Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Lab coats in Hollywood: Science, scientists, and cinema

2012; Wiley; Volume: 97; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/sce.21033

1098-237X

Thomas Parham,

Climate Change Communication and Perception

by David A. Kirby. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. xiv + 265 pp. ISBN 978-0-2620-1478-6. In Lab Coats in Hollywood, science communication scholar David Kirby challenges and ultimately rejects the culturally accepted notion of cinematic science consultants being Hollywood's most fastidious fact-checkers. Instead, armed with an impressive array of historical research and first-hand accounts from active consultants, Kirby reveals a much deeper relationship between science consultants and filmmakers. As would be expected of any book exploring cinematic science, Lab Coats in Hollywood provides a rich discussion of how film's “naturalizing effect” (p. 33) can dramatically affect public perceptions of scientific phenomena and the “cultural meanings” of science (p. 15). However, what makes Kirby's analysis unique is its thorough examination of the interplay between scientific and cinematic cultures from the perspectives of those who actively seek to bridge the gap. This behind-the-scenes approach has the pleasant side effect of making the Lab Coats in Hollywood highly engaging and culturally relevant, especially for sci-fi fans who have seen the numerous exemplars of “movie science” (p. 228). Kirby has peppered throughout the book. Although clearly written for a broad audience, Lab Coats in Hollywood may provide science educators with a particularly interesting case study of science as a social and cultural endeavor. Kirby opens his discussion of cinematic science by retreading some familiar ground, albeit in somewhat unfamiliar terms. For example, Kirby discusses the potential for films to serve as “virtual witnessing technologies” (p. 24). According to Kirby, although notable scientists may claim that direct perception of evidence (i.e., “witnessing”) is the only means by which to generate new scientific knowledge, the fact that the vast majority of scientists may not have direct access to the phenomena themselves has lead modern science to accept the abstract perception, or indirect witnessing, of natural phenomena (e.g., through peer-reviewed publication) as reliable. Therefore, in Kirby's view, a filmic context effectively “blurs the boundaries between indirect witnessing and direct witnessing” (p. 27) by offering audiences direct access to phenomena but framing those phenomena in a highly abstracted or entirely fictionalized world (the “diegesis” or filmic universe). Furthermore, Kirby asserts that a filmic context can very effectively “naturalize” images (p. 33) and that films must impose truth claims upon scientific depictions out of a necessity to propel the narrative (p. 28). This naturalizing effect and the resultant perceptions of truth gives films a considerable power to impact and persuade their audiences. The importance of science consultants is in helping filmmakers craft images and narratives that convey the excitement of scientific research or communicate a sense of awe about the natural world … it is crucial for a science consultant to identify those aspects of scientific knowledge that will significantly impact the cultural meanings of science.” (p. 117) Reflecting this perspective, the majority of Lab Coats is dedicated to exploring ways in which consultants can (and do) work with filmmakers in a symbiotic manner rather than antagonistically insisting upon absolute accuracy, which Kirby argues is an ambiguous concept to filmmakers and ultimately impossible due to filmmaking constraints. During his exploration of the social and political dynamics driving consultant–filmmaker relationships, Kirby concludes that the collaboration is often most productive when scientists use their specialized expertise in logical reasoning and “knowing what we do not know” (p. 121) to define the boundaries of plausibility within which filmmakers may apply their own creative expertise. He notes, however, that the idea of uncertainty, while occasionally useful to filmmakers and an ever-present element of scientific culture, may also be difficult for some filmmakers to understand. Kirby details this conundrum through the perspective of a consultant, working on the 1998 film Deep Impact, who refrains from inciting a debate about the size of cometary ejecta during a group meeting. Despite his feelings against the advice given by a colleague, Kirby claims that the consultant “ … perceived a danger that too much uncertainty would throw into question the whole notion of expertise” (p. 126). Another memorable example of the consultant–filmmaker negotiation for which Kirby so strongly advocates comes from the growing cinematic subgenre of comic book films. While working on Hulk (2003), noted technologist and science consultant John Underkoffler originally suggested that the Hulk's trademark green coloring, tremendous size, thick skin, and other aspects of the character's origin might be explained through hybridization with plant DNA. Director Ang Lee summarily rejected the plant connection; in Kirby's words: “the Hulk loses some of his power as a symbol of humanity's inherent animalism if he is a flower” (p. 165). In response, Underkoffler simply began providing a variety of “defensible” (if a bit far-fetched) origin scenarios from which Lee was tasked with acting as a creative “taste machine” (p. 167) to determine the best option to suit the film's narrative. Kirby argues that this style of negotiation is both productive and mutually beneficial, as it respects the value of expertise for both the scientist and the filmmaker. However, he readily admits that such collaborations are not always pursued by filmmakers, citing the fact that the 2008 film The Incredible Hulk eschewed any efforts toward scientific veracity in favor of “Hulk Smash” visual effects (p. 160). Incidentally, the effect-driven 2008 version did far better at the box office than the 2003 film that attempted to pay more attention to the underlying science. Kirby devotes the vast majority of his text to chronicling the experiences of science consultants working on films such as Deep Impact and Hulk, as well as an impressive number of older titles. In fact, I would challenge any reader to finish Lab Coats in Hollywood without encountering at least one example from a film they remember watching (at least in part). In Kirby's view, the common theme across this vast landscape of production experiences is that scientists can and should cross cultural boundaries to collaborate with creative professionals in pursuit of top-quality filmic science. For science educators, these compelling accounts provide excellent examples of science as a human endeavor and explore how science works both within and across cultures. Stylistically, Lab Coats in Hollywood is well organized and quite readable. Images borrowed from the many films cited throughout the book, including a commemorative thermos bottle that made national news (p. 22) and a preproduction image from Jurassic Park showing velociraptors with “tongue-flicking action” (p. 130), provide welcome visual anchors for the text which, at times, can border on repetitive. Fortunately, though, Kirby's reemphasis of key points in most chapters means Lab Coats is not constrained by a rigid linear or hierarchical structure, so readers on a timetable can dive directly into the portions they find most relevant. Science educators will likely be most interested in chapters 4–7. Chapter 4 explores public perceptions of science and scientific iconography as represented through film, whereas chapter 5 examines how scientists and nonscientists (i.e., filmmakers) often interpret the meaning and significance of “fact” quite differently. Chapters 6 and 7 provide thought-provoking explorations of how the concepts of uncertainty, accuracy, and plausibility are interpreted by those outside the scientific culture. Geoscientists, engineers, and others concerned with natural or industrial hazards might cherry-pick chapter 8 for its discussion of unique difficulties faced by consultants working on disaster films. The discussion of “diegetic prototypes” (pp. 195–197) in chapter 9 is a must-read for technologists, and every reader should treat themselves to Kirby's summary review and passionate call to action for improving both films and filmic science in the final chapter. Perhaps the most telling comment I can offer on Lab Coats in Hollywood is this: Scientists and science educators who have previously criticized cinematic science for its power to misinform (including the author of this review), may find new perspective in the pages of Kirby's detailed yet highly accessible analysis. Moreover, Kirby gives us a defensible reason to grab some popcorn and revisit, with fresh eyes, the “bad science” films we have secretly loved all along.