Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
[00:00:00] A mindless, wittering production.
[00:00:05] Quiet on set.
[00:00:09] Running up and action.
[00:00:12] All I knew was I wanted to try and understand the way the world works, the natural world.
[00:00:19] We explore because we are human.
[00:00:24] Science is the storytelling of our time.
[00:00:27] So me, storytelling has always been the way to leave the heart.
[00:00:34] Cut!
[00:00:36] Hello and welcome to Who Moved the Tortoise, a podcast about science and wildlife filmmaking.
[00:00:41] I'm Alex Hemingway.
[00:00:42] And I'm Kate Dooley.
[00:00:43] And as usual we're joined by someone from the world of science or wildlife filmmaking
[00:00:47] to talk about the film or TV show or other stuff that inspired them.
[00:00:52] This time we're going to be talking to director and series producer Tim Usborne.
[00:00:56] Tim has worked across the genres and across the globe.
[00:00:59] Starting out in music videos, becoming an editor for a time,
[00:01:03] before producing huge live concerts by the likes of Boyzone, The Spice Girls, Oasis and Steps.
[00:01:10] And Cliff Richard.
[00:01:12] It wasn't until the mid-2000s that he finally swerved towards his passion for science
[00:01:16] when he was asked to make a film about the science of sci-fi series Stargate SG-1.
[00:01:20] Since then it's been pretty much science all the way,
[00:01:23] working on everything from stunt science shows for National Geographic
[00:01:27] to natural history series with Sir David Attenborough.
[00:01:30] He has a long time association with Jim Alcaleli and their films together
[00:01:34] have either won or been nominated for stacks of awards.
[00:01:37] Absolute stacks!
[00:01:38] Tim's choice for the film or series that inspired him
[00:01:41] is the 1974 Horizon episode The Hunting of the Quark.
[00:01:46] BBC 2. Now Horizon.
[00:01:53] The Hunting of the Quark
[00:02:00] Did I say it right? Oh no.
[00:02:02] Yeah, who knows? Who knows?
[00:02:04] The Hunting of the Quark was originally a poem by...
[00:02:07] Lewis Carroll.
[00:02:08] Lewis Carroll. So we think it's Snark,
[00:02:10] because it's Hunting of the Snark is the name of the poem, right?
[00:02:12] So we think quark, but I think the jury's still out.
[00:02:15] Just say you're wrong, Kate. It's okay!
[00:02:17] You're never wrong. Every opinion works on this, I think.
[00:02:21] So before we get into this, this was not a straightforward decision
[00:02:24] necessarily about what you were going to bring in.
[00:02:27] It's true. The films that affected me...
[00:02:29] Well because the brief was
[00:02:31] what made you get into science television
[00:02:33] and this film is the film that got me into science
[00:02:36] in the beginning when I was...
[00:02:38] I mean, I'll be frank, it was made in 1974.
[00:02:40] I watched it in 1974. I was nine when I watched it.
[00:02:43] So it's what got me into science when I was nine
[00:02:46] got me excited about science.
[00:02:48] But what got me into science television
[00:02:50] was watching the series Stargate SG-1.
[00:02:53] Okay then, so why this episode of Horizon?
[00:02:57] Because it had such a profound effect on me.
[00:02:59] Because at the age of nine I remember sitting down
[00:03:01] at a friend's house one afternoon,
[00:03:03] we were bored, it was probably raining
[00:03:05] and we ended up watching it and it just took me
[00:03:07] into a magical world and that's...
[00:03:09] magical is the right word, I think.
[00:03:11] The magical sort of transcendental world
[00:03:13] of top-end physics, of particle physics
[00:03:16] it was like having the blankets
[00:03:19] that curtains opened into this incredible world
[00:03:22] which seemed impossible to imagine
[00:03:25] and it was yet at the fundamental part of our lives.
[00:03:28] Fundamental physics, the atom.
[00:03:31] What's inside the atom? What's inside the neutron?
[00:03:33] And at age nine I didn't really understand it
[00:03:36] but I understood the journey, the amazingness,
[00:03:39] the wonder of it all and I loved it
[00:03:41] and it kind of set me up for that interest
[00:03:44] and I pursued it and I went through school
[00:03:46] and I did my A-levels in physics and maths
[00:03:48] and then went to university and did physics and philosophy
[00:03:52] and specialized in quantum mechanics
[00:03:54] and particle physics because I loved it so much.
[00:03:57] At the end of that, I have to say, come 1986
[00:04:00] when I left university, I never ever ever wanted to do
[00:04:02] anything to do with science ever again.
[00:04:04] I had that kind of adolescent post-university
[00:04:07] hate of science.
[00:04:09] But we got you back. Science got you back.
[00:04:11] It was a long journey, a long and circuitous journey
[00:04:14] but I did come back to science, yes.
[00:04:16] And do you still now have that same passion for it
[00:04:20] that you had when you were nine?
[00:04:22] I think so. I mean, when I re-watched it
[00:04:24] I was thrilled by the journey
[00:04:27] and the people and the adventure of trying to find out
[00:04:30] what's at the heart of matter?
[00:04:32] What's deep inside everything we think of as normal?
[00:04:36] The table, what's actually making it work?
[00:04:38] What's the fundamental parts of reality?
[00:04:42] Quantum mechanics and particle physics is such a weird journey
[00:04:46] such a weird unexpected, unintuitive,
[00:04:49] mind-boggling, imaginative adventure into ideas
[00:04:54] that you can't help but be thrilled by it, I think.
[00:04:59] So the snark poem is really good
[00:05:01] because Lewis Carroll, obviously Alice in Wonderland
[00:05:04] you are going down into the rabbit hole, aren't you?
[00:05:06] And you know what you're going to find?
[00:05:08] That's certainly the story of the film
[00:05:10] which is that the question they posited at the beginning
[00:05:13] is what is inside, we know there are atoms
[00:05:16] but what is inside atoms?
