I think we have to examine DiCaprio’s scientific credentials here:
Clearly, his role in Gilbert Grape demonstrated a credulous streak, so it would perhaps be wise to expect and check sources for the information he presents. Similarly, his headstrong streak is clearly apparent from his portrayal of ‘the kid’ in The Quick and the Dead so perhaps it’d be worth checking over his conclusions twice too.
While Romeo and Juliet does tend to accent Leo’s more thoughtful side, it also showed him following an extreme course of action at the end in response to a dire situation. I would think that this casts any proposed solutions of his into serious doubt, better to be cautious than take poison, I say. As Chary pointed out, Titanic is hardly the best advertisement for him, but his willingness to show a bit of personal sacrifice as the character of Jack should at least deflect some of the inevitable claims of hypocrisy that will follow.
I think the less said of The Man in the Iron Mask and The Gangs of New York the better, but we should acknowledge that the former indicates a definite two-facedness, while the latter shows a distinct ambiguity of purpose when DiCaprio’s character becomes conflicted over as simple a motive as revenge. Where I disagree with Chary is in the importance of Catch Me If You Can, this depicts Leo’s deceptive side, and also raises the ugly spectre of fraud, neither of which are greatly appreciated in the scientific forum.
So in conclusion, I think we can sa… Excuse me a moment…
(What… Uh huh… Uh huh… Uh huh… Right, got it!)
Okay, apparently being a big-name Hollywood film star counts for fuck-all towards a person’s scientific credentials, please ignore the previous paragraphs.
