The science of the Oscars

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The little gold men are on their way. And Hollywood has science to thank for many of this year's Oscar nominees.

Leading the pack with 13 nominations (including for Best Picture and Actor in a Leading Role for star Brad Pitt), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, poses a curious question, indeed: Could humans reverse the aging process? As you can see here, ScientificAmerican.com recently explored the science behind this tempting premise.

But, seriously, is a crime-fighting superhero any more realistic? The Dark Knight garnered eight Oscar nominations, including one for Best Actor in a Supporting Role for the late Heath Ledger for his maniacal turn as the Joker (before dying at age 28 a year ago today of an accidental drug overdose). In this sixth installment of the big-screen Batman hits, the big guy (a.k.a. Batman played by actor Christian Bale) single-handedly takes on a parade of opponents. Here's an explanation of why his diligent work is no laughing matter.

On the other hand, a real robotic suit, Iron Man-style, already exists – although it doesn't promise to take to the skies with the press of a button or two. This tech-heavy film, starring Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow snagged two nominations from the Academy for Visual Effects and Sound Editing. 

Robot-loving doomsayers out there will no doubt be pleased to hear that the animated film, Wall-E (about a lonely robot picking up the mess that humans left behind on Earth) was also honored with six nominations, including those for Best Animated Feature Film and Original Screenplay). The tale of the little robot that cleaned has raked in more $500 million worldwide since opening in June 2008. 

Finally, for those obsessed with great frontiers, Encounters at the End of the World was nominated for Best Documentary Feature. In it, director Werner Herzog spotlights scientists and explorers who have ventured into the foreboding climes of Antarctica. Read recent blog dispatches from the cold continent by scientist Robin Bell.

For those who prefer the more technically true science, wait for clips aired during the main ceremony from the Academy's Sci-Tech Awards (handed out February 7th), which have been honoring those (way) behind the scenes since 1931. (Spoiler alert: achievement award winners include Ed Catmull – co-founder of Pixar – and Mark Kimball – a computer scientist who ran Disney's digital production side.) Or wait until this year's Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Prize for "realistic and compelling" science in movies (awarded to Flash of Genius in 2008). But don't hold your breath for the class of screenwriting scientists, backed by the Army Research Office, to come through with a winner, just yet.

Now if only science could explain what possessed Philippe Petit to tightrope walk between the twin towers in 1974 (Man on Wire, up for Best Documentary), we'd be eternally grateful.

Image courtesy of nancycallahan via Flickr

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe