ATCAG in "Saved!"

[George H. Smith]

A few hours ago I posted this on another thread:

This is off topic, but it does have to do with a movie. This is an interesting bit of trivia that doesn't merit a separate thread, so I am mentioning it here.

Some of you may have seen the movie "Saved!" If you did, and if you managed to sit through the credits at the end, you may have noticed that the final credit reads: "The producers wish to thank Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, used by permission of Prometheus Books."

After someone mentioned this on Atlantis II, I went with a friend to see the film shortly after its release. We both kept a sharp lookout for any appearance of ATCAG, but there wasn't any. The book was never shown or mentioned, as I later confirmed by watching the DVD version, thinking that the book might appear in the hands of the main character or show up on a table somewhere.

When I expressed my perplexity on A2, the same guy (sorry, but I don't recall who this was) wrote to the director, Brian Dannelly (who also wrote the screenplay), to ask about the credit. It seems that ATCAG was used in some fashion in the original uncut version, but that this scene was later edited out. The credits had been completed by that time, however, so the reference to ATCAG remained.

So much for my movie career....

Ghs

Since posting this I've done some googling, only to discover that the ATCAG credit in "Saved!" has been discussed more than I would have imagined. I am now uncertain that the explanation I gave above (about the uncut version) is correct. I have therefore started a thread on this topic in the hope that movie buffs and/or expert trivia hunters might be able to help me out.

Consider this section from "Admit None: 16 Protested Movies.

10. Saved! (2004)

There's a brief shot at the beginning of Saved!—a biting yet ultimately tender send-up of turmoil in a Christian high school—showing stars Jena Malone and Mandy Moore picketing an abortion clinic. It's almost as if writer-director Brian Dannelly was anticipating and even banking on protests from the religious right to propel his film. And the religious right obliged: Among the many howls of outrage Saved! elicited were reviews from sites like christiananswers.com, which blasted Dannelly for his portrayal of Christian leaders as "liars, adulterers, and hypocrites." Such reviews also pointed out that Saved!'s credits give thanks to George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God—and the fact that the film was co-produced by Michael "Losing My Religion" Stipe probably didn't help any.

I have not found any of the reviews mentioned in this passage, so if anyone out there can locate any, please tell me about them.

I have also found two posts on the Brian Dannelly discussion board at IMBd that speculate on the reason for the ATCAG credit. In the thread "Is this guy [Dannelly] Christian?" we find this comment:

I know in the credits to Saved! he put a thank you to the author of an atheist book, whose name escapes me at the moment, George something. He also used some of the same sounding arguments that the author used in the book with the conversations that Macualay Culkin's character had in the movie if that indicates anything.

Another post on the same thread reads:

In the commentary for Saved I believe he {Dannelly] says that to be able to use the book Mary is reading when Hilary Faye and the gang try to exorcise her they had to thank the author at the end.

Neither of these explanations rings true to me, especially the latter. After the DVD version of "Saved!" came out, I watched it carefully two times for any appearance of ATCAG, and I became absolutely convinced that it never appears. I have not watched the overdubbed version with Dannelly's commentary, however.

As for the theory about Culkin's dialogue, I recall nothing that rang a bell -- certainly nothing that would require a special credit and permission from Prometheus.

I am now somewhat skeptical of Dannelly's explanation about the uncut version, because, if "Saved!" was as controversial as it appears to have been, he may have given this explanation to an unfamiliar correspondent in order to avoid further controversy. This is speculation on my part, however. As things now stand, his explanation still appears the most plausible -- largely because I cannot think of any other plausible explanation. Nevertheless, it seems strange to me that one credit could not have been deleted after the final cut. How much effort would this have required? Of course, this could have been a careless oversight instead of a deliberate decision.

One problem I have here is that I don't know the stage at which credits are typically finalized. Some movie buffs might be able to enlighten me.

In any case, I have now become curious about this bit of movie trivia, and I would appreciate any help in tracking down the correct explanation for the mysterious ATCAG credit. Numerous OLers are far better at this sort of detective work than I am.

Thanks in advance.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Here is the conclusion of a review of "Saved! on "Christian Spotlight on Entertainment." .

In fact, based on this movie, one could easily get the idea that calling yourself an evangelical Christian puts you in the categories of judgmental, rude, violent, and stupid. It comes as no surprise that the credits give special thanks to George H. Smith for his book, Atheism: The Case Against God.

