Hollywood and Science: A Love Story

November 22, 2008

It's been a crazy, crazy week, because on Wednesday (November 19th) the National Academy of Sciences launched the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a nonprofit service to connect entertainment industry professionals with leading scientists from across the country. The idea is to "create a synergy between science and entertainment," according to the official documents, but I like to think of it as akin to a cultural exchange program to foster creative collaborations. And I have a bit of an inside scoop, because I'm the new director of the Exchange.

It's a rare treat to see rock star scientists take center stage before a packed house of 300 or so people from all walks of the entertainment industry -- and blow them away -- but that's what happened at Wednesday's symposium. There were six short (12-minute) presentations by prominent scientists in astronomy, energy and climate change, neuroscience, AI and robotics, epidemiology/infectious disease, and genomics, followed by focused "salon" sessions in each of those areas, where participants could ask questions and interact more informally with leading researchers in those fields. Getting to know physicists personally changed my attitude towards physics, and science in general, so I know how powerful this sort of thing can be. So I have high hopes for the Exchange, although it's still just a baby effort.

Of course, the real work (for me, at least) begins now, in the aftermath of the festivities: matching scientists with specific expertise to industry professionals in need of it. It's almost a time-honored tradition by now for science-minded sorts to complain about inaccurate depictions of science in film and television. We tend to only focus on the differences between those worlds, but the Exchange's advisory board chairs, husband/wife director/producer team Janet and Jerry Zucker (the Airplane! movies, Ghost), and several others who gave introductory comments -- including host Seth (The Family Guy) MacFarlane) -- chose to emphasize the similarities. These are both highly creative fields, fiercely competitive, where one is always chasing down funding to complete one's projects, and constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

I think the need for such a program is best illustrated by a story Neil de Grasse Tyson told during his 12-minute plenary talk. (Tyson's a colorful guy: when I met him at dinner the previous night, he was sporting a snazzy black cowboy hat and denim shirt. He left the hat in his hotel room for the symposium itself, but just the fact that he wore it so proudly was awesome. Neil de Grasse Tyson rocked that hat.) He's an astrophysicist, and director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium, so Tyson knows his night sky. And he was very irritated by a scene in the blockbuster movie, Titanic, in which Rose (Kate Winslet) floats on a wooden plank after the ship sinks, staring up at the night sky.

Recall that director James Cameron went to extraordinary lengths to recreate the actual ship down to the tiniest historical detail, including the china patterns. And yet, said Tyson, "Here we knew the day, the month, the year, the time of day, the latitude and the longitude. There should have been only one sky [Rose] was looking up at in that scene -- and it was the wrong sky!" He was so peeved at this slight to good science that he dashed off a letter to Cameron. Predictably, he received no reply.

Then Providence intervened. Tyson ran into James Cameron in person, and proceeded to repeat his complaint. Cameron listened patiently and then sarcastically observed, "I see what you mean. That movie only grossed [umpteen million] dollars. Imagine how much more money it would have made if we'd just had the right sky!" Tyson, to his credit, was suitably mollified: "I had no response to that." Cameron had pointed out a glaring difference in their priorities: scientists care about technical accuracy. Filmmakers might care up to a point, but ultimately, they want to tell a compelling story that will resonate with millions -- and beef up their bottom lines (so they can then go on to make even more blockbuster films).

Ah, but there's one more twist to the story. A few months later, Tyson received a call from a production assistant in Cameron's office. They were putting together the director's cut DVD and including a few extras. Quoth the assistant: "I understand you have a sky for us...."

See? Cameron did care about the science. Judging by the enthusiastic reaction to Wednesday's syposium, he's not the only one. I think this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

And just as an added bonus, here's Tyson on The Colbert Report earlier this year, helping Stephen acquaint himself with what it takes to be an astrophysicist:

Comments

[Steve]

There's a typo in the link for "Science and Entertainment Exchange". Should be http://www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/

[Rhett]

I hate to be the negative person, but this is a TERRIBLE IDEA. Please stop this project!!!! My blog (and many others) feed off of the science mistakes that TV and movies make. If you take these mistakes away from us, it will be like making cars that do not break would be for auto mechanics.

There is already a recession in the economy. Please don't also make a recession in the movie attacking blogs.

Your friend, Rhett.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Rhett, buddy, I don't think you need to worry. Mistakes will still be made. Every film entry on IMDB has a "blooper" file. You'll just have to work a little harder to find them. Or, you know, innovate and evolve into something even better. It's the American Way. :)

[Rhett]

Evolve? Innovate? I don't get it. Shouldn't there be some sort of "bloggers union" to prevent these kind of things?

Plus - think of how many teachers use "movie mistakes" as a motivation for learning. THINK OF THE KIDS!!!! Also, you are an author, yes? What if star trek was 100% legit? Who would write "The physics of star trek" if it were just a physics textbook.

I still say this is a bad idea.

Rhett - soon to be like a blogging dinosaur that did not evolve (or was that a meteor?)