Engineers in Movies
Submitted by jim on Thu, 08/04/2005 - 12:41
Tags:
Phlight of the Phoenix prompts this query from Philip Greenspun:
Can anyone think of a movie where a character could have had any old job but they chose to make him or her an engineer or computer programmer? And then they showed some of the work in a flattering and/or exciting light?
Somebody suggested Apollo 13, to which Greenspun replied:
...this is not a movie where Hollywood had a choice about the characters' jobs ...[snip]... we're looking for a movie where Hollywood picked "engineer" or "programmer" as a job when the producers and writers had a choice. In One Hour Photo, for example, they made the husband of the yuppie couple an architect. He could have had any job that generated enough income for a nice lifestyle.
So Falling Down works as the producers had a choice, but fails in that the portrayal is anything but positive. :-)
Oh, his observations on the movie itself are pretty fun too, so you should at least click through for those.
When you have an art that's being made primarily by arts and humanities people, I don't think it's a big surprise when you see a lack of the sciences.
I too would like to see this change. I'd like to see some math and physics people get together and start putting the science back in science fiction films. We need more Shane Carruth's.
Give me a few years and I'll make the best film on automata theory you've ever seen!
Don't know if voluntary is required, but The Bridge On The River Kwai plays the engineering game.
Mr. Greenspun's question evokes such a wide range of possible responses that I am reduced to saying, "Please stop talking."
If architecture itself was shown in a flattering and/or exciting light in One Hour Photo I can't, for the life of me, recall it. That's probably because I never saw it. Somehow I don't think that a Robin Williams movie would ever inspire people to design buildings or give prostate exams with a red clown nose. (Well, not with the nose itself, obviously with the finger, some lubricant and... I hope I've made my point.)
To dismiss Apollo 13 by saying "this is not a movie where Hollywood had a choice about the characters' jobs" shows a lack of understanding about choices in Hollywood or, even worse, totally ignores or discounts the creative process. Does Mr. Greenspun imagine that there is a glut of fictional engineer movie projects languishing in turnaround? The decision to make a movie about the space program, astronauts and... yes, engineers must have been a difficult one. A 62 million dollar budget for a movie about three guys sitting in a very small cabin is quite a daring artistic choice as long as Adam Sandler roams the earth.
By Mr. Greenspun's reasoning boxers, schizophrenic mathematicians and everyone in Whoville should feel oppressed because Hollywood had no choice with Cinderella Man , A Beautiful Mind and How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Actually, everyone ought to feel oppressed by How the Grinch Stole Christmas. R&B fans, lawyers and two-ton green manic-depressives ought to feel ill-treated because Hollywood doesn't have a choice about the characters' jobs in Ray , A Civil Action or The Hulk. Actually, everyone ought to feel ill-treated by The Hulk. What is it about green characters?
Hollywood movies have very little time to deal with narrative and, when they concern themselves with character at all, even less to deal with depth. Most characters' occupations are tropes for character types so that directors and actors don't have to do tons of exposition to explain their characters. Do you need a solid, boring, middle class conventional character into whose life chaos will enter? Then an architect is the man for you (and it is always a man.) Do you need an honest, simple character? He'll be a mechanic and she'll be a teacher... or if you want a lesbian she'll teach auto repair. Virtuous uneducated characters trying to escape the lower class? Construction worker and waitress. Gay man? Flower shop. Hip, attractive female friend? Performance artist. Remember, you are what you do. "Engineer" isn't shorthand for any character type. It isn't even shorthand for engineer (civil, mechanical, electrical, aeronautical...)
So, Mr. Greenspun, what do you expect? Going to the movies shouldn't be Bring Your Daughter To Work Day with popcorn and $3 boxes of candy. It should be fun and entertaining. I'm not looking for character development and romance in my electrical circuits nor am I looking for excitement and a dash of mystery in my airplanes... quite the opposite. Although I do appreciate the pathos and sentimentality of a good road embankment.
Finally, let me just say, Cpt Virgil "The Cooler King" Hilts.
I'm kinda surprised you dismiss the idea that engineers/programmers are generally portrayed in an unflattering light. Well, I'm kinda surprised if that is, in fact, what you're doing. I'm not really sure if you object to that idea, or singling out movies where the producers "have a choice" as to a character's occupation
Anyway, you do say that Hollywood uses occupations as tropes (hot damn, another great word!) and then give a laundry list of examples. Why not engineers/programmers? Flight of the Phoenix has its engineer/psycho, The Matrix has a programmer-god. Jurassic Park has a professional programmer/scumbag on one hand and a hacker/heroine on the other (which raises the question of whether paid programmers are bad, while hackers are good (from Sneakers to Swordfish).
