The Science of Everything Podcast - Special Episode - Jared Bauer on Science and Philosophy in Movies

Episode Date: April 3, 2018

In this special episode I am joined by Jared Bauer, cofounder of Wisecrack, to discuss science and philosophy in movies and popular culture. We cover a range of topics including how science is portrayed in movies, how the film medium leads to science and history being presented in particular ways, and how movies and popular culture can be used as a vehicle for promoting scientific and philosophical inquiry.

Hello, you're listening to The Science of Everything podcast. I'm your host, James Fodor. In this episode, we're going to do something a little bit different to usual. So instead of just me, today I'm joined with Jared Bauer, co-founder of Wisecrack and host of Show Me The Meaning movie podcast. Jared, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me, James. I'm excited. Excellent. So just before we jump in, tell us a little bit about yourself and about your podcast and sort of how you came to be here today. Sure. So I'm the co-founder of Wisecrack. What is Wisecrack? Wisecrack is a digital media company that focuses on the humanities. It focuses on ideology, philosophy. We're basically a collection of comedians, academics, literary enthusiasts. And we try and use pop culture or comedy as a lens to introduce people to new concepts, to new ideas, to make them question their lives. So a good example that I always used to explain.

people is everyone's seen the movie Fight Club. People like it for a variety of reasons. And basically, like, we might do an episode that's like the philosophy of Fight Club so we can talk about, like, anti-commercialist sentiments and stuff like that to kind of arm people with a reason why they like the movie more than just Brad Pitt has a sexy six-pack. So right now, our mission has largely been opening people's eyes, opening them to new ideas through the things that they already love. and I've read some of your blog and I think some of the we have a very similar mission statement in that you are someone who's constantly in a sense taking the middle ground. You believe that both Christian, I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you believe that both Christian theism and atheism are both very valid viewpoints. And I agree with you. And part of my mission at Wisecrack is that it's very hard to use reason or logic or any kind of oratory to convince anyone to, to,

consider other ideas outside of their own very strictly adhered to beliefs. And one of the things that we do at Wisecrack is that if I'm able to, let's say you and I believe complete opposite things, but we both love Fight Club or we both love an anime, I think that if I'm able to use evidence and appreciation of a text that we both love, but we both disagree, I think I'm able to kind of make people consider new perspectives that they wouldn't have otherwise done through things that they already love. So that's kind of, and I think that's why I'm here today is because I think that that overlap in our mission statement is present, and that's why I love your podcast so much, and I really love your blog.

Excellent. Well, thanks for that. Yeah, so I don't normally talk about my blog on the show, but I do have a blog called the Godless Theist, where I talk about mostly philosophy and sort of Christianity, atheism, and some other things as well. So feel free to check that out if you're interested. One thing that I was interested in talking about with you today, Jared, is the idea about communicating about potentially complex and abstract ideas in philosophy, religion, science, and areas like that, through the lens of, as you said, the things that people already know about, particularly movies and other aspects of popular culture. So I'm interested in getting your thoughts about why you think particularly movies in popular culture are so effective or useful as a lens on

these sorts of sort of higher, more academic topics. Sure. So there's a philosopher. I can't remember his name, unfortunately, but he has a theory that cinema is a medium that does philosophy, based on the nature that there is a single character that we're usually seeing a movie through a single perspective, and then that perspective changes throughout the movie and that ultimately some sort of salvation is achieved at the end. Therefore, there is going to be some sort of ideological trajectory. And so I think that Cinema very often lends itself to an ideological analysis because of the very nature of its medium. And then TV is similar.

However, so for example, people always ask us, can you guys do philosophy of Game of Thrones? But because Game of Thrones hasn't ended, we don't know where the conclusion to all these conflicts are going. It's very hard for me to take any real robust ideological statement out of it without it having an ending. As far as why do I think that movies are very particular on this? Well, yeah, I think it has a lot to do with the medium. I think the medium lends itself to ideological development. And I also think that a lot of the way that cinema writing is lifted from literature, and literature is also something that is inundated with themes and motifs and stuff like that.

And a lot of that language in that writing discipline has been carried over to cinema. So, and because cinema is much more popular, especially on YouTube, then books, for example, it's much easier to reach a population and it's much easier for me. Because, you know, a lot of people, they'll say, oh, Fight Club's my favorite movie. And when someone asks why, they usually can't come up with a great answer. And I think that one of the gratifying things about what we do is we arm people with reasons and smart reasons of why they say, that's why things resonate with me. I mean, I'm sure, James, if you ever watched a movie and it's just given you this high, this feeling of, oh my God, that really profoundly touched me, but you can't exactly put it into words. And I think that one of the things we do is we try and do that. We try and give people some

context as to why you were so profoundly affected by a video game, a piece of art, a book, a movie, stuff like that. Right. Yeah, I think that's quite interesting. There's another aspect to people's interaction with movies and other aspects of popular culture, which I wanted to touch on, which is the, it's not just how we react to or respond to a movie as an art form or as a medium itself, but also how movies affect the way we see the world or the way we understand how things work. So particularly in the context of the Science of Everything podcast, I did one episode talking about some myths and misconceptions of science that are largely propagated through movies,

but it's not just about myths and misconceptions, right? It's about just shaping people's ideas about how things in the world work. like, especially things that people don't have access to or experience with through other means, like, I don't know, politics or big business or organized crime, things like that, or the military. So I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how, especially these days, big budget Hollywood movies play that role in shaping people's views and beliefs about things that they otherwise wouldn't experience. Are you talking specifically about science or really any discipline?