No reliable information here. But it is gratifying to learn that I am regarded by a major Christian website as having influenced a movie with a "Moral Rating" of "Extremely Offensive."

No one person can change the course of American culture, but I do what little I can.

Btw, some of the "positive" comments about "Saved!" by evangelical Christians are very interesting. They appear directly below the review.

Ghs

[Greybird]

[...] One problem I have here is that I don't know the stage at which credits are typically finalized. Some movie buffs might be able to enlighten me.

Very late in the process, at least for the back-end credits — those which (in the typical arrangement) follow the movie, not the stars and department heads whose names precede the movie.

DVD "screener" discs are often distributed to reviewers or members of the various film academies with either incomplete or nearly entirely missing end credits — I've seen some of them, although I'm in none of these organizations. (Those thus inclined can complete the syllogisms involved themselves {rueful smile})

Credits are not static. They're often edited or corrected for video, pay-cable, or network TV releases. Barbra Streisand added a credit ("Musical Sequences Staged by") at this stage to the four (director, star, co-writer, co-producer) she already had on "Yentl."

It's also been implied to me by friends in the business that if a permission is secured, it typically involves a financial consideration of some kind, and accounting practices can require that this be acknowledged. Sometimes this impinges on expense calculations for determining shares of profit.

Someone probably secured such a permission from your publisher for ATCAG over its visible use in a scene that ended up being pared away, or even unfilmed. (It wouldn't be mentioned by name.) I'd nominate the scene when Jena Malone's character is reading about crystal energies in the school library, and follows up by pressing a crystal against her breastbone.

That may have been written or filmed to show your book being among other titles in her library carrel. The typography on its cover would have made it very hard to miss, whether by front cover or spine being visible.

... Superb little movie, by the way, a surprisingly warmhearted satire. Also telling as to the understated range of Mandy Moore, who followed up a turn as a sincere Preacher's Kid evangelical ("A Walk to Remember") with a broadly acted prestige-monger-for-the-Lord (can we have an "Uh huh" here, brethren? {g}) in this film.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Greybird

[George H. Smith]

Someone probably secured such a permission from your publisher for ATCAG over its visible use in a scene that ended up being pared away, or even unfilmed. (It wouldn't be mentioned by name.) I'd nominate the scene when Jena Malone's character is reading about crystal energies in the school library, and follows up by pressing a crystal against her breastbone.

That may have been written or filmed to show your book being among other titles in her library carrel. The typography on its cover would have made it very hard to miss, whether by front cover or spine being visible.

I recall thinking that the scene you mention would have been a perfect spot for ATCAG, because the title alone makes the perspective of the book unmistakable, and because (as you mention) the title on the cover and spine would have been easy to read.

What we find instead is a book on crystals. This puzzled and annoyed me to some extent, because the subject matter was not especially relevant to the burgeoning religious skepticism of the main character. I wondered if this scene might have originally been shot with ATCAG (which would have explained the credit), but was later reshot because ATCAG was regarded as too stark, uncompromising, and potentially offensive to viewers. But who would get seriously offended by a book on crystals?

What didn't occur to me is the possibility that a scene with ATCAG might have been planned but never shot at all.

When I first watched the movie, I thought I spotted the distinctive spine of ATCAG in a stack of books that was being carried by the main character. I don't recall much about this scene -- I haven't watched the film in six years -- except that it occurs early on while students are boarding a bus. (Or was it a van?) In any case, I later decided that I was seeing things, but I don't remember why I reached this conclusion.

Many thanks for your astute observations.

Btw, was the book on crystals mentioned in the credits? I don't recall that it was, but the fact that I don't remember something means absolutely nothing.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Steve,

Have you seen the deleted and extended scenes in the DVD version? I have not, and I thought they might contain something in regard to ATCAG.

Ghs

[Greybird]

I extracted a screenshot from the end credits:

[...] What we find instead is a book on crystals. This puzzled and annoyed me to some extent, because the subject matter was not especially relevant to the burgeoning religious skepticism of the main character. I wondered if this scene might have originally been shot with ATCAG (which would have explained the credit), but was later reshot because ATCAG was regarded as too stark, uncompromising, and potentially offensive to viewers. But who would get seriously offended by a book on crystals?

With this being shot in 2003, only two years after Everything Changed (a registered service mark of the Nine Eleven Commission {sardonic smile}), showing any other organized religion might have made some think this was Disloyal to America, as well as Dissing Christianity — which it really was not. Showing a book on atheism may have made them fear the fundies' using actual, not rhetorical, tar and feathers.