You're probably right, with engineers and programmers it may all comes out in the wash, especially when you consider the heroic hacker helping with heists.
I hope that I didn't dismiss. I do hope that I dismissed the case on a variety of grounds.
I still haven't seen One Hour Photo but based upon the plot outline Will Yorkin (Michael Vartan) has the job he has because of the position that "architect" occupies in the mind of an audience. "Architect" implies a man whose life is planned out, settled and secure. All the better to have Sy Parrish (Robin Williams) come along and try to ruin that life. I'd love it if someone who has seen the movie corrects or confirms this uninformed opinion based only upon what I'll charitably dub my "analysis" of the workings of movie narrative.
Rejecting Apollo 13 because it is "not a movie where Hollywood had a choice about the characters' jobs" totally ignores the fundamental decision to make the movie in the first place. Movies (especially Hollywood movies) can't be expected to consider occupations that are intellectual, internal and static and then take the time to portray them "in a flattering and/or exciting light.">
Expecting Hollywood to look outside of reality (and/or source material) to glorify and validate a job that is conceptual is fantasy itself. Only a boring office drone would consider this even a remote possibility.
Reporter: They're a colorful bunch. They've been dubbed, “The Three Musketeers". Heh heh heh.
Anchor who is not Tom Brokaw: And we laugh legitimately. There's a mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician
Hollywood does not deal with shades of grey. When you say "engineer" what leaps to mind?.. maybe not your mind. What leaps to a mind that is beneath the median... let's say minds arranged about the mean while allowing for a moderate standard deviation. Let's call it the mental geometric mean (ie MGM ...erm, ~mgm.) Is it civil, mechanical, electrical, aeronautical, computer programmer or Casey Jones? And what, exactly, do those people do? *yawn* And how should that be shown onscreen? *snore* Sorry.
Regarding Hollywood tropes you say "Why not engineers/programmers?" That is (part of) my point. Hollywood is'nt very imaginative (and is anti-intellectual); every occupation is a trope. What does Mr. Greenspan expect? A special waiver for engineers (whatever they are)? If something is subtle or complicated Hollywood will rightfully ignore it. I don't resent farmers for being portrayed as noble and honest, psychiatrists being portrayed as insidious or lawers being portrayed as manipulative and iniquitous. (Mrs. Mayhew was right! Vocabulary class does pay off when I'm older. I need to apologize.)
What I do resent is blondes being ditzy and pneumatic, arabs being terrorists, the Madonna/whore choice in women's roles, blacks as urban threat figures, female-male May-December romances, product placement and the complete absence of women north of forty. I'd argue that the engineering roles that you cite are, in fact, required by their movie's premise. A sassy maid probably couldn't cobble together a working aeroplane. A super hero wouldn't be able to question and then rescue a computer world (...oh.) A troubled athlete would never be able to sabotage a high-tech park.
I actually think that computer programmers are thought of (used as) baffling geniuses beyond human ken who are, in turn, baffled and confused by regular society. They are wizards, not warriors nor engineers. (I sorta think the hacker/heroine is just another in a long line of children who show up to rescue their parents at the last moment and just one more woman used to show fear in contrast to male bravado.)
Roger Angell has a brilliant line about athletes: "They are what they do." Hollywood writers and engineers are no different. Writers will always approach compositions in an emotional, stereotypical and incomplete manner. Engineers will always approach solutions in an intellectual, systematic and thorough manner. If you want to feel better about about your profession let me just say that a $120 million box office failure wouldn't surprise me while a $120 million office building failure would. That's the flattering light engineers can (and should) expect.
As for "that," how many of those characters fit Mr. Greenspun's criteria? Besides, I defend myself to the Hilts. Company dismissed?
Gotcha. And you really didn't have to say anything beyond "Steve McQueen has played an engineer." What more can Greenspun ask for?
... and then there's this.
What is Phlight of the Phoenix? A pun? A typo? An article I'm not aware of?
Just struck me as funny when I was all set to type Flight of the Phoenix. Much as I might write "Michelle Pfeiffer is pfantastic." Personal quirk.
...pfunny stuph.
I think you were right the first time.