Well, both, yeah. So I think that, yeah, this is unavoidable. I think that Hollywood will always kind of paint these disciplines or these things in a particular light. Do you have an example in mind? And maybe like what movies have kind of struck you as either a problematic or perhaps particularly ideological treatment of, I guess, say, science since that's your expertise? Yeah, well, a lot of movies, I don't know if I want to pick on any individual ones, but a lot of movies portrays. phrase science as the domain of particularly gifted nerdy experts and that they face a problem that, you know, the protagonists who usually aren't the scientists, although sometimes they can be,

that there's some problem that needs to be solved, and then the scientists sort of in a whirlwind of intelligence or nerdy creativity or whatever it is exactly, figure out the solution and they sort of save the day. So like the Martian, for example? Yeah, that's, that movie's probably better the most actually, but yeah, that's a good example. One thing I do like about The Martian is that it does actually show some of the thought processes in terms of working things out and actually some of the, even the maths behind it at an appropriate level. But even there, yes, you do see some of this. But what you don't see, and there's obviously a reason for this because fundamentally movies is a form of entertainment, but you don't see all of the mistakes and the hard slog and

the, well, irrationalities even, and all of the process behind science. So, I mean, that's one example about science, but it would apply it likewise to other endeavors, other fields as well. And I guess what I'm interested in is whether you think that that has, that sort of exposure has an effect on the way people interact with or perceive the world, you know, when they leave the theatre and they go and make decisions in life like at the voting booth or in purchasing or wherever. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned the voting booth because one of the reasons why we do what we do is there's a lot of focus on YouTube on like childhood education, but I'm just like, hey man, adult

education is super important. These are the people that vote. Yeah. But absolutely. So I'm trying to, yeah, it's hard to talk about this without drawing from a particular example, but. So the movie, I was just going to give one example that came to mine, which is the one about Facebook. What's that movie called?

The social network. The social network, yes. That presents a particular viewpoint or insight into sort of business and tech culture. That's one example. I think that so in that case, certainly, well, it's actually funny you bring that movie up because I think that that movie, they could make many more installations. Because it's funny that that movie suggests that Facebook is prophetic and relevant for a certain set of reasons. And now it's like relevant for a whole separate group of reasons. But so, yeah, I mean, I think that in general, that's probably on the other end of the spectrum from a movie like The Martian, whereas I guess you could argue that the social network is a bit technophobic in that it's suggesting that this medium of Facebook creates, turns us all into Mark Zuckerberg's.

Mark Zuckerberg in that movie is kind of the personification of Facebook. He's somebody who doesn't have any intimacy in his life. He's got all these friends, but none of them are real. He's very alienating toward his best friend, Eduardo, who seemingly has this very authentic passion to being his friend, but he continually rejects him. He's only focused on things like exclusivity, the accumulation of wealth, like people will accumulate friends on Facebook. So I do think that that critical lens. Hollywood does allow for that critical lens to be applied to technology and to science. I think that most importantly is that it's not necessarily saying that the social network is critical.

of technology, therefore you should consider this critical of technology perspective. But it's really that Hollywood is putting a perspective into this movie and you should be aware of it. And you should be able to look at it, discern what is being said and decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree. Yeah. I think that the, yeah, the interesting thing is not so much that necessarily Hollywood movies have a uniform take on technology or on, I don't know, business. or whatever else, although, you know, there can be tendencies. Right, because, I mean, the Martian and the social network would be very different. Yeah, exactly.

I guess the thing I'm more interested in is not so much what is Hollywood saying about X, but rather how does Hollywood's portrayal of X affects people's perceptions of it, which then can have ramifications for how they interact in the real world. Like, you know, from the social network movie, for example, the way that the main characters are portrayed and the way that they go about, you know, doing their business and things like that. How might that affect people's perceptions of not just Facebook, but maybe other tech companies, just as an example?

I think that people in general, and I think that you can get, yeah, you can get very cranial about this in terms of just the nature of images, the nature of representation through images. I think so I think that, yeah, if you see Silicon Valley types being ruthless and being narcissistic, then you are going to you might tend to look to adopt that lens and look at your life through

that lens or look at Silicon Valley through the lens. So yeah, I definitely do think that that does happen. And that's another reason why I think it's important to bring these things up and bring them to the four is because we don't want people just uncritically accepting whatever it is that the ideological

lens that this movie suggests is. We want them to be able to look at it, recognize it, and then think for themselves. Right, and I think one of the things that I find particularly interesting about movies is that not just when it comes to science, but when it comes to history as well, war movies, historical movies, and also when it comes to movies that explore different themes like sci-fi movies, that many people, as you said, movies are very popular, more popular than reading books and other forms of many other forms of entertainment these days. So many people won't get exposure to these sorts of areas or ideas or subject matter in other ways. And therefore, sort of this is it in terms of largely it, their exposure to this area. And therefore, I think that there has been a tendency amongst, well, people like you and me, potentially, who are interested in communicating ideas about science, philosophy, and other sorts of topics, to say, we want to focus away from the popular entertainment stuff towards, you know, this other stuff,

you know, history, science, philosophy, the more academic things. But the idea is instead, and I really like this is how you to focus your approaches, rather than trying to say that we want less of this and more of the academic stuff, that we actually ask, how can we use the popular entertainment and movies in general as a lens on these other things that are in fact there and that provide a way for people to access these other subjects, that, you know, history, philosophy and so on, that they normally wouldn't through a lens that actually is accessible to them. Right. And not only that, but I think that oftentimes through this process, people can come to understand that perhaps it is the idea that people are more attracted to than the actual film.

