Creation (PG-13)
BBC Film; IMDb; Rotten Tomatoes; TV Tropes; Wikipedia
streaming sites: none that I know of

So... I wasn't quite sure if I'd put this review under "art films" or "period pieces," but ultimately I went with the former. (I later moved my review to "based on a true story.") It's set in the 19th century, but it jumps around quite a bit between different times in the life of Charles Darwin, who is of course famous for having written "On the Origin of Species," the book that made famous the Theory of Evolution. I've never read the book, and I don't really know anything about Darwin's life, either personal or professional. The movie is based on a book by Darwin's great-great-grandson, which I've also never read. So, all I can really say is that the story combines elements of real history and fiction. And there are some very dramatic personal elements to the film.

Obviously, Darwin and his book were hugely controversial at the time, and they remain so to this day. As I said, I haven't read his book, but I very much doubt it contains any information which is untrue. The trouble isn't with the data, but with what conclusions people may draw from it. In the film, Darwin himself struggles with whether or not to complete his book, let alone publish it. It's seen as a war between religion and science (ergo a war against God), which some of his colleagues are eager to see science win. And there is a great deal of tension between Darwin and his wife, Emma, who is devoutly religious. Darwin certainly doesn't seem to want to change society, but it seems impossible that his book wouldn't change it. The trouble I have with this is the idea that science and religion should be at war at all. I believe God created the Earth (and the whole universe) as well as the natural laws that make it all work, and just because we learn a bit about how it works (or make educated guesses about it) doesn't imply that God doesn't exist, much less prove that He doesn't. If anything, it only goes to show how awesome He is. (I usually think of Him as the "Great Writer," but it's just as apt to think of Him as the "Great Scientist.") As for evolution... I'm really not sure what to believe. I don't believe that anything Darwin observed proves evolution exists, but I do think it's a reasonable conclusion based on his observations. And even assuming it exists with some living things, I don't think that means humans must be subject to it. Though certainly any species, including humans, can change to some extent over time; that doesn't necessarily mean they become new species. Really, though, what bothers me most is that people on either side of the argument think they know the truth. No one knows anything, dammit. And the two sides need not even be mutually exclusive, which is the real tragedy; I mean, the fact that people act like science and religion can't both be true. (For example, there's a brief mention in the film of a preacher who doesn't believe dinosaurs ever existed. I highly doubt anyone today who argues against evolution would suggest that.) Of course, in the end I think Darwin's torment over the question of whether or not to publish his theories was rather pointless. Did it change society? Eh, kinda. But it damn sure didn't put an end to religion or the belief in God. (Not yet, anyway. That time may come, but if and when it does, it will be because of a hell of a lot more than Darwin's work.)

As weighty as all these questions may be, the movie is about more than that. Part of the story is set sometime after the death of Charles and Emma's daughter, Annie, and part of it in the months leading up to Annie's death. But even in the later scenes, Annie is an important presence, as Charles frequently sees and talks with her. (He also has some ailment which may be physical and/or spiritual, which possibly causes his hallucinations... or possibly the hallucinations cause the ailment, I'm not really sure.) In any event, Annie's death caused as much of a rift between Charles and Emma as his scientific theories did, for at least a couple of reasons. Mainly, because her death strengthened Emma's dependence on religion and Charles's belief in science. And all this plays a vital role in the decision of whether or not to publish his theories. Oh, and before I forget, I need to mention that they had a few other children, who felt neglected by their father after Annie's death. Anyway, ultimately Charles does finish his book, of course, and gives it to Emma to read, and to decide whether it should be submitted for publication or destroyed. And... obviously, we know how that turned out.

I guess there's not much more I can say. It's a very personal film, a very human film. Very emotional, and often seems to try a bit too hard to tug at the viewer's emotions (particularly with the parallels between Annie and an orangutan named Jenny, both in their similar natures and their untimely deaths). But it works, however manipulative it may be. And it was well-acted, all around. I suppose some people would find the movie offensive just because some people want to be offended by things they think go against what they believe, even if (I think) they're wrong to think that. Anyway, I'm glad to have seen it, but I don't imagine I'd ever want to watch it again. It's a good movie, but wow, just drowning in pathos....

Incidentally, one of the reasons I wanted to watch this movie in the first place was because Jennifer Connelly plays Emma. Charles is played by Paul Bettany. And I was pleasantly surprised to find that Benedict Cumberbatch appears in a minor role. (I know him now from Sherlock, which came out after this, but which I saw before this.)