Screening DNA

This is a book about cinema and genetics. It is about how biology and biotechnology have been represented in film narratives, and how movies in turn have influenced the wider debate concerning genetic engineering and cloning. Movies with themes relating to genetics are placed into an historical context, and then analysed to reveal where fictional science departs from scientific reality. Film readings from a genetics perspective are cross-cut with accounts from the cutting edge of real-life genetics. Therefore, this book is a hybrid, part basic film studies text and part popular science book, which aims to reveal the ways in which the biological sciences and cinema interact.

This is an increasingly important area of study, because popular culture has become prevalent in debates concerning genetics, by way of mad scientist metaphors and other references. It is often claimed that the negative representations of science in movies promote unnecessary anxieties about genetic engineering and cloning, which contributes to a widespread and irrational opposition to biotechnology. I will argue that the relationship between genetics and cinema is far more complex and problematic than it might at first appear, and that no simple conclusion can be drawn between film narratives and public opinion concerning science and technology. Film narratives provide metaphors that help us to make sense of the world, but these narratives are constrained by genre and storytelling conventions, while it remains unclear to what extent film representations either reflect or mould public attitudes to reality.

The interface between movies and DNA is informed by a common terminology. Scientists borrowed from the vocabulary of cinema from the inception of genetic engineering. In film editing, a cut is an edit between one image or shot and another, while a splice is the physical join between two pieces of film. Genetic engineers visualise the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule as a long strip of genes, from which different units are cut out and others are spliced in. Fragments of DNA from different origins are spliced together to form recombinant DNA, in an analogous way to how a film editor manipulates frames. In both cases, the manipulation can be said to create new meaning. The genetic code and a completed film are, in this sense, both texts that are open to reading. Science writers, aware of the power of metaphor, have also described genes as a computer code, a river of information and "selfish" replicators, among other things. Metaphoric devices (e.g. synecdoche, metonymy, symbol, index and icon) also play a key role in film grammar. Terminology from genetics is now increasingly passing back into the cinema. Computer technology, for example, enables the cloning of images in special effects shots. Virtual actors can also be cloned from celluloid cells, which contain information left by deceased stars, for instance, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley or Steve McQueen. Cloning is popularly perceived as a way of transcending death, like being immortalised upon the silver screen.

The film industry has looked to the scientific innovations of the day for inspiration, ever since the early days of cinema. Electricity, motorised transport and X-rays have featured since the silent era, for example, while nuclear energy became prominent in science fiction films during the 1950s. Genetics is a relatively young science, and the great potential of genetic engineering has only started to be realised in the past couple of decades (Table 1). These important scientific and technological advances therefore coincide with recent cinema history. Movies with prominent genetic themes, however, do not form a new genre or represent a major departure from previous movies (Table 2). This is because themes relating to DNA have been easily assimilated into conventional narrative frameworks. Genetic engineering and cloned have been spliced into existing horror and science fiction scenarios, for example, which often feature mad scientists.

Plot devices using genetics have therefore enabled old stories to be updated and modernised. Major literary sources of horror and science fiction storylines can be traced, via various film adaptations, to the present day, to identify how genetic themes have been incorporated into the material. The modern "mad scientists", with their roots in mythology, classical literature and 1930s horror movies, are now engineering recombinant DNA. An historical overview of the mad scientist forms the basis of Chapter One.

Genetic engineering offers, at least in theory, the promise that extinct animals might one-day again walk on the Earth. In Chapter Two, the prehistoric monster movie is traced from its literary roots to Jurassic Park, the first genetic engineering "blockbuster". Recent analysis of ancient DNA, and attempts to revive extinct species in selective breeding programmes, influenced this movie. Meanwhile, much attention was taken over the film's scientific detail. However, authenticity has its limits in the movies. The places where fact and fiction diverge, and where aesthetics overrides scientific accuracy, are identified in Jurassic Park and subsequent prehistoric monster movies.

The birth of a sheep called Dolly was a momentous event in 1997, because she was the first animal to be cloned from a cell taken from an adult. It seemed that the old science fiction plot involving human cloning was now practically a scientific reality. In Chapter Three, the current state of cloning technology is compared with the cloning plot devices that have proliferated in movies since the 1970s. The films discussed include Sleeper (1973) and The Boys from Brazil (1978), both involving the cloning of a dictator; and Parts: The Clonus Horror (1973) and Blade Runner (1982), where human clones are used for body-parts and slave labour, respectively. In the more recent comedy Multiplicity (1996), a man clones himself to cope with the stresses of modern life, but in the process dissects his personality. Films featuring clones are related to films centring on identical twins, who are natural born clones. For many years, twin films have explored issues relating to individuality, identity and the presence of the double or doppelgänger, which are now central to many films featuring clones. The thought of unexpectedly coming face-to-face with your double can be highly unsettling. The reasons for this are explored here - reasons that are important in understanding the general unease about human cloning.

