PHYSICIST MAKES SCIENCE THE STAR IN HOLLYWOOD SCIENCE

By Emilie Lorditch
Inside Science News Service

COLLEGE PARK, MD (November 30, 2007) – As writer Michael Crichton sat on a panel of Hollywood screenwriters at a seminar in California several years ago, a young man rose from the audience and challenged him on the accuracy of a cartoon segment early in the movie Jurassic Park that explained how ancient dinosaur DNA was retrieved from amber.

Sounding like a biology student who had just caught his instructor in a mistake, the man gave a detailed explanation of why the DNA extraction technique Crichton had included in his screenplay wouldn’t work. Crichton, a medical doctor by training, listened for a few moments, then interrupted the biology lesson.

“It’s a movie,” Crichton declared.

The young man pressed on. “Yes, but . . . “

An exasperated Crichton cut him short. “It’s a movie! It’s only a movie!”

Scientists deal with facts, while Hollywood deals in fiction, but when those worlds collide, as in Jurassic Park, the result is often a mix that is just a little bit science and a whole lot fiction. Movies have rarely been the place to learn science, but they can reveal some of the magic and wonder that motivates scientists.

Sidney Perkowitz, an Emory University physicist whose new book, Hollywood Science, looks at the role of science in the movies, understands the perspective of moviemakers, but he wishes they would try a little harder to get it right.

“There is nothing wrong with a well-made science fiction popcorn flick chock full of heroic feats and great special effects,” he writes, “but we can do even better. Maybe the day will come when any film that involves science will be proud to display a ‘Good Science Seal’ stating that ‘no scientific concepts were seriously harmed in the making of this film.’”

As a film enthusiast, Perkowitz has taken his passion for science and movies to examine some of the most common and interesting themes in science fiction films, which Include many of the most popular movies from the early 1900s up through today. "I have always loved science fiction movies; even before I became a scientist," says Perkowitz.

One of the themes even casual moviegoers should be familiar with is how male and female scientists are portrayed in films. Men in these movies are often hunky, handsome heroes (think Pierce Brosnan in Dante’s Peak), crazed geeks (Brent Spiner in Independence Day), or just plain evil (Gregory Peck in Boys from Brazil). And women scientists typically do double duty in movies – they are the brainy scientist, and also the beautiful bombshell.

Perkowitz notes that trying to combine the role of scientist and beautiful woman can strain credulity. “Sometimes the call ‘Find me a scientist’ reels in an inept match – like Charlotte ‘Charlie’ Blackwood (Kelly McGillis) in Top Gun, the only astrophysicist ever to turn her Ph.D into a license to train fighter pilots and also be hot enough to attract Tom Cruise.”

Perkowitz says the most impressive woman scientist portrayal was by Jodie Foster as Dr. Ellie Arroway was in the 1997 film Contact. The movie, based on astronomer Carl Sagan's book by the same name, showed a strong woman who was "real" without being swept away in love -- even while acting opposite Matthew McConaughey. "She was a stunning character, very believable, "says Perkowitz, "One of my favorites."

Perkowitz's immersed himself in “research” while preparing his book, watching more than 100 science fiction movies that included the good, the bad, and the ugly of the genre. In the book, he separates the movies into familiar science fiction categories, including: Alien encounters, devastating collisions, atoms unleased, genes and germs gone bad, and computers take over. He writes about some of the great early science fiction films, including the wonderful 14-minute Le Voyage dans la Lune, a 1902 silent movie that is regarded as the first science fiction film. He also pays homage to the 1951 classic that influenced a generation of scientists, The Day the Earth Stood Still.

There is a fine line between science fact and movie fiction which has to maintain a balance between keeping audiences entertained, while not reminding them of a boring lecture. “Audiences are willing to suspend some disbelief," says Perkowitz. "For example, they are willing to believe that something (in the film) can move faster than the speed of light, but if the audience has to suspend too much disbelief like in the movie, The Core, then, not having enough persuasive science (in the film) is brutal."

The Core qualifies as one of the worst science fiction movies ever made, he says in the book. The movie, made in 2003 with a cast that included Hillary Swank and Stanley Tucci, “features five scientists yet still manages to pack record-setting amounts of scientific information into a short film.” Perkowitz hopes it was the screenwriters, not a woeful science advisor to the film, who got it so wrong.

“Any scientist who thinks the Earth has an electromagnetic field, who believes we can drill through thousands of miles of rock and magma with nary a hitch, or who wants to set off hydrogen bombs inside our planet, needs to hand in his lab coat,” Perkowitz observes.

The 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know, is even worse, he said. The movie, starring Marlee Matlin, is a “mangled version of quantum physics.”

Perkowitz’s favorites, Contact (1997), Jurasssic Park (1993), Gattaca (1997), and A Beautiful Mind (2001), all treated science with respect.

While Perkowitz’s writing is a bit academic, it is a fascinating overview of science fiction, as seen by a scientist. Perkowitz explains that the book isn't meant just for scientists. "When I write, I'm writing for the science groupies," he says. " I don't want to make any scientific blunders, but I don’t want to get into too many details." So, he juggles being accurate and interesting.

--end--