Swashbucklers and Brainy Babes?

Abstract

In his essay “Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities” (Essays on Science and Society, Science 's Compass, 5 Mar. p. [1461][1]), Michael Crichton criticizes my article “Script doctors” in The Sciences ([1][2]) for emphasizing “negative rather than positive images, a perennial exercise in self-flagellation, what I call ritual abuse.” ![Figure][3] Scientists Sam Neill and Laura Dern in Jurassic Park CREDIT: ARCHIVE PHOTOS Actually, “Script doctors” is a balanced look at how movies have always portrayed scientists; while it considers prototypically mad or overreaching scientists, it also discusses heroic ones, from swashbucklers to the wise Professor Barnhardt of The Day the Earth Stood Still, from Madam Curie to the admirable scientists of Crichton's own The Andromeda Strain— whom I describe as “pretty normal people who, in this case, manage to save the world.” Some of Crichton's comments are inaccurate or based on misinterpretation. For instance, he asks why I single out Sharon Stone's character in Sphere, instead of discussing any of the three males, since “[e]verybody in Sphere is a scientist.” But I specifically identify her as a new type of Hollywood scientist, “the brainy babe”—a category for which the three men do not readily qualify. Similarly, when he dismisses Re-Animator as “a movie no one has ever seen,” he is apparently unaware that this movie has spawned two follow-up films. Although he writes that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde “isn't about science, it's about the dual nature of man,” it is certainly about both. A constantly reiterated theme in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the danger of a brilliant scientist overreaching himself; in the 1932 version, Jekyll, speaking to God, says, “I have trespassed on your domain. I have gone further than man should go.” Crichton's “proof” that movie images do not “reflect society in some way,” is that “[f]ifty years ago, movies were characterized by strong women—Crawford and Stanwyck and Bette Davis. Women of intelligence and substance, women to be reckoned with. Since then…the movies have portrayed women primarily as giggling idiots or prostitutes.” The truth, of course, is that there were plenty of giggling idiots and prostitutes in the old movies, and to state that today's films do not have their share of “strong women…to be reckoned with,” would likely be unwelcome news to Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Michelle Pfeiffer, Barbra Streisand, and a number of others, including Sharon Stone. Crichton says of my essay that “The implication is that scientists are singled out for negative portrayals, and that the public is therefore deceived in some way we should worry about. I say, that's nonsense.” That is indeed nonsense, but it isn't what I wrote. I thoroughly agree that accurate portrayals rarely have much to do with a commercial film. But I hardly think the public is “deceived,” since the subject of my essay was not the appearance of actuality, but rather how movies portray scientists in ways that reflect the hopes and fears of the audience. It's not a question of deception, but of reflection. Crichton's statement that “[a]ll professions look bad in the movies…doctors are all uncaring…All cops are psychopaths, and all businessmen are crooks” is not only nonsense (there are countless heroic cops and caring doctors onscreen); ironically, his own films contradict that assertion. His doctor in The Andromeda Strain is compassionate and heroic; his businessman in Jurassic Park is, as Richard Nixon might have said, not a crook. Crichton insists that “Scientific work is often an extended search. But movies can't sustain a search,” when The Andromeda Strain makes thrilling a scientific search that lasts the length of the film. A deeper irony is this: in generalizing about movies, Crichton seems to be dismissing their relevance, even as he accuses film columnists of demonizing scientists. But his own cinematic contributions attest that while films do not reflect reality, they do reflect our psychic aspirations and terrors and that, in doing so, they should not be devalued or ignored, any more than they should be presented as literally true. Any art form that has people of Crichton's caliber working in it should be taken a lot more seriously than he himself seems inclined to take it. 1. [↵][4]1. M. Z. Ribalow ,The Sciences (November/December 1998), pp. 26–31. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.283.5407.1461 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: pending:yes [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text