[00:05:18] You go well, we know there are protons and neutrons
[00:05:20] and you go what's inside them and everyone's going
[00:05:22] we don't know, we don't know but we suspect
[00:05:24] there might be something. What is it?
[00:05:26] And that's the beginning, that's the start of the film
[00:05:29] because that moment where you go
[00:05:31] what's at the heart of those things
[00:05:33] is the question of the universe.
[00:05:35] And then I think what's interesting about it
[00:05:37] is it's this moment in time, it's actually about the 1960s and 70s
[00:05:41] when they're finally developing the science
[00:05:44] that is able to begin to answer those questions.
[00:05:48] Let's rewind a little bit actually
[00:05:50] before we dive into the meat of the film
[00:05:52] and talk about Horizon more generally
[00:05:54] because it's a behemoth of a series
[00:05:57] it started in May 1964
[00:06:00] and it was more than 1200 episodes
[00:06:02] and in terms of the sheer volume of them
[00:06:05] they were putting out, the 1970s
[00:06:07] from which this episode comes was the peak
[00:06:09] 300 episodes in the 70s
[00:06:11] that's like averaging 30 a year
[00:06:13] are you watching other ones at this time
[00:06:16] or was there something about this one
[00:06:18] that kind of sucked you in?
[00:06:20] I think I was watching them occasionally
[00:06:22] my dad was a fan, I remember him watching them
[00:06:24] but they were on at 9.45 on a Monday
[00:06:26] and when you're 9 very little is allowed
[00:06:28] after 9 o'clock
[00:06:30] so I didn't think I saw them very often
[00:06:32] for some reason I only really liked
[00:06:34] the ones that are about physics
[00:06:36] so I think there must have been something shaping
[00:06:38] in me that made those interesting
[00:06:40] but I was aware of it I guess
[00:06:42] but only just
[00:06:44] and I think it was a bit of a fluke
[00:06:46] when I watched this one
[00:06:48] it was an unusual whenever the repeat was
[00:06:50] Saturday afternoon when it must have been raining
[00:06:52] and me and my friend just sat and watched it.
[00:06:54] This episode is the 10th season
[00:06:56] of Horizon, it's the 24th episode
[00:06:58] and that makes it the 282nd episode of Horizon
[00:07:00] so it's already
[00:07:02] extremely well established
[00:07:04] really in its prime
[00:07:06] it was a Monday, it was Monday
[00:07:08] the 6th of May 1974
[00:07:10] that it was first broadcast
[00:07:12] and we can assume that the repeat
[00:07:14] maybe followed shortly after that
[00:07:16] Horizon is one of the longest running science series
[00:07:18] the second running longest running science series
[00:07:20] in the world
[00:07:22] and you've worked on
[00:07:24] and I've worked on both actually
[00:07:26] so its aim
[00:07:28] was to provide a platform from which some of the world's
[00:07:30] greatest scientists and philosophers
[00:07:32] can communicate their curiosity, observations
[00:07:34] and reflections
[00:07:36] and infuse into our common knowledge
[00:07:38] their changing views of the universe
[00:07:40] and this perfectly does that
[00:07:42] and it's so important isn't it
[00:07:44] that people watching at home
[00:07:46] can watch something
[00:07:48] kids, families, whoever
[00:07:50] can watch something about science
[00:07:52] and the smallest particles
[00:07:54] of the universe that seem
[00:07:56] like they shouldn't matter to any of us
[00:07:58] like why should we care about the big bang
[00:08:00] but it matters so much
[00:08:02] and I think that's what this film does so spectacularly
[00:08:04] I was hooked from the beginning of like
[00:08:06] this is big science
[00:08:08] and tiny science
[00:08:10] but it actually meant something to me
[00:08:12] Why did it mean something to you?
[00:08:14] Because I'm interested in what everything
[00:08:16] is made of, how everything works
[00:08:18] and I think that's what the start of the film
[00:08:20] is making it feel like it matters
[00:08:22] that matter matters
[00:08:24] I call it sometimes a greatest adventure
[00:08:26] of the human mind
[00:08:28] which is the discovery, the penetrate
[00:08:30] as far as possible to understand as much as possible
[00:08:32] about his universe, what he's made out of
[00:08:34] what matters made out of
[00:08:36] this is just like a great exploration
[00:08:38] I think it's about natural curiosity
[00:08:40] I don't think it's about because it's relevant
[00:08:42] to your everyday life, I think it's because
[00:08:44] it's interesting
[00:08:46] that kind of pure wonderment
[00:08:48] of the world, what is at the bottom of it
[00:08:50] what is at the root
[00:08:52] I think the joy of
[00:08:54] this kind of crazy physics
[00:08:56] is that it isn't every day
[00:08:58] it doesn't really matter
[00:09:00] to your daily life but actually
[00:09:02] it's about the fundamental questions that you ask
[00:09:04] when you're sitting looking at the sea
[00:09:06] or that you're pondering
[00:09:08] so in a way it's more of a
[00:09:10] base of curiosity
[00:09:12] a more profound curiosity
[00:09:14] even may I say sort of transcendental curiosity
[00:09:16] I think as close to religion
[00:09:18] as science gets, you're asking the big questions
[00:09:20] about the universe
[00:09:22] in a way that very little other science does
[00:09:24] and I think that's why I found physics
[00:09:26] that end of physics
[00:09:28] fascinating it's as close
[00:09:30] as science gets to religion
[00:09:32] about 15 billion years ago
[00:09:34] there were no stars in the sky
[00:09:36] there wasn't even a sky
[00:09:38] all that existed was the primordial
[00:09:40] fireball
[00:09:42] that fireball of energy
[00:09:44] condensed into the simplest
[00:09:46] building blocks of matter
[00:09:48] at the birth of our universe
[00:09:52] what a voice
[00:09:54] well, Paul Vaughan
[00:09:56] the voice of horizon
[00:09:58] for in the 1970s
[00:10:00] and I met him once
[00:10:02] we brought him in
[00:10:04] for a voiceover I did
[00:10:06] really early on in my career when I was doing corporate
[00:10:08] medical films and he came in and voiced them
[00:10:10] and he was such a nice man but that voice
