So why didn't I think of this? Marine-biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson has a new movie coming out -- Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy -- and has asked a bunch of bloggers to simultaneously post reviews, to generate some buzz out there on the internets. (Full listing here.) Next time I have a movie coming out, I'll have to come up with something even more clever. Disclaimer: I've met Randy a couple of times, and he handed me a review copy of the DVD (premiere is this Saturday) at the conclusion of an enjoyable Mexican dinner with a bunch of local science/media folks. None of this, of course, compromises my unswerving devotion to completely objective fairness, but the rituals must be observed. This is a movie with a goal, and it's fair to ask how well it achieved that goal. To which I would answer: so-so. I thought the execution was a bit rough in spots, to be honest. It was clearly done on a shoestring budget -- a running gag was the search for a famous celebrity spokesperson, and a couple of C-list celebs were dutifully trotted out (with captions so you knew they had appeared on TV), but nobody is going to mistake this for a Spielberg film, or even a Michael Moore film. Nevertheless: the goal was awesome! Namely (as I see it, maybe Randy would disagree), to make a movie about a scientific topic that would be interesting and perhaps even gripping to an audience that would generally not show up at movies about science. In particular, to make a movie with an actual narrative -- one with characters, that told a story, all in the service of a scientific purpose. Sizzle is not a lecture, nor does it pretend to be. On the contrary, another running gag is the famous inability of scientists to cast their message in the form of a gripping story when they could instead take refuge in data-filled plots and multiply-qualified conditional statements. Which is great. Communicating generally, and storytelling specifically, are very particular skills that take a lot of effort to master. Too many scientists don't think the effort is worth it, or are simply convinced that this is a skill they have already perfected. The best thing about Sizzle is that it proves the existence, by construction, of an alternative model. This movie has a story, featuring actual characters, and -- best of all -- the characters actually learn and grow and change during the course of the film. All in the service of conveying a scientific message! Unfortunately, I don't think the message is successfully conveyed. The movie ends up reacting so strongly against the traditional pitfalls of misguided scientific presentations -- too much data, too little drama -- that it falls victim to the complementary pitfalls. At the end, I wasn't sure why I should believe that global warming was a real problem, outside of some appeals to authority (these scientists sure are trustworthy, aren't they?) and emotional gestures (polar bears are cute! the aftermath of Katrina was sad). So I commend Randy and the other people involved with Sizzle for trying to break the mold of traditional scientific discourse, and for reaching out to new audiences. But I think that there is a tricky balance that has yet to be successfully struck: on the one hand, respecting the science, and being honestly informative without hedging the truth in the service of persuasion; and on the other, telling a compelling story that draws people in without giving them the feeling that they are being forced to eat their vegetables. Science is full of drama, excitement, and gripping stories. Making that excitement accessible to the wider world is by no means a simple thing, but it's worth the effort.
Advertisement
