Television shows
have the power to expose the viewer to interesting subject matter that would
otherwise go unnoticed if not for the spotlight placed on it by the media. These fictional portrayals can often be a
combination of accurate information and extravagant Hollywood magic. A close analysis of the show Bones, which deals with forensic anthropology,
reveals that an accurate portrayal is not often popular and requires great
amounts of artistic liberties. This can often misinform the public and lead
them to believe in unreasonable expectations.
In the first episode
of the series, we are introduced to Dr. Temperance Brennan, a brilliant
forensic anthropologist who can establish various features of a skeleton, such
as age, sex, and cause of death, just by looking at it (Pilot). This premise seems highly unlikely as the
show oversimplifies the complexity of re-articulating a skeleton and measuring
various bones that could provide all of this information. In a scene not long after that, Dr. Brennan
is seen reconstructing a shattered skull in what appears to be a matter of
hours with only the aid of a bottle of glue (Pilot). Again, it seems impossible for one person to
undertake such an arduous task and successfully complete it overnight without
the help of any other specialized tools or resources. When equipment is employed, it is the latest
in technology which the author of the series and real-life forensic anthropologist
Kathy Reich admits most real crime labs “can't afford to buy a
three-dimensional holographic reconstruction machine” (TV Forensics). These three examples are the most obvious inconsistencies
with the work of real world forensic anthropologists.
In spite of
these discrepancies, the show does depict some facets of a forensic
anthropologists work. Dr. Brennan works
for the Jeffersonian institute, a fictional research facility based on the
Smithsonian Institution. This type of
work is typical of a forensic anthropologist; however, “relatively few people
practice forensic anthropology on a full–time basis” (ABFA). She is seen collecting remains, analyzing
badly decomposed skeletons, and assisting in criminal investigations. She also works alongside other professionals,
such as an entomologist, forensic artist, and former archaeologist to piece
together a forensic case.
It is important
to interpret television shows like Bones as
what they primarily are; entertainment.
Though they can sometimes provide the general public with insight into
otherwise esoteric fields, they can also mislead through fantastic and
implausible storylines. Reliable
information should always be sought in books and scientific publications that
refrain from exaggerating the facts.
Works
Cited
"ABFA - American Board of Forensic
Anthropology." ABFA - American Board of Forensic
Anthropology.
N.p., 2008. Web. 06 May 2014.
“Pilot.” Bones. Writ. Greg
Yaitanes. Dir. Hart Hanson. 20th Century
Fox. 2006. DVD.
"TV Forensics: 'Bones' Makes It
Look So Easy." Talk of the Nation.
NPR. 25 Aug. 2010. Web.
6
May 2014. Transcript.
26 comments:
I am a fan of the show and although I see it for what it is, entertainment, parts of the anthropology work that is depicted is fascinating to me. I realize that the time and manpower in the show are grossly under-exaggerated, but the fact that anthropologists can figure out what happened to a person, and who that person was, based on their bones is especially appealing to me. April Bruan
I believe most professional anthropologists have a love hate relationship with the show. We love that it's sparking interest in the discipline and attracting students to courses, but we hate the negative effects it has on our professional work. For example, I worked on a forensics case years ago and the police had some unreasonable expectations of what I could do based on what they provided me, which wasn't much. I could not give them the information they required and wanted. Neither could anyone else because I consulted multiple individuals for assistance just to be sure that there wasn't more I could do. My PhD supervisor went over everything, as well, and was the liaison between the police and myself. There have been other situations like this one that have happened in regards to other criminal proceedings, as well. A friend of mine used to be a prosecutor and he told me that he once lost a case because the jury demanded evidence that didn't exist and wasn't necessary because the defendant confessed to the crime and there was substantial supporting evidence to support his confession. I was told (by a reputable source) that there was a case in one of the Western Canadian provinces of a rapist being released because the jury demanded there be soil evidence but the crime occurred in a home, meaning no soil evidence could be collected (not to mention that it was unnecessary for the overall scope of the case). All of this said, there has been one study published that demonstrates that the so called CSI Effect (the negative effects on criminal investigations based on the misinformation of shows such as CSI and Bones) is minimal, but minimal effect is still too much for my preferences. Knowledge is power, and in this case, it helps in investigations and justice.
I agree with you Dr. Boston as far as the hollywood effects of Crime Scene investigation and Bones. I can see how the magic of hollywood would cause people to think it would be done within 24 hours. I saw one episode of CSI and they were reconstructing a a persons facial features which was another part of anthropology and it was really exciting to watch and see how this was performed. I also like how anthropology is used to age a young person who was abducted/missing and what they could look like today. At least in that episode it showed taking weeks to reconstruct the actual skin around the bones. I took criminal evidence in California and it is amazing to me how you can tell if someone is white, african american, asian. I learned that a black person may have a broader nose than a white or asian person. You can also tell if the bones are male or female. The crime scene photo my teacher brought in was truly frightening. My teacher was a Sheriff Deputy for Los Angeles County.
