There’s a new movie being developed on the life of Charles Darwin that actually has the potential to be good. It’s based on Randal Keyne’s book, Annie’s Box(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which is an excellent source that humanizes the man well. It also has a good cast so far, although, seriously, Jennifer Connelly is way too hot to play Emma Darwin — they’re going to have to dress her down quite a bit.
Husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly have been cast as a married couple in an upcoming film titled Creation (previously known as Origin). The film tells the life story of Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who essentially came up with the idea of evolution. This biopic is being directed by Jon Amiel, of Entrapment and The Core, and has script penned by John Collee, of Master and Commander and Happy Feet. Bettany will play Darwin, while Connelly will play his wife Emma, which is a good fit considering they’re married in real life, too. Also part of the cast are Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch, however the role of of daughter Annie has yet to be announced.
Oscar winning producer Jeremy Thomas, who is developing the film, explains that “John Collee’s compelling script tells the remarkable story behind Darwin’s revolutionary theory and the foundation of a book that changed the world.” He adds, “we think of Darwin as an old man with a gray beard. The reality of our story is very different.” Creation will portray Darwin as a man torn between his love for his deeply religious wife and his own growing belief in a world where God has no place. The scientist finds himself caught in a struggle between faith and reason, love and truth. Collee’s script is based on the book “Annie’s Box” written by Randal Keynes. Shooting starts at the end of September in England.
I shall await its completion with anticipation. It better not be a wall stain.
Amiel of The Core.
Uh-oh.
“Creation”: That’s kind of procovative title, no? I think it’s a good title though. It’s stepping up and saying “(Give or take details) THIS is how creatures were made.”
Yeah, that’s a downer. But this movie will not be that much about the science, but about Charles and Emma and Annie. I suppose he could screw that up if he gives Jennifer Connelly a nude scene…
Picture sounds promising.
Onion article is very LOL.
What, no hot sex-in-the-shower scene?
This is still my most favorite Darwin movie to date.
That never gets old!
Anyone care to take odds on whether the script incledes the ficticious deathbed scene in which Darwing ‘becomes Christian and renounces evolution?’ One of my fundy friends is convinced that Darwin was saved on his deathbed and decided that the joke had gone too far.
I love that video TheChemist.
Yeah he’s the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he’s smarter than you he’s got a science degree!
The Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he’s still smarter than you he studied biology!
It’s funny because it’s true!
Didn’t Bettany play a Darwin-type ship’s naturalist in “Master and Commander?”
Fire Ant: Yes, he did.
I hope the movie is better than it sounds. All four of the movies mentioned sucked.
I was excited till I read this:
Oy.
So they’ll have a Science Consultant (a REAL one this time? Not some drunkard that fell asleep during a 9th grade geology class?) on board, right?
If not, I can only imagine the potential for bastardization…. Amiel would probably incorrectly show evolution as the organism level (i.e. a finch suddenly growing a new beak after flying to a new island) if left to his own devices… *sigh*
Billy: I’d put those odds pretty low unless they want a fight with the author whose book they are adapting (a direct descendant of Darwin). Plus this movie is never going to be a blockbuster; it’s going to be watched by smallish audience who proably care about honesty in these things. It wouldn’t benefit by pandering.
Ummm… this looks bad.
As has been pointed out, it seems like the captain of this ship has been drunk at the wheel many times before and, as much as I like Jennifer Connelley as an actress, unless we see her naked in this movie (highly doubtful) it may have trouble getting a draw.
Also, I think that the title change is worth noting. “Origin” to “Creation” kind of bothers me a little.
Oh, exciting! But yeah, having this movie linked to The Core really brings down my confidence level that this will be a good film. I watched The Core on one of my first dates with my now husband. It was just an awful movie, and the abounding phallic symbols made the whole experience incredibly awkward.
Loved the Darwin stained wall link… that’s hilarious.
Could be worse, could be Michael Bay….
“I didn’t know The Beagle exploded”
Paul Verhoeven!
I love that Wall Stain article – so perverse. This bit especially made me laugh:
Now, you know which words to swap in there for instant amusement…
Matt: Good to hear. I cringe everytime an ‘historical’ movie is made, no matter the subject. The need for directors and writers to please the audience by having a ‘feel good’ ending, or a magic catharsis, or some other plot device to keep it ‘interesting’ has always annoyed me. Then again, I’m easily annoyed when it comes to historical movies — anachronisms and ‘neatening up’ the slop that is real history seems almost unavoidable.
I am a public historian (labour and industrial history). It is difficult not to dumb down or spice up an historic narrative, to create an ‘ah-ha’ moment in which everything changes. Yes, these moments exist (Johansen and Lucy, for example), but most of history is messy.
I hope the movie is good, and I hope that it is at least reasonably historically accurate. And now I have ANOTHER book on my already-too-long must read list.
Oh, let Jennifer Connelly stay hot. It’s a prime example of reproductive fitness.
“Darwin, you fool! You have caused the finches to evolve into bloodthirsty monsters! Now we’ll have to bring the American Army to kill them in slow motion!”
If it’s anything like the Mark Steel lecture on Darwin (if you haven’t heard of Mark Steel, check YouTube), I’m all for it. I tend to cringe about really bad distortions too, but if the biography gets people excited and lets them look at historical icons in a new way, it’s all good. (Er, as long as the excitement isn’t about something entirely fabricated of course).
I spotted this yesterday and blogged it then, beating PZ. Hah! One of the sources I quoted said this:
It certainly sounds like the setup for a “happy” ending with Lady Hope at his bedside to resolve the poor man’s conflicts.
It was just an awful movie, and the abounding phallic symbols made the whole experience incredibly awkward.
Sometimes an unobtainium powered planetary core driller is just an unobtainium powered planetary core driller.
cool.
jeremy northam is pretty good in period stuff.
How about a cameo with PZ and Richard Dawkins?!
Is there something like a Charles Darwin Estate that can approve the film-making so that it doesn’t distort the truth about his life? Those idiots who believe in a god or gods would like to discredit the great man, I’m sure, & this could be a way for them to do that.
Sometimes an unobtainium powered planetary core driller is just an unobtainium powered planetary core driller.
And if I recall the movie correctly, they actually talked about “unobtainium” as if it was a real material without any irony.
If it’s anything like the Mark Steel lecture on Darwin (if you haven’t heard of Mark Steel, check YouTube), I’m all for it. I tend to cringe about really bad distortions too, but if the biography gets people excited and lets them look at historical icons in a new way, it’s all good. (Er, as long as the excitement isn’t about something entirely fabricated of course).
Ain’t It Cool News had the leaked screenplay a while back. I didn’t know the crew of The Beagle had to repeatedly fight off a giant squid, and I thought the katana fight between Darwin and the Bishop of Oxford on the lip of a volcano was a bit much.
Fire Ant @ #9 beat me too it.
I like M&C, and Bettany’s character in it. I think it’s amusing that he’s cast into the actual Darwin role now, haha.
I’ve read “Fossils, Finches and Fuegians” by Richard Keynes, but not “Annie’s Box”, is it any good?
Which ‘Keynes’ was it that appeared on Richard Dawkins recent telly programme, I can’t remember off the top of my head?
“unobtainium” as if it was a real material without any irony
So it’s not a ferric alloy than!
This was making me wonder, why are atheists in the media usually portrayed as cynical, depressed, humorless jerks? The only exception I can think of is from Contact. Almost every atheist I know, including myself is the polar opposite of what is shown in the movies.
I’m willing to bet the producers tune the anti-religion crap down a bit so as not to “offend” the fundies. Here’s a chance to really present the real Darwin without the excised references, especially when he finally renounced religion on the anguished death of his beloved Annie.
