Carpe Datum

Museum of What?

This is a good example of why living in the Bible Belt can be a beating:

Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.

The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But because only a few dozen Imax theaters routinely show science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big impact on a film's bottom line - or a producer's decision to make a documentary in the first place.

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."

In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."

On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass.

"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.

You know, it's bad enough that these ignorant nutballs are voting this city, this state, this country into fucking oblivion, but they have to fucking control what we can watch at the SCIENCE museum?!? It's called the Museum of *science* for a reason, because they talk about *science* there, not your fucking fantasy or whatever interpretation of the Bible you happen to think is absolutely 100% correct and everyone else must be completely wrong and headed for hell.

You know, if they just say they don't want it because it's a boring film or poor quality or what have you, fine. Whether it offends a creationist just shouldn't be a criterion. Actually, though, I'm not criticizing the museum, I'm criticizing the society that forces the museum to have to think this way. I'm sure I would do the same thing if I were in Ms. Murray's shoes. There are plenty of good films out there, so why go through the hassle and risk funding, risk protests, etc.

You take a stand against these people and nobody is going to notice. The newspaper isn't going to care (and you better hope they don't draw attention to it or you'll be getting threatening phone calls in the middle of the night). You'll probably just get fired for the trouble and someone else will be hired who is willing to be cowed by the Church Lady crowd.

And of course, there are the ripple effects...

Some in the industry say they fear that documentary filmmakers will steer clear of science topics likely to offend religious fundamentalists.

Large-format science documentaries "are generally not big moneymakers," said Joe DeAmicis, vice president for marketing at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and formerly the director of its Imax theater. "It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.

Others who follow the issue say many institutions are not able to resist such pressure.

"They have to be extremely careful as to how they present anything relating to evolution," said Bayley Silleck, who wrote and directed "Cosmic Voyage." Mr. Silleck said he confronted religious objections to that film and predicted he would face them again with a project he is working on now, about dinosaurs.

Of course, a number of factors affect a theater manager's decision about a movie. Mr. Silleck said an Imax documentary about oil fires in Kuwait "never reached its distribution potential" because it had shots of the first Persian Gulf war. "The theaters decided their patrons would be upset at seeing the bodies," he said.

"We all have to make films for an audience that is a family audience," he went on, "when you are talking about Imax, because they are in science centers and museums."

He added, however, "there are a number of us who are concerned that there is a kind of tacit overcaution, overprotectedness of the audience on the part of theater operators."

In any event, censoring films like "Volcanoes" is not an option, said Dr. Field, who said Mr. Low, the film's producer, got in touch with him when the evolution issue arose to ask whether the film should be altered.

"I said absolutely not," recalled Dr. Field, who retired from the National Science Foundation last year.

Mr. Low said that arguments over religion and science disturbed him because of his own religious faith. In his view, he said, science is "a celebration of what nature or God has done. So for me, there's no conflict."

Dr. Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer, recalled a showing of "Volcanoes" he and Mr. Low attended at the New England Aquarium. When the movie ended, a little girl stood in the audience to challenge Mr. Low on the film's suggestion that Earth might have formed billions of years ago in the explosion of a star. "I thought God created the Earth," she said.

He replied, "Maybe that's how God did it."

There, see? Is that so hard? Can't people be satisfied and respectful of different interpretations? Hell, even the Vatican thinks the Big Bang, expanding Universe, etc., is a valid interpretation of the story of creation.

The thing is, I wouldn't be so upset with all these fundies if they would just be consistent. You know, I could live with the little inconvenience of having a contingent of batshit crazy people forcing silly beliefs down my throat if they would train that some literal microscope on the philosophy of Jesus Christ. Then they wouldn't support all these rich bastards, they wouldn't want to cut benefits on the poor or pass regressive tax laws, etc. Why is it that people are so infatuated with the idea of a 6,000 year old Earth (or that homosexuals are awful for that matter) but then turn a blind eye to the parts of the Bible they're not comfortable with?

BTW, I bash papers like the NY Times all the time about the political coverage, but credit where it is due. They have a legion of reporters doing lots of interesting things and keeping people educated as best they can. Without newspapers, political blogs would never function because bloggers rarely ever "make" news or do any reporting. We just repeat and comment, often only when we have something critical to say. It's important sometimes to recognize that newspapers have a valuable role to play. It's just a shame they are so flawed and corporate-minded when it comes to politics.

Posted by Observer at March 20, 2005 07:32 AM