Creation Censored?

[colddiesel]

Can this article be true? It suggests the film "Creation," a biography of Darwin will not be shown in the USA because it might offend the more ignorant christians.

Or is it just a poor film?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-cotroversial-for-religious-America.html

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The US has been full of films that offended darn near everyone. The idea that someone would withhold this one to avoid offense is laughable. Probably it just wouldn't make back its distribution costs.

 

[rgraham666]

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

Um. They forgot the spread of sexual perversion as well as cats and dogs living together.

I wonder what the people at Movieguide (Don't click on this link if you're grossed out easily) would make of this?

 

[Epmd607]

Can this article be true? It suggests the film "Creation," a biography of Darwin will not be shown in the USA because it might offend the more ignorant christians.

Or is it just a poor film?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-cotroversial-for-religious-America.html

I'm usually up on the new science movies and books, but I haven't heard of this one. Maybe it's not that great of a film.

 

[sadangel]

Um. They forgot the spread of sexual perversion as well as cats and dogs living together.

I wonder what the people at Movieguide (Don't click on this link if you're grossed out easily) would make of this?

I have to say I think it is pretty cool. Not perhaps WHAT it does, but it looks pretty darn cool.

Wait. Cats and dogs live together?. BLASPHEMY!!

Sexual perversion. I know nothing of this which you speak of. I do not!

 

[TE999]

If, in fact, this flick won't be coming here because the fundies would blow a gasket and the distributors are chickening out, it will be available on DVD toute suite and be all over the US overnight. Not on NetFlix or Blockbuster of course, but it'll get around via sales on the net.

I'd sure like to see it.

 

[Handley_Page]

The US has been full of films that offended darn near everyone. The idea that someone would withhold this one to avoid offense is laughable. Probably it just wouldn't make back its distribution costs.

Yes, Bear, it is laughable; but true.
I think it might make a profit; it's been sold all over the rest of the world so far.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.


What a load of tosh!.
Censorship rules OK ??

 

[water_side]

I would be very surprised if this movie were to be put on general release in the US. However, restrictions upon a US release due to strongly felt (and politically powerful) religious beliefs, is no guide to how good (or bad) a film is.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yet they suck at the tit of Da Vinci Code like hungry puppies. Oh, and Supernatural!

Blasphemy, which at least assumes the existence of the god it denigrates, is still preferable to atheism...

 

[NoJo]

It's shameful, and shows that the US has a very long way to go before it can extricate itself from the Religious right.

Although it's obviously a far better and freer country than, say, Iran, the weight of religious dogma is noticeably oppressive in many parts of the country.

And no, it's not because the film is bad. It's precisely because it's such a patently great film that there's such a furore about it's failure to get distribution in the U.S.

Americans, get off your asses and do something about the religious bigots and the cowards who Kowtow to them. They're making your country look ridiculous in the eyes of intellectuals all over the word (including a frustrated few in the U.S.)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Maybe some day Jerry Fallwell and the far right religious nuts will have someone explain the difference between "Darwinism" and "Darwinian Theory". It didn't seem to sink in at the Scopes "Money Trial"

 

[Pure]

something fishy

about this story.

i wonder if a bit of publicity isn't the aim of the story.

the thesis that the American religious right stifles the showing of controversial movies, is 90% BS, i think. 'brokeback mountain' did ok, did it not. maher's 'religulous'. 'da vinci code' fantasies. harry potter.

further back, George Burns played God, in "Oh God" (1977) and made a supermarket manager his prophet; appeared in court and walked on water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh,_God!

Monty Python's "life of Brian" might also be mentioned.


it also might be said that if 40 percent of American endorse evolution and 25 percent do not (endorse creationism),

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx


there is one British poll showing similar results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

48% support evolution, 39% support creationism or 'intelligent design'.

The director Thomas's remark, is pure horse pucky.

"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules"

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It's shameful, and shows that the US has a very long way to go before it can extricate itself from the Religious right.

Although it's obviously a far better and freer country than, say, Iran, the weight of religious dogma is noticeably oppressive in many parts of the country.

And no, it's not because the film is bad. It's precisely because it's such a patently great film that there's such a furore about it's failure to get distribution in the U.S.

Americans, get off your asses and do something about the religious bigots and the cowards who Kowtow to them. They're making your country look ridiculous in the eyes of intellectuals all over the word (including a frustrated few in the U.S.)

Unfortunately, that is not a fertile argument. Intellectuals have no status in the U.S. They never have had any. That is possibly because so few intellectuals will give any status to the U.S., at least since it emerged from WWII as a super power. I believe that the desire is that we instead remained a dream that combines Disney's Mainstreet and Jeffersonian agrarianism. So we have to find a better reason for distributing the film here. Appealing to the favor of intellectuals won't cut any mustard. Sorry about that.

 

[Pure]

"intellectuals have no status in the US"--VM

i don't suppose this counts against your thesis:

Larry Summers is director of Obama's National Economic Council,

[wiki bio excerpt] At age 16,[3] he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he originally intended to study physics but soon switched to economics (S.B., 1975). He was also an active member of the MIT debating team. He attended Harvard University as a graduate student (Ph.D., 1982), where he studied under economist Martin Feldstein. In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history.

Summers also served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.

===
Timothy Geithner, Secy of Treasury

[wiki:] He then attended Dartmouth College, graduating with an A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983.[4] In the process he studied Mandarin at Peking University in 1981 and at Beijing Normal University in 1982.[5] He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.[4][6] He has studied Chinese[4] and Japanese.[7] [...]

