leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (Mark R. Leeper) (09/21/87)
THE RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1987 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Made-for-TV BBC film gives a more
rounded view than does Watson's book THE DOUBLE HELIX. A
very fine film with a lot to say about the discipline of
science research.
For years the issue has been hotly contested. How good is British
television really? I think everyone agrees that some of the best things on
American television came from Britain. It is hard to beat programs like I,
CLAUDIUS, but they are just a few occasional good programs. Certainly
British television has its share of stupid situation comedies that do not
get seen over here. Well, it seems to me that their good programs are so
good that their bad television shows can easily be overlooked.
Around the middle of September I start thinking back on what was the
best film I have seen the previous summer. I had pretty well determined it
was to be De Palma's UNTOUCHABLES this year when just under the wire I saw
something better. And it was a made-for-TV film, made by the BBC for
British television. The film ran on the Arts and Entertainment cable
station and was called THE RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX. It featured superb
acting by Jeff Goldblum as James D. Watson and Tim Piggot-Smith as Francis
Crick. Watson and Crick are the two unconventional scientists who worked
out the structure of DNA.
The film is about many things. Among other things, it is about a
conflict between two approaches to science. You can go for the gold, or
glory in the truth and doing things the right way. The first approach is
personified by Goldblum's Watson, a boorish Yank who is a duomaniac. His
goals are to get a girl and a Nobel Prize. Anything in life that does not
further his attempts at one goal or the other is not to be tolerated.
Espousing the other point of view is Rosalinda Franklin, to whom science is
a turn-the-crank operation of putting enough work into your goal, going from
square one to square two, to square three,...until you have achieved your
goal without once making an intuitive leap. The film is about the politics
of science and the viewer comes away with an education in how those politics
work as well as one of how the structure of DNA was determined. It is the
story of how three men won a Nobel Prize based greatly on the work of one
woman who neither got a piece of the prize nor, because she was a woman, was
she even allowed to join the men in the lounge of the building where they
worked.
THE RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX is a powerful, excellent film. If this
sort of thing gets shown often on the BBC, I may pack my bag. Rate it a +3
on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
mtgzz!leeper@rutgers.rutgers.edujohansen@agrigene.UUCP (Eric Johansen) (09/22/87)
In article <3072@mtgzz.UUCP>, leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (Mark R. Leeper) writes: > > THE RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX > > It is the > story of how three men won a Nobel Prize based greatly on the work of one > woman who neither got a piece of the prize nor, because she was a woman, was > she even allowed to join the men in the lounge of the building where they > worked. My impression from the comments written at the end of the movie was that the sole reason Rosalind Franklin did not receive the Nobel prize along with the 3 men was that she died of cancer before the prizes were awarded. Apparently the Nobel prize rule specifically exclude posthumous awards. > > THE RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX is a powerful, excellent film. If this > sort of thing gets shown often on the BBC, I may pack my bag. Rate it a +3 > on the -4 to +4 scale. > I agree, this was an excellent movie.
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (09/22/87)
In article <3072@mtgzz.UUCP>, leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (Mark R. Leeper) writes: In: > A film review by Mark R. Leeper > It is the > story of how three men won a Nobel Prize based greatly on the work of one > woman who neither got a piece of the prize nor, because she was a woman, was The preceding was lifted somewhat out of context, but there is one thing to be said about this. The real reason Rosalind Franklin did not win a Nobel Prize is because she died shortly afterwards, and the prize cannot be awarded posthumously. It is, of course, for those arm-chair historians to debate that if she had lived, whether the prize would have gone to Watson, Crick, and Wilkins, or Watson, Crick, and Franklin (the prize can also only be awarded to 3 people). Personally, I think it would have gone to Wilkins, who worked on the structure of DNA both before and afterwards. Franklin, in the interim, had abandoned DNA and moved on to TMV (Tobacco Mosaic Virus) with a student collaborator, Aaron Klug. Klug later won the Nobel prize for elucidating the structure of TMV, albeit after about 15 years work. Again, had she lived, she would have been a prime candidate for sharing in this Nobel prize. BTW, I unfortunately don't get cable, so I didn't see the movie, but I do remember Jim Watson's description of his reaction, "I am about to lose my identity completely," explaining that for the rest of his life, people will expect him to look like Jeff Goldblum. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 3 years down, 4 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "If you think you might faint, don't worry; you can always go into psychiatry."
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (Mark R. Leeper) (09/28/87)
In article <431@agrigene.UUCP>, johansen@agrigene.UUCP (Eric Johansen) writes: > In article <3072@mtgzz.UUCP>, leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (Mark R. Leeper) writes: > > > > THE RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX > > > > It is the > > story of how three men won a Nobel Prize based greatly on the work of one > > woman who neither got a piece of the prize nor, because she was a woman, was > > she even allowed to join the men in the lounge of the building where they > > worked. > > My impression from the comments written at the end of the movie was that > the sole reason Rosalind Franklin did not receive the Nobel prize along > with the 3 men was that she died of cancer before the prizes were > awarded. Apparently the Nobel prize rule specifically exclude posthumous > awards. I was just talking about how small her reward was. Being a woman restricted her from the lounge, not the Prize. Certainly women have won Nobel Prizes. Not getting it may have been just bad luck on her part. (Or her cancer might actually have been related to her work, as it was with Mdm. Curie. That is just a speculation.) But to have been treated as a second class person because she was a woman, to not have been allowed in the same lounge as the men, was inexcusable. The second best scene in the film, and one of the few places where Watson is shown sympathetically is when he comes looking for Franklin in the lounge, is told that it is men only and asks "What have you got, toilets here or something?" The best scene, incidentally, was "Little Boys" and "Where's the water?" is right up there. But other people will have to see the film to know what those are all about. PBS should pick up RACE. Really a good film. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper