My fondest memory of science class is taking a field trip to see Twister. I was in sixth grade, and my class had just completed a weather unit in time for the release of the movie. Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton starred as storm chasers trying to test out a new intensity measuring instrument unironically named DOROTHY.
According to Wikipedia, DOROTHY was based on an unsuccessful NOAA instrument called TOTO (NOAA is always one for pleasing acronyms) designed to be placed in the path of an oncoming tornado in order to take direct measurements. The storm chasers made a habit of estimating the tornado’s intensity while it occurred, but in reality the intensity can only be measured after the storm, in terms of the damage done and ground and aerial surveys.
Of course, in sixth grade I didn’t know this basic assumption of the film was wrong. I probably wouldn’t have cared, either - the real highlight of the film was an airborne cow mooing across the screen. But perhaps my innocent enjoyment of what had been framed as edu-tainment was not so innocent after all. According to two professors of physics at the University of Central Florida, science lessons from Hollywood hurt rather than help students’ fragile grasp on science. Arstechnica says:
They claim that as Hollywood mixes realistic special effects with the physically absurd, they’re leaving a scientifically-illiterate public completely bewildered about what’s actually possible here in the real world.
This goes for movies such as Speed, Spiderman, and Superman - blockbusters that already rely on the suspension of belief. But the physicists, who tend to be picky about these sorts of things, say it’s hard for people to separate what they see on the screen from their basic understanding of science. Their argument is that Hollywood’s suspension of scientific laws in science-fiction movies fits into the puzzle of failing science education.
This interview with Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy Blog gives a few more examples of Hollywood’s scientific untruths. Apparently, the entire premise of Armageddon was wrong. If only that knowledge could have decelerated Ben Affleck’s career.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/58TlNMw8AgM" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
It’s interesting to see just how Hollywood goes wrong, but how steadily can we point our fingers at the movies? Personally, explanations of how the world can be saved from an asteroid on a collision course went over my head rather than being absorbed into my view of “scientific truth.” Or is Al Gore the only movie star who can be taught in the classroom?
I read the Bad Astronomy Blog. That’s really good news. After Armageddon I was wondering what we could do to prevent such a catastrophy, because it seems imminent that among all the objects in space one would eventually hit us. It’s good to know we have the knowledge (and technology?) to save our planet from collision. It says all it takes is changing the velocity by a very small amount, but I wonder how far away the asteroid would be before we’d want to change its course and if we have the technology to get something there in time to do it.
Odd how you didn’t mention “The Day After Tomorrow.” or Leonardo DiCaprio’s “11th Hour”. Talk about drop outs Al Gore got a D in Natural Sciences 3 (man and his environment).
Lindsay, another thoughtful and interesting blog post from you!
You ask some provocative questions.
It’s true that Hollywood can do damage to our collective understanding of science and the natural world. But - IMHO - it can also help our understanding.
A personal illustration … around the time the movie Titantic came out, a NASA spacecraft landed on Mars. There was extensive TV coverage of the Mars landing … scientist after scientist droning on about the equipment used, the robot arm, etc. Even to me - a super space nut - it was incredibly boring. Today, I don’t even remember which spacecraft it was, or anything else about the landing. But that same week I saw the movie Titantic. And I learned a LOT about nature from that movie. I learned that the sea is vast - that icebergs are mountainous and hard (and yet they splinter) - that northern ocean waters are icy cold - that human beings will die of exposure in those waters relatively quickly. To this day, I remember those “lessons.”
Deborah
Maybe it is not the inaccurate science in movies that is leaving a scientifically-illiterate public completely bewildered about what’s actually possible here in the real world. Maybe it is the public’s inability to live in the real world today. There was a huge amount of sci-fi movies in the 50’s but I don’t think the public confused movie reality with the real world. Why do you think that is?
Hollywood is Hollywood, and you have to take it for what it is - it has and will always be just entertainment- can’t hold them accountable for not portraying pure science.
As far as Twister, even if “scientifically incorrect” it gave my 6 year-old son a “graphic display” of a tornado, which I’m sure can’t be created without special effects, These images are what made him interested in the whole subject. He began to ask questions and that’s the time when Dad or the teacher can provide the true scientific explanation. As Deborah said, when he hears of a tornado on the news, he will have the images from the movie in his memory - a depiction of their awesome force - and that will be the lesson he remembers.
I agree there’s a lot of inaccurate science in Hollywood productions today, but were movies and TV of the 50s and 60s any more accurate for their time? For example, Star Trek (which was created in the ’60s) was likely the inspiration behind a lot of technologies around today - including mobile phones, PDAs and the MRI, based on Bones’s diagnostic table. However, the show’s “warp drive” is scientifically implausible. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the show is still entertaining and at least inspires an interest in science and astronomy. There’s even a book called “The Physics of Star Trek.” Hollywood is a place of fantasy, and if at least inspires interest in science despite occasional scientific inaccuracy, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. For example, I don’t think there was such a widespread interest in tornadoes from the general public before Twister was made.
Deborah -
It’s precisely because you remember Titanic, and nothing about the Mars rover (still in action!), that Hollywood films have the potential to cause so much damage to completely unprepared minds. Art is much more compelling than truth when it’s 40 feet tall and deafeningly loud, and most people go into the theater (as Gretchie put it above) scientifically illiterate, with no real-world knowledge to compare against.
This can lead to inspiration to find out more like Erika mentions, but Twister doesn’t portray the behavior or force of a tornado in a realistic way and I hope your son never sees a real tornado approaching, if his impression of its power includes being able to withstand the most dangerous location in one without protection of any kind, so long as you’re tethered down.
As for sci-fi in the 50’s not having the same effect, Gretchie, I think technology has a lot to do with it: compare the King Kong films of yesteryear to the King Kong of last year, or compare Land of the Lost to Jurassic Park, and tell me which one looks like a close-up of a rubber miniature or a man in a monkey suit, and which one looks like you imagine the real thing to look like.
As for Titanic, it was the most expensively researched movie ever, and strove to be accurate, but it still misinforms watchers about astronomy, history, physics and biology, for a start: a mirror pulled up from 12,500 feet underwater has no water pressure or oxidization damage of any kind after 80 years. Pacific Whitesided Dolphins swim alongside ships in the North Atlantic. A ship’s multiple propellers will all spin the same direction. People on the Titanic conversed about Freud’s “Pleasure Principle” (which was published a decade after the Titanic sank, based on research begun 5 years after the sinking). The stars in the night sky are in the shape of Rose’s heart-shaped pendant.
These are some of the other things you tacitly accepted when you were being impressed by how large the ocean is (even though land is visible in the background of many of the ‘open ocean’ shots before sundown in the film).
And if you’d never seen real salvaged antiques brought up from the depths, never seen Atlantic dolphins, never learned about nautical propellers, didn’t know when Freud published, couldn’t see the stars in the night sky for light pollution, why would you question any of it? You wouldn’t. It was so realistic and huge and part of the compelling background world in this historical romance that you just accept it.
And other movies are far worse. What do you have to tacitly accept to watch Bad Boys II? Jurassic Park? Home Alone? The Matrix? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban? Die Hard with a Vengence? For every movie like Twister or Titanic, there’s a year’s worth of Volcano, Earthquake, Armegeddon, and Muppets in Space.
Hollywood blockbusters are entertainment, but Lindsay’s not the first or last person to receive it in place of education. I commend Hollywood on producing such entertaining and compelling content. It’s just sad how miserable our education system appears in comparison.
Michelle brings up an interesting point with Star Trek - a lot of scientists and even science writers (myself excluded) would describe themselves as science fiction geeks. I mean, there is a reason why astronomers are out there searching for Vulcan and people are interested in hearing about it.
Many people become initially interested in what they like to do via mass media - I think enrollment in forensics programs have jumped since CSI started - and that can only be a good thing, even if the details are in error. And the physicists who wrote this article ultimately use the errors they complain about to excite interest in physics - they challenge students to demonstrate how the movies are wrong. This science in film class is one of the most popular on campus, they said.
I think a lot of the damage that Ephraim cites is relative. Would you rather put Erika’s son in the path of a tornado so he can ask the same questions he asked after watching the less-accurate Twister?
Gretchie, there’s a great story on This American Life about a scientist who has devoted his whole life (personal and professional) to recreating a sci-fi version of “The Time Machine” he found on the cover of the book. This seemed to both help and hurt him - if I recall, he was divorced because the seemingly impossible pursuit of time travel became a bit too obsessive for his wife.
Wow, Ephraim, I think you’re confusing the concept of influencing scientifically illiterate minds with nitpicking inaccuracies and anachronisms that are present in the vast majority of movies that most viewers don’t even pick up on. In other words, after seeing the Titanic the audience did not go home thinking, gee I never knew a ship’s propellers spin in the same direction; or Pacific Whiteside Dolphins (?!?!) are present in the North Atlantic; or my favorite—I’m so glad I finally discovered that Freud’s “Pleasure Principle” was around during the time the Titanic sank. No they probably weren’t thinking any of that, tacitly or otherwise. Rather, they were all making fun of Leo screaming “I’m the king of the world!!!” or crying over his unfortunate death. So I just don’t see the relevance of any of this, because most people are going to completely miss the information there in the first place. And I certainly haven’t heard of any studies or other evidence that proves movie watchers are somehow subliminally absorbing all of this “misinformation” AND using it to their detriment in every day life.
And even in more general terms, maybe Deborah took home some lessons about nature (which I still doubt most people did), but I think that’s an educational benefit. As Erika points out, if watching Twister triggered her son’s interest in that subject, or if a child watching Titanic became interested in dolphins, or engineering, or materials science, or whatever, then all the better. Then they can have fun discovering all the problems in this movie and others.
Your post reminded me of my summer camp trips to Universal Studios in L.A. When you go on their tram ride through all the different movie lots, the guide points out bits of interesting movie history of some of the sets and scenes. The one I immediately thought of after reading your post is where they bring you to the set where Spartacus was filmed. The guide explains that in one particular scene where there is a crowd of soldiers, if you look at that scene closely, some of these extras are wearing watches! Yet, it would be pretty ridiculous for a historian to make a fuss about how inaccurate Hollywood is and as a result this is warping the minds of children who now think watches were present during that era (if, as I mention above, they even notice this in the first place).
I also think that you can’t make such a broad statement that for Lindsay and others, movies have taken the place of education, unless, again, you can present evidence of this actually occurring. At best you might be able to make an argument that the increased amount of time children are sitting in front of the tv may be problematic, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that tv and movie watching is taking the place of education.
So most people would agree that our education system is “miserable” and needs to be fixed. But just because children are often not getting a decent education, doesn’t mean that the entertainment industry has a duty to make up for such inadequacies. Fixing the education system is completely independent of and bears no relevance to the entertainment industry.
Gretchie, I think the difference you are talking about has nothing to do with the time period in which the movies are made. The big difference is the genre of the movie, and therefore, the way in which it and the content within it are being presented. Sci-fis are exactly that, fiction. As such, they are viewed as being unrealistic. They are completely different than such a genre as, for example, action (a movie can be a combination of both, but the genres themselves are presented differently and come with different characteristics). If someone watches “Live Free or Die Hard” and see Bruce Willis’ character John McClain jump from 30 feet in the air and land safely on a highway construction site, slide down the slope of the unfinished highway, avoid a falling plain, and survive, that person may get the idea from the movie that this can actually be done in real life. This is because the movie, however fictional, is set in a real place and time that exists in real life. The characters are portrayed as fictional, but real-life characters, who have to abide by the real world laws (gravity, etc.). Sci-Fis generally are set in a fictional place with fictional characters who are known to be able to bend and break laws like gravity and physical strength, so if I was Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, I really don’t think it’s possible for someone on the fictious planet of Tatooine to use the power of the force to jump out of a flying vehicle very, very high in the air and land exactly in the seat of another vehicle far below and not be hurt, or throw someone with the power of the force. It is presented as being unreal and does not try to hide that.
A movie becomes a blockbuster because it was entertaining, not because it was accurate.
There were so many critics bashing Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto. Depending on which side of the pond you sat on, you saw it one way or the other. In the end, he received all this bashing for depicting history incorrectly, critics trying to humiliate him as they tried with Oliver Stone.
I have never seen a contract between movie studios and audience that guarantees how accurate their stories should be. After all, they’re just stories, and whoever believes them as fact should read more enciclopedias instead of watching too much TV amd living vicariously through “their every deffect.”
Hey I Love,
I think we feel the same way, but I’m more cynical in expressing it than you.
I know I came out of Titanic making fun of Leonardo on the ship’s bow. But then, I’ve been on a real ship’s bow and done the same thing. I didn’t learn anything from Titanic. Other people did. I hope someone came out of the theater thinking, “I’d love to stand at the front of a huge ship - that looked fun.” because, well, it is fun.
I hope your optimism that people are inspired by movies to engage in the real world is correct. That way, when people come out of Face Off, they’re ready to learn more about jumping flaming speedboats into buildings, and people coming out of Speed are ready to hijack a city bus and jump it off the highway - that was freaking sweet.
My own , admittedly cynical and purely anecdotal, experience is that people come out of movies groggy and wanting to see more cool movies later. If they remember anything, it’s the very biggest things: the ocean is big, tornadoes are cool, asteroids are coming to the earth and we need to nuke them, climate change means tidal waves and ice sheets covering New York overnight, a pile of busses and concrete will deflect a volcano, velociraptors are scary, and it’s really sad when Littlefoot’s mom died.
It’s not up to movies to be educational. It’s up to movies to be profitable and entertaining. I think they are incredibly successful, and I have no problem with that. I don’t want movies to be educational - then they’d be just as boring as school.
I just think that the amount of junk that people take away from theaters is enormous, and it serves as an excellent foil to highlight just how badly people are educated before, and after, learning something from the big screen.
By the way, I did spend a lot of my post listing unrealistic details in Titanic. I feel entitled to be nitpicky about Titanic because it’s the most heavily researched period movie in history. It’s the best money can buy, and it still can’t even depict the boat accurately, keep the date straight or even consistently put the boat in the right ocean. I just wanted to show that movies are incapable of being entirely accurate. Plus, it wouldn’t be any fun to list the inaccuracies in Transformers.