Narrative Alchemy: From Vision to Visual - ACS Publications

Chapter 5

Narrative Alchemy: From Vision to Visual

Downloaded by MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on September 7, 2013 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch005

Alexis R. Gambis* Filmmaker, Scientist, Artistic Director of Imagine Science Films, Brooklyn, New York 11215 *E-mail: [email protected]

Structured in the format of a scientific paper, I outline my philosophy on visualizing science from the perspective of a scientist-turned filmmaker and as the founder of Imagine Science Films, a non-profit organization committed to promoting a high-level dialogue between scientists and filmmakers. At the core of my philosophy, I propose that scientific truth does not need to be bent or embellished to make a screenplay exciting. Rather, scientific observation can be an effective springboard to cinematic imagination. By breaking stereotypes, humanizing scientists and mixing scientific material with personal drama, scientific concepts can be transformed into a narrative alchemy.

Introduction As I sat in a ‘Feature Film Screenwriting’ class, my turn came to present a onepage synopsis of my feature, My Geneticist (Figure 1). The film was inspired by the story of Calvin Bridges, an American scientist known for his seminal research about fruit fly genetics. I spoke about the story of Calvin who worked with Dr. Thomas Morgan in the early 20th century at Columbia University. My presentation left a few students with puzzled looks. After class, a fellow student came up to me and asked: “Why do you only make films about science?” As a scientist turned filmmaker, science is encoded within my DNA, so it’s only a logical next step of my personal evolution.

© 2013 American Chemical Society In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


Figure 1. Still from the short film My Geneticist written and directed by Alexis Gambis (2012, 14 mins) and produced in the Film Graduate Program at New York University Tisch School of the Arts. Story: While at first Betsey feels closer to her father than she ever has, she ultimately discovers secrets about him and his laboratory that will transform their relationship forever.

So, what is a science film? A science film is a coming of age story about a scientist applying his findings in the lab to his personal challenges outside the lab. A science film is about basic research. A science film follows the creative deconstruction of nature and evolution. A science film is not genre-specific. A science film is an alchemy of real-life events and experiences. A science film is about understanding human existence. Above all, a science film explores the same fundamental questions about the world that are asked at the beginning of any scientific study.

Background: The Chemistry of Vision Isaac Newton once wrote, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” In a similar sense, many science papers begin with a brief summary of the work of those who have come before, and the principles upon which the work is based. It is fitting that Newton speaks of sight, as it is vision that is one of the fundamental principles upon which filmmaking is based. Vision is so common that we forget that it is the driving force that helps us see and interpret the objects that surround us. Photons, particles of light, emitted by the Sun shoot towards Earth at nearly 300,000 kilometers per second. They reach Earth in slightly less than eight-and-a-half minutes. While most of these particles 48 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


will be absorbed by water, land, flora, and fauna, some reflect off these surfaces, and eventually make their way to our retinae. The visual process is a beautiful example revealing how light can produce molecular changes. Although eyes come in many shapes and structures throughout the animal kingdom, all visual systems share basic mechanisms that respond to the information about the environment. From flies to humans, eyes are populated with light-sensitive cells called photoreceptor cells. These cells are used to capture photons and then transduce the photons into an encoded electrical signal to the brain. Receptors consist of two types: cones to provide color information and sharpness of images, and rods that provide vision when light levels are low. The tops of the rods and cones contain a region filled with membrane-bound discs, which contain the retinal molecules bound to a protein called opsin. The resulting complex is called rhodopsin. Because rhodopsin absorbs primarily light within the green-blue portion of the visible spectrum, it appears violet; for this, it is also known as visual purple. Once light impinges upon the retina, rhodopsin molecules undergo chemical changes, notably isomerizations, leading to rearrangements and the formation of molecular complexes. Changes in geometry initiate a cascade of biochemical reactions that result in an electrical potential difference that builds up across the plasma membrane. This induces an electrical impulse that is passed onto the brain via nerve fibers. The brain determines which nerve fibers carried the electrical impulse activated by light at certain photoreceptors, and is then able to construct an image. Entering into a movie theater, the cones in a movie viewer’s retinae become more sensitive and the rods are typically activated later. Color perception remains limited, as cones need more light than rods to work properly in the obscurity and rods do not provide color information. During the film, like LEDs on a billboard, the rods and cones of the eye blink rhythmically with the visual dance, creating their own coding from the moving images on screen. The coded information is then sent via the optic nerve to the brain where processing, decryption, and, ultimately, interpretation takes place. As the viewer exits the movie theater, the world appears staggeringly bright at first sight. The viewer’s rods, exposed to low light during the running of the film, have become saturated. They turn off in these bright conditions, and it often takes a few minutes for the cones to begin functioning nominally again, and for normal vision to return. For the retina, the movie experience does not end in the theater and continues on for a bit longer. For the brain, the movie experience can go on for hours, days, years or more, depending upon the emotional impact the movie made. In the early 20th century, film was even used as a scientific visualization tool—to study nature and animal behavior because of its intrinsic empirical quality. Time-lapse films The Birth of a Flower and The Acrobatic Fly brought mesmerizing images and scenery to the public, capturing the poetry of flowers and insects. For a modern science film, the visualization of scientific research provides a way to synthesize, explore, structure, and communicate scientific information to others. 49 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