[00:10:12] it's kind of
[00:10:14] I mean what to say about it
[00:10:16] he's absolutely the master of what he's talking about
[00:10:18] isn't he, you completely believe him
[00:10:20] but it's lyrical
[00:10:22] it's got a sort of romance to it
[00:10:24] it's got a wonder
[00:10:26] I don't think there's anything that's matched
[00:10:28] that in terms of voiceover
[00:10:30] his voice is obviously also
[00:10:32] because his films
[00:10:34] the horizons of the 70s were
[00:10:36] and the 80s were the ones that I loved
[00:10:38] and that formed what it meant
[00:10:40] to be a science film for me but his voice
[00:10:42] there's something amazing about his voice
[00:10:44] for me hearing it, not only was I hooked
[00:10:46] but it felt like a warm bath
[00:10:48] I totally trusted everything he said
[00:10:50] I mean what is he
[00:10:52] so that he became known as
[00:10:54] the first invisible star of television
[00:10:56] and that when God speaks
[00:10:58] he uses Paul Vaughan's voice
[00:11:00] so it's not just you
[00:11:02] so many people felt the same
[00:11:04] the voice of God, that's brilliant
[00:11:06] and as I said it was such a treat
[00:11:08] the day when he came in
[00:11:10] you shouldn't really meet your star
[00:11:12] meet your favourite stars like that
[00:11:14] but it was a great moment and I'm sure I was over gushing
[00:11:16] about horizon
[00:11:18] and he was very nonchalant about it
[00:11:20] but he was a very lovely man
[00:11:22] and very easy to direct in the voiceover booth
[00:11:24] because he was also for anyone who
[00:11:26] was with Orange, the future's bright
[00:11:28] the future's orange
[00:11:30] I didn't know that
[00:11:32] you've talked about how lyrical his voice is
[00:11:34] you must have a word for the writers and producers
[00:11:36] of the shows
[00:11:38] this episode was written and produced by David Patterson
[00:11:40] that is a fundamental part
[00:11:42] of this jigsaw isn't it
[00:11:44] the ability to
[00:11:46] kind of take these incredibly
[00:11:48] complex ideas
[00:11:50] and to twist them and turn them into something that
[00:11:52] can be delivered in such a way
[00:11:54] storytelling is what it is
[00:11:56] it is storytelling and he does a very good job
[00:11:58] and it's always that the problem is
[00:12:00] especially with deep physics films is where do you start
[00:12:02] and you go well let's explain what an atom is
[00:12:04] and let's explain what this is
[00:12:06] but he dives in quite deep
[00:12:08] he expects you to know quite a lot
[00:12:10] and as a nine year old
[00:12:12] certainly that didn't bother me
[00:12:14] I probably didn't know what half of it meant
[00:12:16] but he takes you a long way very quickly
[00:12:18] and the language is very simple and crisp
[00:12:20] and there's use of graphics
[00:12:22] early graphics which are very simple and very basic
[00:12:24] but they tell the story very effectively I think
[00:12:26] the graphics were
[00:12:28] so simple but you got it
[00:12:30] they didn't need to be any more complicated
[00:12:32] you don't need to make things too wizzy do you
[00:12:34] because you're talking about the tiny tiny
[00:12:36] tiny things so why there's nothing
[00:12:38] else there to make it wizzy
[00:12:40] I suspect if you were making it nowadays
[00:12:42] you'd probably make it more wizzy
[00:12:44] there's a wonderful bit of production design in there
[00:12:46] that both Kate and I independently when we watched the film
[00:12:48] made a note of and that's the
[00:12:50] the fruit machine which is
[00:12:52] essentially a live action prop
[00:12:54] but I sort of beautifully realised
[00:12:56] I come at this as a biologist
[00:12:58] whose mind is slightly blown
[00:13:00] by this entire subject area
[00:13:02] I think little tricks like that go a long way
[00:13:04] to holding your hand through the
[00:13:06] complex issues but it was a
[00:13:08] really lovely moment in the film I thought that
[00:13:10] so it's talking about what
[00:13:12] charge the quarks have
[00:13:14] so they've got to this idea that there are three quarks
[00:13:16] and they've got to have these different charges
[00:13:18] which seemed mad at the time
[00:13:20] and so the fruit machine
[00:13:22] every time you pull the handle
[00:13:24] these three different quarks
[00:13:26] will come up with different charges
[00:13:28] so you've got your fruits with all the different charges
[00:13:30] and it goes ding ding ding
[00:13:32] that makes this a proton
[00:13:34] that makes this a neutron
[00:13:36] so that's how they were adding up the different charges
[00:13:38] and it felt like
[00:13:40] such a fun
[00:13:42] and clever way of
[00:13:44] describing it because also
[00:13:46] it feels like it's pot luck
[00:13:48] that they're trying to work out what's going on
[00:13:50] because the science isn't really quite there yet
[00:13:52] to be able to measure these things
[00:13:54] what I loved about it is that it's
[00:13:56] the kind of early use
[00:13:58] in TV explanations of physics of metaphor
[00:14:00] I like the idea that you use something else
[00:14:02] to explain something really complicated which I think
[00:14:04] in deep this kind of deep physics stuff
[00:14:06] because the ideas are actually almost
[00:14:08] impossible to understand
[00:14:10] I mean legendarily quantum mechanics
[00:14:12] Richard Feynman said if you understand quantum mechanics
[00:14:14] then you don't really understand it
[00:14:16] because it is impossible to understand
[00:14:18] and so and certainly in the films that I've made
[00:14:20] subsequently about quantum mechanics
[00:14:22] I've been doing this all the time
[00:14:24] how do you tell this impossible to tell
[00:14:26] science the only way to do it is through
[00:14:28] pretty well the only way to do it is through metaphor
[00:14:30] or equations and mathematics
[00:14:32] and let's not go down that path, that's a nightmare
[00:14:34] that's a will to pain
[00:14:36] so metaphor is
[00:14:38] the clever way to tell these stories
[00:14:40] and I think they started that idea
[00:14:42] I mean they weren't the first to do metaphor
[00:14:44] but they did it really well
[00:14:46] and it was very comfortable
