EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED
Nathan Frankowski
2008
A second non fiction film takes the reverse position of that taken by A Flock of Dodos. To what does that title apply? (People who become extinct because of the their inability to adapt to changing environments)
This is Frankowsi’s first full length film. He had directed a short called “Though You Slay Me”
BEN STEIN
Because, unlike Olson who tells you about himself in Flock of Dodos, Stein says little about himself a little background is needed.
Stein was born in Washington DC and attended Columbia and Yale Law School. He bacame a lawyer, teacher, writer of political speeches and scripts and an actor. His most famous role is probably as a character actor (the droning professor in Ferris Bueler’s Day Off in which he is shown constantly calling Bueler's name - “Bueler. Bueler”). Had quiz show which won him an Emmy.
He practicedd law in several states including Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. He was a trial lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission.
Stein first taught as as an adjunct professor, lecturing on the "political and social content of mass culture" at American University in Washington, D.C. He later taught at University of California, Santa Cruz (political and civil rights under the United States Constitution). He was also employed at Pepperdine University in Southern California where he taught both libel law and United States securities law and its ethical aspects. From about 1990 to 1997 he was a professor of law at Pepperdine University Law School.
In 2009 he was the commencement speaker for the Liberty University and awarded him an honorary degree. He delivered a message about creationism, patriotism, and value for humanity to graduates and their families."
Stein is strongly opposition to the theory of evolution and denounced the theory which he and other intelligent design advocates call "Darwinism". The theory, he claims, has benn "a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies", "the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism", and the inspiration for the Holocaust. Although he does not say belief in evolution alone leads to genocide, that Darwinism is a necessary component. As a result of his beliefs, he co-wrote and stars in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a film that tries to persuade viewers that evolution was instrumental to the rise of the eugenics movement, Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust. He portrays advocates of intelligent design as being victims of kind of intellectual conspiracy and discrimination by the scientific community, which has rejected intelligent design as creationist pseudoscience.
The media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It received a 10% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.
On the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Stein is reported to have said "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people".
The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement condemning the film's misuse of the Holocaust and its imagery, "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry".
Stein's views on evolution led the University of Vermont, at whch Stein was invited to receive an honorary degree and be the commencement speaker,.led Dan Fogel, the university president, to receive complaints about Stein's planned appearance.Stein declined his commencement invitation.
Liberty University had Stein speak at their 2009 graduation and awarded him an honorary degree and, according to the university Stein "spoke extensively about his work on 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'".
THE FILM
It is estimated that Expelled, which opened in 1,052 theaters (more than any other documentary before it), grossed over $2,900,000 in its first weekend. It earned $7.7 million, making it the 18th-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States (statistics include 1982–present, and are not adjusted for inflation). In July, the movie was re-released allowing groups of 300 to book private screenings in theaters.
The media did not responsed to the film favorably. Most major media and some scientific publications have described the film as propaganda. The Chicago Tribune gave it "1 star (poor)". The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike." It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes (later improved to 9% overall) where the film was summarized thus: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." Christianity Today gave the film a positive review.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms. The film has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.
HOW DOES THE FILM WORK
“Quotes” from other films. Juxtaposition of images from new reel footage and narrative films with events in this film. Talking Heads Editing techniques. Compare Discovery Institute cooperation with this film and lack thereof with the other
SOME FILM TECHNIQUES
Both of these films use an interview technique – one in which the “natives” are asked to comment on things. This leads to what has been called a “talking heads” approach. Some photographers have gone to the “head and hands” approach wherein when they decide that there are too many talking heads we go to showing the hands (preferable to show internal emotional state).
The films are interesting in that they often look at the same or similar material from different viewpoints and come up with different conclusions
What techniques are the film makers using to make there points?
One of the major questions has to do with editing. What has been cut out (we can not know). We can suspect from some answers that in those sequences where there are "voice over" questions, that the question may have been constructed and inserted into the film and what the speker is saying is not actually the reponse to that question. Does Stein for example ask for an explanation of the "crystal" theory? Is his mathematics correct on the 256 machines?
The juxtaposition of materials is quite significant - when one scientist talks about crystals, Frankowski shows a crystal ball. Is that the kind of crystal the scientist is talking about?
