As I see it, there are about five scientist archetypes in American movies. Frizzy-haired, whacked-out scientist makes an invention that may be brilliant, but it goes COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL! Young, geeky science kid grows up, gets those braces off, buys a nice suit and becomes grown-up, rich scientist who all the kids are sorry for teasing in the first place. You get the picture. It's a trend. And none of these stereotypes serve as very good role models to get kids to pick up their Bunsen burners all too quickly. They might think science could make them rich in their 20's or 30's, but their dreams will be thwarted when there's so much labor actually involved. These movies tell them that they may be smart, but who wants that anyway? The best thing a scientist can do, film tells us, is hide her scientific proclivities under physicality, money or fame. Let's take a look at some of the major scientist archetypes in American cinema and see what they mean for our next budding science geniuses:
Rich Scientist who isn't so geeky anymore because he has $erious Ca$h. Remember that kid with all the pimples and braces who made that volcano explode in the high school science fair? (Seriously, Hollywood, quit it with the volcano science experiments). Well, look at him now! I guess that this stereotype kind of offers some redemption, saying that the nerds will rule the earth and the popular kids will have 12 kids, but seriously what kid wants to wait until they're 30 to have any friends? And most of the time, the character has to completely change himself even as a rich adult. Remember Sandy Frink from Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion? He can barely continue his khaki-clad erection in high school and doesn't catch Michelle's eye with his pocket calculator, but at the reunion, after he becomes a famous, good-looking inventor, she's all over him.
Evil Mad Scientist who wants to destroy the world. This is the big one: combine science and evil and it's a deadly combination! Okay, I guess this was sort of justified because there were a lot of big brained, evil superpowers in the world when Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb came out in 1964. But the evil scientists that followed it? Going too far.
Scientists who we forgive/forget their intelligence because they are soooooooo attractive! Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, Val Kilmer in Real Genius--it doesn't matter that they are smart because their attractiveness seriously outweighs their intelligence. We can forgive them their genius, which is typically portrayed as effortless, perhaps burdensome, because who works at science if they have gorgeously flowing locks? Science, again, is a back-up when good looks or attractive skills fail.
Loveable, Bumbling Mad Scientists who are super-brilliant in science, but have zero social skills to speak of. This one is the most common in recent years. There's Dr. Doolittle, Phillip Brainard in Flubber, Wayne Szalinski in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. I could go on and on. These loveable, brilliant dim-wits can't control their creations and usually can't remember to take out the trash, but they still get foxy women to marry them. If you're a scientist, you don't need to have social skills. Probably because you're rich.
Scientists who accidently ruin the world. Americans are constantly told that it's really not a good idea to be too smart. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush hid their Ivy League educations because these credentials may spook their voters. But what better way to illustrate how often brains can get in the way than to show a brainiac accidentally destroying the world? I sure don't know of one. Remember Matthew Broderick in WarGames? He hacks into his college's computer system and accidentally starts World War III. Better stick to blissful ignorance, American kids.