[00:14:48] and very rewarding
[00:14:50] and unitary charges is really well explained
[00:14:52] in that metaphor
[00:14:54] it felt very modern to me
[00:14:56] I felt like you could drop a presenter into that scene
[00:14:58] and it would sit
[00:15:00] quite happily in a modern retelling
[00:15:02] of that story which for
[00:15:04] 40 years ago I found quite
[00:15:06] surprising that's metaphor, metaphor is timeless
[00:15:10] so you've mentioned Richard Feynman
[00:15:12] so shall we come on to
[00:15:14] the contributors the contributors
[00:15:16] suppose we're right
[00:15:18] suppose all this turns out to be exactly right
[00:15:20] protons are made out of quarks
[00:15:22] the quarks have these peculiar charges
[00:15:24] they have spin one half
[00:15:26] and they act like simple point
[00:15:28] objects then what, what's next
[00:15:30] there's plenty next
[00:15:32] at the time I remember at age of nine
[00:15:34] watching this and there were lots of voices that you
[00:15:36] heard and they would seem very nice
[00:15:38] but had no idea who they were
[00:15:40] in retrospect watching it through
[00:15:42] they only had Richard Feynman
[00:15:44] and Murray Gelman the two most
[00:15:46] important physicists in the world
[00:15:48] arguably
[00:15:50] Richard Feynman is, he's known
[00:15:52] in the physics world as the magician
[00:15:54] he was the, it has a reputation of being the
[00:15:56] smartest physicist ever
[00:15:58] possibly since Newton
[00:16:00] he often comes at the top of everyone's
[00:16:02] list of favourite physicists
[00:16:04] not only was he a brilliant physicist which he was
[00:16:06] but he was fun, he had kind of
[00:16:08] style and he used to play bongos
[00:16:10] and legendarily used to go to parties
[00:16:12] and be badly behaved
[00:16:14] he was, you know, promiscuous and all this kind of stuff
[00:16:16] he was a crazy and he's charismatic
[00:16:18] so when he talks you really listen
[00:16:20] and that's something that's unique about
[00:16:22] well very interesting about this particular
[00:16:24] programme is they just let him talk
[00:16:26] I think there's one scene in it which is
[00:16:28] a four minute interview
[00:16:30] no cuts and the camera's like what shall I do
[00:16:32] and he just zooms in and then it zooms back out again
[00:16:34] and then zooms back in and zooms back out again
[00:16:36] normally you would cut this
[00:16:38] make it shorter but they just went
[00:16:40] nah he's so good let it run
[00:16:42] and I don't think anyone would have the confidence to do that now
[00:16:44] but Richard Feynman is incredible
[00:16:46] so yeah, he just
[00:16:48] to contextualise him
[00:16:50] he was a physicist in the 1930s
[00:16:52] and 1940s he came into
[00:16:54] sort of the physics world
[00:16:56] he invented pretty well a kind of physics
[00:16:58] called quantum electrodynamics
[00:17:00] which is actually the quantum mechanics
[00:17:02] of what happens inside neutrons
[00:17:04] and protons
[00:17:06] so this film is really about him because
[00:17:08] he started his work and then the pay-off
[00:17:10] was in the 60s and 70s when his work
[00:17:12] was validated by the discoveries
[00:17:14] at Stanford
[00:17:16] and then Murray Gellman who came
[00:17:18] slightly later but was a
[00:17:20] fascinating scientist
[00:17:22] really interesting
[00:17:24] he was in direct competition with Feynman
[00:17:26] so it's interesting that they're never in the same room together
[00:17:28] even though their offices were next door
[00:17:30] to each other at Caltech
[00:17:32] so they were based in Caltech in Pasadena
[00:17:34] and they were constantly
[00:17:36] riling each other up
[00:17:38] pissing each other off
[00:17:40] but what Murray Gellman did is he provided
[00:17:42] the physics
[00:17:44] that explained or that started
[00:17:46] identifying how quarks could really work
[00:17:48] and the idea of colour
[00:17:50] which came a bit later and all of this
[00:17:52] so between them they cracked
[00:17:54] this end of
[00:17:56] particle physics
[00:17:58] they cracked it early and then the
[00:18:00] experimentalists validated it
[00:18:02] much later
[00:18:04] and then it was in the 60s and 70s where they started getting these incredible results
[00:18:06] from the Stanford linear accelerator
[00:18:08] and from CERN and places
[00:18:10] which the films were telling the story of
[00:18:12] what do we know about that beef between the two
[00:18:14] is this a professional rivalry
[00:18:16] is this two huge egos botting up against each other
[00:18:18] exactly that
[00:18:20] they were both just egos
[00:18:22] who wanted to be the one to crack the story first
[00:18:24] they both believed that they're the
[00:18:26] top man and they both had different approaches
[00:18:28] so Feynman's
[00:18:30] physics approach is different from Murray Gellman's
[00:18:32] physics approach Murray Gellman was a bit of a
[00:18:34] bit of a mystic
[00:18:36] his theory is called the eight fold way
[00:18:38] that's how he describes the pantheon
[00:18:40] of particles in particle physics
[00:18:42] that he discovered and it's based on a Buddhist
[00:18:44] Buddhist scripture
[00:18:46] the eight fold way is a reference to Buddhist scripture
[00:18:48] whereas Feynman was more of a party animal
[00:18:50] he's more, I mean his mathematics is just
[00:18:52] sublime and beautiful
[00:18:54] he's invented new kinds of mathematics
[00:18:56] to talk about particle physics
[00:18:58] and quantum mechanics
[00:19:00] there was something else about the Feynman
[00:19:02] parts of the film that Kate and I both
[00:19:04] made a note of that were different
[00:19:06] from all of the other interviews in the film
[00:19:08] and that is that he looks straight down
[00:19:10] the barrel and addresses the camera directly
[00:19:12] and we were debating
[00:19:14] before we started recording today about whether
[00:19:16] that was deliberate or not
[00:19:18] and whether that was maybe reflective
[00:19:20] of
[00:19:22] the huge personality of the man wanting to
[00:19:24] kind of address his audience directly
[00:19:26] yeah you're sitting there on the safe route