So, for example, when I was a kid, the movie that really changed my life was The Matrix. When I was like 11 years old, I saw The Matrix in the movies. And it was the first time in my life where I ever considered that things may not be how they seem. And it was just this big explosion in my mind of disillusionment that now if I can question reality, then anything can be questioned. And for a long time, I studied cinema because a movie gave me that transformational philosophical experience. But what I ended up realizing, which is now why my work is a little bit more focused on philosophy, is that what really resonated with me about the Matrix, I mean, the filmmaking aspect is very important of it because it's the medium through which the message was communicated, allowed it to affect me. me and to be very powerful, but ultimately the thing that really changed my life and that really touched me was philosophy.

And if somebody had perhaps pointed that out to me when I was a kid and obsessed with The Matrix, then, you know, maybe I would have been able to understand my reactions to the film better and my proclivity, or not my proclivity, but my kind of pseudo-obsession with it. So, for example, I think if you're a kid and you watch The Martian and you love that movie and, you know, you're in your early, you know, you're like 10 years old and you don't really know how to process these emotions and this excitement that the movie fills you with, I think that this kind of work can help people not only understand themselves, but understand how they react to things better and understand what generates meaning for them in their lives.

Yeah, that's really interesting. I think I see that as a similar sort of thing to what I do as well in a bit of a different way, obviously, in my podcast, but it's not a, it's, yeah, I don't see it so much as about, you know, there's movies and popular entertainment in everyday life, and then there's the sort of academic subjects and sort of never the twain shall meet, so to speak. And I think that our traditional education system maybe reinforces that in the way often these things are presented. But rather the idea is that, you know, we can use popular entertainment as a lens on and as a way of exploring and appreciating philosophy, history,

and science. And likewise, that a knowledge of those subjects can improve and enrich our appreciation of literature and movies and so on. So there's sort of of interactive process where we get more out of both and can appreciate and learn about both together and in an interactive sort of way. Absolutely. When I was in high school, I was really into movies and we had to read Heart of Darkness, which at the time I just did not care about. It was just really hard for me to read in high school.

I was not too into it. But when I heard that Francis Ford Coppola's movie Apocalypse Now was based on Heart of Darkness and I loved Apocalypse Now, then I tore through the book. Reddit cover to cover. It was excited to read it. And if no one had told me that, I would have had no reason to engage with it. And now I really like Conrad's work, and I found it a very rewarding reading experience. And so I do think that, you know, there is this narrative that video games or movies are all just pure popcorn nonsense.

But I think that if these things are appreciated through a certain lens, it can be productive. Yeah, I think, yeah, I agree with that. I think that it does partly depend on, you know, the quality of the movie or the, um, entertainment. Yeah, not all of them. Believe me, we run into plenty of problems with that. There are so many times where there's a movie that's super popular or a video game that's super popular. That is just the most vapid thing ever.

And there's nothing insightful I can say about it as much as I would love to to capitalize on views and stuff like that. But yeah, absolutely. It does. And it can also be frustrating now that less movies are made in the Hollywood system than ever and less that are ambitious. You know, there's not a popular movie every month that can. can be analyzed. We have to go back into history and we have to go into video games and books. You know, we can't just focus on movies because unfortunately, um, profound, dense movies are not what is being pumped out by the system these days.

Yeah, actually, that's an interesting point. I want to ask you about this since you're somewhat of an expert on cinema. Um, so that I have this perception and other people have this as well. And I don't know if this has been analyzed, I don't know, rigorously or scientifically, but it'd be interesting to get your perspective on. The perspective is that, um, these days, increasingly, Hollywood movies are even more so than in the past derivative. So focusing on remakes and sequels and further movies in franchises and that they're very generic and generally playing it safe in terms of making pretty much the same movie over and over again. And obviously that's happened in the past, but that's a lot more of a trend today. Do you think that that is true or

is there an element of truth to that or is that just a perception? What's your thoughts on that? I think that it is true, unfortunately, and this is where I can kind of sound a bit jaded, but I think it's all just about the business model. And it's the fact that movies are so expensive to me. If you come out to L.A., the unions run this town and you'd be amazed at the amount of money. I mean, I'm not saying that, look, the people who work on movies, especially the blue collar workers, the gaffers, the lighting guys, they work really hard and they deserve all their money. Having said that, the amount of labor it takes to make a movie is astronomical. So taking chances is just not viable unless you are the heiress of a billion dollar, of a multi-billion dollar company like the Annapurna Pictures who is run by Megan Ellison, who is the daughter of the guy who created Oracle. She's really the only person who can get independent movies.

Like so, for example, late last year, the movie The Phantom Thread came out, which is by no means a like a Hollywood darling. It did not do well at the box office. it's very experimental. You just don't see things like that because the business model really can't make something like that make money. Like that movie didn't make money. There's no way. So, yeah, unfortunately, less movies are being made.

It's all more based on IP because the marketing is the movie in a sense. You know, we live in a time where there are no, there's no more universal stars. So like even Chris Evans or Tom Cruise or even Jennifer Lauren. She can't open a movie anymore just based on her name back in the day That used to be the thing as long as you have a star people will flock to the movies to see that star no matter what they're in These days the only thing that will get people in the theaters for sure is IP So that's why everything's a remake everything's a comic book movie So because movies are getting more expensive because they now have to compete with video games and YouTube and stuff like that

They can only take you know fewer swings and bigger swings because they need to make the most amount of money for for each single movie they release. Yeah, and that's very interesting. And sort of relating to that and some of the things you talked about before, so one of my favorite movies of all time, and one of the reasons it is because it's a very sort of scientific and philosophically rich movie is 2001 A Space Odyssey. Oh, I'm so glad you brought that up.