Aliens invariably have DNA, or somehow acquire it, in recent science fiction cinema. A number of DNA-bearing aliens are examined in Chapter Four, including the friendly alien in E.T.: The ExtraTerrestrial (1982), and the less benign aliens of Alien Resurrection (1997) and The X-Files: Fight the Future (1998). Various reasons for the ubiquity of DNA in alien life forms can be suggested, based on real-life scientific speculation. In addition, aliens may be metaphorically human as much as otherworldly. The Star Trek films, up to Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), are used to illustrate some of the inter-galactic, metaphoric, and cinematic pros and cons of nucleic acid based replication. Hybrids created from the recombinant DNA of humans and aliens have revitalised the alien invasion movie, as typified by Species (1995) and The X-Files. The key components of the developing human-alien hybrid mythology are identified.

Genetic engineering is used in medicine and agriculture to combat disease and to increase crop yields. Immense benefits to mankind may result, but recombinant DNA technology is still widely perceived as risky, as discussed in Chapter Five. In Mimic (1997), genetic engineering is used to kill a pest that spreads disease, thereby saving thousands of children's lives, but a different threat is created - a new variant of the giant man-eating insect. In The X-Files: Fight the Future (1998), transgenic crops are drawn into the series' elaborate web of conspiracy theory, while in eXistenZ (1999) a plate of unsavoury genetically modified (GM) food is served up. Real-life concerns about transgenic crops and GM foods are reflected in these representations. Meanwhile, genetic technology in the movies is often in the hands of giant corporations, acting unethically and beyond democratic control, who often use the technology to make bioweapons.

The application of DNA science to the human genome will have profound effects on our lives. Gene therapy, in vitro fertilisation and gene replacement techniques may soon enable parents to modify the genetic make-up of their children. Gattaca (1997) presents a vision of a society divided into those with access to embryo gene manipulation and those without such access. In Chapter Six, the elements of the Gattaca world that are already with us are described, such as genetic testing and embryo selection prior to IVF, while the likelihood of the future turning out as the film predicts is discussed. Whatever its prophetic accuracy, however, the film raises important ethical questions, relevant to today's technology, to which society has yet to find satisfactory answers.

One criticism levelled at Gattaca, and other films in which genes are mentioned prominently, is that audiences may be left with the impression that human behaviour, and ultimately human destiny, is all in the genes. Nature is predominant in films of the 1990s, while nurture and messy real-life gene-environment interactions are downplayed. That is, film-makers are buying into the ideology of genetic determinism, which is based on simplistic genetics and politically-loaded assumptions. Meanwhile, DNA has been elevated to iconic status, where it comes to define us in metaphoric and symbolic ways. Genes, as geneticists define them, are therefore often very different from the genes in popular culture. The reasons why genetics may need to be simplified in the movies are discussed in Chapter Seven, along with an assessment of how damaging to an audience's understanding of science a diet of genetic determinism might be.

Real-life geneticists and their work have occasionally been represented in films, as described in Chapter Eight, most notably in Life Story: The Race For the Double Helix (1987). When events and people are explicitly based on reality, a more critical analysis may be warranted. The portrayal of real-life science is often unbalanced by the need to have heroes, a point of view and a good narrative involving drama and competition. Scientific and medical objections to Lorenzo's Oil (1993), a film concerning the search for a cure to a genetic disease, are used to discuss the problems faced in portraying real-life science in the movies. Historical figures who have misused science, in the name of eugenics, also shape today's fictional gene-splicing mad scientist. The presence of the Nazi physician Dr. Josef Mengele, for example, hovers over many of the representations of genetics encountered in this book.

Movies reach large audiences worldwide and utilise mythic narrative structure to powerful effect. They could potentially have a strong influence on public attitudes if made with an ideological intent. Media reporting of genetics makes constant reference to popular culture, particularly movies, while movies nearly always portray genetics in a negative light. Members of the scientific establishment have claimed that constant negative representations of science may hinder technological progress, for example, by turning public opinion against cloning and genetic engineering. In Chapter Nine, it is argued that films conform to genre and storytelling conventions, are the product of many "voices", and are made primarily as entertainment. They are limited in how far they can sell audiences an agenda on genetics, compared with other mass media. In fact, by putting too much stress on mad scientist metaphors, opponents of genetic engineering may be weakening the credibility of their own arguments. Movie narratives provide metaphors that help us think about the real world. They elicit personal responses, with individuals potentially taking very different things from the same movie. Although opponents of biotechnology may borrow metaphors from the movies, cinema itself will not be to blame if society rejects genetic engineering or cloning technology. An increasingly well-informed public, aware of the wider implications of biotechnology, will have made up their own minds about the uses they want genetic knowledge to be put.