New Agers, though? Meh, they don't buy as many tickets. So it could very well have been the usual Hollywood cowardice showing itself here.

What didn't occur to me is the possibility that a scene with ATCAG might have been planned but never shot at all.

That may even be likely, if any of the screenwriters had shown an admiration for it. They might have wanted to use excerpts in dialogue. Which makes me wonder if an early version of the shooting script did so. I may check this out in the near future at one of the script-selling stores on Hollywood Boulevard.

When I first watched the movie, I thought I spotted the distinctive spine of ATCAG in a stack of books that was being carried by the main character. I don't recall much about this scene — I haven't watched the film in six years — except that it occurs early on while students are boarding a bus. (Or was it a van?) In any case, I later decided that I was seeing things, but I don't remember why I reached this conclusion.

This possibility made me decide to do a higher-speed scan of the movie. The only buses, municipal ones, appear when various characters are getting on or off to go to an outdoor café, or to a Planned Parenthood office across from it.

(When the main character is spied from the café, coming out of that office to the bus, the male classmate in the wheelchair who's a religious skeptic wonders about why she's there: "She's planting a pipe bomb?!" "Okay, two reasons," avers his Jewish soon-to-be girlfriend {rueful grin})

Nobody carries any visibly titled books, except generic Bibles, in any form of transit, nor (strangely for a school) in hallways. Nor were any other recognizable covers (except The Living Bible — Paraphrased) visible during either exterior or interior scenes.

Btw, was the book on crystals mentioned in the credits? I don't recall that it was, but the fact that I don't remember something means absolutely nothing.

Your book was the only one mentioned.

I should have added, to my previous post, a note on what may not be immediately obvious: Independent films, or those made by the "boutique" operations attached to the studios ("Saved!" had elements of both), typically do not pay for all the personal help, shooting permissions, and visual allusions in the film.

Many such elements are provided as personal favors or out of professional courtesy. This, in turn, makes those thank-you lists (see screenshot above) very long and entirely necessary.

The "Used with" portion of your book's credit adds credence to that having been a paid permission, akin to a music clearance, rather than an exchanged favor or an informal permission.

Have you seen the deleted and extended scenes in the DVD version? I have not, and I thought they might contain something in regard to ATCAG.

I haven't as yet. So far I've seen it in the theater (with noting aloud, "Hey, I have that book! And I know that guy!" {g}), several times on cable, and now on a BitTorrented copy (film only). But I'm adding the DVD to my next Amazon.com Super Saver Shipping pile, because I want to see those scenes, the preview (another possibility), and the production short.

So, with this puzzle having intrigued me, I'll be getting back to you.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Greybird

[George H. Smith]

Steve,

I posted a query on the IMDb Brian Dannelly message board, hoping that Dannelly might see it. (I couldn't find an email address for him.) A fan of "Saved!" replied as follows:

I am not Brian Dannelly.

But! I am a Saved! fanatic and I know the answer to this question.

Do you remember the scene when Mary is walking down the street dressed in all black on halloween (or around, it was the day everyone was dressed up) reading when Hilary Faye and the gang run up, toss her in the van and perform an intervention?

Well!

The book she was reading was "Atheism: The Case Against God!"

I know this because I have watched the movie like 100 times and the commentary at least a few. And during that scene in the commentary, I think it's Brian Dannelly, but it might be the producer say that's what she's reading! Which is why they had the credit at the end.

I replied:

Thank you for your reply.

I haven't watched "Saved!" for a number of years, but, yes, I remember that scene. As I recall, we only get a brief glimpse of a book with a purple cover, so what puzzles me is this: Why was it necessary to get permission from Prometheus Books (the publisher of ATCAG), and why was a credit given, for the incidental use of a book that was not identified in the film and that no one would be able to identify? I know zilch about the protocols of filmmaking, but this seems odd to me.

I thought ATCAG might have been used more prominently in a scene that was cut from the final version. This might explain why an end-credit was given.

I want to keep the IMDb discussion simple and straightforward, so I haven't brought up any of the details that we have discussed.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Steve,

Here is a trailer for "Saved!" Embedding has been disabled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kjYNPKNGcg

At 1:12 into this trailer (immediately after the "Wickedly Funny" blurb), we see a very brief clip of Mary walking and reading a book. This is the "van/intervention" scene to which the IMDb poster was referring. The book is ATCAG.