And heck, I’ll gladly play the role of Darwin’s bulldog and good friend, Thomas Henry Huxley. I think I can handle that role with authenticity and relish! Hey, give a call if you can’t come up with someone to play thais decisive role!
And The Chemist @ 6: Yeah, I love that as one of my favorites too!
He he, he said “happy ending”… what? Oh, sorry. Been reading too much naughty stuff in other threads, I guess! ;^)
Sure that wasn’t just a very broad wink at the audience? Sometimes the lack of irony is the irony.
But no, I’m probably giving them way too much credit, eh?
They should get Uwe Boll in to direct.
Jennifer Connelly, huh? Didn’t Emma Darwin favor cleavage-baring gowns?
That made me snort.
So did the guy talking about the Katana fight with the Bishop on the lip of the Volcano. Brilliant.
I hope I love this movie more than Pearl Harbor sucked.
“Creation will portray Darwin as a man torn between his love for his deeply religious wife and his own growing belief in a world where God has no place.”
That is probably the problem …. ‘deeply religious’ and ‘a world where God has no place’ … a false dichotomy with only two extremes to pick from. Extremes are often sketchy positions to defend.
Having enjoyed the episode on Newton, I recently purchased Nova’s “Genius” DVD box set. The Darwin DVD struck me as too “theatrical” as I was hoping for more factual information (rather than narrative). But it’s still worth owning.
I’m curious about this upcoming movie as well – I hope it avoids the Oliver Stone paradim of historical movie making.
(.)(.)
I wonder how they’ll handle the famous mutiny on the Beagle, when Darwin had to put down a vicious creationist crew who had learned of the “Darwinist” purpose of their voyage?
Darth Wader at #15
Best. Comment. Ever.
Unobtanium is so 1990. The new magical material is Wonderflonium. Stops time. Check it out. Peace.
Bill Shatner as Fitzroy?
The Beagle exploded? Just wait until PETA hears about this!
Actually, Could be worse, could be Michael Bay…. “I didn’t know The Beagle exploded”,/em>
That’s lost on me – please explain the joke.
Bill Shatner as Fitzroy?
There’s something on the mast!…..Something!
“Benedict Cumberbatch”!— ah, this Dickensian name is what keeps me an Anglophile.
I don’t like the title.
Good choice of actor playing Darwin, though. Paul Bettany is an atheist.
Darth Wader, re: post 33… you might want to look up Mark Steel then, really. :) He’s cynical, certainly, but he’s a comedian. A good one, too. Sadly, I suspect that the fact he’s also an outspoken journalist means that his series wouldn’t fly in the US, though. His lectures are a great introduction on a number of topics for people who have a general “not interested”/”too hard to understand” attitude.
(Oh, and the portrayal of God in the Darwin lecture is pure genius…)
In my post above, insert “socialist” before “journalist”. Though simply outspoken journalists are anathema too, of course. ;)
They should get Uwe Boll in to direct.
He only does video game adaptations. I expect to hear he’s signed on to do the movie version of Spore.
Bay is famous for just about everything in his movies exploding. He even does a commercial satirizing himself and his fondness for explosions.
Catta, I was mainly referring to fictional athiests, such as Dr. House. They are always portrayed as miserable. I should have clarified in the original comment.
(((Billy))) The Atheist | September 5, 2008 10:11 AM, #7
Anyone care to take odds on whether the script incledes the ficticious deathbed scene in which Darwing ‘becomes Christian and renounces evolution?’
This seems unlikely if Randall Keynes is involved in any way. He could withhold the filming rights to the book.
Scott said:
Thou shalt not dis Master & Commander. It was a fine movie that made a valiant effort to distill into a few hours the essence my 20 favorite books. (The discriminating Patrick O’Brian reader will recognize the source of my user name.)