Dr. Neil Tyson spoke at great length in the media about the possibility that the Mars rock found in Antartica might contain evidence that there was once life on Mars. One theory states that it is possible that life on Earth results from it arriving from elsewhere (which just moved the creation of life to another set - I mean location. If Dr. Tyson talks about this would it mean the same thing if one juxtaposed images of The Day the Earth Stood Still against his talking? (Remember the Russian experiment with the same footage of an actor looking out a window being interpreted differently by the audience when they were shown the footage with different scenes before he is shown looking.)
What is the impact of the linkage (justaposition) of materials from Hitler's Nazi Germany and Darwin
How is the question of where life comes from handled?
What kind of editing is there? What shots follow what? How does this impact the film?
Set ups? What is the suignificance of asking someone to indicate by number how sure they are of something and then trying to play with the number? Dawkins does not feel comfortable putting a % on how sure he is God doesn't exist, but does so for Stein who then questions hos choice of number. What is Stein's response when he is questioned about his use of "who" in one question saying it biases the answer (remember "Your questions tell me more about you than my answers will tell you about me")
Use of sarcasm. Can one be visually sarcastic?
Consider the question about whether life can appear from somewhere else, but not from God. Is there a significant difference between holding something is the result of an intelligent being creating something and saying "God must have created it"? If ID's position is that God must have created it why is it not religion? Did Dawkins ask that? Maybe so or maybe not - it could have been cut from the film. We can not know from the film what was edited out. Does the film maker edit out things that contradict the position that is being taken by the film? Of course. We never see all the raw footage.
Does anyone ask questions about the symbolic category of "the sacred"?
What does Stein do to Dawkins argument? Is there a difference between holding a natural rather than supernatural being designs something? How does this make Stein look?
Does the film give equal time to both sides? When Dawkins is accused of being a bad philosopher what evidence is there?
Is the scientist clear about the crystal problem on the origin of life? Can we tell whether this is an edit problem or a scientist problem as in the other film?
The film raises questions about the Darwinian approach, (which has been modified over time into what has been called "neo-Darwinism" a somewhat modified version of the original.
Like A Flock of Dodos, there is some shifting of gears during the film. Is it about Academic Freedom (should anything be taught? Even Stein argues against people teaching that the world is flat! How do we decide what to teach and what not to teach? Should we teach racist or fascist beliefs so they appear positive?
Is his assertion about how "Darwinism" and science lead to killing people (see his comment of the TV. Do religious beliefs lead to killing people? Does he discuss counterexamples where science has stopped people from being killed
Does belief without proof merit discussion in a scientific venue?
Does Stein raise valid questions about Darwin not being overly rigorous about definition? (remember our early class discussions on the importance of definition) How does one define evolution? Are both sides given a chance to discuss what the word means? What about the definition of "species"? A Question of science. Does either film attempt to define what science is or how it relates to the scientific method?
Testable? Not always – social sciences particularly difficult which often cannot be experimental
The root questions in the problem are never handled by either film.
Consider also the question of "form and content" We are particlulalry interested here in the WAY in which material is transmitted and less in the material itself. That is how does the FORM work regardless of the content.The film maker uses a form whether they are talking about drugs, religion, gun control etc. just as a speaker uses certain techniques of rhetoric in making an argument. What kind of “expository” materials does the film make use of? Compare non fiction films with non fiction. Remember Zelig in which the truth of the content is irrelevant. There never was a Zelig ("There never was an Aaron" name the film!)
Compare these films with Inherit the Wind and Titicut Follies with Snake Pit. How is the audience addressed as opposed to the nature of the material. Compare with “Mockumentaries”, which continue to way in which the materials are presented to the audience. ASSIGNMENT – do a comparison It is also important to remember that the concept of "the gaze" is relevent here. The gaze refers often to the fact that the camera traditionally has a "male" gaze. That is because the camera operator and the director are typically male, the camera looks at what men look at. The argument being that if these positions are filled by women or members of other cultures/ethniocities/genders/sexualities the camera will look in different places, (Consider the Adair Worth experiment with the Navajos). But the gave can also refer to the spefici way a member of the audience views a film. People who are more amenable to the film makers position are likely to regard the film more positively than a person who is hsotile to it.
The question here is one of a comaprison of rhetoric with film making and editing. In what ways do speakers use language to make points (lies of ommision and sommission; sarcasm; irony) What might the equivalent of these be in film?