Passing thoughts on Rise of the Planet of the Apes 14 Aug 201114 Aug 2011 Spoilers. Look away. As usual Hollywood cannot present how scientists actually do their work. But Rise is a much better film than I expected. For a start, the social dominance behaviours of primates was well presented, along with submission behaviours, threat stares, reciprocal altruism and a host of documented behaviours. And that was just the humans… Seriously, one of the major things about this film that I liked was that the three keepers of the chimp (and orang and gorilla; more on this in a minute) facility behaved exactly like the chimps. Moreover, the only moral actor in that facility was the lead chimp Caesar, who several times prevented innocent humans from being killed by other primates. The gene therapy aspect was well done, and even dealt with the adaptability of the immune response to viral infections. The final sequence over the credits is also a reminder of how epidemiology works (which reminds me, I am looking forward to Contagion). The moral aspect of this film was uppermost, and the science was put in its service, understandably. But apart from the incompetent scientists (I have seen science done this bad in medical research, but not often) and the stereotypical Big Pharma suits (really? We need this sort of moral dichotomy? Things are much more interesting when the characters are conflicted or complex), overall it was a damned good movie. And what is even more impressive is that it retrospectively made sense of the appalling Planet of the Apes. Generally if you make a film it should stand alone as a narrative, but there were so many McGuffins in that film that this one was necessary. What is so good about this one is that it does stand on its own. I give it a B+. General Science Pop culture Social dominance
General Science Working for people you admire 11 Nov 200818 Sep 2017 Right now on the Australian ABC network they are reshowing a program that was first shown in April this year on Professor Sir Gustav Nossal AO [and a three line slew of fruit salad of awards, qualifications, and honours]. The transcript is here, but it doesn’t do justice to the… Read More
Ecology and Biodiversity Finding Q 16 Apr 2009 Elio Schaechter has a nice piece up on the recent success at growing a pure line of Coxellia pathogens, the cause of Q Fever. I have been told that fewer than 10% of all microbes are able to be grown in cell-free media, so perhaps this will be the start… Read More
Evolution Scientists as historians 11 Sep 200818 Sep 2017 I’m supposed to be marking essays, but the reaction to Thony’s recent guest articles has triggered in me a conditioned reflex: the uses and abuses of history by scientists. Read More
A B from me. The most interesting behavior I observed was from the man three rows in front of me, who kept shouting ‘stupid monkeys’ throughout. He stood up toward the end to explain to the audience he liked monkeys really. He was about 15 years older than you’d expect, given the behavior. What annoyed me most about the film – apart from him, of course – was the main moral argument, which consisted in the repeated assertion that you need to accept the ways things are. It’s probably the dominant one in these films. Homer’s argument – if there was a law, it would be against it – is slightly better.
Okay, I did not see the movie and I’m not going to, but if the TV ads tell me anything (which is questionable), how are there enough apes to overcome superior human numbers and technology? I will understand if you do not want to publish spoilers, but please at least send an owl delivered note.
Think conquistadors, Susan (interesting and tangential comment: we always think of the Spanish as having superior technology to the Incas – firearms and all – but the Inca woven armor was better able to stop a bullet than the Spanish armor was able to stop an arrow, and the Incas could shoot two arrows in the time it took the Spanish to reload).