[00:19:28] home and I'm going to tell you how this works
[00:19:30] and he just unfolds
[00:19:32] the wonders
[00:19:34] of kind of how his mind works
[00:19:36] and even though you feel like you're never going to
[00:19:38] understand what's going on in there
[00:19:40] you are just following him
[00:19:42] no matter what
[00:19:44] I think Feynman is famously unproducible
[00:19:46] I met and worked with a
[00:19:48] director called Chris Sykes
[00:19:50] who worked on Horizon
[00:19:52] was given some money by Horizon to go
[00:19:54] and make a film with Feynman and went over
[00:19:56] to America and sat outside his office
[00:19:58] time after time day after day to try and get an interview
[00:20:00] and Feynman wouldn't talk to him
[00:20:02] and every day he'd walk out and go
[00:20:04] I'm sorry I'm not going to do the interview it's not going to happen
[00:20:06] and Horizon said carry on sitting there
[00:20:08] stay there we need this interview
[00:20:10] and Chris got more and more and more anxious
[00:20:12] and more and more depressed as he was getting
[00:20:14] as the days were passing nothing was happening
[00:20:16] but in the end at the very last
[00:20:18] day Feynman said okay
[00:20:20] we're going to have to do it right now this moment
[00:20:22] and so went and sat in his office they set up a camera
[00:20:24] and they started recording
[00:20:26] they made a film and the film is just
[00:20:28] 50 minutes or an hour of Feynman talking
[00:20:30] and it's one of the most brilliant
[00:20:32] horizons ever and it's called
[00:20:34] The Joy of Finding Things Out it's worth looking up
[00:20:36] because it's just Richard Feynman just
[00:20:38] talking for an hour
[00:20:40] I'm actually having slight palpitations
[00:20:42] putting myself in the shoes of the
[00:20:44] poor producer sat there for two weeks waiting
[00:20:46] for that interview to happen
[00:20:48] that sounds like the stuff of absolute
[00:20:50] nightmares but it's the kind of thing that Horizon would do
[00:20:52] back then they had the guts
[00:20:54] to go just stay with it just stay with it
[00:20:56] the story's worth it that's what
[00:20:58] was beautiful about Horizon they had autonomy
[00:21:00] they had a belief in what
[00:21:02] they do they had
[00:21:04] a kind of wreathian
[00:21:06] agenda I mean what's the
[00:21:08] quote that you quoted at the beginning
[00:21:10] it's about bringing that kind of science to the people
[00:21:12] they really believed it and they would
[00:21:14] commit time and money to it
[00:21:16] and a long running series as well you've actually
[00:21:18] got the time in your
[00:21:20] schedule to let someone
[00:21:22] be out there for that long and go well
[00:21:24] we'll just air it later it's not a problem
[00:21:26] it's so much more different to that these days
[00:21:28] Can we talk a bit about the way that Horizon
[00:21:30] was commissioned all those
[00:21:32] episodes which is it had its own
[00:21:34] editor who ran it and was
[00:21:36] he commissioned he had
[00:21:38] the long term vision
[00:21:40] and so the commissioning editors
[00:21:42] didn't have any control over it
[00:21:44] so it had its own autonomy
[00:21:46] it had its own belief in itself
[00:21:48] it had its own character
[00:21:50] and that was a marvellous thing about it I think
[00:21:52] that was a really unusual and exciting
[00:21:54] thing about it it was its own
[00:21:56] unit that did stuff
[00:21:58] for itself and then it got slightly diluted
[00:22:00] I guess when the BBC opened itself up to
[00:22:02] be put to production companies to make
[00:22:04] stuff and I think they Horizon allowed
[00:22:06] a certain number of years to be made by
[00:22:08] production companies and the rest was done in house
[00:22:10] and now of course it's completely changed hasn't it I think
[00:22:12] Yeah so I think it was 2016
[00:22:14] when they said they'd open up to outside
[00:22:16] commissions but then obviously
[00:22:18] the editor has a different
[00:22:20] job and they don't
[00:22:22] oversee the outside commissions it then goes through the commissioning editor
[00:22:24] so
[00:22:26] recently the number has gone down that they make
[00:22:28] per year significantly and in the last
[00:22:30] few years it's only been like three per year
[00:22:32] which is a shame because
[00:22:34] we love them clearly so much
[00:22:36] just to say that the Horizon editor
[00:22:38] at the time of your chosen one
[00:22:40] Tim is Bruce Norman and the most recent one was
[00:22:42] the fabulous Steve Crabtree
[00:22:44] Bruce Norman was interesting I've looked up a bit about him
[00:22:46] he was the BBC's head of archaeology
[00:22:48] for a long time so he was
[00:22:50] embedded in this world and then he wrote this book which I
[00:22:52] had a quick look at which is the story of television
[00:22:54] so it was he wrote the sort
[00:22:56] of very first story of how
[00:22:58] basically the BBC started back at
[00:23:00] whatever it was at Alexandra Palace
[00:23:02] and it was such a pleasure going back in time
[00:23:04] seeing I mean not watching having not watched
[00:23:06] a film for
[00:23:08] God knows how long whatever nearly
[00:23:10] 50 years and then going back and finding
[00:23:12] it again what a joy thank you for digging it up
[00:23:14] it was a real pleasure to see it again
[00:23:16] and all those films still exist
[00:23:18] they almost all our horizons are still there
[00:23:20] are they? The BFI have a lot of them
[00:23:22] so you can access them through that way
[00:23:24] there are some on the BBC's website again not this one
[00:23:26] there's a well known website
[00:23:28] called archive.org that has
[00:23:30] I think 512 historic
[00:23:32] episodes of Horizon on there
[00:23:34] in various states of quality
[00:23:36] and that's not even half of them I mean
[00:23:38] what an archive of science
[00:23:40] and how it's changed over the years
[00:23:42] which brings us to another point about that episode
[00:23:44] which is that in 1974
[00:23:46] that film was made
[00:23:48] I know already that
[00:23:50] the theoretical physics that underlay
[00:23:52] what they talked about was much more advanced
