Title: Flock of Dodos
Genre: Documentary
Director: Randy Olson
Release: (2006)
Well, look who figured out how to use the internet. What are you using there, America Online? Hey, that’s alright, lots of people need to keep the training wheels on while they’re learning. Well I guess, since you’re already here and everything, I can try to explain this movie to you. I’m not sure exactly where you went to school, but I’m used to talking to colleagues who are on the same level as me, so just let me know if I’m moving too expeditiously for you and I’ll try to slow it down.
So I guess we should start with the basics. Flock of Dodos is a film by director Randy Olson which seeks to provide a comparative analysis of the opposing viewpoints in the debate between evolutionists and the growing number of “intelligent design” proponents. Though more than just an effort to gauge the feasibility or veracity of the arguments on both sides, Olson’s larger intent is to elucidate the true nature of the stalemate, as it pertains to breakdowns in interpersonal communications resulting from differences in cultural, regional, religious and sociopolitical perspectives, as well as the intervening efforts of organized special interest lobbies. The result is a purportedly unbiased third-party perspective on an issue that continues to bifurcate the American populace with its increasingly contentious rhetoric, the ramifications of which can be felt reverberating most violently in the halls of academia.
Now - , are you getting all this? Are you sure? Here, I’m sorry, I keep forgetting I’m not amongst peers at the moment. Let me try to recapitulate my explanation in more relatable concepts for you. You see, the director – who’s name was Ran-dee Ol-son – wanted to find out why these two groups of people were fighting. So first he tried going to each group and asking them why they were so mad at the other group. The first group told him, “We’re mad because we think bunny rabbits have fur because it keeps them warm in the winter, but those poopyheads say that bunny rabbits have fur because God thought it would look pretty.” And when he went to the second group, the second group told him, “We’re mad because we think God gave bunny rabbits their pretty fur, but those stinkybrains say that bunny rabbits just decided to grow fur by themselves.” And no matter how poor Mr. Olson tried, he just could not get either group to see that they can both believe different things without having to fight so much. Until one day, Mr. Olson finally decided that none of the people really cared so much about how the bunny rabbits got their fur, they both just wanted to be right all the time. And with that, Mr. Olson decided to leave, knowing that the people of these groups would always need to fight and wondering who it ever was that decided people should have tongues.
There, is that a little better? Are we all caught up? I’m going to get just a little bit more in depth here, so now’s the time to let me know if you still don’t understand anything. Alright well, like I said, just feel free to let me know if I start forgetting who I’m talking to again. So, back to one of my previous points. If you recall I noted that the result of Mr. Olson’s effort is what amounts to a purportedly unbiased third-party perspective on this polarizing debate. Despite what Mr. Olson would have you believe (or perhaps even what he has deluded himself into believing) the director in this case appears to be incapable of restraining his condescension for the defenders of intelligent design. Rather than engaging them as equals and debating them with the armaments of logic and physical evidence, Olson too often resorts to sarcasm, condescension and cheap logical traps masquerading in the guise of sincere inquiry. Olson seems to take true pleasure in wielding the classic Exclusive Alternatives Trap against his unsuspecting victims, brandishing this blunt instrument as if it were some kind of surgeon’s scalpel of reason, feeling safe in his presumptions that none of them will know how to defend themselves against this weapon that might otherwise look no more intimidating than a Nerf bat in the eyes of any first year undergraduate with a one-credit Intro to Logic seminar under their belt. And on the rare occasion he does find an adversary up to the challenge, as with Lehigh University professor of biochemistry and proponent of intelligent design Michael Behe, Olson retreats to cheap editing tactics, such as cutting away from his explanations at carefully selected moments to make his arguments appear to seem glaringly incomplete. A tactic that might have been more effective had Olson been more skilled at the fine art of editing.
It should be noted that Olson does, at least, disclose his stance as a staunch evolutionist at the very beginning, however he then goes on to explicitly state that his intentions are to hear both sides while remaining above the fray. A task he goes on to fail at with Aristotelian tragedy. The ultimate irony of the film is that Olson openly discusses, as do several of the people interviewed on both sides of the debate, that the only reason intelligent design factions are winning votes in any school districts is because the evolutionists are just so arrogant. When it comes time to present their cases in front of school boards or town halls across America, intelligent design representatives treat the audiences with respect, engage their questions, refrain from attacking evolution as a valid subject worthy also to be available in schools, and just generally know how to win those votes. Evolutionists, on the other hand, when they do actually show up do so begrudgingly, openly contemptuous of the fact proceedings are even being held, talk over everyone’s head and display open exasperation at anyone who doesn’t understand them the first time. And yet, despite covering this dynamic so explicitly, Olson presents his own arguments in the exact same way.
Every evolutionist continues to come across just dripping with sarcasm and condescension when discussing position of intelligent design crowd. And Olson is among the guiltiest of all, treating all those on the side of evolution as a venerable authority (including his mother, Muffy "Moose" Olson, a former model turned newspaper clipping busybody – which is a whole other running subplot of unacknowledged ridiculousness) and everyone sympathetic to those wishing to learn more about intelligent design as (and I quote) “a bunch of toothless hillbillies with pitchforks.” Nowhere is Olson’s arrogance in this regard more evident than in an interview with Dr. William Harris (whose official job titles include Director of Lipid and Metabolic Research with the Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, MO, and endowed chair of metabolism in vascular biology at the University of Missouri at Kansas City), which Olson introduces with the narration, “I’d hoped to debate evolution with him, but what I found is he just didn’t have the background for it.”
I’m sorry, am I moving too fast again? But do you see the irony in Olson’s approach? He’s recognizing the fatal flaw of the evolutionists approach to the public, yet committing it at the same time. His condescension towards the intelligent design movement spills over and begins to drip onto the very audience he is trying to win over. By inserting cutesy little animations to clarify certain ideas and make them more understandable to the great unwashed masses, as well as stopping the film almost every time someone uses a multisyllabic word to insert a scrolling text of that word’s definition to make sure they can all keep up with the great scholars before them, Olson compounds the problem by beginning to alienate the very people he’s trying to convince. I mean, you may not have detected it from the content of the diatribe contained herein, but I am an evolutionist! And even I left this film hoping no one thinks that Randy Olson speaks for me! I mean, can you imagine the arrogance it must take to try to convince someone of your own opinion by doing nothing but talk down to and insult them for not already thinking like you?
No, seriously, I’m asking. Do you have the cognitive capacity to conceptualize that? I’m just trying to be sure.
Grading
Story: N/A
Acting: N/A
Visuals: C
Originality/Innovation: C
Enjoyability: C-
Overall: C
|