Yay. So, I mean, that was a very successful movie, obviously, and it's time. I can't imagine anything like that being successful today. Yeah, certainly not released by, I believe it was Warner Brothers at the time. The idea of Warner Brothers releasing something like that these days is ridiculous. But, yeah, I mean, that was back in the golden age, like the 60s and the 70s. That was the, I mean, it was a golden age of cinema. People will say that the golden age of the studio system.

But that was the time where independent cinema really became its own thing. That was the time of the Scorsese's, the Coppola, the Kubrix. And, yeah, something like that. I mean, those movies are made, but oftentimes they are foreign movies that are like an autort filmmaker, is either, you know, he's got some sort of aristocratic connection and has like a patron. You know, I think that like, I think the whole patron system, the idea of a patron is going to basically carry art cinema pretty much exclusively soon or that there are like national lotteries and other European countries that do fund experimental cinema.

So those movies are still being made. But in terms of a movie like 2001 that is released by a big studio and that has, you know, really expensive marketing efforts behind it to make it like a cultural event. Yeah, I don't think we're going to see that again, unfortunately. Yeah, that's somewhat of a shame because it's just a fantastic movie. And I love that... If you want to talk 2001, I'm down. Let's get into it. Well, I guess what I was going to say is I love that they, there's obviously an interesting premise. A lot of these days, sorry, a lot of movies these days have interesting premises, but at least I feel that they don't necessarily make the effort or at least care enough about, you know, thinking about details, about

scientific accuracy or about exploring some of the more philosophical elements, you know, in an appropriate and interesting way in terms of a follow-through to really capitalize on the interesting premise, which I think 2001 really does. A movie like The Martian, I think, does that more than most movies, but it's still, you know, nothing compared to 2001. But yeah, I'm just wondering if you had any general thoughts about that movie and what it does. So before, before I going in 2001, I just want to say, like, I totally hear, and even as somebody who is not educated in science, certainly not as educated as you are, there are still movies in which we have these characters who are, we're meant to believe, you know, the top scientists in the

world, and they never use any kind of technical terms. Everything is super vague. And they're all like, they're all like super beautiful and their hair and makeup is always done like 100%. Like, even that bothers me. And I am not someone who's looking for any particular scientific terms or details. So I can only imagine how cringy it is for you to watch most of these sci-fi movies that come out. Yeah, where the science, I mean, in some of them, in some of the Marvel ones, it's almost part of the universe where this is case. But even the ones where it's supposed to be sci-fi, it's really indistinguishable from magic. Yeah. Like, I'm reminded of like the new Planet of the Apes reboot, like the first one or the new Cloverfield movie that came out. Yeah,

anyway. Have you seen neither of those? I don't think so, no. Okay. Neither one of them are, You're not missing much. Anyway, as far as 2001 to Space Odyssey, yeah. So one of the things that's the reason why we'll continue to study this movie for a long, long time is because not only does it play with some kind of profound evolutionary and scientific ideas, but the way that it communicates them is revolutionary and very unique to cinema. So what I mean by that is, so let's take, for example, what is considered the most famous cut in movie history. So a cut is, you know, just very simply when you're seeing a shot of a teacup and then it cuts to, and then we see a guy's face looking at the teacup.

That's a cut moving from one image to another, referring to somebody who back in the day would literally take two pieces of celluloid, cut them up and then paste them together. So in 2001 of Space Odyssey, it opens with the dawn of man, which is the part with the apes. And then that section ends with the ape finding the bone. He finds a bone and, you know, there's that famous scene where Strauss is playing and he's using the bone to break things. And basically it's the man's invention of the tool and how he can use it as or basically the invention of technology and how technology can become an extension of mankind's evolution. And so right before the dawn of man's section ends, he throws the bone up in the air. And then while the bone is in midair, it cuts to a spaceship. And the spaceship is roughly shaped just like the bone.

And so just through this cut, we move forward thousands of years into the future. And by juxtaposing these two images of a bone, which has been established as a tool or a piece of technology, to a spaceship, we've already made an evolutionary statement. We're saying, you know, the beginning of the tool, the beginning of technology, and now here we are. The extension of the tool, the optimized version of it. And so all throughout the movie, we see film techniques that bring these scientific ideas to life. And, you know, that's why a movie like this, rather than just having an actor spout out pseudoscientific dialogue, it's actually in the form of the movie in which these scientific statements are made. And that's one of the reasons why it's just so brilliant.

Yeah, I think that that's a really good observation. I think some movies that do it poorly, the science is just sort of, yeah, tacked on as a bunch of statements. I mean, sometimes the words they're saying make sense in the context, sometimes they don't. But it's not really incorporated as a sort of integral part of the movie making. It feels like a tack-on. So how do you feel, I mean, as a scientist, somebody who's always looking, I guess, for the concrete, how do you interpret to the ending of the movie? Is the Stargate sequence tedious to you? Is the ending frustrating?

