talkmagic.co.uk

I just got the weekly email from Odeon Cinemas, telling me what's on in the coming week.

I was intrigued by the movie 'Creation' until I read this:

Paul Bettany stars as the world-renowned scientist and devoted family man, who becomes torn between the love for his religious wife and his belief that God has no place in the world.

I'm not the keenest historian in the world, but I'm sure this is utter rot!

As I understand it, Darwin was in training to become a church minister before being offered a place on the Beagle.

So the conflict was entirely with Darwin himself - between his own faith, his love of natural history, and the conclusions that were becoming apparent to him through his scientific studies.

Surely that's dramatic and fascinating enough in itself?

Irked.

Pete

Dont know....Apparently the Darwin Family completely approve this film.

I think the promotional spiel is blowing things quite a bit out of proportion. From what I've heard, the 'conflict' resulted in Darwin walking his wife to church every Sunday and then having a wander around looking at birds and trees whilst she did churchy stuff, and then meeting her afterwards to walk her back home. I think they're over egging the conflict to make it sound controversial.

There's been a fair amount of press about how no American promoters will touch it because noone in America believes in evolution but that's turned out to be mainly rot. It's more a case of no promoter thinks a love story involving a scientist is going to be box office gold and they therefore have no interest in promoting it.

pcwells wrote:I just got the weekly email from Odeon Cinemas, telling me what's on in the coming week.

I was intrigued by the movie 'Creation' until I read this:

Paul Bettany stars as the world-renowned scientist and devoted family man, who becomes torn between the love for his religious wife and his belief that God has no place in the world.

I'm not the keenest historian in the world, but I'm sure this is utter rot!

As I understand it, Darwin was in training to become a church minister before being offered a place on the Beagle.

So the conflict was entirely with Darwin himself - between his own faith, his love of natural history, and the conclusions that were becoming apparent to him through his scientific studies.

Surely that's dramatic and fascinating enough in itself?

Irked.

Pete

Agreed from what i understand the greater issue (even than his discovery of natural selection) that he had with his faith was that his daughter died at the age of 10 from Scarlet Fever

I read somewhere that he used to drop his wife and kids off to church on a Sunday morning and go for a walk in the surrounding area. He was noted as mentioning that he wasn't an atheist as such but didn't see God as the benevolent designer that the bible portrayed him/her/it as due to the various natural life cycles he had seen eg the parasitic wasps that paralyze catterpillars so their offspring have live food to eat when born.

He considered himself agnostic if anything, all of this was openly discussed with his wife Emma who also came to her religious views via thought and discussion even if they differed from her Husbands.

We all know the film industry like to jazz up biographical films with "not quite based in truth" controversy "oooh he used to fight with his wife all the time because she believed in God and he didn't"

I too was interested in seeing it but my interest has waned on hearing that it's been hollywoodised.

No offence to female readers, but let's face it: this is a chick flick, not a painstakingly accurate historical biography.

Another case of Hollywood re-writing world history.

dat8962 wrote:Another case of Hollywood re-writing world history.

When there's a choice between truth and legend, print the legend. If there's no legend, make one up.

I guess the best way to judge this film is to go and watch it first.

Didn't Paul Bettany also play the Darwinesque ship's doctor in Master and Commander?

That he did Tomo, along with an accurate portrayal of Chaucer in a Knights Tale.

He did not, however, play John Constantine.

(and on a side note, am I the only person who thinks that Sting should play Constantine?)

Mr_Grue wrote:He did not, however, play John Constantine.

(and on a side note, am I the only person who thinks that Sting should play Constantine?)

Inasmuch as Sting can act at all, you mean? I'm still smarting from Brimstone And Treacle.

I just think that if Constantine is based on Sting, and if Sting was asked not to *try* to act...

...and if pigs migrated South for the winter...

Sting is almost as good an actor as Keanu Reeves.

Replicant wrote:Sting is almost as good an actor as Keanu Reeves.

Keanu Reeves was most excellent in Bill & Ted.

=)