but there is a limit to the market in theaters for just G rated films and plenty of what gets released are bombs. With the exception of Pixar, I doubt their "big hit" rate is any higher than for R rated films or other "unwholesome" fare. I suspect that a simple explanation for the relative $$$ for pg/g fare is a simple matter of the numbers. If kids go to a movie, there's probably at least two of them + at least one adult vs just one or two adults (and at least in theory) no teenagers for R rated fare. Kids or teens are also more likely to catch a movie multiple times in the theater.

You might want to live in a world where the only movies and TV shows that are made are "wholesome family fare". Me, I'd like to watch stuff that isn't aimed at the lowest common denominator and defanged to avoid exposing young minds to anything that might disturb them.

I'm an adult and dammit, I want to watch stuff for adults not children.

"The Golden Compass" did not fail because of "christian" boycotts or protests. It was simply, at best a mediocre film, with a bloated budget.

[Randy Masters]Hollywood relentlessly portrays religious people as stupid or crazy or evil. It's the meme. It's their merit badge.

Yeah christians are such a small, powerless, persecuted, minority. I can only hope that one day a white christian male can be elected president...

It really is a very nasty characteristic of the fundies in the US that they constantly obsess over how "they" are out to get "us". The basis for a lot of the rage we've been seeing, is this delusion that they are "persecuted" and that anyone who isn't a fundie is "out to get them".

I don't know about you, but my cable system has at least a dozen christian broadcasting channels, maybe two dozen. I lost count. There's ONE Science Fiction channel and a handful of science channels that often are broadcasting non-scientific nonsense about Nostradamus.

There are endless shows and movies where christians and the religious are shown as moral and upstanding citizens. Christian mythology invariably underpins TV shows and movies. It's so embedded in stuff that it often isn't even explicitly mentioned. It's just shown as "normal".

I don't know what you're watching, but it's a warped view of reality if you think the religious are only portrayed as evil and crazy.

You want to talk about intolerance, just look at what a lot of the fundies in the US have to say about atheists. Can you honestly tell me that an avowed atheist even has a chance of being elected president? How well tolerated do you think atheists would be in the bible belt?

You want to whine about how you are portrayed. Atheists are invariably portrayed, if we're lucky, as intolerant jerks that refuse to acknowledge clear and obvious "evidence" of the supernatural in front of us. If not "lucky", we're conscienceless evil murderers that think we are "beyond" morality. We are ALWAY shown as being wrong, while believing in religion's fairy stories or other superstitions is always shown as correct.

Try naming characters on TV who clearly aren't christians.

For bonus points, name one where the atheist is a sane, well balanced, humane and caring person?

I can't do it.

Hi John DeWeese,

I take your points in your reply to me. Not wanting to pick a fight on this one.

Let me back off of some of the harsher words like "R-rated swill" (since I see a lot of those movies) and back up to my original point.

The only point I meant to make was that it was unlikely that it was true that "Creation" was not getting a distributor due to pressure from the religious right in America - thus giving us a bad name.

I think I was validated in that by point by Roger's later post stating that most movies at the festival left without getting a distributor. It's about the marketplace in general, not religious opposition.

I think that Medved's main point goes to something that you mentioned in your reply: that it's more profitable to put 4 butts in the seats than 2 butts. G-Rated movies can be more profitable that way.

I'll have to give some thought to how atheists are portrayed in movies. I think pretty well, but I'll have to pay attention to that. I'll stick with my comments about how Christians are portrayed.

Anyway, my main point was about "Creation". I'd go see it. I hope it gets a distributor.

Randy

I hadn't looked at this entry in a while, so when the subject shifted to how religion (or religiosity, anyway) is portrayed in our dramatic media, the notions started popping up in my disorderly mind, more or less as follows:

1) Since this topic has come to be dominated by the comedy stylings of Masters & Hays (and please don't read anything into that billing; I was going for rhythm), I suppose I ought to start with some of their more florid pronouncements.

1a)In talking about the opening weekend of The Passion of the Christ, Randy noted, casually, that his church was buying large blocks of advance tickets in order to guarantee a boffo first frame. Surely, Randy, even you have to realize that this is the most artificial way to affect box-office figures that there is. You weren't specific, so I'll guess that the tickets were given away to the congregation, as premiums or as a group project. In any event, these were likely not regular moviegoers, but rather a congregation observing a parish duty. Nothing wrong with that at all, but don't mislead yourself as to its true significance on a national level.