Do you have an idea? Does the ambiguity of it inspire you? I'm curious. The Star Child and all. Yeah. Well, I mean, the ambiguity is frustrating. I think that, I mean, that's partly deliberate. It would be easier if it had a more straightforward simple ending,

but I think that that would be less fitting for the film. I don't know that I have any particularly straightforward interpretation of it, other than I think it's... The idea is to get you to think about... I mean, I think it relates back to the opening scene that you were talking about, about the evolution of man and the evolution of technology, and the Star Child ending scene is supposed to, I think, draw us back to that as representing in some way that the next evolution or the next step for man. In what sense exactly?

I'm not quite sure, but I think you're supposed to think about that. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there are many interpretations, and I think the best films definitely lend themselves to many interpretations, but the way I've always interpreted it for what it's worth is that we see a movie in which we see humanity almost. almost at like the, almost the end of the frontier of what, I guess, reason or science can achieve to the point where, you know, their human AI is usurping them. And then once we get to, I guess, what is it, part one, the dawn of man, part two, I can't remember. And then, like, part three is like the beyond. To me, the beyond section, if it, like, deliberately doesn't make sense in the sense that if we have at the beginning, the old.

origins of rationality and how rationality can lead to technology. And then in part two, we have the epitome of man's harnessing of reason to create technology. Then part three is just what lies beyond reason. And we see all those psychedelic imagery simply because we're not supposed to get it because we can't grasp it. We can't comprehend it. But maybe that's just a cop out. That's kind of how I've always interpreted it. Yeah, sci-fi movies frequently come up against.

This is a theme in Star Trek a lot as well. although the TV series is probably better than the movies, but nevertheless, the theme about the sort of tension between man's desire to know and the ability of science to provide us with knowledge and to extend our knowledge, on the one hand, versus on the other hand the potential of the limits of science and or the limits of human understanding and coming up against those barriers. So I think movies are a particularly interesting way of exploring that. Yeah, absolutely. I wanted to switch gears a little bit and ask you about, Maybe you don't have particular thoughts on this. Maybe you do. But one area where sort of science and movies intersect, well, at least in my mind a fair bit, is in

military movies or really movies that have a significant military element, because there's a lot of, well, particularly physics, obviously, in terms of the physics of how weapons work and how explosions and other things like that interact with the environment. Also, there's some psychology and other interesting stuff happening there, military organization. So there's potentially a lot of sort of science-related stuff, which is often done, particularly poorly and, well, in my opinion at least. So I guess I wanted to ask if you had any particular opinions. One thing that interests me a lot is how firearms work in movies, maybe weapons in general, but particularly firearms, and how they are portrayed, their destructive power,

their usage and things like that, you know, without wanting to get political about the gun control debate or anything like that, but just in terms of people's perceptions of that or maybe interaction with the physics of it, ballistics or whatever else. I don't know. I'm just curious as whether you have any thoughts about that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the first place my mind went to, and I'll address your question on a more serious note after I just say this. Are you familiar with the Angelina Jolie movie Wanted? I have not seen that, no. It's, they have the most ridiculous thing.

There's this thing that Angelina Jolie's character can do in which she's moving her arm really fast. Like she's like swiping her arm from left to right as she shoots and the bullet like curves. So she's like, she's trying to like kill somebody around a corner. So she just moves her hand really fast as she shoots. I mean, that would be useful. And like the bullet goes around the corner. Right. So like when I thought about like military technology that's egregiously wrong, I was like,

oh, wanted. That stuff is ridiculous. The thing for me, and I don't know if this is so much about the scientific ability of military technology or destruction in general, but the thing for me has always been. So are you talking about just like the way that destruction or like violence is portrayed or specific? specifically like the way that a gun works. Oh, well, there's all sorts of facets to it. Another facet is in terms of injuries and the human body and, you know, how that affects

it. Anything that strikes you really. Sure. So one thing that I'm actually curious to get your thoughts on this. So do you think that let's take a movie like the Avengers, the first Avengers, we see like these alien forces coming and basically leveling all of New York City. Now, we don't see any blood. We don't see anyone actually die.

We see a fair amount of explosions. We see buildings crumble. The city would have to have been very well evacuated for no one to have gotten hurt in this whole debacle. And I guess my question is, what do you think is more harmful for the general populace consuming this movie? If we watched a scene like The Avengers in which we're seeing destruction but none of the ramifications of that destruction or a movie like, let's say, Silence of the Lambs, where we do see blood, we do see gore, we do see up. and close up and center the disgusting nature of murder or violence. I think that right now, most people's opinion is that by showing murder, showing gore, showing violence, we're desensitizing people. But I would argue the opposite.

I think that when we show things like the Avengers in which there is complete destruction that has done purely for spectacle, that is not meant to bring any sense of sympathy from the audience, that's what ultimately desensit. We sensitizes us, not, you know, if I'm watching a movie where I see someone's head cut off, like, that, like, makes my stomach turn, and that's not desensitizing me. That's, that's, like, reaffirming my sensitive nature to this. Yeah, I think that's a, that's a really good point. I think, I mean, there's obviously different genres. I think the sort of, there's a type of horror movie where there's extremely graphic violence. I think that can be gratuitous, but that's not, not so much what I think we're talking about. But in terms of the more action film, I think it is, yeah, it is important to show, I mean, I think it contributes to a storytelling perspective, but also in terms of more widely people's understanding and appreciation of things, that if you're going to show a violent scene or an invasion or a battle or something like that, that there should be sort of ramifications of that. You should see that the horrific destructive effects that that has. I mean, I know that, you know, movies are pitched at different

ratings levels and things like that. So there are, different ways of doing this more or less appropriate to the level, right? But, you know, to take your avengers example, an invasion like that where you basically don't see anyone die, or other battle scenes in movies where sort of the alien or whatever the enemy is exactly is portrayed in some sort of ambiguous way where they don't seem to really be alive or, like, they don't seem to be real people, they're kind of drones in some way, and none of the heroes are killed or injured in any significant way.

