« August 2009 | Main | October 2009 »
September 13, 2009
Darwin too controversial for American audiences?
I hope this movie producer is exaggerating:
Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution....
Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.
"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.
Guess he was not exaggerating. Here's the 2009 Gallup poll:
On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.
Even the Vatican accepted Darwin last year:
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.
Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said....
Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.
I have a feeling the real reason the American distributors would not accept it is that they want him to go back and dumb it down a little. Maybe include a chase scene or some special effects.
Directed by Ivan Reitman. With David Duchovny, Julianne Moore, Orlando Jones. A firefighting cadet, two college professors, and a geeky-but-sexy government scientist work against an alien organism that has been rapidly evolving ever since its arrival on Earth inside a meteor.When a meteorite falls to Earth two college professors, Dr. Ira Kane and Prof. Harry Phineas Block, are assigned the job of checking the site out. At the site, they discover organisms not of this planet. Soon the site is taken over by the government, forcing Ira and Harry to the side. As the new life-forms begin to evolve and start to get more and more dangerous, it's up to the two professors to save the planet.
Glen Canyon, Arizona, the present day. Wayne, practising at night in the desert for his upcoming fireman's exam, witnesses the impact of a meteorite. The next day, biology teacher Dr. Ira Kane and geology teacher Harry Block from Glen Canyon Community College manage to get to the meteorite, which is stuck in the ground at the bottom of a cave. By taking a sample, they discover a slimy blue fluid coming out of the meteorite. A little later, Ira Kane finds out that myriads of single-celled life-forms dwell in the fluid, evolve at an incredible rate, even while he's watching. What first seems like a sure ticket to Sweden for the Nobel Prize soon develops into a nightmare: By evolving and adapting at that unbelievably fast rate, the Aliens start spreading out, and the Military comes in. Now it all comes down to what Darwin so rightfully stated: Survival of the fittest. And no good idea in sight...
Distributors
DreamWorks Distribution (2001) (USA) (theatrical)
Columbia TriStar Film Distributors International (2001) (non-USA) (theatrical)
UPDATE: Darwin movie gets US distribution
The buzz surrounding Creation's premiere at the Toronto Film Festival prompted Newmarket Films (the same company that distributed The Passion of the Christ) into action, buying up the rights to distribute the Charles Darwin biopic in the U.S. Directed by Jon Amiel and based on Darwin's great-great grandson Randal Keynes' biography Annie's Box, Creation stars real life spouses Paul Bettany as Charles and Jennifer Connelly as his wife, Emma. The film focuses on the period of time when Charles was hard at work on his book On the Origin of Species, examining his struggle to find a balance between his theories on evolution, his devoutly religious wife's beliefs, and his own faith.Announcing the acquisition Newmarket's Chris Ball stated, "We at Newmarket pride ourselves in getting behind important films that help open the door for discussion and conversation, as is the case with Creation. While Darwin’s name has come to symbolize one side of a debate between the scientific and the theological, Creation personifies the debate, with both sides contending, sometimes violently, within the man. In that sense, we believe that the film will appeal both to people of faith and people of science."
They plan to release the film in theaters this December.
Posted by Mike at 05:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 10, 2009
They never even read it
I'm not an opponent of the death penalty in cases with undeniable proof or murder or rape. Obviously, this makes you rethink it. Texas executed an innocent man in 2004. Almost fourteen years after the scientific evidence was available to acquit him. The appeals board never even bothered to read a last minute scientific report that put the evidence together, and finally proved him innocent.
After Hurst had reviewed Fogg and Vasquez’s list of more than twenty arson indicators, he believed that only one had any potential validity: the positive test for mineral spirits by the threshold of the front door. But why had the fire investigators obtained a positive reading only in that location? According to Fogg and Vasquez’s theory of the crime, Willingham had poured accelerant throughout the children’s bedroom and down the hallway. Officials had tested extensively in these areas—including where all the pour patterns and puddle configurations were—and turned up nothing. Jackson told me that he “never did understand why they weren’t able to recover” positive tests in these parts.Hurst found it hard to imagine Willingham pouring accelerant on the front porch, where neighbors could have seen him. Scanning the files for clues, Hurst noticed a photograph of the porch taken before the fire, which had been entered into evidence. Sitting on the tiny porch was a charcoal grill. The porch was where the family barbecued. Court testimony from witnesses confirmed that there had been a grill, along with a container of lighter fluid, and that both had burned when the fire roared onto the porch during post-flashover. By the time Vasquez inspected the house, the grill had been removed from the porch, during cleanup. Though he cited the container of lighter fluid in his report, he made no mention of the grill. At the trial, he insisted that he had never been told of the grill’s earlier placement. Other authorities were aware of the grill but did not see its relevance. Hurst, however, was convinced that he had solved the mystery: when firefighters had blasted the porch with water, they had likely spread charcoal-lighter fluid from the melted container....
The Innocence Project obtained, through the Freedom of Information Act, all the records from the governor’s office and the board pertaining to Hurst’s report. “The documents show that they received the report, but neither office has any record of anyone acknowledging it, taking note of its significance, responding to it, or calling any attention to it within the government,” Barry Scheck said. “The only reasonable conclusion is that the governor’s office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles ignored scientific evidence.”
LaFayette Collins, who was a member of the board at the time, told me of the process, “You don’t vote guilt or innocence. You don’t retry the trial. You just make sure everything is in order and there are no glaring errors.” He noted that although the rules allowed for a hearing to consider important new evidence, “in my time there had never been one called.” When I asked him why Hurst’s report didn’t constitute evidence of “glaring errors,” he said, “We get all kinds of reports, but we don’t have the mechanisms to vet them.” Alvin Shaw, another board member at the time, said that the case didn’t “ring a bell,” adding, angrily, “Why would I want to talk about it?” Hurst calls the board’s actions “unconscionable.”
...In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.” The commission is reviewing his findings, and plans to release its own report next year. Some legal scholars believe that the commission may narrowly assess the reliability of the scientific evidence. There is a chance, however, that Texas could become the first state to acknowledge officially that, since the advent of the modern judicial system, it had carried out the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person.”
Posted by Mike at 04:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)