Film Info60 minutes
BBC, The Open University Available for Free AND Ticketed events Synopsis: Prof Jim Al Khalili takes us back in time to tackle the greatest question in science: How did the Universe begin? By recreating a series of critical observations and experiments that revolutionised our understanding of our world, Jim unravels the cosmic mystery of science’s creation story and takes us to a moment, one millionth of a second, after the universe sprang into existence. It is a tale of mavericks and bold leaps of imagination, of human fallibility and determination in the face of adversity. Uncovering the origins of the universe is regarded as humankind’s greatest intellectual achievement. |
|
Filmmaker Q&A
What inspired this story?
On the face of it the question 'where do we come from?’ sounds very straightforward. It feels fundamental and one that humans have been asking for thousands of years. And yet for hundreds of years it was a question that science simply wasn’t equipped to answer. Until science developed the tools to investigate it was, essentially, a meaningless question. That changed at the beginning of the 20th century – new telescopes, new observations and new ideas allowed science to finally address the biggest question of all – the origins of the universe.
Challenges?
Telling of a story with a such a ‘grand narrative’ is inevitably challenging – the film should feel epic in its scope but also have a sense of intimacy. Trying to balance these ambitions on a very limited budget is possibly the greatest single challenge for the programme – particularly a science story with a historical narrative… the question is always what can we point the camera at. Having our presenter replicate the critical observations and experiments that revolutionised our understanding of the universe was the device that gave the programme a clear through-line.
Storytelling:
There are always dangers that the subject may feel familiar to the audience – so the approach of the story telling itself is paramount; trying to find an angle, a fresh perspective becomes very important. The science may be the reason why the audience has come to the programme but the narrative is what will lead them through the programme itself. When investigating the science, it quickly became apparent there was a very human story at its heart – a story of maverick thinkers, of human fallibility, of determination in the face of adversity and equally belligerence in the face of evidence, of ego and prejudice and indeed serendipity. By focusing on these, sometimes unsung, people and their stories the science of a subject that could be remote, abstract and vast was lent a human scale.
Impact:
If there could be an impact - it would be nice to remember that science is carried out by humans with all their attendant foibles, and for every celebrated discovery and celebrated discoverer there are many more unsung heroes and heroines: For every Edwin Hubble there are many more George Lemaitres and Cecilia Paynes.
On the face of it the question 'where do we come from?’ sounds very straightforward. It feels fundamental and one that humans have been asking for thousands of years. And yet for hundreds of years it was a question that science simply wasn’t equipped to answer. Until science developed the tools to investigate it was, essentially, a meaningless question. That changed at the beginning of the 20th century – new telescopes, new observations and new ideas allowed science to finally address the biggest question of all – the origins of the universe.
Challenges?
Telling of a story with a such a ‘grand narrative’ is inevitably challenging – the film should feel epic in its scope but also have a sense of intimacy. Trying to balance these ambitions on a very limited budget is possibly the greatest single challenge for the programme – particularly a science story with a historical narrative… the question is always what can we point the camera at. Having our presenter replicate the critical observations and experiments that revolutionised our understanding of the universe was the device that gave the programme a clear through-line.
Storytelling:
There are always dangers that the subject may feel familiar to the audience – so the approach of the story telling itself is paramount; trying to find an angle, a fresh perspective becomes very important. The science may be the reason why the audience has come to the programme but the narrative is what will lead them through the programme itself. When investigating the science, it quickly became apparent there was a very human story at its heart – a story of maverick thinkers, of human fallibility, of determination in the face of adversity and equally belligerence in the face of evidence, of ego and prejudice and indeed serendipity. By focusing on these, sometimes unsung, people and their stories the science of a subject that could be remote, abstract and vast was lent a human scale.
Impact:
If there could be an impact - it would be nice to remember that science is carried out by humans with all their attendant foibles, and for every celebrated discovery and celebrated discoverer there are many more unsung heroes and heroines: For every Edwin Hubble there are many more George Lemaitres and Cecilia Paynes.