[00:23:54] than they talked about they were several steps ahead
[00:23:56] and very quickly
[00:23:58] those discoveries
[00:24:00] that they became superseded by new discoveries
[00:24:02] so what's beautiful about it is
[00:24:04] a snapshot of particle physics
[00:24:06] in 1974 but it changed
[00:24:08] very quickly. There's this lovely thing also
[00:24:10] at the end of the film where they do a stop press
[00:24:12] that's the way
[00:24:14] Horizon intended to end the story
[00:24:16] of the search for quarks
[00:24:18] it's not the end though
[00:24:20] since stop press news overtook us
[00:24:22] and the physicists struggling to understand
[00:24:24] what's going on inside the proton
[00:24:26] the theory of quarks
[00:24:28] has been put to a very severe test
[00:24:30] by some new apparatus at Stanford
[00:24:32] the results run counter
[00:24:34] to the beautiful picture we've built
[00:24:36] and that new discovery turns out
[00:24:38] to be false, that was wrong
[00:24:40] that was a mistake
[00:24:42] really?
[00:24:44] they said we found a new discovery
[00:24:46] which turns the whole idea on its head
[00:24:48] it doesn't look as though there are quarks
[00:24:50] or quarks after all
[00:24:52] but of course that's wrong because
[00:24:54] it got it slightly wrong
[00:24:56] it's a real record scratch moment isn't it
[00:24:58] it is and I think it's something that later
[00:25:00] Horizons then went on to
[00:25:02] put into the format
[00:25:04] but much earlier in the film
[00:25:06] there's a big turning point that turns everything on its head
[00:25:08] and I think that became
[00:25:10] in drama it's usually
[00:25:12] about halfway through or something
[00:25:14] and that's where they generally then put it
[00:25:16] in the next horizons
[00:25:18] you have this massive turning point
[00:25:20] that puts everything on its head
[00:25:22] so structurally it's really interesting
[00:25:24] that they're doing that really
[00:25:26] quite early in the 70s in a science film
[00:25:28] but it also speaks to the fact that
[00:25:30] this isn't just didactic science
[00:25:32] this is actually science journalism
[00:25:34] it's a story in real time this is happening now
[00:25:36] that's a very kind of modern piece
[00:25:38] or very good piece of journalism
[00:25:40] and that's what Horizon could do
[00:25:42] it's a journalistic story rather than just
[00:25:44] a science story and I think that's the power
[00:25:46] of that
[00:25:47] science is not a dead subject
[00:25:49] it's a live happening process
[00:25:51] and you get a real sense of that from this film
[00:25:53] that it's happening in front of us
[00:25:54] they're building stuff, they're finding new stuff
[00:25:56] and that stuff goes out of date really quickly
[00:25:57] and then new stuff happens
[00:25:58] the film never tries to
[00:26:00] wrap anything up neatly at all
[00:26:02] and that reflects the process
[00:26:04] of doing science
[00:26:06] so in that respect it's a kind of a very honest
[00:26:08] reflection of the subject
[00:26:10] rather than I think at times we can
[00:26:12] try and wrap things up a bit too neatly
[00:26:14] in the types of things that we make
[00:26:16] but this one is very bold in not doing that
[00:26:18] and actually I think it goes as far as saying
[00:26:20] this all could be wrong
[00:26:22] all that stuff you just watched
[00:26:24] that could be wrong, that's quite, that's very confident
[00:26:26] It is because today I think
[00:26:28] you might assume like as an audience
[00:26:30] remember you're just like well why did I just
[00:26:32] spend the last hour of my life
[00:26:34] watching this thing if it's not
[00:26:36] right, it's just like saying at the end
[00:26:38] of a drama and it was all a dream
[00:26:40] but actually the
[00:26:42] experts in it themselves say
[00:26:44] this is science, this is how
[00:26:46] science works and I think that's what's really exciting
[00:26:48] is it's not only going a deep
[00:26:50] dive into this one area of physics
[00:26:52] it's actually going this is
[00:26:54] how science works everyone
[00:26:56] this is you know for all the kind of fake news
[00:26:58] and so on of today I think
[00:27:00] you have a much better understanding of how science
[00:27:02] works from watching this film
[00:27:04] Many people believe
[00:27:06] I think
[00:27:08] that science is the accumulation of facts
[00:27:10] the accumulation of knowledge
[00:27:12] but in this kind of
[00:27:14] fundamental science
[00:27:16] the real objective
[00:27:18] is not just the accumulation of facts
[00:27:20] but
[00:27:22] huge strides in
[00:27:24] understanding that take place
[00:27:26] every couple of generations
[00:27:28] when a grand synthesis
[00:27:30] is constructed
[00:27:32] It's also got the double whammy which is
[00:27:34] the science is really fascinating so it's not like
[00:27:36] a boring piece of science where it's wrong or it's right
[00:27:38] or it's wrong, it's actually this is a big question
[00:27:40] about how the universe is built
[00:27:42] and how the universe came into existence
[00:27:44] and it may be right or it may be wrong
[00:27:46] so it's science in action
[00:27:48] but it's also about the big fundamental questions of science
[00:27:50] And they talk about that like in terms of
[00:27:52] so they actually say
[00:27:54] this is the kind of science, the kind of understanding
[00:27:56] that happens every few generations
[00:27:58] and for me I was like
[00:28:00] wow so that for me made me feel like
[00:28:02] these aren't like little steps
[00:28:04] in science you learn a bit more
[00:28:06] this is changing how
[00:28:08] physicists think about the world and understand the world
[00:28:10] that felt like a really big moment for me
[00:28:12] and made it feel much more important
[00:28:16] It's changing the way that people see the world exactly right
[00:28:18] since I've become a science
[00:28:20] producer and director
[00:28:22] it's almost become a joke that whenever I make a film
[00:28:24] we use at some point during the script
[00:28:26] we use the line
[00:28:28] and this changed everything
[00:28:30] We've used that so many times
[00:28:32] I know I have, Alex have you?