I’ve been praying for a movie like this…
Holy shrine for Darwin! The wall stain! Holy do-do Batman, give that wall a coat of paint! Yikes, no wonder some creobots think Darwinism is a religion if there are nuts who believe this wall stain is somehow a vision of Darwin!
Qwerty: The Onion.
Qwerty, we’re not a regular onion reader are we?
Shame Randall Keynes’s son Skandar is too young for the Darwin role. It would be neat to have a 5th generation Darwin, playing his great-great-great-grandfather. Mind you his appearance in the Narnia novels might put some off!
Qwerty: The Onion is a satire site. Or am I missing some meta-joke in your post?
Does anyone else take issue with this?: “the English naturalist who essentially came up with the idea of evolution.” Saying “essentially came up with the idea” makes it sound like he made it up. Wouldn’t “discovered” be a better word choice?
Clearly, this is a sign from Darwin that everyone should see this movie once it’s out:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
I kept expecting to see PZ’s name in the article, but he apparently hasn’t made the pilgrimage yet.
I don’t know how House is supposed to be miserable. He’s an ass, certainly, but a damned effective one, and seems to take great pleasure in figuring things out (and smiling knowingly at the STD-afflicted hooker playing Mary in Christmas pageants).
House’s atheism is coincidental to his misanthropic misery, not causative. That is, the show does not (IMHO) cop a “House is an atheist and look how miserable it makes him” attitude.
BTW, isn’t the new season starting soon? My DVR will let me know….
Paul Bettany did a fantastic job in Master and Commander of portraying a 19th century scientist.
There is even mention of Darwin in that movie.
So there is a lot of promise already.
there’s a poll up at wallstreetjournal for people to grade mccain’s speechifying last night: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/04/how-would-you-grade-john-mccains-speech/)
well, it’s not the wallstreetjournal, it’s washingtonwire — i clicked on a link at WSJ and assumed (erroneously) that it was to a WSJ “story.”
what the hey ho, huh? go grade mccain!
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/04/how-would-you-grade-john-mccains-speech/)
OMG, I’ve been Onioned! I didn’t see this was the Onion and thought it was real until I read comment #2. Oh, well, duh, duh, duhhhhhh. I guess I had too many drinks while playing Bingo last night. (Alas, I didn’t win.)
Maldoror@62,
Yes it is a sloppy way of saying it, but, he didn’t really come up with the idea of “evolution” either. It was reasonably accepted that animals and plants evolved, but no one had a reasonable mechanism and no one thought it applied to humans. Darwin’s contribution was the theory of descent with variation and natural selection as a method of driving evolution. In that sense, I think he did not discover it, he really did “make it up” based on the evidence he collected on his voyage.
I think part of the reason why you don’t see many nice, cheerful atheists in fiction is to do with the fact the fiction writers don’t put in details that aren’t going have a narrative function. There are plenty of likable, happy-go-lucky characters in movies and TV that MIGHT be atheists but it doesn’t come up. So you know about atheism if a) God is lost or found due to some important event or b) (as in House) anti-religiousness adds an extra layer of tension with the other characters or c) other stuff like that.
The BBC did a grand job years ago (1978)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216517/
…with Sir Robert Stephens guesting as Bishop Wilberforce.
Andrew Burt’s performance as Fitzroy was wonderful and Malcolm Stoddard even managed to look like Darwin.
Oh dear, the good Rev. hopes gawd will smite Darwinists.
Judging by her Google Images (safe=off), the director won’t have much trouble getting her out of her kit. The phrase “drop of a hat” springs to mind. New working title: Darwin – The Heat and the Passion
Bettany: great actor.
Amiel: shite director responsible for one of my least favourite films of all time – Entrapment.
I’m guessing they changed the title to avoid actual or perceived copyright problems with Irving Stone’s biographical novel The Origin (1980)
By the way, I’ve owned this book for a long time and haven’t yet read it–is it any good?
@Richard Harris,
This commercial will explain the joke quite nicely.