So there's a lot of violence but no actual death or injury or something like that. I think that, you know, that presents a gross misrepresentation of, you know, how horrific military action or violence actually is. And also the destructive power of the weapons that are used these days. It particularly annoys me. I mean, this is a long trope of Hollywood, right? But when the heroes get a gunshot wound or a sword wound or something like that, and then the next scene that they just basically fine again,

that that's, it gives people gross misdemeanor. representation of how fragile, actually, the human body is and the destructive power of weapons, but also, you know, explosions and trapnel and taking cover and other things like that. It just really frustrates me every time in movies where the characters come under fire, and then they're just like looking around, oh, you know, we're under fire now as opposed to jump down and take cover. Does being a scientist kind of ruin movies for you a little bit? Well, it certainly can.

Yeah. Look, it really depends on the movie. I think, as I sort of said before, having an appreciation of, you know, not just a science, but history and some other contexts as well, even not necessarily needing that great a knowledge, but just some background can help you enjoy the richness and appreciate movies more, if the movie is relatively well done. So 2001 is an example of that, some of the better historical movies as well, you know, because you understand context, you understand references to people and situations,

and it improves your appreciation. But when it's done very poorly, without proper forethought, then, yeah, to me, it's just I can't take it seriously, and it pulls me out of the, what's that thing called? Suspension of disbelief. Suspension of disbelief, yes. It pulls me out of that. Like, yeah, this is just kind of dumb. Which is particularly unfortunate, at least for me, because some movies, like some of the new, the Marvel movies, for example,

there are some scenes and or characters in those movies that I really like and enjoy, but then there are other scenes in it that just pretty much ruin the film for me, because I just can't take them seriously in that context or how. it's presented. Yeah, I think this is another reflection of how unfortunate that is in the current studio system. What makes your, what makes your movie money is special effects. So that means that usually the element that the least amount of time is spent on is the script, unfortunately. It does seem that way. Yeah, they just need to get the script done as soon as possible so they can start bidding for special effects budgets and stuff like that. And yeah, I mean, it would be great. And this is why I'm trying not to blame the screenwriters because, you know, they're just trying to, you know, feed their families and stuff like that.

But the whole idea of doing your research of, you know, of consulting with the experts is something that I think is so important that they just don't have time for. And unfortunately, the very cynical people at the head of the studios, they just say, look, it doesn't matter. People are on for the ride. Yeah. And, I mean, yeah, I like to think that a good movie is sort of more than being on for the ride, particularly because I think that it actually has greater. reviewing value. But I guess, yeah, these days that's more realized than just remaking the film in 10 years rather than... Right, exactly.

Another thing relating to the military theme, which... Well, maybe, because this has sort of plot character aspects as well, so be interested to get your thoughts on, is... How to phrase this exactly. I mean, pretty much all movies have a hero or protagonist of some sort, right? And, you know, if it's an action film, then they're going to be going into battles or fight. and killing bad guys and stuff like that, and we expect that. But in some movies, there is maybe a lot of movies, I don't know, a tendency to, well, what I would say is take this to very extreme levels.

So an example that comes to one, particularly in the context of historically based movies, like, did you see Fury, the Brad Pitt one, the World War II movie from a couple years ago? I did not. That's what, Shaila Buff, right? I'm not sure if he's in it, actually. But anyway. I think it's the one with the tank, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I have not seen it.

Ah, well, you can probably sort of imagine anyway, because it's similar in a lot of other war movies anyways, where, you know, the protagonist and, you know, their small group of followers or secondary characters or whatever, you know, basically they single-handedly defeat huge numbers of enemies. And particularly in the context of a war movie, they're not, the enemies are not supposed to be like, you know, some incompetent alien or something like that where you could maybe understand it. But they're just, they're supposed to be other people. right. And, you know, when I'm watching films like this, and I'm thinking like, well, if this is how effective the U.S. military was, they should have won World War II in about

three days because the Germans just been swept aside. I guess the reason that that bothers me partly is that I think it focuses so much on the unusual prowess of a single individual or small group of individuals and, well, at least in my view, lessens our appreciation for the the collective contribution and the role that many individuals play and also the huge organizational aspect of these military efforts or other organizational things like that. I'm curious because obviously there's a tension there between wanting to tell the story of the hero and maybe presenting the wider view. But I'm curious to whether you have thoughts on that. Yeah, so there's two interesting philosophies on cinema that I think speak to what you're talking about.

So one, and I did not take notes before this. So, and this is stuff. I learned a while ago. I can't quite remember the philosopher's names. But one is that one philosopher that I once read suggested that the creation of the close-up, that cinema itself is to blame and the idea of a close-up in which a community of people enter a movie theater and they project their subconscious onto a singular person and a singular perspective has to do with the rise of narcissism in our culture. Because in the way that we consume a movie and a movie is about a singular perspective,

we think of our own lives like that. Like, you know, we're living a life that is a singular subjectivity and that that is ultimately the thing that matters. Now, that's one thing that I think so, I think just based on the very nature of cinema being something that is best communicated through an individual's point of view, that when you have something like a war movie, you're going to, because the individual is going to want. to project their subconscious onto a protagonist, a single person, you're going to have to have a protagonist who's basically dodging bullets in World War II or, you know, because we have to invest ourselves in this community of people. And the second one is, I believe it's Slavoghijek who suggested this. So he's got a series of movies called the one is called the Perverts Guide to Cinema and the other one is called the Pervert's Guide to Ideology. and what he means by pervert is that cinema is basically it's a perverts medium because you are a voyeur. You're like basically a peeping tom and you get to see people's most intimate emotions through, you know, the nature of the close-up and through that subjectivity that a film can help you experience.

