Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[LuckyTheDog]

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

[joeybee12]

1. He didn't mean controversial...he meant, "too intelligent for American audiences" n/t

[AlinPA]

8. Yes, American audiences are mostly stupid.

[pepperbear]

2. hey guys, remember when we used to look on in abject horror at places like South Africa?

Well, that's us now.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. They should have inserted a scene of Charles Darwin riding a dinosaur

That might have found them a U.S. distributor.

[stray cat]

4. What he means is he can't make money off of people here

its a business and profit decision. He could care less about controversy - he wants the profits!

[sarge43]

6. And if he can gin up a faux controversy, more ink, possible profits.

Did anyone besides film buffs and film insiders even know about this film before this 'controversy' started?

As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

[stray cat]

7. RIght on the money!

[theoldman]

5. The film is about Darwin's life, not about evolution.

As Americans, we certainly don't want to educate ourself about one of the most famous scientists that ever lived.

[Garbo 2004]

9. It probably also doesn't help that the BBC film sounds like a candidate for Masterpiece Theater.

"Controversy" is one thing, but it's also primarily about the cash. Distributors don't mind controversy if they think the film will put butts in the seats and make money for them. That's the bottom line. There have been a number of distributors in the past who have supported foreign and indie films, even controversial ones. If they can look artistically brave and noble for supporting a prestigious critically acclaimed film, that's icing.

In the ordinary course of events not all films made, foreign or domestic, get US distributorship or do so readily. And this economy has impacted the film industry. Companies, industry figures (Weinstein Co., for ex) that in the past might have snapped up a film like this are now themselves financially challenged.

For one example: "Mrs. Brown," which garnered Judi Dench an Academy Award nom, was a BBC film originally intended for the BBC TV/Masterpiece Theater route. Then Miramax (the Weinstein brothers) stepped in with a distribution deal. And Miramax was known for promoting the hell out of its offerings with advertising campaigns that cost big bucks. Would "Mrs. Brown," a nice but not extraordinary film, get a US distributorship today?

"Creation's" producer may be doing a bit of PR but "controversy" is likely not the only or even primary reason the film hasn't yet found a US distributor. And it's not alone:

Actors lament struggles to clinch US distribution deals
(AFP) – 23 hours ago

TORONTO — Good independent films are struggling to find distribution in the United States in these hard economic times, veteran actor Michael Douglas lamented Saturday at the Toronto film festival.

"We're having a really tough time in the States in the distribution area if you look at this festival," Douglas told a press conference to promote his film "Solitary Man."

"The number of quality movies here that don't have an American distributor is somewhat disgraceful," he said.

"There are a number of really good pictures here with a lot of talent that don't have one."

Toronto film festival organizers would not comment on distribution contracts until the curtains close on September 19, but several others, including George Clooney, agreed with the sentiment. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8X3WJzh7d9U5NyoHL8DXO7iZJkw