Appalling censorship of film Evolution

[Tuor]

It seems American scientific illiteracy and opposition to objective science (by a vocal minority) continues to exert censorship and intimidation. Of course, this is the country that has a "creationist" museum that school children are taken to for indoctrination against science (apparently featuring cavemen with dinosaurs). About the movie, from Examiner.com

Paul Bethany plays Darwin in Creation, a story about the struggle between the love of Darwin's life and his love for biology.This year, a British film starring famed actors Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany, and Jeremy Northam, which is already being called one of the best movies of the year, will not be coming to any theatre near you. The reason why? The subject matter of this film is the life of Charles Darwin and American movies theaters are too afraid of convservative evangelical backlash , so no theatre company in America has signed on to show the film Creation. Set to open on September 25 in the UK, the film is already receiving rave reviews at the Toronto Film Festival in Canada. In fact, the film has already been shown in film festivals across Europe and has been described by viewers as "absolutely brilliant."

The funny thing is, the film is not a straight story of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Rather, it is about his struggle between his love of science and his love for his religious wife Emma, who was worried that his discoveries would undermine her religious faith. The film focuses on Darwin's struggles to get his research published as well as his absences from the woman he loves. In fact, you can say the film is really a love story. The film deals in flashbacks, going from the time of Darwin's courtship with Emma to the publishing of his theories and the untimely death of a favorite daughter, Anna, who's image haunted Darwin late in life.

Americans pride themselvse on their freedom of religion as well as their freedom of speech, often claiming to be devoid of censorship and bias. However, in America, a religious film like Passion of the Christ can become the highest grossing R-rated film at $370 million. Turn around and a PG rated move about Darwin won't even be released in theaters because of self-censorship and fear. This tale seems more like something out of Iranian theocracy than the supposedly democratic film industry of America

[Half Pint John]

and we worry about the Iranians fanatical nut cases. We have more than our share, unforunatly.

[les Brains]

Not wanting to be fussy, but the film name is Creation.

I also mentioned it in our Science sub forum
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=83083

The nutcases on the outside, may well be a lot less dangerous than the intellectual rot from within.

I KNOW I am going to get flak from this, but it HAS to be said, saying Creationism is ok, and just a choice, is as repulsive to me, as pedophilia.

I have zero love and zero respect for religion and it's supporters when they will actively and energetically refuse the truth all because it refuses to support their unsupportable beliefs.

[Legatus Augusti]

This is appalling. Personally, I have nothing against proponents of either view, but to censor a film because it is tangentially related to evolution? Isn't it 2009? Isn't this THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA????? What the is going on here?

[Miss Saigon]

Improper use of the word censorship. The is a difference between a private comapny electing to avoid a contraversial subject and the government prohibiting it.

And my guess is that the reason the companies are staying away from the film is because it is a topic not likely to draw large audiences. They will need to go the indy route.

I suspect that someone is making this political when it really isn't. Maybe in the farm belt some communities may not like such a film, but I have a hard time believing anyone in major metropolitan areas really cares one bit.

Sounds like garbage to me.

If movie theaters really care about what evangelical christians think most mass market trash sex comedies wouldn't be shown.

Wake up people. No one is censoring anything.

[Wolery]

Originally Posted by les Brains

I KNOW I am going to get flak from this, but it HAS to be said, saying Creationism is ok, and just a choice, is as repulsive to me, as pedophilia.

Wait a sec. In the war between the asshole Dawkins types and the fundies, it is sometimes lost what Creationism means. I am a Christian and I DO believe that God created everything. The way I see it is a view called theistic evolution, evolution directed by God. And considering God in the Bible, there is a case that He works in mundane as well as mysterious ways.

Young earth creationism is garbage, not because it is unscientific, because it challenges the credibility of science. Science is useless unless it can predict, and also post-dic, and to say God somehow makes the rules different in a way that could only confuse modern people I think is small minded and disingenuous. That said the Dawkinns crowd crow that Science has stated there was no plan involved and therefore no God of any importance. Science does no such things. Scientists with agendas, and everybody has them, have said that. Frankly, Science CAN'T explain why stuff happens, it can only explain the HOW. A plan or not in human evolution is a question no mortal is qualified to answer. I'm not threatened by Dawkins making an ass out of himself, because I've MET God.

But in this clash of the assholes, reasonability is lost, and to be fair it's lost on both sides. Science is an investigational technique, not a freaking religion. And if someone tries to make it one, it is not long for this world because Science cannot answer any truly important question, we have seen this. Plus I would doubt very much any scientist worthy of the name(like my uncle in Livermore) wants to be bound by priestly robes. They have experiments to run.