Method: The Science of Narrative Storytelling is universal in our world and its universality suggests that it is deep-rooted in our genes. From birth, we rely on narrative order for survival and for the construction of our own identities. While there is similarity in our cultural and genetic makeup, the combination of environmental and genetic factors makes us unique.


In The Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat, neurologist Oliver Sacks writes: …each of us is a singular narrative, which is constructed, continually, unconsciously, by, through, and in us—through our perceptions, our feelings, our thoughts, our actions; and, not least, our discourse, our spoken narrations (1). Narrative is not only the stamp of our existence but it is wired in our brains, which in turn feed on it for maintenance and stimulation. Simply stated, story enables the human mind to explain itself-to-itself and to other minds. Cognitive neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga states that the “the human mind is disposed to creating stories or narratives” (2). He speaks of the importance of narrative in mental health: From early childhood, we tell ourselves stories about our actions and experiences. Accuracy is not the main objective—coherence is. If necessary, our minds will invent things that never happened, people who don’t exist, simply to hold the narrative together. Gazzaniga further suggests that “preserving narrative continuity” is necessary “to fill in the gaps of memory.” A person struggling with Alzheimer’s disease feels pain and confusion when recalling details from their personal narratives. A child exclaims, ‘I am not alone’ after identifying with a character on-screen. Stories link the factual to the emotional, the specific to the universal, the past to the present. How does one accurately capture ‘the personal narrative,’ though? It is so complex that one is not even aware of its finer resolutions, and, evidently, it is a challenge to replicate. Both the filmmaker and the scientist courageously attempt to decode and ‘visualize’ narrative. To capture narrative one needs to create narrative. The scientist or filmmaker creates his/her own version of reality, one that is enriched with their own subjectivity. Nevertheless, the visual imagery is always an approximation of the ‘real’ narrative. A true depiction of the ‘personal narrative’ remains impossible with the existing scientific visual. Perhaps, there will come a day when we can fully represent all the facets that comprise human perception—a hypothesis that is for now in the realm of science fiction. With even the highest resolution microscopes, we are still making observations and inferences from an exterior perspective. Even with advanced brain imaging, neuroscientists are still predicting realities and inferring meaning to brain function. 50 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


Cinéma vérité, a term coined by the French anthropologist Jean Rouch, is the empirical practice of using a camera to attempt to capture truth and subtleties in moving life. Since the birth of the camera, observational documentary has been used as a scientific model to understand the world and to find patterns in nature. With modern breakthroughs in digital filmmaking, the camera further takes on a voyeuristic appearance. Surveillance-like cameras have enabled us to study the subject without the latter being aware of the presence that he/she is being filmed. Macro photography has also enabled us to probe into the microscopic worlds, where the smallest of the microbes become the larger-than-life performers on the big screen. MIT researcher Deb Roy wired an array of cameras around his household to study the acquisition of language in his newborn child (3). He refers to his scientific study as “a piece of what is by the far the largest collection of home video ever made.” On the screen, he presents recorded material as a disc array, resembling petri dishes. Each camera contains data about the environment, its inhabitants and activities. In his TED talk entitled the “Birth of a Word,” Roy takes you through the epic journey of a child coming into the world and striving to create order in his environment.

Observations: The Truth About Fiction Observational material is the raw data of science and filmmaking. From here onward, scientists and filmmakers may not always share similar views on how to use the empirical data. Scientists strive to be innovative thinkers yet always aim for realistic and objective interpretations based upon their collected data. Still, the scientific approach is inherently subjective and creative. Furthermore, human error is inevitable. Filmmakers do not face similar repercussions to truth bending. They can take observational footage and deliberately reshape it. They can lift real-life events and adapt them freely. They thrive from fictional constructs. Jon Amiel, who directed the movie Creation, about the evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin, shares: Plot is consequence. Plot is Newtonian physics. Plot is action and equal and opposite reaction. It’s true in science, too, that sometimes the one thing that you make up will better illuminate the truth that you’re getting at than a painful accretion of facts. However, not every filmmaker can do this artfully. If done poorly, the viewer may be turned off by “fakeness” of the whole cinematic spectacle. Scientific filmmaking may sometimes be caught in between the worlds of the imaginary and the reality. Take for example the collection of science films by filmmaker-scientist Jean Painlevé. In his Science is Fiction vignettes, he presents real footage of marine life overlaid with personal anecdotes sometimes told from the perspective of the creatures themselves. With Painlevé, surrealism and dreams get mixed in with ‘serious science.’ What may seem like confusion between the 51 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


real and the unreal to some, may also be perceived by others as the purest form of science cinema. If the mixture of fiction and nonfiction is done with careful precision, the viewer latches on to real material to fill in the gaps with his or her imagination. On that point, Jon Amiel explains why, initially, he was uninterested in directing Creation, and what led to his change of heart: I started to find the voices of these people reaching out to me across 160 years in a most extraordinary way. As a parent, I started to connect to Darwin as a parent. As a husband, I really started to connect with Darwin in his marriage—the marriage of two people who loved each other dearly, but held profoundly different views on the most important topic for them in their lives. As far as she was concerned, his beliefs would prevent him from entering the Kingdom of Heaven with her, meaning they would be separated in eternity, yet they had this extraordinarily intricately-intertwined relationship. So I said, “OK, listen, these are my terms. One, I don’t want to do a period movie—it just happens to be a story that’s set 160 years ago. Two, I’m not interested in a chronological story—he was born here, then he went on the Beagle, and then twenty years later he wrote this, and 35 years later he died. Not interested. I am interested in doing a psychological portrait of a man at a specific time in his life. If we could do that, if we could use anecdote and dream and look at the way… at an extraordinary mind in an extraordinary state of crisis, at a specific juncture, and if we can do that in an emotive and associative way, I’d be interested to try that. Amiel adds, “We’re making movie for cinema, not a PBS TV show.” Filmmakers may opt to fully leap into fiction, attempting the reenactment of ‘the observed.’ However, constructing fictional narratives that appear seamlessly truthful is a difficult task. There are always several factors at play: sequencing ideas, using language coherently, shifting attention, and relating to other people. Experimental techniques, often involving post-manipulation of the image, may help change rhythms giving momentum to the story. However, narrative should always be held in place with a strong foundation. Successful narratives often also withhold certain critical story points. Didactic films inclined to teach or lecture others often present information that feels stale, leaving little room for imagination or excitement of the mental processes. Viewers take more pleasure in the cinematic experience when engaging with the narrative created through images, uncovering clues and piecing them together; all the more captivating if they are misled or surprised. In the 1920s when movies by the Lumière brothers were first shown at soirées, salons and cafés in Paris, the audience had no idea what to expect. As trains grew in size on the screen, the audience would jump out of their seats in a mixture of fear and excitement, convinced that the train was coming right at them. Nowadays, it takes more effort to excite the average cinephile, as he or she is typically blasé from all the fast-cutting visual effects seen on television and in theaters. Nevertheless, film originality may still be achievable by recycling old techniques, presenting never-before-seen perspectives with the advent of 52 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

new digital technology (ex: microscopic filming) and by crafting unique visual metaphors.