But here is the curious part. We cannot see any part of the title, even when the front of the book is directly facing the camera, because the book has been encased in some kind of slipcover. Either that or all the writing was obscured with computer graphics.

Ghs

Addendum

If Dannelly wanted to use ATCAG because of its unequivocal title, then why did he deliberately make the title unreadable? This could have been any book.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I extracted a screenshot from the end credits:

I don't think this is not how the credit appeared in the original theatrical release. It was the last credit and it stood alone. This is what made it stand out. It was not buried in other credits.

Ghs

[Greybird]

Thanks for the preview / trailer link, George. (Better than most, as it doesn't give away the major plot thrust, as most such publicity does these days.)

Yes, it's puzzling that they'd feel a necessity to get clearance for a book that isn't even recognizable from its cover — as I yet again confirmed from, this time, a slow-speed scan. Who would know, if they didn't? Why waste the money for securing the permission? And this semi-independent venture, one that struggled for funding, didn't have cash to spare.

I extracted a screenshot from the end credits [of the DVD version]

I don't think this is how the credit appeared in the original theatrical release. It was the last credit and it stood alone. This is what made it stand out. It was not buried in other credits.

Ah, that's what was bugging me about this, and which was just beyond my ready recall. Your credit was, indeed, tacked on at the very end, both in the theater and when this was shown on pay-cable.

That DVD screenshot shows they amended the "thank-you" list in the credits to include it. This is also routine. (Though not always done — see, for example, "Moonstruck.") Redoing the credit roll does have a cost, which can be charged to DVD production expenses.

And in the theater, most people stampede to the exits anyway, as soon as "The End" or "Cast (In Order of Appearance)" or "Unit Production Manager" appears to head the end credits. Few are freaks like you and me, staying to watch them {g}

[George H. Smith]

Thanks for the preview / trailer link, George. (Better than most, as it doesn't give away the major plot thrust, as most such publicity does these days.)

Yes, it's puzzling that they'd feel a necessity to get clearance for a book that isn't even recognizable from its cover — as I yet again confirmed from, this time, a slow-speed scan. Who would know, if they didn't? Why waste the money for securing the permission? And this semi-independent venture, one that struggled for funding, didn't have cash to spare.

Here is a scenario -- cast in the form of an imaginary dialogue among some people involved in the production on of "Saved!" -- that illustrates a possible explanation.

THE CASE OF THE INVISIBLE BOOK

ACT ONE, SCENE ONE

"What book should we use for this scene?"

"There is a book called Atheism:The Case Against God. This would show that Mary is in a skeptical phase, questioning religion. And the title stands out, so the audience could see it. We should have Mary reading that book just before the van pulls up. It would show why her Christian classmates are so worried."

"Good idea. Get a copy; meanwhile, we will need to get permission from the publisher."

Permission is acquired, and a copy ATCAG is brought to the set on the day of the shoot.

"Uh, I don't know if we should use that book. With a title like that, the audience might think we are promoting atheism, and this would overshadow the point of the real message. And religious viewers will raise a stink. The film is already controversial enough."

"Good point. Let's put one of those heavy plastic covers over it. We've already signed an agreement with the publisher, so we can include the credit without showing the book."

Cast and crew breathe a collective sigh of relief.

FINIS

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Steve,

Mystery solved. Earlier today I received the DVD of "Saved!" from Netflix. In one of the commentary versions, here is what director Brian Dannelly says at 39:50 into the film, as Mary is reading ATCAG while walking:

39:50

Okay, here's the big controversy. The book she is reading is, um, it's called "A Case Against God." And in order to get the rights for that book, we had to give a thank you at the end of the movie, so everyone thinks that we studied that book to make the movie, but, no, we just had it in this one scene because, you know, Mary is on this journey....

They couldn't even get the title right.

Ghs

[Greybird]

[...] They couldn't even get the title right.

Nice to get the definitive word. Those commentary tracks are extempore, and the speakers almost never have notes, so his remembering 60 percent of your title probably is better than anyone should expect {grin}

Well, on the one hand, they wasted their money, or at least their time in contacting your publisher. Why not show the cover of the book, with its distinctive typography that would have punched up the title on screen quite nicely? A nonspecific book needed no clearance, really.

