Science, technology, and movies have been getting along very well since the beginning of cinema. Old questionable depictions of scientists and technologists have given way to better appreciations on the screen by part of the public. Scientists and technologists have directly or indirectly helped filmmakers by advising them in one way or another in the preparation of their productions. The cinema becomes a meeting point between science, technology, and society represented through the spectators, sometimes offering us an image of technoscience far from reality.  The conquests of science and technology are at the service of society, which receives, like all of nature, its benefits, and harms, its positive or negative consequences. It is curious that film makers resort more to the representation of negative aspects than to positive ones, although there is no film worth its salt that does not end up promoting the triumph of good over evil, the positive over the negative, opening a path to the hope. But cinema is entertainment, and it has to let viewers go home full of positive energy. Thus, it was not surprising that in Them! (Douglas, Them!, Warner Bros, 1954) humanity was in danger, because in the end it was going to be a song of hope.  Human beings are diversely exposed to science and technology in different contexts and throughout their lives. Our homes, our cities, our work, and our environment are under the control of science and technology and the cinema almost constantly reminds us of this. It is not that a film tells us something that has really happened, but that it could happen, with the subsequent consequences for human beings in relation to what makes us human, what we want to be, or what we can be according to the circumstances, as shown by Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), Gattaca (Andrew Niccol, 1997), or Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014). Nor is it that a film tells us something that has happened to someone, but that it could happen to anyone, although sometimes it is inspired by or tries to reflect what happened to someone, as Erin Brockovich (Steven Soderbergh, 2000) or The Social Network (David Fincher, 2010) with broad environmental or social repercussions that can affect all human beings individually or collectively. We will dedicate this chapter to these five films, after providing a theoretical framework of the interrelation of cinema with Science, Technology and Society.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Social Dimension of Cinema in Terms of Science, Technology, and Society

  • Jesus Alcolea-Banegas

摘要

Science, technology, and movies have been getting along very well since the beginning of cinema. Old questionable depictions of scientists and technologists have given way to better appreciations on the screen by part of the public. Scientists and technologists have directly or indirectly helped filmmakers by advising them in one way or another in the preparation of their productions. The cinema becomes a meeting point between science, technology, and society represented through the spectators, sometimes offering us an image of technoscience far from reality.  The conquests of science and technology are at the service of society, which receives, like all of nature, its benefits, and harms, its positive or negative consequences. It is curious that film makers resort more to the representation of negative aspects than to positive ones, although there is no film worth its salt that does not end up promoting the triumph of good over evil, the positive over the negative, opening a path to the hope. But cinema is entertainment, and it has to let viewers go home full of positive energy. Thus, it was not surprising that in Them! (Douglas, Them!, Warner Bros, 1954) humanity was in danger, because in the end it was going to be a song of hope.  Human beings are diversely exposed to science and technology in different contexts and throughout their lives. Our homes, our cities, our work, and our environment are under the control of science and technology and the cinema almost constantly reminds us of this. It is not that a film tells us something that has really happened, but that it could happen, with the subsequent consequences for human beings in relation to what makes us human, what we want to be, or what we can be according to the circumstances, as shown by Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), Gattaca (Andrew Niccol, 1997), or Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014). Nor is it that a film tells us something that has happened to someone, but that it could happen to anyone, although sometimes it is inspired by or tries to reflect what happened to someone, as Erin Brockovich (Steven Soderbergh, 2000) or The Social Network (David Fincher, 2010) with broad environmental or social repercussions that can affect all human beings individually or collectively. We will dedicate this chapter to these five films, after providing a theoretical framework of the interrelation of cinema with Science, Technology and Society.