In October 2003 at age 42,[16] he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[17] His salary in 2007 was $398,200.[18] Once at the New York Fed, he became Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.[19] In May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank.[16] In November he rejected Sanford Weill's offer to take over as Citigroup's chief executive.[16]

In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns;[11][20] in the same year, he played a pivotal role in both the decision to bail out AIG as well as the government decision not to save Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy, though claims were made after Geithner's nomination that distanced him from both AIG and Lehman Brothers.[21] As a Treasury official, he helped manage multiple international crises of the 1990s[13] in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.[14]

 

[JackLuis]

Controversy Sells Films

You don't think that the film makers had a few thoughts before they sunk "Millions, Millions" in production cost do you?

It is called post production publicity. and See It Works!

 

[NoJo]

Well you won't be seeing it, will you

 

[JackLuis]

Well you won't be seeing it, will you

I can barely afford my internet, I don't splurge often.

 

[NoJo]

I can barely afford my internet, I don't splurge often.

No, my point is that the U.S. are not distributing it.

 

[Teloz]

Nah! They're just pissed 'coz an American actor wasn't given the lead.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

i don't suppose this counts against your thesis:

Larry Summers is director of Obama's National Economic Council,

[wiki bio excerpt] At age 16,[3] he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he originally intended to study physics but soon switched to economics (S.B., 1975). He was also an active member of the MIT debating team. He attended Harvard University as a graduate student (Ph.D., 1982), where he studied under economist Martin Feldstein. In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history.

Summers also served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.

===
Timothy Geithner, Secy of Treasury

[wiki:] He then attended Dartmouth College, graduating with an A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983.[4] In the process he studied Mandarin at Peking University in 1981 and at Beijing Normal University in 1982.[5] He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.[4][6] He has studied Chinese[4] and Japanese.[7] [...]

In October 2003 at age 42,[16] he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[17] His salary in 2007 was $398,200.[18] Once at the New York Fed, he became Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.[19] In May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank.[16] In November he rejected Sanford Weill's offer to take over as Citigroup's chief executive.[16]

In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns;[11][20] in the same year, he played a pivotal role in both the decision to bail out AIG as well as the government decision not to save Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy, though claims were made after Geithner's nomination that distanced him from both AIG and Lehman Brothers.[21] As a Treasury official, he helped manage multiple international crises of the 1990s[13] in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.[14]

You are equating highly intelligent technocrats with intellectuals. Hell, Billary is highly intelligent but do you call Bubba an intellectual? I sure don't. Intellectual means someone who is primarily concerned with ideas over actions, by most definitions. Technocrats are people who are really smart, usually, and who make things work. Intellectuals are more likely to comment on what is done than to do something. As such, they have little standing in the U.S. where the dominant philosophy is Utilitarianism over Platonic Idealism.

 

[JamesSD]

This also points out the flaw in the american "Indie" film distribution system. Most of the "independant" films are distributed and marketed by the indie brand of a major film studio. Miramax was bought by Disney. There's Lion's Gate, and the Weinsteins have their own company since they split from Miramax.

This doesn't sound like the kind of film that will rake in cash, even if it is excellent. Certainly not enough to justify the risk involved.

At the same time, I'm sure the producers are trying to use the media and generate controversy to find a distributor. It's possible that they got offers, but said offers just weren't high enough for what they hoped for. I imagine someone will pick it up, it's more a question of what kind of deal they will get.

 

[Epmd607]

You are equating highly intelligent technocrats with intellectuals. Hell, Billary is highly intelligent but do you call Bubba an intellectual? I sure don't. Intellectual means someone who is primarily concerned with ideas over actions, by most definitions. Technocrats are people who are really smart, usually, and who make things work. Intellectuals are more likely to comment on what is done than to do something. As such, they have little standing in the U.S. where the dominant philosophy is Utilitarianism over Platonic Idealism.

"Intellectual means someone who is primarily concerned with ideas over actions, by most definitions."

I agree with the other poster, I think Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Sheila Bair, Alan Greenspan all fit your definition well for 'intellectual'. These are people that let the world banking system collapse because they didn't take actions years ago, they are the thinkers that spent more time talking about moral hazard than reacting to the monstrosity in front of them. Alan Greenspan admitted his view of the markets was wrong and basically said that his free-market dogma was intellectually flawed when faced with reality.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think not. There is a difference between a technocrat operating on inaccurate theory and a philosopher/critic.

 

[Epmd607]

I think not. There is a difference between a technocrat operating on inaccurate theory and a philosopher/critic.

I think your broad use of 'technocrat' is a mistake. Greenspan was an economist/philosopher same as Uncle Milty F. I think the same can be said about Bernanke. These people live(d) intellectual lives, they've little interest in social engineering. They serve as chairman of FOMC because it's as prestigious an intellectual postion one can get these days. Geithner chaired the New York Fed Reserve, he sat around and decided the best way for money/credit to flow. These guys leave Princeton to straddle the line between man of action and man of intellect. Paul Krugman is wetting his pants trying to get the Obama Administration to put his trade theories in action. Most of these guys care more about be intellectually right than power, engineering a better society, blah blah woof woof.

 

[bflagsst]

Why do we want to watch another Darwin biography or read another book about Thomas Jefferson? Biographies are a problem, we're more interested in the lives of people than in their theories. There should be a new movie about Genetic Drift and Mutation and all that nice stuff, the stuff that made evolution science and not just darwinian philosophy.

On the issue of intellectuals--intellectuals are given all sorts of prestige in our society, especially the economists. This guy Nouriel Roubini moves your 401k when he speaks, there are so many pure intellectuals that influence your day to day life too. The lobbyists represent the technocrats, and you can confuse them with the think tank intellectuals that appear daily on news networks. These people advise, give talks for a living, are outside the lobbyist world. Henry Paulson was a technocrat/lobbyist shill, which is usually the case with the treasury secretary, but to say there aren't famous(european style famous) intellectuals is mistaken.