A
Anonymous
Guest
As a biologist by trade, I've always taken some interest for science in films. Naturally I am interested in the accuracy of the portrayal of science, as well as in the prejudices about science some films can convey. But I also took some interest in how women scientists are portrayed, and how they differ significantly from their male counterparts. Syl started some time ago a series of threads about the condition of women, and this is my humble contribution to carry on with this topic.
First, it's important to look at how many films have included female scientists as characters. In a survey of 60 films containing scientists between 1929 and 2003, Eva Flicker from the University of Vienna reported that eleven (18%) included female scientists. But a survey of more recent films (1991-2001) by Jocelyn Steinke at Western Michigan University found 23 female scientists in 74 science-related films (31%). I had a look at the Internet Movie Database (IMD
and a simple search identified 84 women scientists out of 382 films containing scientists (22%). So female scientists on film are in the minority as a general rule, but there are more of them in recent films. The 22% figure from the IMDB isn't actually too bad, considering that studies suggest that, in real life, women comprise only 25% of the science and engineering workforce, 28% of university faculty, and 8% of full professors in the sciences.
So how do our male and female movie scientists compare? Flicker has written about the cliché of the male scientist, who comes in various guises. He can be a hard and diligent worker, sometimes obsessively enthusiastic -- he'll follow his scientific curiosity, even at the risk of human costs. He can be absent-minded, confused... and even mad! He can be inattentive to people, and uninterested in social trends and fads. And, although there are certainly exceptions -- think of trendy, leather-jacketed Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, well-groomed Pierce Brosnan in Dante's Peak, and earnestly blue-eyed Dennis Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow -- he tends not to be particularly attractive, typically resplendent in glasses, a lab coat, and scruffy hair.
Surprisingly, women scientists are not particularly mad, evil, or nerdy. Indeed, Steinke notes in her survey that in 23 films, only two were mad and only three were absent-minded or antisocial. Moreover, in contrast to male scientists, women scientists do not work on "dubious" projects in secret laboratories, but remain solid "with their feet on the ground," Flicker reports. Female scientists also didn't contribute to "negative myths surrounding the image of science," she notes.
But it's with looks that the discrepancy becomes really obvious. The female film scientist tends to be gorgeous. In Flicker's words, she is "remarkably beautiful and, compared with her qualifications, unbelievably young. She has a model's body -- thin, athletic, perfect -- is dressed provocatively and is sometimes 'distorted' by wearing glasses."
Although I like watching sexy women as much as any other bloke, I also appreciate a certain amount of depth in my female film scientists. One favorite is Emma Russell (Elisabeth Shue) in The Saint (1997). Action scenes dominate the film, but Emma is the scientific centre, and shows grit and moral courage. When she finds that Simon Templar (Val Kilmer) has romanced her only to steal her cold fusion secrets, she persuades him that the ethical thing is to give the secrets to the world. Emma emerges as having it all: her work, idealism, intelligence, femininity, sexuality, good looks -- and Kilmer. Wow!
Emma sits in strong contrast to her counterpart in a 1996 movie about cold fusion, Chain Reaction. Physicist Lily Sinclair (Rachel Weisz) works on the Hydrogen Energy Project along with machinist Eddie Kasalivich (Keanu Reeves). Lily and other scientists can't make the process work until Eddie finds the right frequencies. When the two are framed for an explosion and murder in the lab, they escape the FBI largely through Eddie's ingenuity. Lily is no Emma; instead, she emerges as having good looks, but not much else. She's mostly along for the ride as Eddie saves her, does the science, and makes the moral decisions.
For women scientists, films like The Saint match Flicker's description of how things have changed: "Since the 1990s, [we're seeing] the powerful, competent, utterly qualified, and feminine woman scientist -- the uniting of an intellectual and erotic person." But, as Flicker notes, films like Chain Reaction demonstrate that some female scientists are unable to spread their wings, remaining "dependent on male characters and in this respect stand in the second row, behind their male colleagues."
But let's stay optimistic. Film portrayals of scientists are more diverse than our preconceptions might suggest, and as the surveys indicate, there's reason to think that the portrayals of female scientists are keeping pace with real-world changes.