It is true that in forensic anthropology that we can use specific facial features to identify biological affinity (or race as it is popularly known), but these are ideal biological characteristics that not all members of the group have. In fact, we only have three classifications for biological affinities, so it is often times difficult to get more specific, especially if it's a person of Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern, or Hispanic descent. We will get into more specifics on this matter in the race and ethnicity chapter, and the video in the module (and the various blog post already written on the topic) further analyze the biological misconceptions of race.
Hollywood likes to do a lot of the spif things up so that it is more interesting to people. It seems to me that forensic anthropology would be very down to earth, nitty gritty, get into the dirt and get it all under your fingernails. I have seen some episodes of the series and I look at it as this is what it could be if you wanted forensic anthropology to be clean and neat and solved in an hour. All things that need to be investigated take time, and special care with certain parts of the investigation. You would not want to rush finding out what a fossil was and come up with the wrong answer or description. It is very interesting that a forensic anthropologist can find the information that they find, such as the nationality of skeletal remains, the sex, whether or not (if female) if the living being was pregnant, and so on. It is amazing to discover these things just from bones and artifacts from the past(s) of our world.
Until recently I hadn't considered how television crime shows could have such a negative impact on our real life system of justice. However, I do remember watching the series "Dexter" and wondering if the show might be giving potential killers some great tips on how to get away with murder. Additionally, since the show is written from the perspective of the killer, I caught myself sort of 'rooting' for him (which can't be very healthy) because he feeds his twisted addiction by murdering only confirmed killers. But, I never stopped to think that a show could actually have that strong of an affect on professionals in law enforcement. At least not until last term when I read "The CSI Effect" for a final on analytical reading, and now Dr. Boston's comment, "...I worked on a forensics case years ago and the police had some unreasonable expectations of what I could do based on what they provided me, which wasn't much."
Bernard Knight wrote something similar when he stated that, "because of television crime dramas, jurors today expect more categorical proof than forensic science is capable of delivering." Now it seems that these shows are having an affect on potential criminals, law enforcement, and jury members, which pretty much covers all perspectives from every angle of the legal system. I think one of the biggest problems is that, like Ms. Salas notes, the shows actually do depict some facts, so viewers are learning bits and pieces about forensic science but they are not aware of how to properly apply such knowledge. I even read, that the jury selection process is now much longer because the prospective jurors have to be screened to make sure they aren't prone to "judging scientific evidence by television standards" (Dr. Robbers, 2008 study, "The CSI Effect"). I have to agree with Ms. Salas, we need to remember that these television shows are created for "entertainment" purposes. I also have to agree with Dr. Boston, that the "minimal effect is still too much." Furthermore, I'm not so sure that the CSI Effect is as minimal as some studies might suggest.
http://www.economist.com/node/15949089
~Michael Weir
I feel like most criminal dramas are of the same nature. CSI and Law and Order types always have fingerprints used in their fictional cases and investigations. In real life investigations fingerprints are often very hard to come by and make a match to. My brother-in-law in a criminal defense attorney currently and was a deputy DA prior. He said out of the hundreds of cases he tried That a small percentage ever had actual fingerprints tied to the convictions in his cases. I guess it's all about the drama not the reality.
I admit that I read the first few novels by Kathy Reichs, based on her character Temperance Brennan. I also watch the show regularly and credit the stories for my interest in taking a college anthropology course. Seeing how science, although perhaps fictional, being used to solve crimes is interesting and entertaining. Also, seeing a strong and independent female character, at the top of her field in science, is inspiring and a positive role model for young girls. Thank you for sharing.
I agree with Esmeralda and Dr. Boston. Although it is a show that does entertain it does shine light to a field in Anthropology that people might not know even exist. And although it might misinterpret the reality of it, as a viewer we should be able to figure out that these shows even if they wanted to can't show the complete process. Fields like these need more support and light to shine on them to spark more interest.
I always thought Bones was taking a lot of artistic liberties with forensics, I think I saw an episode where a whole skull was reconstructed with just a little bit of bone and teeth, and I just thought it was ridiculous. I sometimes forget that most shows have people in the field to tell them how things are done but there is a lot of things that are just "who cares it's a tv show." But I do know a friend who became interested in the field after watching the show, so I do think there is some positives but like anything else, there's a part of the job that people don't think happens, that it's all just having fun. But like all cop dramas, it's fun and exciting and I think that's all the general public care about in the end.
The sort of situation that Bones demonstrates seems to be common when there is a popularization of a career. They glamorize Bones's character and exaggerate her skills (or perhaps not her skills, but definitely introduce some "movie magic"). Just like with Mr Miaggi in The Karate Kid and the woman in Medium. "Wax on, wax off" turns into martial arts prowess; and possibly clairvoyant dreams turn into perfectly-timed and relevant messages from the dead. The best lies (or ideas, in this case) are based in reality. The reality is that forensic anthropology is, I'm sure, very intriguing and can be exciting and fulfilling. Expounding on this base with glamorous tools, cleverly written supporting characters (I'm a little unclear on just why she works with her sidekick Seely Booth, FBI agent!), and time constraints, it makes for a well-written show. This makes it popular, and fun, but not necessarily realistic.