Results: Science in Fiction—Applying the Scientific Method Science in narrative filmmaking should be evaluated at all stages of development: script, production, post-production and exhibition. Not only does one need to ensure scientific accuracy during the script-writing stages, but also monitor its integration in acting, production design, and editing. The scientific paper with Abstract, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion sections provides a good checklist for addressing all the facets of science portrayal in film. The scientist should always feel human. Sometimes, this can be achieved by working with real scientists. This allows for mutually beneficial interactions between actors and non-actors and room for improvisation. While the emphasis should be on the scientist’s everyday life, a breakthrough may occur. However, it should feel like the culmination of a laborious process rather than a ‘quick fix’ discovery à la CSI Miami. It is best for the scientific theme to come second to the emotional arc or else the film may be perceived as having a scientific agenda with an imposing directorial hand. The science, however, provides support to the plot and strengthens each character arc. In many ways, the scientific process is akin to character growth, as both evolve through a series of happenstances and accidents, ultimately leading to some measure of understanding of the world in which we live.

Discussion: Science and Film at a Glance Science and film have had tumultuous affairs over the last century with conflicts, compromises, and passions. In today’s culture, the definition of a science film is stereotyped, often narrowed down to science fiction movies, cable channel nature shows, or news-like documentaries. For as long as film has existed, scientific intrigue has also been expressed through fantasy. In films like Melies’ Trip to the Moon and Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, science becomes science fiction with futuristic, imaginary and speculative turns and twists. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or the birth of intelligent machines brought us to places where time travel is possible and human-designed robots invade the planet. The film industry has been continuously stimulated by science to generate fantastic worlds, and to explore fantastic concepts (Figure 2). Jon Amiel shares: I think science doesn’t need to be dramatized. Science is drama. Properly understood, and properly inhabited, there is intense drama inherent in almost every scientific idea. You just have to find it. There’s the drama of what’s going on, why there’s tension between two magnetic poles, or the collision of two particles. We use the terminology of catalyst 53 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

and currents and charges and things endlessly in our talk about drama. Between massive events that are happening way beyond our Galaxy, or tiny events that are happening every time you switch on a light, there is an essential drama inherent in that if you but look for it, and if you but find a way to characterize it.


One could argue, that film with a strong visual and ‘sexy’ storytelling capacity has served as an educational tool making science more accessible to the public. It has instigated curiosity for the youngest and the oldest of us. I will be the first to admit that 80’s science-fiction movies on TV brought the aspiring scientist out of me.

Figure 2. Still from Courtship written and directed by Alexis Gambis (2011, 12 mins) and produced in the Film Graduate Program at New York University Tisch School of the Arts. Story: Scientist-turned fly Lucien and call-girl Victoria speak about the genetics of sexual behavior in bed. Film has also been helpful in raising the ethical boundaries and philosophical undertones of science. In Gattaca, we are placed in a disturbing and terrifying notso-implausible future where humans are discriminated according to their genetic makeup and receive genetic enhancements at birth to favor their success. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the robot Hal 9000 turns against its own creator and takes control of the space ship. With these films, we are pushed to think about the bigger questions posed by scientific discoveries and let our imaginations go wild. Unfortunately, there is a darker side to the relationship between science and film. Extrapolated science in films does not always ground itself in credibility. These films leave the realistic portrayal of science and scientists, entering the realms of the ludicrous and favoring stereotypes and caricatures. It seems that 54 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


it is often the dark and powerful side of science, or science and technology gone awry, that appeals to filmmakers. Hence, with millions of people rushing to the big screen, film has the potential to promote misconceptions, damaging stereotypes and outright falsehoods about science and scientists. Godsend is a good example. It tells the story of an 8-year-old boy who is brought back to life by cloning. With a story not grounded in credible genetics, the film becomes manipulative and phony. What we are left with is a freakish film that takes an issue of topical interest from the headlines and grafts a wildly histrionic reaction to it, contributing to the ill-informed public that wants cloning, genetic engineering, and the quite beneficial issue of stem cell research banned on the premise that it is killing unborn souls or that it might produce races of three-legged mutants. The everyday scientist suddenly becomes a delirious, mad and ‘unethical’ scientist who mischievously wants to abolish the human race using pipette tips and stem cells. The science film language seems to have fallen into two schools of thought. The first is the news-report model defined by a sense of rigor and protocol. The second is the science fiction model, which reacts to the so-called precision of science by revolting against it and inventing implausible far-fetched scenarios. Rather than eliminating amazing science fiction and dense science documentaries, the hope is to widen the scope of science film by exploring new ways of incorporating science in film. It should be noted that the scientific process is in its essence ‘inexact’ where models and mechanisms are always faulty and riddled with exceptions. Also, the scientific protocol, similar to a recipe, is always personalized by a scientist and not as rigid as one may think: it contains shortcuts, tips from previous users and creative add-ons represented by an elaborate constellation of arrows and scribbles on the protocol sheet. Finally, it is also important to recall that breakthroughs were often happenstances or fortunate accidents led by creative minds thinking outside of the box.

Future Work: Science New Wave The last decade has witnessed a promising effort to change these preconceived ideas about scientific filmmaking and to demonstrate through practice that captivating science films can be made without resorting to clichés or bending scientific truth. And most importantly, as with any other topic, the science needs to be woven into a story. An increasing number of film schools and foundations are working to influence the next generation of filmmakers to create more realistic science-based stories and to challenge existing stereotypes and biases about scientists through visual media. The non-profit institution Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has been at the forefront of these initiatives; it has provided awards, grants and high-profile platforms to increase public understanding of science to a wide non-specialist audience through different forms of communication, notably film. The Science and Entertainment Exchange, an initiative launched by the National Science Foundation, has fostered great dialogue between scientists and Hollywood filmmakers. Both have been involved in the production stages by matching 55 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


directors with science advisers and also organizing ‘science of the movie’ discussions. There have also been open forums and Internet websites, notably the Museum of the Moving Image Science & Film site, which provide regular news about opportunities and events at the crossroads of science and film. It also encourages future scientists and filmmakers to become involved by hosting a database of science short films from student filmmakers. Television and radio have also shown growth in science communication. AMC’s hit show Breaking Bad demystifies chemistry by picking as its lead role, a renegade chemist, who is a professor and also a drug dealer. New York Public Radio’s popular radio show Radio Lab uses sound design as a way of connecting science with personal stories. A fresh new wave of science communication has further been propelled by the increasing number of public events and festivals. The World Science Festival swings by New York in the summer every year, bringing fairs, exhibits, screenings, and discussions celebrating science and art. Contemporary art museums are presenting more science-related exhibitions. The Museum of Modern Art in 2010 and 2011, exhibited ‘Design and The Elastic Mind’ and ‘Talk to Me’ that explored the relationship between design, technology and science with narrative-inspired installations. The Secret Science Club invites, on a weekly basis, expert scientists to speak about their scientific work and personal anecdotes to an eclectic beer-drinking crowd at the Bell House bar in Brooklyn.

Conclusion In some sense, every film can be considered a science film, because science is embedded in our world and lays the fundamental rules that determine how individuals exist and interact with that world. Scientific thought and observation is inherently narrative lending itself to the film medium. We have over the last decades drifted away from the essence of scientific filmmaking. Science films used to have a slower pace, and were filled with real-life examples with simple yet effective visual imagery. With the advent of digital filmmaking, CGI and the breakthrough in scientific research, we have presented science as a fast-paced delirious ride, oftentimes losing the essence of its organic nature at heart. Science communication should have no agenda. It should not persuade, embellish or scare but rather present the ingredients that will spark the imagination.

References 1. 2. 3.

Sacks, O. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat; Summit Books, a division of Simon & Schuster: Orangeville, ON, Canada, 1995. Gazzinaga, M. Your Stortelling Brain, January 15, 2012. www.bigthink.com. Roy, D. The Birth of a Word, December 1, 2012. www.ted.com.

56 In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

Narrative Alchemy: From Vision to Visual - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents