Did Darwin kill God? This seems to be a stupid question. Maybe you have to be a fundamentalist to raise such a question at all. Very stubborn creationists might believe that everything their translation (!!) of the Bible says, is undiluted word of God. They will also think that the Bible, including the accounts of creation are meant to be a cosmological manual. How would a person 4000 years ago have been able to grasp the idea of Big Bang? No, Darwin did not kill God. He explained how sapiens came into existence. Darwin gave an account on natural selection and the mechanisms of evolution. And thus he killed the idea that thw first chapters of Genesis can be interpreted as a part of natural history.
In this film Thomas Huxley says: "The Almighty can no longer claim to have authored every species in under a week. You've killed God, sir!" Of course this statement is rubbish. Those sentences are completely unrelated. Thomas Huxley appears like the modern fanatic Richard Dawkins. How can it be so difficult to grasp that? Logic for primers?
This is a kind of biopic, but I have been told that it mixes facts and fiction. This is not the way to make biopics. Either you enlighten the world or you fool it. If you are a specialist, you may know what is which, but as general audience you will be in the wild.
One focus of this movie is Annie Darwin, Charles Darwin's daughter. In this film he procrastinates the publication of his findings because of temporary madness after the death of his daughter. The sequences with visions of the child and flashbacks fill a considerable amount of time. Probably they are to show us that Darwin was a human beings with doubts and deficiencies. This could have been achieved in a les sentimental way. Sometimes you think that science made Darwin mad. (Sometimes I thought that this film was made by a creationist.)
The film is disappointing as a dramatic account on Darwin's life. If it is about a fictional character called Darwin, you will find a sentimentalized account of a man who at last learns to live with his demons. You might also find the effects of sexual oppression. You will also find brilliant acting, but this is not enough to save a failed script. Too many thumbs down.
5/10
In this film Thomas Huxley says: "The Almighty can no longer claim to have authored every species in under a week. You've killed God, sir!" Of course this statement is rubbish. Those sentences are completely unrelated. Thomas Huxley appears like the modern fanatic Richard Dawkins. How can it be so difficult to grasp that? Logic for primers?
This is a kind of biopic, but I have been told that it mixes facts and fiction. This is not the way to make biopics. Either you enlighten the world or you fool it. If you are a specialist, you may know what is which, but as general audience you will be in the wild.
One focus of this movie is Annie Darwin, Charles Darwin's daughter. In this film he procrastinates the publication of his findings because of temporary madness after the death of his daughter. The sequences with visions of the child and flashbacks fill a considerable amount of time. Probably they are to show us that Darwin was a human beings with doubts and deficiencies. This could have been achieved in a les sentimental way. Sometimes you think that science made Darwin mad. (Sometimes I thought that this film was made by a creationist.)
The film is disappointing as a dramatic account on Darwin's life. If it is about a fictional character called Darwin, you will find a sentimentalized account of a man who at last learns to live with his demons. You might also find the effects of sexual oppression. You will also find brilliant acting, but this is not enough to save a failed script. Too many thumbs down.
5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment