Share
Digg
StumbleUpon
RedditPhoto Gallery
|
Are Scientists or Moviemakers the Bigger Dodos?Explore more photos from the story |
Randy Olson, a tenured marine biology professor-turned-Hollywood filmmaker, has caught some flack for allegedly “dumbing down” science in his two movies. In his new book, Don’t Be Such A Scientist, he challenges that claim and teaches others how to harness the power of arousal.
You were a tenured professor at the University of New Hampshire and you left to pursue filmmaking in Hollywood. Why?
Storytelling. As I look back on the past 30 years, I realize that the single biggest thing that drew me into science were great scientists who told great stories that caught my attention and enraptured me. I went off and did science for a long time and thoroughly enjoyed it, and then I really enjoyed eventually telling my own stories. I got so wrapped up in that that I got sidelined into a whole, separate aspect of that which is telling the stories for their own sake. That’s what drew me into filmmaking in the early ’90s. The deeper I got into that, the more serious I became and finally decided to go to film school in the mid ’90s. That’s when I changed careers.
But you started making films before you changed careers.
Yes. Shortly after I became a professor at the University of New Hampshire, I began making films. In 1989, I had my first kind of life altering experience where I began to see the power of video as a communication device. Not so much to communicate information but rather to grab people’s attention… to arouse and fulfill. Video and film have enormous arousal potential if used properly.
What’s this “arouse and fulfill” thing?
It’s such a simple pairing of elements yet it’s just endlessly difficult and important. The vast majority of academics can’t even figure out how to do the arousal part. All they know how to do is stand up and spew out information. Having lived in Hollywood for 15 years, I can say that the vast majority of Hollywood people only know how to do the first part. They can arouse the hell out of you, but when you finally get interested in what they have to say, you find out they got no clue, no substance, nothing to fulfill with. The goal is to hit it on both of those points. Get the audience really interested and then give them exactly what they’re interested in. The further I’ve gone in this process, the more I’ve come to realize that those two elements are really 99 percent of the entire dynamic of how to communicate.
When you originally went to Hollywood, did you want to make science films?
I was interested in eventually fulfilling, but for the near term developing my capabilities for arousing. So I headed off to film school to learn comedy filmmaking. I have a kind of crazy sense of humor at times, and I enjoy comedy. When I started making films, I began with humorous films. So I was headed in that direction, and I was interested in the power of both humor and film to arouse people’s interests and stimulate their interests in subjects. I did have the long-term interest in circling back around to the science world and, of course, all those years of training and knowledge, I wasn’t about to throw that away.
In your film, Flock of Dodos, you refer to yourself as a dodo.
Oh yes, I definitely do.
So, who are the dodos?
I think for starters, everybody in our society today is a bunch of dodos. We’ve gotten so overloaded with information that there’s no way that anyone can be that smart. Show me the best scholar and the greatest intellect, and I’ll show you a person who’s probably totally clueless on pop culture. And vice versa. There’s such a breadth of information that we’re all clueless at one level or another. The irony of the movie is that most people when they saw the title assumed that it was referring to creationists and intelligent designers. And that it was an insulting or pejorative title. But in fact, once you watch the movie it’s basically hinting that it’s quite possible that these heavily educated intellectuals could be just as big of dodos.
Comments
I have to agree with the man. We're in a science literacy crisis because people feel alienated from science. They don't understand the data as it's presented and therefore are now hostile to it. It's also published in places the average science buff can't access much less the general public, and written as if it's a congressional bill!!
If an infotainment talking head on Fox tells them "Climate change is bunk" they will believe him as he has just brought it down to the Cliff's notes version for them.
Scientists need to start packaging the big issues in forms that can be understood but also that keep the audience's attention long enough to grasp the concepts and that's where entertainment comes in. Otherwise we will have a citizenry of idiots voting in idiot politicians who will write idiot legislation.
Posted by Michal Mudd on November 2,2009 | 09:31AM
Randy Olson is really on to something. It is very difficult to be educational and informative at the same time. One must emphasize one or the other. Some examples I've noticed over the years: Kids really love the Magic Schoolbus and Bill Nye science series, but they learn very little from them. On the other hand, I recall George Lucas' Young Indiana Jones series was not successful because it emphasized education over entertainment. But the adult Indiana Jones movies inspired a generation of archaeologists just as Star Trek encouraged young people to go into space sciences.
What we need now are science heroes and really interesting projects! While kids love to do hands on science, they are later turned off by dreary textbook-based science education, cook book projects for science fairs which are often competitions between parents rather than by and for kids, plus pretty consistent TV portrayals of scientists as obnoxious maniacs. The character of Samantha Carter in the Star Gate series is a welcome exception.
Posted by Susan Weikel Morrison on November 5,2009 | 02:30PM
make films about science ,that's a good idea. i support it.as a power of arousal, we have to harness the science prefer than waste it
Posted by ao on November 9,2009 | 05:34PM
I really enjoyed reading Olson's different responses, views, and opinions throughout this interview. I thought his response to the question, "So, Who are the dodos?" was very interesting and I have to say that I agree. There really is so much information out there that it is impossible for any one person to grasp.
A major topic that many people don't understand is science and Olson is coming up with ways that make many concepts much easier to grasp for someone who may not know much about them. Movies and entertainment are huge in our society today and I am surprised that it took this long for science to get on board with it. If it wasn't for Olson, many concepts that he has covered would still be unknown by so many.
Posted by The Prize on November 12,2009 | 08:50PM
Carl Sagan would have fallen on Olson's neck weeping with joy.
And he's right, in that film isn't good at putting across abstract information, but it is absolutely superb at generating emotion - so use it to generate the emotions of curiosity and awe.
I think it's similar to what Zahi Hawass has been doing with Egyptology. Like him or not, he's been getting outsiders interested in Ancient Egypt - magazines, TV shows, glitzy exhibitions, etc. As opposed to decades of other Egyptologists who publish papers only for each other, and have completely ignored outsiders.
Posted by Dusty on November 20,2009 | 04:56AM