[les Brains]

Correctimundo.

The theatres have responded to clear evidence (to them at least) that the film would not be profitable on the basis of heat they have received from the religious community in the US.

It has not been banned censored or in any way denied entrance to the US.

The whole reason it is disturbing is in the WHY it won't be coming to a theatre near you if you live in the US.

But you can always download it (eventually).

[Miss Saigon]

Frankly, it sounds like a real yawner to me, and since the average film is targeted to an audience even younger than me it doesn't surprise me that the big companies are taking a pass. I would bet money that religion is just a convenient excuse. Because if there was really money to be made do you think they would really care if they upset a small market segment of religious people? It is not like evangelicals are the bread and butter customers of the film industry.

[les Brains]

yeah in some seems like market hype that just didn't fly, I am also thinking it is much ado over nothing. The film is likely 'interesting' in the same way any non mainstream 'film festival' film can be 'interesting'.

[Mountain Man]

Originally Posted by Miss Saigon

Improper use of the word censorship. The is a difference between a private comapny electing to avoid a contraversial subject and the government prohibiting it.

And my guess is that the reason the companies are staying away from the film is because it is a topic not likely to draw large audiences. They will need to go the indy route.

I suspect that someone is making this political when it really isn't. Maybe in the farm belt some communities may not like such a film, but I have a hard time believing anyone in major metropolitan areas really cares one bit.

Sounds like garbage to me.

If movie theaters really care about what evangelical christians think most mass market trash sex comedies wouldn't be shown.

Wake up people. No one is censoring anything.

I disagree. Censorship is censorship. would these firms be the same ones that insist on having their unimpeded say in the marketplace? Perhaps the same ones that felt it was OK to show Gibson's Passion of Christ?

Censorship is censorship, no matter who is doing it or for what reason. In this case, however, I would add the distinctive label of religious intolerance.

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by les Brains

Not wanting to be fussy, but the film name is Creation.

Yes, it is. I thought of a comedy film involving a huge monster when I saw this title...

[les Brains]

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

I disagree. Censorship is censorship. would these firms be the same ones that insist on having their unimpeded say in the marketplace? Perhaps the same ones that felt it was OK to show Gibson's Passion of Christ?

Censorship is censorship, no matter who is doing it or for what reason. In this case, however, I would add the distinctive label of religious intolerance.

I tend to call it 'censorship' only when no one is being allowed a vote in the matter. It might only be semantics, but, it matters to me.

The film was merely not invited by any businesses on the basis that they thought it wouldn't be profitable. It's not like there was never any choice.

It's no different than any other retailer/service not feeling like selling products or services they don't think will be in their interests.

I also don't think it's so much intolerance here as just plain ignorance and a capacity to be willing to remain that way.

There are none more stupid than those that won't learn.

I also thought Passion of the Christ was too much of a self abuse spectacle.
Have not seen it, but considering all I had heard about it, you'd think they would be handing out small flails just so the audience could share in the experience while they watched.

[Mountain Man]

Originally Posted by les Brains

I tend to call it 'censorship' only when no one is being allowed a vote in the matter. It might only be semantics, but, it matters to me.

The film was merely not invited by any businesses on the basis that they thought it wouldn't be profitable. It's not like there was never any choice.

It's no different than any other retailer/service not feeling like selling products or services they don't think will be in their interests.

I also don't think it's so much intolerance here as just plain ignorance and a capacity to be willing to remain that way.

There are none more stupid than those that won't learn.

I also thought Passion of the Christ was too much of a self abuse spectacle.
Have not seen it, but considering all I had heard about it, you'd think they would be handing out small flails just so the audience could share in the experience while they watched.

Did you get to vote in this matter? No? Then it's censorship by definition.

Businesses claimed they wouldn't make any money from it? You mean "theaters"? Or was the film to actually be shown in business buildings in your area? That sounds like semantics to mine, Les.

I'll find a way to see the film, just to find out why the religious whackos feel so threatened by it, because censorship is a tool of the fearful.

[les Brains]

You really need to think a bit longer on that Mountain Man, or, was I to think a theatre is a non profit organization? Of course its a business

I don't get a 'vote' normally on a lot of things. Perhaps I should have said 'opinion' where it might matter.

[Mountain Man]

Well, Les, here in the mountains of America, we call a theater a "theater" or "the movies", and we specify businesses, like "I'm going to Wal-Mart", or "I'm going to Safeway." We don't say "I'm going to run down to a business", or "I went to a business last night and saw Lord Of The Rings".

Of course, it's probably a lot different in Canada...

And it's still censorship, no matter how you spin and twist it - a few narrow-minded jackasses deciding what everyone else can or cannot see.