ChrisGose,
Didn’t he also play John Nash’s imaginary friend in Beautiful Mind ?
Jennifer Connelly also starred in that film.
Good flick.
“Amiel of The Core.
Uh-oh.”
My thoughts exactly, TheChemist
You have gone off the deep end. A nude scene with Jennifer Connelly would improve any movie.
75:
Titles are not copyrighted. But they might just wanted to avoid confusion.
ChrisGose@66 — I don’t remember an explicit mention of Darwin, which would be quite strange since Darwin was either unborn or an infant during the events depicted in the movie M&C:TFSOTW. The doctor character does make some Darwin-like observations, though.
I hope they include some of the more interesting descriptions from Voyage of the Beagle. Bolas-hunting might be too animal-unfriendly though.
Xebecs, I’m just starting that series now (on #2) and I must say it is capital!
OMG, I’ve been Onioned! I didn’t see this was the Onion and thought it was real until I read comment #2.
Don’t feel bad, Qwerty, we’re living in the post-satirical world!
Isn’t there a law that Helena Bonham Carter has to be in any period-piece?
Bonham Carter renounced period pieces a while back, I think, because she thought she was becoming too identified with them. Kate Winslet, however, is happy to act as your go-to girl for anything involving frilly bonnets, and is also usually naked.
The Amiel criticism is fair game considering some of the rubbish he’s directed recently, but I still have a place in my heart for him because he directed the original TV version of The Singing Detective. Wouldn’t it be lovely if he regained that sort of form one day?
“and has script penned by John Collee, of Master and Commander and Happy Feet”
Is that a good thing? M&C was good, but Happy Feet was pure, unadulterated crap.
I see what you are getting at, but she can actually act, you know? It would be a pity if Amiel ignored that.
Wow. I’m particularly looking forward to the parts where they discuss Buffon, Lamarc, Darwin’s grandpa, Geoffory Saint Hilaire, Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth, and Robert Chambers, and their writings on evolution (or on natural selection). Maybe even Wallace.
Oh wait. You mean they’re going to say everyone before Darwin believed only in Special Creation? And this will help answer the anti-evolution debaters who relentlessly try to paint evolutionary biologists as cultists (“Darwinists”) who can’t consider anything except the words of the Great Man? Oh, I see, they’re going to concentrate mostly on the issue of religious belief, giving the impression that anyone who is religious must, to be self-consistent, become a creationist.
I’m also looking forward to the extensive scenes where Darwin spends years works on taxonomy of barnacles.
Montage!!!
Oh – Chaucer! I thought he looked familiar!
Mmmmh – scrumptious …
Huh. Thanks–I didn’t know that.
The Squire in The Seventh Seal is probably the best example I’ve seen of a happy, confident, and honorable atheist.
I would also say Bunuel films feature a positive portrayal of an atheist worldview, not necessarily because of the characters (who are usually satirical), but because the films show the mark of an artist content to laugh at the absurdities of humankind. The same could be said, to a lesser extent, of Monty Python movies.
Will there be a scene where Mel Gibson gets ruthlessly flogged and nailed through the wrists in close-up slow motion? Not relevant to Darwin’s life, but something I’d like to see nonetheless.
Steve M. said,
“Titles are not copyrighted.”
Wow, really? I guess that makes sense, while I can’t recall any specific examples I remember having seen two vastly different books that shared a title on several occasions.
Either that or my memory is fooling me.
Sadly for all the Jennifer Connelly fans out there (including me), our girl has lost entirely too much weight and, thus, curves since having her baby. This mean that, unfortunately, she will not have to “dressed down.”
*sigh*
One thing’s for sure, it’ll do better than Expelled.
Darwin was born February 12, 1809, the same day that Abraham Lincoln was born.
So we can talk about the looks and nudity and sez of an actress but not a politician?
