A Flock of Dodos
Randy Olson
(2006)

The idea of Zeitgeist A Zeitgeist is “the spirit of the times” it implies a general outlook for a given time period in a given place. In Europe, the arrival of the enlightenment produce a shift to the “scientific” ideas away from the religious ones. In addition in the mid 1800s there appeared a general theory of “evolutionism” as appears with Lyell in geology, Darwin in biology and Tylor and others in social science.

The ideas of social Darwinism (that societies evolve by natural selection) has been argued by many for decades. Darwinian evolution moves through natural selection and genetics and operates on individuals whereas the mechanism for social Darwinism would have to be different.

Darwinian evolution seemed in conflict with the Biblical versions of creation and hence a real diachotomy was set up between religion and science, one of the climaxes comes at the Scopes trial in which a school teacher was arrested for teaching evolution in a classroom where the state had outlawed it. (see Inherit the Wind). The battle still continues and the question of whether or not both the Darwinian and Creationist views should be allowed in the classroom.

Even today, there are scientists who are not creationists who argue there are serious flaws in the Darwinian theory in terms of his concept of natural selection. (See for example What Darwin Got Wrong

Some people argue that scientists are people who have replaced religion with science and that they are just as dogmatic as people who are believers in Intelligent Design. How the universe began is unknowable and you can’t prove it one way or the other.

If you are interested in this argument there are a number of books on the topic written by reputable scientists God is Not Great What Darwin Got Wrong

Post modernism vs. enlightment

In post modernism, there is a general idea that the truth cannot be known. Everything is perception. This is a reaction to the age of enlightenment in which science rose to ascendency. Such an “enlightment” is evident in The Plow that Broke the Plains and The River, in which scientists and engineers will ultimately control or tame nature.

The idea behind postmodernism (although it starts as an artistic concept of mixing styles) as it occurs in the social sciences is basically that all knowledge is narrative and all narrative is someone’s view. The truth is unknowable.

So in effect, people now analyze Darwin theory as a manifestation of capitalism and hence is just one narrative o how things happen.

Many claim there are no cold hard facts, just lukewarm soft theories. Others hold there are facts (The US dropped an atom bomb on Japan / Japan bombed Pearl Harbor) but that the interpretation of these facts is never “the truth”. This has led to the major conflicts that deal with what has come to be known as “revisionist history” whereas many historians hold that all history is revisionist (one needs to be clear on the difference between history – what happened and histography – the writing about what happened). Historians began to question whose “narrative” was being presented. (The winners write history so we are going to write it from the other side). This has led in some quarters to the argument that all narratives are equally valid (surely the wrong term if using the word logically) and hence this new approach “empowers the powerless” whereas others have argued nothing could be further from the truth. If all narratives are equally valid, then only the ones told by the powerful will be accepted.

So with all these alternative interpretations going on, governments try to make decisions on how to act. This leads to different theories on what government can and cannot do or what directions it should head in depending on whose narrative (history) they accept. (Remember the different arguments by economists during “The New Deal” that we discussed about The Plow that Broke the Plains and The River).

Many scientists are often hostile to the post-modern approach since the argument has been that science thinks it has answers, whereas most scientists tend to feel that science gives the best possible answer at the moment. It believes that one get closer to an understanding of things through rigorous methods and techniques (often mathematical). Social scientists and humanities scholars reject these and for example, as BC have argued that the science core courses are “cores from hell” and wanted the number reduced.

The nature of the non fiction film again

Many classes in speech define a number of kinds of speeches - those of introduction, those to pursuade, those to educate and so on. These may in some ways be similar to different kinds of non fiction films - speeches to introduce may be akin to biographies; speeched to pursuade may be akin to propaganda films and so on. Still the lines between propoganda and education may be a fine one and one not easily defined.

Many fiction films approach the same topic approached by non fiction. Consider The Plow that Broke the Plains and ; Titicut Follies and Snakle Pit, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and even Suddenly, Last Summer.