So because cinema is formed like this, because it's inherent in the medium, you're going to have those problems where something like, a war that, yes, obviously, it is the collective group that made the difference not an individual and that, yeah, there are more people dying in a second than you can possibly imagine, and the idea of focusing on one individual's contribution is absurd in a war zone. I think that that's just unfortunately inherent in the medium, if that makes sense. Yeah, that's interesting. I was thinking about a movie like Lord of the Rings, which might seem sort of quite different to like a World War II movie.

but I think that movie actually has an interesting balance, well, the book and the movie, but focus on the movies, an interesting balance between these two perspectives, because on the one hand, you know, you've got Frodo who ultimately is trying to, and then succeeds in destroying the ring, and that's what ultimately wins the day, and in some sense that's the ultimate sort of triumph of the individual, although there's nothing especially special about Frodo.

That's sort of one of the points of it. But the other aspect is that a large fraction of the time in the movie is actually not just spent following Frodo, but it's spent following Aragon, Legolas, and Gandalf, and so on, as they're, particularly in the journeys around Gondor and Rohan, and sort of trying to get the monarchs of those kingdoms, or the leads of those kingdoms on side and forming them up for battle and so on. So I think you actually do see a fair bit of that organizational and that collective element there, even though, of course, you know, there are the significant contributions from the heroes as well. So with Lord of the Rings, my only counterpoint to that would be, I mean, Legolas is such a badass. Like, how is anyone? Like, I mean, really all they needed is just Legolas to defeat the entire army because he... Yeah, that's true.

Yeah. But so, yeah, Lord of the Rings is very much an ensemble piece. And I think another ensemble piece that deals directly with war that I think does something very interesting to promote the community element rather than just the, like the impossible contribution of an individual is Band of Brothers. Have you seen that? Yes. That's a really good series. Yeah. So I think that by intercutting the narrative with the interviews of the people who are actually there, sometimes we never see the same person twice, we really get the sense that this is a community that made this difference.

And I think that that's a very skillful thing to do to introduce this documentary element into what is essentially narrative historical fiction. Because although we as an audience will be grabbed by identifying with an individual or a group of individuals, that documentary element, really kind of grounds it in a reality that this was, you know, just a whole collection of individuals and that, you know, it was the group dynamic that ultimately made the difference rather than, you know, like one invincible badass. Well, I mean, yeah, individuals can make a big difference, but it's more about how they, sorry, when they do that, it's usually through, in the real world, through a leadership fashion about bringing other people together rather than, you know, killing them or killing all the

bad guys by themselves as often happens in the movies. Right. I guess one of the reasons I brought that up is because in science the focus is usually on, perhaps always in some sense, on processes and mechanisms and regularities, not necessarily law-like, but at least have some predictability to them. Whereas in a lot of fiction, not necessarily all, the focus is on, you know, the unique, agentic contributions and decisions of one or two particular individuals. And it's interesting for me to think about how those can interact and play off each other in different context. There's a different way of thinking, I suppose, about the world as well. There's a philosophy of history called the Big Men view of history, which the idea is that history is shaped by the singular actions of great, well, usually great men, but great individuals more generally, as opposed to thinking about history as more of a process as and economic forces and so on. So I think that that sort of relates to what we're talking about as well.

Yeah, I agree. So you're saying that cinema is essentially works within the Great Men theory because of like we're always identifying with an individual whose wills carries the story forward and ultimately leads to the salvation. Yeah, I think most movies seem to work like that. Again, I think that there are exceptions. Dunkirk, I think, is one general exception. Absolutely. Yeah, because that movie doesn't even really have, I mean, it has characters, but no character arcs. It really is just an event. Yeah, so I think, yeah, that's one of the things that makes it so unique, I think, is the way that it does that. But yeah, so anyway, it's interesting to think about how those interactivities work. So before we finish up, there's one last thing I wanted to ask you about, which is essentially that in the context of podcasting, social media and other avenues, YouTube and other avenues that you use and use more generally for communicating ideas, particularly about, you know, science philosophy communication and discussing media, sorry, discussing movies and pop culture and so on. Is there any particular types of topics or specific topics that you find generate the most engagement or the most interest or that just repeatedly come up or anything that strikes you as being a perennial issue?

So you're asking me if there are things that come up that are bad or just what's popular in general? Oh, not bad, good, just what's popular? What people like to talk about are their particular issues? Yeah, so this might be a little bit abstract, but the thing that I've been thinking about lately, so the thing that I've been thinking about lately, so the thing that is, the thing that we don't do at Wisecrack but seems extremely popular is the idea of fan theories. Are you familiar with this world? Yeah. Well, to some degree.

Yeah, it's this idea that, you know, people kind of extrapolate these grandiose and often absurd ideas by kind of focusing on minutiae and stuff like that. Like, you know, if you watch The Last Jedi, it's like, how can we focus on the lines of Snoke's scars and, you know, basically just make huge leaps of logic to draw conclusions? and the thing that I've started to realize is that like I know this is going to sound weird but I feel like the people who are doing that, the people like there's a channel called Star Wars theory, it's all about just, you know, just bizarre, you know, leaps of logic. He's do, like in a sense, he is doing Star Wars just as much as J.J. Abrams. Because I think that Star Wars, you know, you go and you see the movie and it captures the sense of wonder and you want to go back home and you want to suspend that sense of wonder.

