The "two cultures" effect that we're seeing with the responses to Sizzle continues: Now the famed industry rag Variety loves the film that has many scientists scratching their heads (or worse). From the Variety reviewer:
The film emerges, more skillfully than "Flock of Dodos," as an exceedingly clever vehicle for making science engaging to a general audience, and also presents climate-change science in a more complex light than the overtly partisan "An Inconvenient Truth."
Does the film perpetrate stereotypes? Variety:
Silpa and Clark push the flaming-queen stereotype right to the edge without sinking the comedy.
Entire review here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This morning, a plethora of Sizzle reviews will saturate Scienceblogs. I've no doubt that the film's science will be thoroughly dissected by more informed reviewers than I. So I'm going to steer clear of temperature trends and timetables, and instead consider how the film pitches its message.…
[Note: Apparently Emma Marris didn't like Sizzle either, and you can read her review in Nature. I'm definitely interested in seeing more reviews of the film from various sources as we get closer to the release date.]
After reading Chris Mooney's hyperbolic review of Sizzle this morning I have to…
Randy Olson's newest film, Sizzle, bears the subtitle, "a global warming comedy". To my mind, it delivered neither the laughs nor the engagement with the issue of global warming that it promised. Maybe this is just a sign that I fall outside the bounds of Olson's intended audience, but perhaps…
Sizzle, the new documentary by Flock of Dodos creator Randy Olson, describes itself as "a movie you'll feel passionate about (even if you don't know why)." This description is particularly apt, although perhaps not in the way that the team behind the film expected.
Randy Olson is concerned. An…
This is getting bizarre. Chris, are you really that desperate to "prove" you're right?
The Variety review seems to make no mention of issues specific to science communication. Instead it says:
Even funnier is the fact that the reviewer clearly missed the entire supposed point of the movie. So it may be a perfectly entertaining movie that communicates none of what the producer intended. The review notes that 'Perhaps the most startling aspect for open-minded viewers is that rather than bringing the global-warming debate to a close, "Sizzle" reopens it, and only raises more questions.'
So yea, that's some effective science communication right there. Huzzah!
Sure, they like the film, but it sounds to me like they're missing the point that Olson was trying to make (based upon what I've read at the various blogs here at ScienceBlogs). Instead, what they appear to have gotten out of it is that the debate is still ongoing with regards to climate change. Isn't this EXACTLY the narrative that the denialists want to perpetuate?
Is this a Good Thing? I thought the IPCC report settled the "debate".
Plz explain.
First sentence of the review:
"One of the funniest details of Randy Olson's funny "Sizzle" is that a film designed to convince that global warming is a present danger may do precisely the opposite."
So yeah, great science communication.
Of course, I doubt that science communication is Olsen's goal. I think he's just trying to make an entertaining and successful film, which is fine, but then there shouldn't be any special obligation on the part of sciencebloggers to support it.
I'll ask you what I asked Randy on his blog (though others have also commented on it):
Variety loved it. Yet they also had this to say: "...rather than bringing the global-warming debate to a close, "Sizzle" reopens it, and only raises more questions." And this: "...a film designed to convince that global warming is a present danger may do precisely the opposite." And this: "The skeptics actually begin to win the day, at least onscreen, and Julia Bovey, spokeswoman for the environmentalist Natural Resources Defense Council, comes off as far less convincing than Olson may have hoped."
So. Did Randy want to present a film that actually causes people to doubt global warming? I know it's been a labor of love for Randy, but I thought all along that he wanted to present a solid case for global warming, in addition to investigating the question of how scientists should communicate with the general public. Or did he want to make an "object lesson" that scientists would listen to, showing that the naysayers are better at communicating, at the cost of spreading a message against global warming?
So..the New Orleans tie in fell flat.
Overall, it sounds like they liked it as a comedy and didn't find it made a persuasive case on global warming, which would appear to undermine a key goal of the film.
Given the way the review was presented in the original post, I expected the actual Variety article to be much more positive. It sounds like the Sb criticism was more in line with Variety than you seem to think, Chris. The biggest difference seems to be that not everyone liked the humor as much as the Variety writer.
The first line of Variety's review says it all: "a film designed to convince that global warming is a present danger may do precisely the opposite."
I don't agree with that, but the mere fact that Variety got such a message from film suggests to me that Olson has failed.
So, in other words: yes, it does perpetuate stereotypes - but it's funny. Hmmm...
And what's exactly the difference between this "in a more complex light" and the famous "teach the controversy"?
...I don't find that very encouraging.