The Structure of the film Unlike earlier documentaries like Nanook or other Flaherty films, The Plow that Broke the Plains and <1>The River or the British documentaries like Drifters or Night Mail which deal with tangible things, Flock of Dodos deals with ideas. The problem becomes "How does one show an idea?" The nature of the narrative

Text and subtext.

The film is narrated- clearly by the films author/director who in the best tradition of post modernism reveals a good deal about his own background so that the auience will understand something of "where he is coming from" or what factors might impact "his narrative", Olson is originally trained as a biologist who became a film maker. We are not told why so the question of why he left biology to make films is unknown yet could be pertinent to the film.

The film involves a number of discussions or interviews that film maker has with a variety of people on both sides of the argument (which deals with whether ot not Intellegent Design should be taught in schools. The content of the arguments need not be an issue here, the question is how the film maker approaches the material and deals with it film). One dnager of films with many interviews is the tendency for them to turn into a series of "talking heads". Some cinematographers seem to prefer "talking heads" and "wringing hands" so the audience is not forced to look only at the face of the person being interviewed, but gets to see their hands as well. Olson manages in many cases to set up situations so that some people are in a bar, others are playing cards. Are the pro ID interviewees interviewed in the same kinds of contexts as the anti ID interviewees? Where is Behe interviewed? Where are the others interviewed. Are there equal; number of interviewees?

Appeals to authority (citing of Stephen Jay Gould and Olson's relationship with him)

Debunking other authorities (statement about Haeckel's falsified drawings not being used anymore contrary to the pro ID people's claims.

The prime example of ID that is given throughout the film is the question of looking at mountains and then at Mt. Rishmore and asking whether or not there is "intellegent design" discernable in Mt. Rushmore. A futher example is the assertion that the DNA code shows intellegent design.

On the anti ID side there are also several examples - one deals with the nature of the human heart and its lack of intellegent design, while others deal with the digestive systems of various animals. These examples are demonstrated through footage which shows the problems (rabbits eating excrement to get the nourishment from preciously eaten food and so on). Is evidence shown similarly for the people who are pro ID Can there be such evidence filmed for the pro ID people? What would it be? Is this evidence against the ID position?

Near the end of the film, the film begins to look at the question of why people believe the pro ID argument and not the anti one. The conclusion tends to be that scientists are just poor communicators, while the pro ID people hire public relations firms so that they have a better image. The film maker ultimaely concludes that the problem is that scientists have been more vitriolic and snobbish and as a result there is a communications problem. The film then has a double text/subtext - the question of whether ID should or should not be discussed in school and how well scientists communicate and whether or not their somewhat obnoxious behavior with people who don't accept Darwinian evolution impacts on their message. The film seems more edited to the former idea than the later, but never quite gets down to the data involved (or operhaps there isn't any). There is a question about whom the fim maker selects to be the "interviewees". In this case he has chosen many of the top people in both camps. He shows his attempt to contact members of one organizaton and their unwillingness to talk to him.

Tone

The tone of the film is rather lighthearted and comedic, although it occasionally borders on the sarcastic. Some of the conversations with "Moose" border on the ridiculous, although it may not be clear which side fo the border they are on! It may be argued that humor may function to allow dialog rather than confrontation, but it is also clear from the conversations at the poker game that humor at the wrong moment has a very different effect. One of the players verbally attacks one of the others who is making jokes about what he is saying..

aesthetic level

The Plow that Broke the Plains, The River and Nanook along with many of the early documentaries were praised for the aethetics - their use of language, music and visual images. These are all missing from Flock of Dodos and as a result, the film lacks the aesthetic nature of many of the earlier documentaries which had integrated text, image and music. Remember Flaherty had been called "The father of the poetic film" by some rather than "The father of the documentary".

One needs to be careful and criticize a film for not being the film the viewer would like to have seen. It is another thing to question whether the film succeeds on the grounds it sets forth itself. Can you tell what the film's goal is? If you can, does it suceed in achieving that goal?