Emma Marris didn't much like "Sizzle"
Ultimately, one is left wondering what the film aims to do. Does it argue that climate change is real, or discuss how we might convince people that it is? At the end of the film, Olson heads off to the editing studio to make a coherent story out of his footage. If only we had got to see that version.That's similar to the reaction many of the folks at Scienceblogs.com who reviewed it on Tuesday. Not all. Sheril Kirshenbaum had this to say:
There are many layers to Sizzle. While at times I laughed out loud (especially when climate change skeptic and cameraman Marion was on screen), other moments are quite thought provoking, encouraging us to reexamine who has been educating society about climate change and how.After reading some of the reviews, Chris Mooney wrote:
In my view, what's so great about Sizzle is the way it asks us to look hard at the insularity of our pro-science community--and the disconnect between the science world and other walks of life, other parts of American culture. In this context, doesn't the fact that many science bloggers are slamming it--and misunderstanding it--simply validate the film's central point?Orac's response to Mooney's post (he hasn't seen the movie yet) was included this:
I don't know if Sizzle was a good story or not because I haven't seen it yet, but I do know that whenever I see someone dismiss criticism as people "not getting it" or being humorless putzes who can't relate it strikes me as lazy and defensive. From many of the reviews I read, my fellow ScienceBloggers were bending over backward to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and to try to understand its message. Several of them just didn't think it was all that funny.My take?
I didn't like Sizzle as well as Flock of Dodos. I thought Dodos made two points very effectively: (1) We evolutionary biologists do a lousy job of talking to non-scientists about our science. (2) Intelligent design is a crock, not a credible scientific hypothesis. I was hoping Sizzle would do the same for climate change. I thought it did well in making point 1 again, but in Dodos Olson let both evolutionists and proponents of ID talk enough that the deficiencies of ID became clear (at least to me). In Sizzle neither the climate scientists nor the climate skeptics were given enough time for the weight of the evidence for climate change to become clear.
But that's my baggage. I wanted (and expected) a movie that does both of those things, but I don't think that's the film Randy was trying to make. I don't think he's trying to persuade viewers that climate change is real, human caused, and a problem we can address. I think he's trying to give those of us who already know that a lesson in how to persuade others to join us.
In the absence of much data, i.e., having read only a smattering of the fifty-plus reviews, I suspect a lot of those who didn't like Sizzle were looking for a movie that would persuade people that climate change is a problem, while a lot of those who did like it were looking for advice on how to persuade people that climate change is a problem.
If that's right, I do hope that Mooney, Nisbet, and Olson will take up Orac's challenge:
But that's my baggage. I wanted (and expected) a movie that does both of those things, but I don't think that's the film Randy was trying to make. I don't think he's trying to persuade viewers that climate change is real, human caused, and a problem we can address. I think he's trying to give those of us who already know that a lesson in how to persuade others to join us.
In the absence of much data, i.e., having read only a smattering of the fifty-plus reviews, I suspect a lot of those who didn't like Sizzle were looking for a movie that would persuade people that climate change is a problem, while a lot of those who did like it were looking for advice on how to persuade people that climate change is a problem.
If that's right, I do hope that Mooney, Nisbet, and Olson will take up Orac's challenge:
Show me why calling antivaccinationists antivaccinationists is not a good idea, for instance or why, for instance, Paul Offit is not a good spokesperson for vaccines. (Hint: Antivaccinationists view Dr. Offit in much the same way as fundamentalists view Richard Dawkins or P.Z. Myers.)Should we just accept that, like the poor, creationists and climate skeptics will always be with us? Should we give up on changing their minds? If so, how do we limit their pernicious impact on education, research, and public policy?
Leave a comment