[00:28:34] I'm sure I have, yeah
[00:28:36] Because it does in science one thing like that
[00:28:38] the moment that the Stanford linear accelerator
[00:28:40] where they discovered that there is structure
[00:28:42] inside the proton
[00:28:44] changed everything
[00:28:46] it turned around the entire world
[00:28:48] I mean the physics world not necessarily the whole world
[00:28:50] but often things in science like that
[00:28:52] do have their implications
[00:28:54] do rebound around the world
[00:28:56] for instance when they split the atom
[00:28:58] that moment tangibly changed the world
[00:29:00] because it led to the atom bond
[00:29:02] so that moment changed the world forever
[00:29:04] and the joy of science
[00:29:06] the joy of physics especially
[00:29:08] if you're a science, if physics geek like I am
[00:29:10] is that these moments happen more than once
[00:29:12] they change the world forever
[00:29:14] so yeah you end up using that cliche
[00:29:16] my executive producer has now banned that
[00:29:18] cliche from script which is a shame
[00:29:20] because I can like to get it in every script once
[00:29:24] What I loved is this
[00:29:26] film felt like a hunt
[00:29:28] it felt like a detective story a little bit
[00:29:30] uncovering bit by bit
[00:29:32] I think there are several structures in this film
[00:29:34] that we all use in our films of
[00:29:36] it's a detective story
[00:29:38] there's got to be twists and turns
[00:29:40] you're actually asking questions
[00:29:42] out loud whether it's through the VO
[00:29:44] or kind of it's whether it's a feeling
[00:29:46] you've got at the end of the scene of like
[00:29:48] oh this why I've got this question
[00:29:50] in my head now as an audience member
[00:29:52] that I need to answer
[00:29:54] all those structures I thought worked really well
[00:29:56] and actually your structures we all use in our films today
[00:29:58] so in that way it felt very relatable
[00:30:00] to watch as an audience member
[00:30:02] and as someone who makes science TV
[00:30:04] Exactly there are tools
[00:30:06] tricks of the trade that
[00:30:08] you see there that we use all the time now
[00:30:10] as you say narrative tricks
[00:30:12] and I have to say a marvellous moment of music
[00:30:14] a music sequence
[00:30:16] a proto what I'd probably call a proto music sequence
[00:30:18] this is the moment where they
[00:30:20] built this new accelerator
[00:30:22] which is a particle smasher
[00:30:24] in California and it's two miles long
[00:30:26] and it's amazing and it's good
[00:30:28] they're presenting it's this is going to finally
[00:30:30] find out all the answers
[00:30:32] is there structure inside the proton
[00:30:34] and then we meet the Stanford linear accelerator
[00:30:40] Even for an experimenter driving a fast car
[00:30:42] it's a long ride yet the electrons
[00:30:44] that fly along the accelerator
[00:30:46] do the journey in a hundred thousandth of a second
[00:31:04] As a bass player
[00:31:06] I was it's rather joyous to hear a
[00:31:08] mammoth and very very famous bass riff
[00:31:10] and it's Pink Floyd and it's one of these days
[00:31:12] for me it felt like a
[00:31:14] very modern trick we'd play nowadays
[00:31:18] It's one of the tools of a documentary
[00:31:20] filmmaker science documentary film
[00:31:22] is to use things like music all the time
[00:31:24] to try and ease the pain of a difficult sequence
[00:31:26] or to bring some joy
[00:31:28] but they do it there, they do it in this film
[00:31:30] and it basically cuts between two shots
[00:31:32] one of a fast car
[00:31:34] running along the accelerator
[00:31:36] and one of a helicopter going over it I think
[00:31:38] for maybe I don't know 90 seconds
[00:31:40] which is probably about
[00:31:42] 85 seconds longer than we would
[00:31:44] normally make a music sequence for nowadays
[00:31:46] but you kind of go with it and yeah
[00:31:48] Pink Floyd and do you know why they pick that track?
