the movie in which there is supposedly no US audience interest

[realthog]

You may recall a few months ago there was a bit of a flap regarding the movie Creation, which concerns itself with Charles Darwin's dilemma over the implications of his discovery of the principle of evolution by natural selection.

Despite respected leads Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, despite picking up accolades at various festivals, and despite the obvious topicality of its subject matter, the movie had significant difficulties finding a US distributor. Could this be because potential distributors were worried (justifiably or not) about the possibility of a major kerfuffle from religious extremists? Or could it be, as the faux-Xtian right maintained, because no one in their right minds in this country would want to go see a boring biopic about a long-dead scientist?

Well, this morning, just after 9.00, I received from the NYC branch of the Center for Inquiry an RSVP e-mail invite to a preview screening of the movie on Monday evening. It took me a few minutes to consult with Pam as to whether we'd both like to go, but I wrote back fairly quickly with my response: yes, we'd like a couple of tickets, oh yes, pretty please, yes we definitely would, you bet.

We were too late: already, after a matter of minutes on a Saturday morning, all the tickets had been snaffled.

Some lack of interest, eh?

Comments

[squirrel-monkey.livejournal.com]

It seems disingenuous to claim that only Christian right felt that this movie's lack of distribution was due to realities of studios decision-making (rather than a controversy suggested by the film's producer). After evaluating all the facts it seems that the financial fears are the most likely explanation. There are plenty of good foreign movies that don't get US distribution because they're not expected to be blockbusters (note: not being a blockbuster is not the same thing as 'no one wants to see it'). Controversy is actually a good thing for movies -- Religulous, for example, remains one of the top-grossing documentaries of all times. OTOH, three top-grossing British exports are all romantic comedies with Hugh Grant in them.

On another note, the invites were sent to people who were interested in seeing this movie -- I'm assuming it was not a random mailing. Which shows only that people who want to see this movie want to see it.

Are there people who want to see this movie? Of course; no one argued otherwise. Are there enough of them to justify the risk (from the sudio's perspective)? We'll see; but note that the US distributor was found only after the controversy had started.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

So it doesn't seem to you in the remotest bit odd that, in a year in which because of not one but two major anniversaries the work of Charles Darwin got more publicity than in perhaps a century (something that plenty of book publishers cashed in on, let it be noted), the major movie about Darwin failed to achieve a front-line distributor?

That's just because "plenty of good foreign movies [. . .] don't get US distribution because they're not expected to be blockbusters"? So a movie guaranteed a year's worth of free publicity isn't expected to do at least passably well?

And let us not forget all the foreign movies that do get significant US distribution even though not expected to be "blockbusters"?

Elsewhere, I can recall you saying that (sight unseen) the real reason for the US distribution difficulties is that the movie's dull, or that the subject's unappealing. Are there any other possible things you want to throw at it rather than admit the slightest chink of possibility that distributors were wary of its subject matter? I am quite genuinely very puzzled about this. Did Paul Bettany once stand on your foot, or something?

Are there enough of them to justify the risk (from the sudio's perspective)? We'll see

As you well know, you are now rolling dice that are heavily loaded in your favour. The movie's US distributor is only a secondary player, so there ain't no chance that it's going to turn up in your friendly neighbourhood multiplex (I'm mightily pissed off that I'll probably have to travel miles to see it), and of course it's being released here months late to get maximum benefit of the publicity -- i.e., after the end of "Darwin's year".

Myself, I think there are various possible factors involved in the major distributors' shying away from this movie; not least on the list of possibilities is of course their extraordinary stupidity, as demonstrated on numerous other occasions. But there also seems to me a very reasonable chance that among those factors was concern -- justified or otherwise -- about intimidation. I find it astonishing that you absolutely refuse to consider that possibility.

[squirrel-monkey.livejournal.com]

You do bring up a good point re: anniversary. To clear up one thing though: I never said that I thought the movie was dull; hell, I'll probably watch it on DVD -- but rather that IN THE VIEW OF THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTORS it may be perceived as a 'boring biopic'. (I think it might be interesting, although I do find that most biopics tend to be a tad simplistic.)

Of course, I'm willing to admit that there's a chance of movie studios spooking at some potential controversy; I just don't think it's very likely. As a scientist, I do like to analyze my evidence, and so far, the only person mentioning controversy as a likely reason was the movie's producer, a person with a financial interest in the project. All the while, "Inherit the Wind" has been playing on cable channels for many years. I do not refuse to consider the possibility; I just think that financial expectations (or lack thereof) are the main motivating factor in the behavior of the movie studios. Are they underestimating the appeal? Very possible, but I never said that I thought they were smart.