Chalk me up as another diehard Patrick O’Brian fan who thought the movie version of Master and Commander was a right decent flick.
Though a shipboard naturalist — and particularly one investigating that part of that ocean — is bound to draw comparisons with Darwin, the character played by Bettany in the movie owes (in the series of books, and in his naturalist aspect, since the character also acts as spy and surgeon — yeah, yeah, I know this gets confusing!) far more to the real naturalist Sir Joseph Banks, who accompanied Captain Cook and became a patron of science.
The life of Mr. Banks is also well worth investigating.
With regard to titles not being copyrightable, one that’s been recycled numerous times now is “Bones of Contention.” Everything from creationist crap to fairly good accounts of human origins has been issued under that title…
Chemist,
The best example of this is John Varley’s Millenium which is the same title as another book, and all the chapter titles are the titles of other SF books.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title
Darth @ 53 –
Whah? You mean he isn’t real? But, but, that would mean Dr. Cameron isn’t real either! You bastard, you ruined my life!
Without having first read the thread, my initial instincts are that I would like to have seen this feature English lead actors/actresses and be an English production–they do very well with dramas and have excellent actors and actresses to call upon. And they’re more likely to get the accents right! But we’ll see…
@18: I’d be curious to hear your views on English v. Hollywood historial movies. Take for example, The Madness of King George III or Elizabeth (the 1998 movie, not the TV series!) or Mrs Brown (a bit more fictional I believe, but lets toss it in), etc. I could go on, plenty to choose from, but I think the Brits do their stuff well when they get it right.
About the title/copyright thing, true. However, some titles grow up to be trademarks, like “Star Wars”.
Darwin lived through interesting times. Mass rail transport was introduced to Britain just as he attained his majority in 1830, and this led to a growing demand for printed literature (which laid the conditions for best-selling scientific works!)
Queen Victoria ascended to the throne less than one year after the Beagle docked at Falmouth at the end of its historic second voyage, so Darwin’s life as a scientist spanned the Victorian era up to 1882, when Britain became the foremost scientific, engineering and industrial nation.
Huge social changes took place. The Chartist movement for universal male suffrage and electoral reform held unruly protests that led to rioting near Darwin’s Bloomsbury home; in response he took his then young family out of London to Down House, where he lived the rest of his life. A succession of Factory Acts limited the exploitation of workers, particularly women and children.
In the 1860s the acceptance of the Germ Theory of disease led to health reforms. Throughout the era, Britain grew more prosperous through trade and exploitation of its growing overseas possessions.
Darth Wader sez:
Oh, the possibilities…. starting with Nimoy as Darwin:
“It’s life, Captain, but not as we know it.”
I read this and immediately thought of the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, particularly Cary Elwes’ line: “Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.”
Re: the wall stain–have you seen Nisbett’s interpretation? Wow.
My response, in case it does not make it past the review:
Wow, seriously? That’s the message you got from it? I’d say there are at least 2 degrees of separation between that article and your interpretation (let alone your misleading headline).
Some could easily see this as poking fun at the religious–after all, it would be seen as ludicrous if what they describe actually happened, and yet we have all seen many examples of exactly such behavior on the part of this or that group of believers. Jesus in a potato, anyone?
To suggest that this is poking fun at the scientists takes a bit of imagination. To further say, as your headline does, that it “Pokes Fun at Science Bloggers & Commenters”, is outright fantasy on your part. Nowhere in the article are science bloggers mentioned, or the role of something approaching an internet virtual community even hinted at. This is purely the product of your own imagination.
You claim, in a nutshell, “[t]he parody plays on the type of religious-like hero worship of Darwin and hardline atheist scientists that is common to some of the discussion threads here at ScienceBlogs.” Even if we take that as a legitimate interpretation of the article (which, let me be clear, I do not), your headline is utterly misleading.
Shoddy.
that it “Pokes Fun at Science Bloggers & Commenters”, is outright fantasy on your part.