Are Scientists or Moviemakers the Bigger Dodos?
Scientist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson says that academics must be more like Hollywood in how they share their love for science
- By Abby Callard
- Smithsonian.com, October 30, 2009, Subscribe
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.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (10)
I see two problems. First, parents need to expose children to the sciences as part of normal life. Yes the once or twicw a year trip to the science museum is good, but making science part of normal experience is better. Try press drying and labeling flowers. Second, second science education has to stop boring students with the retelling of old stories. The stories of Edison and Bell were retold to me in scholl over and over. Please find new stories to tell. Assign topics from contemporary events and from lesser know sceintists. How about the monk and his peas?
Posted by Sylvia Anderson on February 12,2010 | 07:52 PM
Look at shows like CSI: it has inspired many kids to go into forensic pathology. Jacques Cousteau has also inspired many SCUBA divers I know, including my husband, to become recreational and/or professional divers - each inspired to conserve and respect the worlds oceans and their inhabitants.
Posted by Tracey DiGuiseppe on February 6,2010 | 11:30 PM
Kathryn's comment about science fairs is interesting. Science fairs play a different role in different populations. In the suburbs, it can be a competition between parents if the fair is not organized well. Students must be held accountable in the judging to explain their work, orally, to the judge in addition to having a project board. In an urban, low socioeconomic population, and/or with students whose curiosities have really been awakened to ask and investigate genuine questions, they can open the doors to the world of science. Too many science fairs fail to accomplish what they set out to do because they require everyone to participate and stimulate few to participate on any sort of meaningful level.
Posted by Fred Arnold on January 27,2010 | 06:57 PM
I am very disturbed by the negative comments made about the science fair. I have taught in poor urban schools for the last eleven years and one of the things that helped my students realize that they could go to college and do more than sit at home and collect welfare checks was the science fair. After the first couple of years my students helped one another - their parents didn't know how to help them. In the eleven years I have taken fifteen students to the Intel International fair. They said things like "If I had known that these nerds had this much fun I would have tried much sooner." They were amazed at how they were treated as equals by students from around the world. They were often the first in their families to go to college.
The science fair allows students to research a problem and present it in a written form and orally. Students learn perserverence. Often they know a lot more about the topic than I do. I just teach them how to find the information and ask them how they will solve problems. They figure out the rest. I feel your statements are vewry unfair.
Posted by Kathryn Hedges on January 25,2010 | 10:00 PM
Totally true. People don't try to help the environment or anything because their not interested, not because they don't understand. So interest-grabbing movies are important, the information is a second priority. He's definitely on to something there.
Posted by Ellen W. on November 28,2009 | 09:03 AM
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 | 07:56 AM
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 | 11:50 PM
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 | 08:34 PM
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 | 05:30 PM
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 | 12:31 PM