On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:00:02 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >Stephen Black originally wrote: >> I've been waiting for Chris Green to post this here, as he did on the >> History >> of Psychology list, but as he doesn't seem to be going to, allow me. > >Believe it or not, I tried to do exactly that yesterday afternoon, but >had run out of posts for the day.
One does have to keep track of the number of posts one makes, especially in those frivolous threads instead of important ones like this. :-) >Here's what I attempted to post: > >We are all, by now, used to the idea that there are a lot of people in >the US who find Darwin's theory of evolution anathema to their firmly >held religious beliefs. But the new feature film about the impact that >the 1851 death of Darwin's daughter, Annie, had on both his own >religious beliefs and his scientific work has apparently been unable to >even find a distributor in the US and, so, will probably never be seen >in the major theaters there. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html > >(Thanks to new York grad student Eric Oosenbrug for pointing this >article out to me.) I suggest that one take a firm grip of one's opinion and not become a premature evaluator. The movie business is, surprisingly, a business and there are a lot of films that are presented at film festivals in the hope that they will find a distributor (major or minor but usually a minor distributor because, let's face it, most films presented at film festivals are not big money makers). Concerning the news article linked to above, do we need to be reminded that we should be skeptical of anything that is presented in news that cannot be independently verified? For example: |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. A few questions: (1) What does "resolutely passed" mean? That instead of a simple "no", distributors said "NO!"? (2) "A film which will prove hugely divisive". First, this isn't logic or math, so the word "prove" is inappropriate to use in an inductive, predictive sense. Second, we are already divided on the issue of Darwin which, I think, means that people who like Darwin might go to see the movie and those who don't like Darwin might not go. The real question is can the movie make its "nut", that is, can it recover its costs of production, salaries, advertising, and such. Does anyone know how much it cost to make the movie? Does anyone know what the deal is that the producers of the movie are trying to make with distributors? Are the terms of the distribution deal likely to produce a profit or a loss? (3) Implicit in the article is the notion that this picture will be profitable yet there is no economic analysis provided to support this point, instead an argument is made that the distributors are afraid because of an anti-Darwin backlash (really? which distributors? what deals were offerred to them and what would they earn as a return?) (4) Even if a "major" distributor cannot be found in the U.S. this does not mean the movie will not be shown in the U.S. Has anyone asked which U.S. film festivals the producers have entered the movie? Eventually, the film will be available on DVD and will probably play on channels like IFC or Sundance or other "indie" film channels. Or one can just wait until the first bootleg copy is made available on the internets. >I would have thought that the revenues from major coastal cities alone >would have been enough to entice a distributor to pick it up, but >(apparently) the anticipated backlash (boycotts, etc.), presumably >against other movies or products sold by the same company, has caused >them to decline one of the major releases of the year. Quizzical. The real question is why you think this is an appropriate characterization of the situation. Again, which distributors were approached? What were the deals offered to them? Was it really fear of an anti-Darwin backlash or were the economic terms simply unworkable? Listen, if Lars von Trier can get his films shown in the U.S., pretty much anyone can (I use von Trier as an example because he is probably the quinessential "art" house type of director as well as having use the actor Paul Bettany [Darwin in "Creation"] in his movie "Dogville" which had a brief run in art house cinemas and shows up periodically on the IFC channel -- at 178 minutes one has to be a committed film lover to sit through it; see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276919/ ) Perhaps there are other fears, for example: (1) Because Paul Bettany played the kill crazy albino monk in the "The Da Vince Code", maybe distributors are afraid of a backlash by Catholics or maybe kill crazy albinos. For more on Bettany's film work, see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0079273/ (2) Because Jennifer Connelly appeared in the horrible Ang Lee movie "Hulk", maybe distributors are afraid of having her in a film because of angry people who want their money back from going to see "Hulk" in theaters. For more on Connely's film work, see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000124/ (3) Because the Director Jon Amiel directed the horrible Sean Connery/Catherine Zeta-Jones film "Entrapment", distributors are afraid of angry protesting Creation because of the 113 minutes they won't get back from watching this POS. For more on Amiel's work, see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000750/ Then again, its not like there was a lovefest for "Creation" at the Toronto International Film Festical (or TIFF). For example, see Roger Ebert's blog on the TIFF showing of "Creation", see: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/09/tiff_4_darwin_walks_out_on_gen.html In summary, it is unlikely that "Creation" will have the box office of, say, "Iron Man" (in which Bettany played a character named Jarvis) but it is ultimately likely to be distributed somehow in the U.S. (I would not be surprised if the IFC Center or some other arthouse/alternative cinema in NYC shows it). In all likelihood, it will make it to the channels IFC or Sundance or others on cable. And then there will be the DVDs and the downloadable version. If there is a fear that one might not be able to see "Creation", don't worry. I'm pretty sure someone may be putting up a bootleg version soon either from TIFF or elsewhere. That is, if there is any demand for it. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