On t'other hand, that title may have distracted from the action, "breaking the fourth wall" a bit. That's becoming my fave theory. The point of the scene was that ludicrous "intervention" by Mary's friends.

On t'third hand, compulsive credit-freaks either got a pleasant jolt seeing your work noted (as I did) or got a great citation For Further Reading! ... and purchasing, one hopes.

[George H. Smith]

[...] They couldn't even get the title right.

Nice to get the definitive word. Those commentary tracks are extempore, and the speakers almost never have notes, so his remembering 60 percent of your title probably is better than anyone should expect {grin}

Well, on the one hand, they wasted their money, or at least their time in contacting your publisher. Why not show the cover of the book, with its distinctive typography that would have punched up the title on screen quite nicely? A nonspecific book needed no clearance, really.

On t'other hand, that title may have distracted from the action, "breaking the fourth wall" a bit. That's becoming my fave theory. The point of the scene was that ludicrous "intervention" by Mary's friends.

On t'third hand, compulsive credit-freaks either got a pleasant jolt seeing your work noted (as I did) or got a great citation For Further Reading! ... and purchasing, one hopes.

Although ATCAG has some kind of vinyl cover on it, you can make out a little of the lettering in the DVD version. It is clearer than in the the trailer. In short, if you already know the book is ATCAG, you can tell it is ATCAG on the screen if you look closely enough.

Note that Dannelly, in his intro to the scene, says,"Okay, here's the big controversy." Judging from what I've read recently, the ATCAG movie credit, though not front page news by any stretch, did generate a fairly spirited debate within the Christian community. It would have been nice if someone had tipped me off about all this. It would have been a good marketing opportunity for me, especially if the book title was deliberately obscured in the final cut.

Our next guest is an author whose book title was too hot to handle. Please join me in welcoming a writer who, in recent weeks, has been called the most hated man in America.....

Here is the story of how the title, Atheism: The Case Against God, came about. I related part of this story before on OL, but not all of it.

While in college I wrote a 60 page monograph titled The Case For Atheism. I had the typed pages printed via offset, added a dramatic cover with the publisher listed as "UA Students of Objectivism", stapled everything together, added a strip of black tape to the spine, and sold it at our UA Students of Objectivism table for $1.50.

Fewer than 200 copies of The Case for Atheism were printed, and all of them sold within a week.

I tell part of the story of how ATCAG came to be written in "My Path to Atheism," a title I took from an essay written by the English freethinker (and later Theosophist) Annie Besant. (My autobiographical piece appears in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. .) Here is another part of the story that I didn't tell.

Roy Childs hooked me up with Ed Nash within a week of when I was scheduled to move from Hollywood back to Tucson. My books were packed up, and I was ready to go, thinking that I would finish my degree at the University of Arizona.

Understandably, Ed Nash wanted me to submit a sample chapter for my proposed book on atheism. There wasn't time to write one before I moved, so I took a copy of The Case for Atheism to him instead. He liked it, and we signed a contract for four months, thinking that the Nash book would be little more than than a somewhat longer version of that monograph. My advance was $2150. I figured I could live on $500 per month for four months, and an extra $150 was added so I could purchase Nathaniel Branden's Adler typewriter.

The book turned out to be a major project that took a year and four months to write, leaving a full year when I had no regular income. The unremitting financial pressure for that year, combined with the fact that each passing day made me that much later on the original deadline, pushed me to the edge of a nervous breakdown.

Fortunately, I lived in the same Hollywood apartment building as Roy Childs, who was writing his remarkable series of articles on anarchism and justice at the time. Our daily gab sessions played a major role in relieving the stress and getting me through periods that might have otherwise seemed hopeless.

Anyway, the working title for the Nash book was taken from my earlier self-published monograph: The Case for Atheism. Everyone assumed this would be the final title as well. The person most responsible for the change was Nathaniel Branden.

The Nash office on Sunset Blvd. was located in the same building as Nathaniel's office, and we would go out for lunch occasionally. One day Nathaniel told me that he had a title that he thought carried more dramatic punch than The Case for Atheism. He suggested The Case Against God.

Nathaniel's title immediately appealed to me, so the following day I mentioned it to Sylvia Cross, the executive editor for Nash Publishing. She liked it as well but said she would also like to keep the word "atheism" somewhere in the title. Without thinking, I replied, "How about Atheism: The Case Against God ?

Thus was history made. It is an effective title, however.

Ghs