1b)As for Bill Hays, he gives far too much credit to Bill Donohue and his bogus National Catholic League for boycotting Golden Compass. Boycotts are highly overrated as a method of effective protest: to get one to work you'd need provable participation in at least the double millions. The only organization with a mailing list that large is the Internal Revenue Service. Add to that , Mr. Donohue does not speak for the Catholic Church or for American Catholics in general; most Catholics I know (including politically conservative ones) are embarrassed by his blustering, his honking voice, and his open anti-Semitism.
Back in 1997, ABC ran a short-lived series called Nothing Sacred. The series dealt with a Catholic parish in a rundown part of a large city, and with its pastor (Kevin Anderson), whom you might term a 'libreal' priest. Father Ray was always in hot water with his archdiocese for taking progressive positions, but most of his parishioners liked him and stood by him. ABC chose to air it on Thursdays, against NBC's then-impregnable sitcom block, so it was probably foredoomed anyway, but that didn't stop Bill Donohue from mounting an all-out smear campaign against the series, in which he repeatedly misrepresented the show's content and intentions. It didn't matter at all to him that Nothing Sacred's creator and head writer was himself a Jesuit priest - or maybe it did. What I do know is that my mother, a devout Catholic all her life, loved the show. In the years since its demise, Bill Donohue has never stopped taking credit for driving Nothing Sacred off the air. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is a fallacy.

2) As to how religion is portrayed in general in dramatic media: first off, are we talking about religion or religiosity? There is a difference, you know.
Religion is about belief, faith, good works, and basic decency.
Religiosity is about making a public show of 'godliness' in order to show superiority over others. ("My church is harder on sinners yhan your church!" "But my church has a higher steeple!" "But my church has more members!" "Our Father who art in Heaven can lick your Father who art in Heaven!' And so on.)
Back in the '50s, ABC had a series called Crossroads on Friday nights. This was an anthology which concerned itself with the experiences of clergymen. The major faiths were seen in loose rotation - Catholic priest, Protestant minister, Rabbi - and many of the stories were based on true incidents. For example, one week's episode was about Rabbi Fischel, who went to President Linclon to request that Rabbis be allowed to serve as chaplains in the Union Army. (Rabbi Fischel was played by the Irish Catholic J. Carrol Naish.) Another story was about the German- born minister who introduced the Christmas tree to America, for whioh (you should excuse the expression) he caught hell from his pastorate. Those sorts of stories. Crossroads was never a big hit (ABC only had about a third as many stations as NBC or CBS),but it ran two full seasons on the network, and had a healthy syndicaton run afterwards. My purpose in mentioning it here is to note a major difference between then and now: Crossroads was about the positive aspects of religious faith. These days, religious faith has been displaced by religiosity - God reduced to a front man for whatever political and social agenda the speaker (or more usually the shouter) has.

The late mystery writer Edward D. Hoch was being interviewed about his career. The interviewer described Hoch as "a devout Catholic." Hoch stopped him, saying that altough he was indeed a churchgoer, he felt that the word "devout" was an overstatement. Hoch suggested "observant" as a substitute.
My own Catholicism doesn't even reach that level these days, but I think I see what Ed Hoch was driving at. I wish that more of the loudly 'devout' did too.

According to The Hollywood Reporter Newmarket now has the distribution rights for Creation and expect to open in December. Near the end of the story they say, "The movie was generally well-received when it opened Toronto two weeks ago, though given its period aspects, found a slightly tougher acquisitions market." So apparently the big problem was that it's one of those movies where people wear old-fashioned clothes and talk funny.

"Creation" just entered the UK box office at number 10.

In other, sad, news... My favorite film so far this year, "Bright Star" did not even show up in the US top 10. I went on its opening Friday night to the only cinema showing it in Albuquerque. True, we have the Hot Air Balloon Fiesta going on, but the theater was about 80% empty.

Hey, has anyone called you out on "Leonardo's God and Adam?" It's like saying Coppola's Goodfellas

Ebert: I guess this means I read The Agony and the Ecstasy for nothing.

Reading? No, no. Wikipedia.

I finally caught up with the Ben Stein movie ( I'll pause while you reach for a crucifix and garlands of garlic, or maybe Torah/ menorah, or maybe just a ballpeen hammer.). It's really a fascinating and instructive melange. The CGI of activity inside the cell is worthy of real Nat Geo or PBS studies of the complexity of molecular genetics and the wonders of intracellular interaction. But the follow-through, of course, is the old irreducible complexity canard rather than the current information of how the informational content of organic materials, and the properties of protein chains provide the basis for natural selection to build diversity and improve function( The ID people's best, argument- a metaphysical, not scientific one- is actually irreducible simplicity, but that's another post)The way he touches on the venerable construct of how it all started creates the opportunity to show the contribution of science, philosophy, and metaphysics to understanding how to understand the issues, but Stein uses them only to advance his flashy but irredeemable confounding of Darwinian theory with social Darwinism, eugenics and genocide.He of course doesn't bother to disclose that evolutionary science is a constantly developing field in which vigorous disputation engenders more sophisticated and fruitful ideas that nourish many other areas of thought( punctuational equilibrium being one of the most notable, as it extends Kuhn's insights into the structure of change in many fields, and may illustrate a fundamental characteristic of large systems- see Gould's chapters on this topic in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory). Stein presents deliberately controversial people like Dennett and Dawkins and Hitchens, none of them practicing scientists, and makes them the spokespersons for the cutting edge of Evolutionary thinking, takes a guy like Pinker totally out of context, and so on and so on,and no hope for illustrating the concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria.
But there is the germ of a really good 5 or 10 part series here, if only PBS, BBC, WGBH, The Macarthur Foundation, and Charlie Rose get on it.