The Edge of All We Know

If you're as fascinated by the universe as I am, you'll like it, just because.. Well, it's about seeing a black hole for the first time. But it's a poorly produced film that's actually almost impressively boring in its form. The story here is mind blowing - too bad the movie producers couldn't encapsulate that in a better way.

Greetings again from the darkness. When most of us need an item, we first check the Amazon website for price and availability. For Physicists and Astronomers, it's not always so easy. We are informed that photographing a Black Hole would require a telescope the size of planet Earth. Even with my limited science knowledge, I was able to understand the impossibility of fulfilling such a request. Of course, there is a reason they are Physicists and yours truly reviews movies. These folks are pretty darn smart and they find a way to solve problems. Harvard University Physics Professor and documentarian Peter Galison manages to make accessible the work of some of the world's brightest minds.

Thinking back to 2019, you likely recall seeing the Black Hole photograph. It was everywhere ... online sites, social media, TV newscasts, and magazine covers. We knew it was a breakthrough, but most of us had no idea what went on behind the scenes to capture that image. Galison's documentary fills us in. Going back to 2017, and starting in Mexico, the film explains the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT). With the goal of photographing a Black Hole, a network of observatories from around the globe will be coordinated to simultaneously capture data, and then that data will be compiled to determine if the image(s) is an accurate representation.

There are a couple of things we follow ... related by topic but differing in objectives. A group including Stephen Hawking, Harvard Theoretical Physicist Andrew Strominger, British scientist Malcolm Perry, and Cambridge scholar Sasha Haco are observed hard at work on solving the mysteries of Black Holes. Specifically what they are pursuing is the Information Paradox, which states the universe cannot be defined by physical laws. This pursuit of this group of geniuses is shown in symmetry with the work of the EHT teams, where mostly we follow Shep Doeleman and the challenges his team faces in holding up their end of photographing Messier 87, a supergiant elliptical galaxy.

The EHT teams are located around the globe, including Chile, Spain, the South Pole, Hawaii, and Arizona. Obviously the technical aspects of these projects are beyond my capacity, however, it should be noted that the film is easy enough to follow for us non-geniuses while also including some geeky detail for the advanced among us. What really stands out and makes the film fun to watch is the passion shown by these scientists. At the conference where the teams are gathered, these folks are giddy as they anticipate the results of their work and the compilation of data. Their excitement makes it clear what an enormous accomplishment the image is for all involved.

Sadly, Stephen Hawking passed away in 2018, so the clips we see are some of the last images of his final work. If you are curious as to how his work with Strominger, Perry, and Haco ended up, you may track down their final paper, "Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair" ... but I'm sure most of you have already read it. To add a touch of entertainment value, director Galison includes beautiful music from YoYo Ma as well as "Over the Rainbow" by Israel Kamakawiwo'ole. Overall, this is the perfect blend for novices and scientists who are interested in the fascinating topic of Black Holes and how the experts go about chipping away at the mystique and limits of knowledge. Available VOD on March 2, 2021

It's uber frustrating because this kind of documentary, which I love to seek out, is rarely made well. The show suffers from what I call a "wedding slideshow" - it's meaningful only to those working in the inner circle.. those who get the inside jokes. But I believe one of the main reasons this show is made is to elucidate certain things to the public? Otherwise, there won't be interviews and feeble attempts at explaining?

It's horrible because 25% of the content is mindlessly repeated assertions of how terrifying/magnificent an object/phenomenon is, 25% is interviews in which the experts rehash the same terminologies with some self-gratifying anecdotes thrown in, 25% is showing - often without a context - the experts "in action" (for goodness sake, many of these are theoretical physicists, theoretically all they need is pencil and paper, some others are programmers/ engineers who build intricate things, so there's no point trying to portray them like astronauts walking on the moon, really), 20% is inane and literal graphics that not only fail to demonstrate anything, but also reinforce any misconception that people might have, and 5% or less is the much needed context to whatever people are talking about.

But it could've been so much better. For example, why should information always be conserved? What's the information paradox? Why is it a paradox? Why many papers have been written about it, and what's problematic with some of these? It doesn't need to explain anything in-depth, it's impossible to do so in a show anyway, it could be just a glimpse into the important questions/answers. See, when multiple telescopes can work as one is explained using the mirror shards analogy, it's super succinct and clear even to laymen. That's what we need more. Is the explanation in any way comprehensive? No, of course not, but it will suffice for the viewers to move on to the next terminology or discussion, and if they're interested in it, they can go on to devote their lives to getting a much more complete picture of it. I had some understanding of some of the concepts prior to watching this, but still it's not meant for either beginners or advanced learners or... anybody. I mean, you have some of the greatest scientists in the world at your disposal, and you spend time showing the first page of some papers? Does the director even care about the subject?

Some efforts are desperately needed to give a proper context to all the terms/remarks/concepts/stories/challenges thrown into the kitchen sink that is the show. Otherwise, it's just a wedding slideshow for the experts to pull up from time to time to enjoy over a glass of wine - which I doubt they'll do, and I think isn't the intention of the documentary.

Not sure what people were expecting to see. The basic concepts of how the image of the black hole was captured and the scientific process to produce the image (separate teams without any contact with each other, etc) are fairly easy to grasph without a strong scientific background. The secondary 'story', about the people working with Dr Hawking on the information paradox was indeed a bit harder to follow - the concept is understandable but their talk was far too advanced and based on mathematics for the viewer to easily follow. But I doubt this is something that can be accurately simplified for the average person. I have a (little-used, if at all) physics degree, and I couldn't understand almost anything apart from the broad concept. I saw this as a documentation of a grand effort for posterity - not something aimed at explaining this effort to everyone else.

And in the end, you don't need to understand everything. If you watch this and you are not even a little moved and carried away by the scientists' genuine enthusiasm and passion for the mysteries of the universe, then the problem is yours.

This has shades of the BBC's "Horizon" programs - science, but hidden behind stupid graphics and dumbed down visuals that have almost nothing to do with the topic. At least this program didn't do the Horizon trick of using stupid camera angles and getting the interviewees to look through objects, mirrors or lenses or do stupid things.

Look, science is not boring and the audience is not dumb.

I'll give one example of the Horizon mentality that infected this program. When showing Sagittarius A* and the stars orbiting it, rather than showing a nice, accurate diagram like you can find on Wikipedia, we instead get some artist's crazy rendition that bares little resemblance to the real situation. Please! No more of this kind of garbage.

I also found there were long periods of padding that were totally unnecessary. Do we need to see artist's drawings of stick figures marching along the screen? Do we need lengthy sections of dialogue between scientists that is taken totally out of context and is pretty meaningless to any non-scientist?

Then there is the lack of a narrator. If you are going to dispense with one then at least get your interviewees to explain. On the one hand the producers wanted to dumb down things with stupid graphics and yet, on the other, they leave it to the audience to work things out for themselves. For example, the teams of people producing independent results from the same data. It almost presents the story as if the scientists are just making up stuff and the resulting image of the black hole was their collective fantasy effort.

Overall it was interesting, but the story could have been told in half the time and made much more interesting.

Six stars for the science content - you'd have got more if you'd corrected the above problems I've pointed out.