Time for more Science In The Reel World! Sometimes movie science turns up in the strangest places. Over the last couple of weeks I have, quite unknowingly, stumbled upon two romantic melodramas from the Golden Years Of Hollywood in which the hero turned out to be a scientist.
The other thing that these films have in common is that, in thus describing them, I’m using the word “hero” very loosely indeed…
……….
HIS BROTHER’S WIFE (1936) – which manages to transport Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck from the nightclubs of New York to a laboratory in an unidentified jungle, and sees them swapping cocktails and gambling for spotted fever research. The results are about as credible as you might imagine.
DISHONORED LADY (1947) – in which disillusioned party girl (and closet nymphomaniac) Hedy Lamarr finds romance and a new way of looking at life when she falls for the poor-but-honest scientist living in the apartment below her own. However, her course of science for the soul is interrupted by a nasty case of murder…
.
#1 by Braineater on January 31, 2010 - 9:09 pm
Quote
Maybe there were more than one of them in the jar?
#2 by lyzard on January 31, 2010 - 9:58 pm
Quote
That’s the obvious reading, I guess, except that there do seem to be early instances of the use of Dermacentores as a genus in and of itself, although in different species.
#3 by Read MacGuirtose on February 1, 2010 - 6:26 pm
Quote
Besides, is it really common practice to pluralize scientific names like that? I mean, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone refer to Homos sapientes or Tyrannosauri reges…
#4 by Read MacGuirtose on February 1, 2010 - 6:32 pm
Quote
(Whoops… technically that should be Homines sapientes… sorry; Latin declensions aren’t exactly my specialty…)
#5 by lyzard on February 1, 2010 - 6:53 pm
Quote
Because of the fact that one of the other spotted fever tick species (can’t remember which) was apparently once known as Dermacentores whatever, I went straight past the obvious interpretation, but Will is surely right about them meaning “there’s more than one in here”. 🙂 I’ve never come across that usage either, but it may have been something accepted at the time.
#6 by Read MacGuirtose on February 1, 2010 - 7:21 pm
Quote
Actually, yeah; on further consideration, that was almost certainly the intent; otherwise it’s far too much of a coincidence that their misspelling just happened to correspond to the correct Greek and Latin plurals. I’m still not convinced that it was ever really normal to pluralize scientific names, but even if it wasn’t, the fact that they actually managed to get those Greek and Latin plurals right wins them some points.
(By the way: in my investigation to double-check whether those were really the correct plural forms (which, as far as I can tell, they are), I looked up the component words and found they have a rather unusual meaning. It seems that Dermacentor venustus translates to something along the somewhat oxymoronic lines of “charming skin-pricker”…)
#7 by The Rev. D.D. on February 1, 2010 - 8:14 pm
Quote
“(Excuse me: they’ve been working on this how long? And it didn’t occur to them until now that the ticks’ hosts must have a natural immunity? And they call themselves scientists!)”
Hey! She (almost) said the title!
*cough*
I’ll just show myself out now.
#8 by The Rev. D.D. on February 2, 2010 - 10:36 am
Quote
Now that I’ve killed the lively conversation with my fatigue-induced prattling, I would just like to say that these little “SinRW” reviews are a bit of a treat, with their bigger-than-usual focus on the science in the films. They almost seem more…serious, somehow; less jokes, more down-n-dirty criticism on the science. They’re a nice counterpoint to your more traditional reviews, and as an unabashed science geek I always look forward to one of them.
#9 by lyzard on February 3, 2010 - 3:16 am
Quote
Actually, I think six comments on a possible typo in a seventy-five year old movie are probably sufficient. 🙂
Hopefully you’ll be glad to hear that there is more SITRW coming up. I guess the point is, those films are only here because of their science, so that’s what gets scrutinised; and because they are “realistic”, I’m obliged to take them more or less seriously. But then, the same is true of a hard SF film like Destination Moon.
The Brain That Wouldn’t Die, not so much.
#10 by The Rev. D.D. on February 3, 2010 - 10:58 am
Quote
I am indeed glad to hear it!
I think if anyone tried to take The Brain/Head That Wouldn’t Die seriously, I’d recommend immediate psychiatric help.
Coming from me, that’s saying a hell of a lot.
#11 by supersonic on February 3, 2010 - 10:49 pm
Quote
Wikipedia has only two short paragraphs about antireticular cytotoxic serum. Somebody has to do something about this.