And so you go on to these fan theory websites that that tease you with an extension of the story that you want to believe in. And I think that ultimately what cinema is other than buying a ticket and seeing something like that, it is this suspension of fantasy. And I think that although, see, because I'm kind of a critic at nature. And so what we do at Wisecrack is much more criticism based and much more based in like, you know, robust traditions of research. and criticism, fan theories are, I think, becoming just basically IP, they're basically just

extensions of Star Wars IP and everything else IP. I think that it is, you know, if you're making fan theories and people and millions of people are watching, I feel like in some way you are as much as an authorial figure on Star Wars as JJ Abrams or whatever the new guy's name is that made The Last Jedi. Yeah, well, the Last Jedi is an interesting case because immediately when you mentioned fan theories, that came to mind. Of course, yeah, it was a huge cultural event, yeah. Yeah, well, all of the fan theories were essentially falsified, and I think partly that made a lot of people, that's one of the reasons so many people were upset about the film, is it was so different to what they're expecting.

Right. I've got thoughts on that for days. One thing that came to mind when you mentioned fan theories is, and I'm interested to see how you react to this, So at least how some fan theorizing works, I imagine different people do it differently. But, you know, they watch the film generally multiple times, and then they look for details in it, and then they formulate their theories about it, and they use evidence from the movie, sorry, to support their theories. And then other people come and look at the theories, and they critique it, and they say, well, this doesn't make sense with that, and you didn't consider this aspect. Is that a little bit like how science works when we look at the evidence and formulate theories

and then critique them based on other evidence? Is there some analogy now, am I? It would be a very theistic version of science. And the reason why I'm saying that is because it's not like when we do science, it's not like, oh, well, you know, maybe God is going to do this next. No, but like, you know, so if I'm looking at an episode, if I'm looking at Star Wars, I'm saying, oh, Snoke's scar, it goes from right to left. Therefore, in the next movie, such and such is going to happen. Well, there actually is somebody up there making that decision. So in a sense, I mean, I do kind of find it rather superfluous to make these assumptions, unless you're,

really trying to influence whoever is writing the next Star Wars movie. So, I mean, I see what you're saying, like, definitely like the attention to detail and the passion for attention to detail and using it as evidence to draw conclusions. I would just say that science is a bit more noble and robust, whereas with fan theories, it really is just for fun. Yeah, yeah, obviously being a bit facetious in that analogy, but I think there are some comparisons there. People do, I guess, also one distinction is people, I don't know if you make a difference.

distinction here, but people also do fan theories for, you know, explaining bodies of work that are sort of closed, you know, before people were thought they were going to be more Star Wars films. They still theorized the bad aspects in the original movie, for example. So it's not necessarily just about predicting what the new director is going to do or something, but trying to, I guess, understand the world in the context of the evidence that's being presented to us, so to speak. And I do think that there are some parallels there to how science works, although, obviously, I agree with you. Hopefully, science is a bit more robust than, you know, theory.

Yeah. But yeah, I mean, I guess like the difference is we kind of take a little bit more of a meta approach. So we're actually looking to enter science. And actually, you just met the person who is heading up our effort. Who's Helen, who was on our podcast that you were also on. And one of the things that we want to focus on is that, yes, there are a lot of science content on YouTube that focuses on like the granular chemical elements or whatever.

And we want to talk more about, you know, the process of doing science, the ethical things going on there, like where science gets its funding, what motivates certain scientific research to happen and what doesn't? How do the ideological things happening in the world affect how science is practiced and how we come to understand scientific conclusions around our world and stuff like that? Yeah, I think that's a good point and sort of brings us full circle back to some of the things we mentioned at the start of the podcast, which is about the process of science and how that's depicted in films and often not in a very sort of three-dimensional. in a way that science is a process, that science involves lots of mistakes, lots of guessing

and checking and using evidence to figure out if you're on the right track or not, and science is political in terms of what's funded and what's not and what ideas come to be accepted. Science is social endeavour. It's not just a lone, what's very rarely, the lone genius in his room figuring things out. And I think that, yeah, film is a way that people can come to appreciate that and understand that if it's explored in an appropriate way. I agree. Cool. Was there any final thoughts you wanted to mention? before we finish up?

The only thing I want to say is I really like your podcast. You're a super smart guy. It was really awesome having you on our podcast. And thank you so much for having me. Oh, well, thank you very much. It's been a pleasure. And likewise, it was a pleasure to share, to be on your show. So you just want to plug your podcast before we finish up?

Sure. If you want to hear James talk about Inception, the 2010 Christopher Nolan film, check out, Show Me the Meaning. It's on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Google Play, wherever you get your stuff. and if you want, check out the Wisecrack YouTube YouTube.com slash Wisecrack. Great. Well, thanks for joining me, Jared. No, thank you, James. So please let me know what you thought of this new format.

We'll see if we can maybe do some more of these sort of interview discussion special episodes in the future. You can send me an email. My address is Fods12 at gmail.com. That's FODDS12 at gmail.com. You can also jump on Facebook and search for all the sites of everything podcast and give the page a like there, which helps support the show and will give you access to updates about new upcoming episodes. So once again, thank you for listening and I'll talk to you next time.