Buchi neri: ai limiti della conoscenza

On the very year the documentary was released, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Roger Penrose "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".

Yet the name of Penrose is not to be heard once in that movie. And the director (Peter Galison) is not the type to be ill-informed.

On the other side, it also struck me that the Nobel committee waited until the death of Hawking to award a prize for black holes.

Anyone has an insider's view on that?

This show gave me an idea, for the first time, of what the process is like for scientists to bring forth new discoveries. It's not for the faint of heart, but definitely brings you into the world of some of the most intelligent people in the world. For that, I give it and 8 out of 10 stars. Anyone, that has curiosity in space and time should find something out of this production I'd think?

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.

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.

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.