This is a film that is very much worth seeing, regardless of some serious difficulties.
The portrayal of the well-documented stress between Darwin and his wife Emma, and the despair of losing his daughter Annie, poignantly illustrates the very human side of a historic figure who today is regarded with an increasing dichotomy of reverence and contempt, depending on where one stands with respect to evolution vs religious creationism.
What a powerful quandary! That a faith-altering treatise on the source of biological diversity and progress should be withheld for years, due in part to the love between a husband and wife: the one harbouring a revelation that the other fears. This is a beautiful portrayal of their love, and their mutual respect, and the anguish that derives from a threatening idea being thrust between them.
Likewise, Darwin's love for his children, and the anguish of losing Annie is convincing for sure. The episode of Annie kneeling in penitential salt, and the reactions of each of her parents, was so illuminating of the conflicting perspectives on their place in the universe.
There is much elaboration and probable fictionalization around those 2 relationships, but I was prepared to accept them as legitimate devices to illuminate the well known facts of their domestic life.
What I was not prepared to accept was the portrayal of Darwin's hallucinations (which I do not believe have any basis in fact), and the flash-backs, (or flash-forwards – it became difficult to differentiate), which taken alone were tedious, and together ranged between silly and infuriating. Perhaps I was conditioned for irritation having suffered through the torment of Jennifer Connelly's other movie scientist-husband, John Nash and his Beautiful Mind, but whatever – for 20 minutes as Annie faded, and Darwin saw crazy things, and time switched back and forth needlessly and pretentiously, I squirmed with annoyance and found myself wishing that she would just get it over with.
Thankfully the visions and the time-travel finally end, things are resolved as the movie concludes, as we know they would be, and the bonfire and the cart provide a nice release to go out on.
To those here who complain that the title is misleading because the movie is scant on the details of the derivation of the theory of evolution, I can agree. In truth, I think appreciation of this movie will be improved the more one knows of Darwin's story – the Beagle and the Finches and all that; but to those who complain that it should in fact have delved more deeply into the science, I just say that this is not a story about science – it is a story about the people around the science and social consequences of it. (Whenever I hear that a movie "should have . . .", my usual response is: go make your own damn movie.)
I want to give Creation an "8", but the 20 minutes was barely a "4", so a "6" it is.
Still, despite those 20 minutes, I am glad I saw this movie.
The portrayal of the well-documented stress between Darwin and his wife Emma, and the despair of losing his daughter Annie, poignantly illustrates the very human side of a historic figure who today is regarded with an increasing dichotomy of reverence and contempt, depending on where one stands with respect to evolution vs religious creationism.
What a powerful quandary! That a faith-altering treatise on the source of biological diversity and progress should be withheld for years, due in part to the love between a husband and wife: the one harbouring a revelation that the other fears. This is a beautiful portrayal of their love, and their mutual respect, and the anguish that derives from a threatening idea being thrust between them.
Likewise, Darwin's love for his children, and the anguish of losing Annie is convincing for sure. The episode of Annie kneeling in penitential salt, and the reactions of each of her parents, was so illuminating of the conflicting perspectives on their place in the universe.
There is much elaboration and probable fictionalization around those 2 relationships, but I was prepared to accept them as legitimate devices to illuminate the well known facts of their domestic life.
What I was not prepared to accept was the portrayal of Darwin's hallucinations (which I do not believe have any basis in fact), and the flash-backs, (or flash-forwards – it became difficult to differentiate), which taken alone were tedious, and together ranged between silly and infuriating. Perhaps I was conditioned for irritation having suffered through the torment of Jennifer Connelly's other movie scientist-husband, John Nash and his Beautiful Mind, but whatever – for 20 minutes as Annie faded, and Darwin saw crazy things, and time switched back and forth needlessly and pretentiously, I squirmed with annoyance and found myself wishing that she would just get it over with.
Thankfully the visions and the time-travel finally end, things are resolved as the movie concludes, as we know they would be, and the bonfire and the cart provide a nice release to go out on.
To those here who complain that the title is misleading because the movie is scant on the details of the derivation of the theory of evolution, I can agree. In truth, I think appreciation of this movie will be improved the more one knows of Darwin's story – the Beagle and the Finches and all that; but to those who complain that it should in fact have delved more deeply into the science, I just say that this is not a story about science – it is a story about the people around the science and social consequences of it. (Whenever I hear that a movie "should have . . .", my usual response is: go make your own damn movie.)
I want to give Creation an "8", but the 20 minutes was barely a "4", so a "6" it is.
Still, despite those 20 minutes, I am glad I saw this movie.