On a final note, I should add that women do not have to be scientists to associate good brains and good looks. Real life shows that you find this type of woman in every walk of life... including journalists!
Right. That was my Friday night rant. Thanks for reading!
First, it's important to look at how many films have included female scientists as characters. In a survey of 60 films containing scientists between 1929 and 2003, Eva Flicker from the University of Vienna reported that eleven (18%) included female scientists. But a survey of more recent films (1991-2001) by Jocelyn Steinke at Western Michigan University found 23 female scientists in 74 science-related films (31%). I had a look at the Internet Movie Database (IMD
and a simple search identified 84 women scientists out of 382 films containing scientists (22%). So female scientists on film are in the minority as a general rule, but there are more of them in recent films. The 22% figure from the IMDB isn't actually too bad, considering that studies suggest that, in real life, women comprise only 25% of the science and engineering workforce, 28% of university faculty, and 8% of full professors in the sciences.So how do our male and female movie scientists compare? Flicker has written about the cliché of the male scientist, who comes in various guises. He can be a hard and diligent worker, sometimes obsessively enthusiastic -- he'll follow his scientific curiosity, even at the risk of human costs. He can be absent-minded, confused... and even mad! He can be inattentive to people, and uninterested in social trends and fads. And, although there are certainly exceptions -- think of trendy, leather-jacketed Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, well-groomed Pierce Brosnan in Dante's Peak, and earnestly blue-eyed Dennis Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow -- he tends not to be particularly attractive, typically resplendent in glasses, a lab coat, and scruffy hair.
Surprisingly, women scientists are not particularly mad, evil, or nerdy. Indeed, Steinke notes in her survey that in 23 films, only two were mad and only three were absent-minded or antisocial. Moreover, in contrast to male scientists, women scientists do not work on "dubious" projects in secret laboratories, but remain solid "with their feet on the ground," Flicker reports. Female scientists also didn't contribute to "negative myths surrounding the image of science," she notes.
But it's with looks that the discrepancy becomes really obvious. The female film scientist tends to be gorgeous. In Flicker's words, she is "remarkably beautiful and, compared with her qualifications, unbelievably young. She has a model's body -- thin, athletic, perfect -- is dressed provocatively and is sometimes 'distorted' by wearing glasses."
Although I like watching sexy women as much as any other bloke, I also appreciate a certain amount of depth in my female film scientists. One favorite is Emma Russell (Elisabeth Shue) in The Saint (1997). Action scenes dominate the film, but Emma is the scientific centre, and shows grit and moral courage. When she finds that Simon Templar (Val Kilmer) has romanced her only to steal her cold fusion secrets, she persuades him that the ethical thing is to give the secrets to the world. Emma emerges as having it all: her work, idealism, intelligence, femininity, sexuality, good looks -- and Kilmer. Wow!
Emma sits in strong contrast to her counterpart in a 1996 movie about cold fusion, Chain Reaction. Physicist Lily Sinclair (Rachel Weisz) works on the Hydrogen Energy Project along with machinist Eddie Kasalivich (Keanu Reeves). Lily and other scientists can't make the process work until Eddie finds the right frequencies. When the two are framed for an explosion and murder in the lab, they escape the FBI largely through Eddie's ingenuity. Lily is no Emma; instead, she emerges as having good looks, but not much else. She's mostly along for the ride as Eddie saves her, does the science, and makes the moral decisions.
For women scientists, films like The Saint match Flicker's description of how things have changed: "Since the 1990s, [we're seeing] the powerful, competent, utterly qualified, and feminine woman scientist -- the uniting of an intellectual and erotic person." But, as Flicker notes, films like Chain Reaction demonstrate that some female scientists are unable to spread their wings, remaining "dependent on male characters and in this respect stand in the second row, behind their male colleagues."
But let's stay optimistic. Film portrayals of scientists are more diverse than our preconceptions might suggest, and as the surveys indicate, there's reason to think that the portrayals of female scientists are keeping pace with real-world changes.
On a final note, I should add that women do not have to be scientists to associate good brains and good looks. Real life shows that you find this type of woman in every walk of life... including journalists!
Right. That was my Friday night rant. Thanks for reading!
