HOLLYWOOD SCIENCE

An important means of communicating science to the public is the science-fiction film.1 This can be defined as a film in which some aspect of science forms an essential element of the plot. It does not have to involve space travel, robots, invading aliens, or mutated giant insects. One classic (which Dr. Perkowitz does not mention) is The Man in the White Suit, about an inventor who comes up with a stain-impervious, extremely durable fabric and is persecuted for it by the makers of ordinary fabrics.2 The category can also include some disaster movies. Dr. Perkowitz mentions Twister and Dante's Peak, among others.

Strictly speaking, the film does not even have to be fictional. One excellent example, recent enough and popular enough that many will recognize it, is An Inconvenient Truth. It won an Oscar for best documentary of 2006. Hollywood seldom does documentaries, but it can produce entertaining fact-based dramas, like 1989's Fat Man and Little Boy about the making of the first atomic bombs.

But, as Dr. Perkowitz explains, science-based films from Hollywood usually involve lots of spectacular effects, far-out technology, and attractive main characters in extreme jeopardy.

Dr. Perkowitz, a physicist at Emory University, discusses these and many other feature films in terms of how realistically they portray the science that lies at the core of their fiction. A common criterion, which many analysts of scientific veracity in the genre accept, is that positing one major violation of known science is okay, but it must be handled consistently throughout the film, while multiple violations put the film beyond the pale.

Of course, this criterion should not be dogmatically applied, for many works of science fiction depend on multiple violations. The prime example is the Star Trek canon, with transporters (matter transmission), phasers (handheld disintegrators), force fields, artificial gravity, and subspace communications as well as faster-than-light spaceships.3 Dr. Perkowitz is more flexible, requiring only "reasonable scientific veracity." He also understands that sticking closely to known science is not the whole story. A film can get points from Dr. Perkowitz for showing us how scientists actually live and work, or how their work affects the larger world. This is one of the reasons for his special award to The Day After Tomorrow, which goes far beyond the science in portraying climate change.

And there is value in communicating the implications for society of a development of science beyond what's currently known. Advances in human genetics fall into this category, and Dr. Perkowitz discusses a number of films that vividly portray the human impact of such advances. Among them are Gattaca and The Sixth Day.

The book is organized according to the type of problem the films present: Aliens, hostile or too benevolent; Cosmic collisions; Earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, severe storms, etc.; Misuse of atomic power, especially global thermonuclear war; Runaway epidemics, especially from bioweapons; Gene-based discrimination; Intelligent machines, robot revolts; Scientists, mad and bad. Each of these chapters (2 through 8) discusses a number of representative films that either present the science acceptably well or mangle it in some way. For example, The Day the Earth Stood Still represents the possibility of dealing with space aliens in a thoughtful and responsible manner. Of course, it helps immensely that the aliens (Klaatu and Gort, in this case) also behave in a thoughtful and responsible manner. But this 1951 film, released in the depths of the Cold War, was one of the first in which the aliens were not bent on conquering or destroying the Earth.4 The film takes some liberties in presenting science: the saucer's motive power, Gort's invincibility and destructive ray; Klaatu's revivification. (The last was astounding in 1951, but from today's perspective seems — to me, at least — the least remarkable scientifically.) In contrast, 2003's The Core mangles its science in almost every way possible. Dr. Perkowitz explains in detail why it deserves his Golden Turkey award.

The feature films he discusses in connection with nuclear weapons are those I expected: Red Alert; Dr. Strangelove; and On the Beach. Here too figures in The Day the Earth Stood Still, with its warning against nuclear proliferation. But he also includes three films about the Manhattan Project (two documentaries and a "docu-drama.") Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears (2002) makes it; The Peacemaker (1997), about a bomb smuggled into Manhattan by Serbian extremists, does not. Fission reactors bring in The China Syndrome, and fusion appears in The Saint, Spider-Man 2, and Chain Reaction. He discusses a number of post-holocaust films, including the Mad Max series as well as A Boy and his Dog. The popular sub-genre of creatures mutated to enormous size by radiation is represented by Them! and Godzilla.

The Filmography lists 119 titles. I won't go through the whole selection, category by category. I mention these to give you some idea of which films he chooses. He did not choose some I consider top-drawer: Forbidden Planet; The Andromeda Strain; Five Million Years to Earth; and World Without End. Curiously, he omitted newer films about nuclear war: Special Bulletin and The Day After (both 1983). I thought this might be because those were made for television; but he does discuss other made-for-TV works. And he seems to intentionally avoid films dealing with time travel. He mentions Star Trek: First Contact, but only in connection with Lt. Cdr. Data, the android.

Notes on the abbreviations I use for the above awards.5 The suffix indicates type of award.

• AA = Academy Award (The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences).
• AFI-TTSF = American Film Institute Top Ten SF films of All Time
• BAFTAA = British Academy of Film and Television Arts Award.
• GGA = Golden Globe Award from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.
• Hugo-DP = Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo Award from "Worldcon".6
• LAFCA = Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award.
• NFR = National Film Registry.7
• NYFCCA = New York Film Critics Circle Award.8
• Saturn = Award from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films.9

It's noteworthy that Dr. Perkowitz leans toward the better films, rather than lining up rows of cinematic turkeys and rhetorically blasting them. This reflects his genuine wish to see Hollywood cooperate in making the science in its films more accurate, while still preserving their entertainment value (and, to borrow a phrase, their box-office mojo.) It should go without saying that this can be easily done; but, "That has been found not to be the case." To help the situation, the National Academy of Sciences has set up the Science and Entertainment Exchange to connect film-makers with scientists. As someone said, "It's like having a Nobel Prize winner on speed dial." Dr. Perkowitz is a member of its Advisory Board.

To wrap things up, Hollywood Science has wide-ranging and thoughtful discussion (or at least mention) of 119 films. Its author judiciously balances accuracy in the science portrayed with entertainment value, knowing these qualities always operate at cross purposes to some degree. The text is supplemented by forty well-chosen black-and-white stills from the films. The book has chapter-by-chapter suggestions for further research (print and online sources), an alphabetical Filmography, and a very good (though not perfect) index. There's even an Appendix on popcorn. All these things make this a book that's worth reading. You can skim it for just the films you favor, take in the chapter on a specific topic, or read it cover to cover. Would I call it a keeper? Only for dyed-in-the-wool film fans; things move too fast in the film industry, and there are too many on-line resources that cover it.

Enhancing the popularity of science-fiction films by boosting the intellectual rigor of their plots and making their science content more accurate and true-to-life. It's an attractive idea — the more so because a) it won't cost very much, and b) it will work. So let's get on with it. Or, to put it another way:

To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.
Copyright © 2011-2021 Christopher P. Winter. All rights reserved.
This page was last modified on 30 March 2021.