14 February 2005

On-screen scientists

How scientists are portrayed in film and TV has been an interest of mine for a while. Today, I came across this quote (in the New York Times (1 February 2005, "A conversation with: James Cameron; Filmmaker Employs the Arts to Promote the Sciences"), requoted in Science) from film maker and fellow Canuck James Cameron talking about his IMAX film, Aliens of the Deep:

"One of the things we tried to do with this film was to show what scientists are really like. ... They're not driven by a materialistic value system. They're seeking something else, something more important."

Tenure?

My man Jim doesn't come out and say what that "something else" is, at least not in that quote. I don't know. I find most scientists are just as interested in taking home a regular paycheque as anyone else. In fact, given that a large chunk of this journal seems to have become devoted to detailing the amount of time and effort I spend trying to find money to do my research, perhaps Cameron has a slightly romanticized view of a scientist's lot. This wouldn't surprise me; probably everyone romanticizes careers other than their own.

I've also been interested in watching Numb3rs, which may be the regular first U.S. television show to feature a mathematician as its main protagonist. Of course, the other main protagonist is a law enforcement official (FBI), because what else is there to do in an hour of TV except solve a crime? My annoyance about math being joined with a standard police procedural drama notwithstanding, there is something in the portrayal of an academic (applied mathematician Charlie Eppes, played by David Krumholtz) in an academic setting that I quite like. On last week's episode, two instructors were talking about teaching evaluations; a nice little touch that will be familiar to anyone teaching in a university.

I'm also curious to see how Reed Richards, a.k.a. Mr. Fantastic, will be depicted in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie this summer. An old friend of mine described his character in the comics well: his real superpower was his intelligence, and the stretching was just a bonus. It'll be really interesting to see if Reed is portrayed as truly intelligent, rather than the typical approach films often fall back on, which is to make the smart guy boring! The original comics, in fairness, often fell into this trap themselves, especially in the hands of weaker writers. But even when handled by Stan Lee or other top writers, Reed Richards certainly never got the fan devotion of Ben Grimm (a.k.a. The Thing).

I'm still looking for a depiction of a scientist in contemporary film that really seems to ring true. It's a mistake to underestimate the impact these depictions have; if I'm not mistaken, recent record-winning Jeopardy! winner Ken Jennings said in a TV Guide interview that much of his interest and knowledge about science was sparked by reading none other than Fantastic Four comics.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated. Real names and pseudonyms are welcome. Anonymous comments are not and will be removed.