As mentioned earlier, the more serious issue is that this sort of glamorization of solving crime introduces the real problem of essentially tainted jurors who are no longer realistic or logical and expect the movie magic in real life. To me, that is truly disconcerting.
Jessica Elms
Summer 2014 Second Term
I totally agree with what Amanda is saying as well as the response from Dr. Boston. Hollywood gives the public a reality that is not real. Sure you can reconstruct a skull and use laser scans to assist you in doing so, but to do it in one day is far from reality unless its like 4 pieces. so if a case is presented and its criminal, it must be looked at with logic. just like the soil sample, how are you going to get dirt from a house unless you use a vacuum cleaner and possibly destroy what is there. My views on this are that Hollywood is just entertainment with a bit of reality to mix in to make us watch.
David R spring 2015
This is the sort of issues that come with anything on "T.V." People often get confused with reality and fiction. This is where common sense should (but not always) take over to tell the difference. I personally love these kinds of shows and can keep me entertained for a while. I find then fascinating but defiantly fictitious. I can understand where the writers are coming from, if they stick to a believable story line who would watch the shows?
-Maria Whack - TTH 11:30 am
True, but these shows are misinforming the public and unfortunately negatively affecting the outcomes of juries and criminal justice system. I heard of a case in Alberta where someone got off on a crime committed in a house because there was no soil analysis done, and another one of my friends (who was a prosecuting attorney at the time) lost a case because despite having video evidence and a confession the jury demanded more forensic evidence. Evidence that is costly and unnecessary for that particular case. Shows are great ways to escape reality and be entertained, but understanding the realities from fictions is also good as education is power.
While I do love to watch the show "Bones," I do see it for what it is: entertainment. Hollywood leaves out the less glamorous aspects of forensic anthropology because it is not interesting. What the show does is generate interest in a fulfilling and meaningful profession that many people did not know was a possibility.
Courteney Hedicke, Anth 101
A meaningful profession, yes, but not one that has many job openings. There are only a handful of full time positions available in North America.
I like how there are shows like Bones because i like those shows, but in reality it is not the same. I know that some times they base it off real life but its not as imparting as when you are there in person. I know that they can be over dramatic and the shows tend to be more for entertainment.
briana banuelos anthro 102 10001
The media and Hollywood often over and under exaggerate ideas and shows. This is for the price of entertainment. My dad likes this show and It does a good job of pointing out the importance of anthropologists do in the behind-the-scenes work. is this show on Netflix or still airing? I am interested in watching it.
Zachary Forrester
anthro 101 3001 summer
Most people understand that television is entertainment. The "tools" used in Bones really do exist. No one over the age of 70 could really believe you could cook food in a fraction of the time by using a microwave and being able to go over 35 mph on a road in a contraption called a car a hundred years ago was impossible.
You might actually be surprised as how few people actually recognize that CSI & Bones are exaggerations of truths. For example, I was asked to identify some remains and provide as much information as possible by a police department, which was not much given the types of remains provided. None of them were diagnostic of information that they were seeking, and my supervisor confirmed this. We provided a report, and the police department was very disappointed and stated that we were being lazy. We then had to write a second report outlining what we could and could not do and why and why not with the remains. This is, unfortunately, not the first time that this type of situation has come about post-Bones & post-CSI, but with proper education people are beginning to recognize the falsehoods and exaggerations in these fictional television shows.
Personally, I really enjoy the show, but I do like it for its entertainment value. The best thing that "Bones" has done though, has sparked a new interest in anthropology. A few of the people I know that are actually studying anthropology claim that "Bones" put the idea in their head, and with a little studying, figured out that there was a lot more to it than the show offered.
Watching shows like Bones is excting to viewers and makes them think that some of the jobs that anthropologist do is easy. The films only show certain duties of the job in a short period of time. I think it be neat to really go out an investigate a location with items to be found to know how it really feels and the hard work it takes to discover a piece of history.
Jovie Black
I seen a couple episodes of "Bone." never was really interested though. However, as I stated before I have never heard of an anthropologist . Now that I'm noticing that I've been watching shows with anthropology in them. Interesting article.
Do you think people see these shows and think that they are more than willing to become what is shown, yet once they see what it is actually like they tend to not be as intertwined with it as much as they believed to be? Especially at younger ages, I have had countless amounts of classmates say they want to be something that they have seen from a tv show and have since strayed from that goal.
As someone who never really looked into Anthropology(until taking this class),I never knew there were so many shows on TV that contained or shined light on anthropology.Law and Order is the first that comes to my mind.
-Jasmine Busby
Me personally I didn't really pay attention to most things that go on in shows that have to do with anthropology until I read this article and became more informed about it so I find really interesting that it was more than I thought especially in CSI movies and tv shoes like criminal minds.
-jaden clark
Post a Comment