[00:31:50] I have no idea
[00:31:52] The lyrics which is spoken by Dave Gilmore
[00:31:54] I think says one of these days
[00:31:56] I'm going to cut you into pieces
[00:32:00] So ultimately it's about the cutting
[00:32:02] of the neutron interpieces of the proton interpieces
[00:32:04] and it really fits though
[00:32:06] the energy it's got power
[00:32:08] and I think we all do that now whenever we make music
[00:32:10] we look for music that is
[00:32:12] urgent, that has that kind of
[00:32:14] but then we would be a lot more aggressive in our
[00:32:16] cutting, we wouldn't cut
[00:32:18] two shots over and over again
[00:32:20] you know how many shots you use
[00:32:22] in a music sequence as many as you can really
[00:32:24] So there's a few other shots
[00:32:26] that I've seen that are similar
[00:32:28] so the wonderful director Natalie Hewitt
[00:32:30] made a film following
[00:32:32] the Bass station in Antarctica
[00:32:34] being moved from one place to the other
[00:32:36] and to give a sense of scale which is also
[00:32:38] what this shot in your horizon does Tim
[00:32:40] to give a sense of scale she's like
[00:32:42] on the back of a skidoo and she's filming
[00:32:44] as the guy drives and drives
[00:32:46] and drives and drives and they've kept
[00:32:48] that shot in one whole thing
[00:32:50] so today when we do much faster cutting
[00:32:52] that feels like such a special moment
[00:32:54] where you can revel in the size of something
[00:32:56] whereas because these older horizons are
[00:32:58] much slower cut
[00:33:00] you wouldn't really make it
[00:33:02] like that today
[00:33:04] there would be a lot more shots packed in there
[00:33:06] with all that information
[00:33:08] that you're trying to take in as a viewer
[00:33:10] you kind of need a pause
[00:33:12] to really take it in
[00:33:14] I mean today we would use
[00:33:16] as you say we would use music
[00:33:18] to kind of punctuate
[00:33:20] film as well and to give
[00:33:22] these moments of drama
[00:33:24] which you don't get in the same way
[00:33:26] in this film because there's hardly any
[00:33:28] music in it and there's also hardly any
[00:33:30] pauses in it
[00:33:32] it's a beautiful verbal essay
[00:33:34] that has some pictures on it that describe
[00:33:36] what's going on but we make films very
[00:33:38] differently these days our visuals
[00:33:40] generally we try to make them
[00:33:42] also as much about the storytelling
[00:33:44] and telling visually
[00:33:46] what's going on there was one moment
[00:33:48] in this film that I really enjoyed as well
[00:33:50] as this car film told the story visually
[00:33:52] which is when they're talking about
[00:33:54] CERN being built and they're in
[00:33:56] kind of the tunnels and they're digging
[00:33:58] about when the particles will emerge
[00:34:00] there'll be 400 times
[00:34:02] heavier than they went in
[00:34:04] and it's like this shot over a man
[00:34:06] walking out of this hole
[00:34:08] into the daylight from the ground
[00:34:10] and then he's the man that's going to tell us
[00:34:12] about this amazing sight
[00:34:14] and what it's going to do and I thought that was just
[00:34:16] a brilliant visual storytelling trick
[00:34:18] and you wouldn't think about it
[00:34:20] as a viewer but I really clocked it
[00:34:22] and it just tells that story visually
[00:34:24] over what they're talking about
[00:34:26] and I think that sequence where you're seeing the industry
[00:34:28] it's almost like science is an industry
[00:34:30] it's building in the same way
[00:34:32] that digging coal out is an industry
[00:34:34] it was made in 1973
[00:34:36] well probably made in 1973
[00:34:38] so in Britain in 1973
[00:34:40] this is the coal strike
[00:34:42] industrial power is very strong
[00:34:44] there's a big trade union
[00:34:46] it's heaths in government that miners are trying to bring down heaths
[00:34:48] unionism and industry is a very powerful voice
[00:34:50] in everything
[00:34:52] you can imagine that being reflected in the BBC
[00:34:54] but it's also a function of that white
[00:34:56] heat of industry that is being talked about
[00:34:58] and the belief that through industry
[00:35:00] we can build a better future
[00:35:02] science and industry together can build this better future
[00:35:04] so I kept seeing that in this film as well
[00:35:06] the visuals of building and cranes
[00:35:08] and digging and machines
[00:35:10] which are our pathway to a new
[00:35:12] and better world
[00:35:14] a world of understanding and a world of knowing what's at the beginning of the universe
[00:35:16] that's fascinating
[00:35:18] I wonder from a practical filmmaking
[00:35:20] perspective when you are
[00:35:22] dealing with a very esoteric and abstract subject
[00:35:24] having
[00:35:26] very dynamic things that you can point a camera at
[00:35:28] is perhaps no bad thing as well
[00:35:30] you take anything you can get
[00:35:32] I think we've all been there
[00:35:34] there were just a lot of big machines
[00:35:36] that didn't really move
[00:35:38] there were these kind of aerials
[00:35:40] of these massive accelerators
[00:35:42] which are lovely to see
[00:35:44] wouldn't be so used to seeing those kind of shots
[00:35:46] at that time
[00:35:48] then there were just kind of wides of these big silver things
[00:35:50] that you don't really know what's going on inside them
[00:35:52] so yeah today we would be able to
[00:35:54] use graphics and
[00:35:56] lots of cool shots of cameras
[00:35:58] placed in cool places
[00:36:00] and you would make that much more active
[00:36:02] but because the voiceover is so lyrical
[00:36:04] I didn't mind so much
[00:36:06] not having so much action
[00:36:08] it's a problem that as science
[00:36:10] filmmakers we have though isn't it
[00:36:12] that often a lot of science isn't very visual
[00:36:14] I mean I've made films about
[00:36:16] atoms, I've made films about DNA
[00:36:18] and you're like oh god what do we actually
[00:36:20] show?
[00:36:22] You watch that and you go you need to
[00:36:24] this is one way you can do it
[00:36:26] you can create lots of jazzy big machines
[00:36:28] doing stuff
[00:36:30] you can do graphics, you can do music
[00:36:32] it kind of sets the agenda for the way
[00:36:34] these tools that we use to tell our stories now
[00:36:36] but also storytelling
[00:36:38] they worked out that the way to tell the story
[00:36:40] of this was to tell the journalism of
[00:36:42] how the story's unfolding
[00:36:44] I think that's something lesson that we have all taken
[00:36:46] that science and filmmaking is about storytelling
[00:36:48] you find a way to tell a story
[00:36:50] in everything you do because otherwise you're just being
[00:36:52] didactic and it's a lecture and that's boring
[00:36:54] Where's the drama coming from?
[00:36:56] There's got to be drama conflict, that's why people love stories
[00:36:58] and humour and twists and turns
[00:37:00] things go wrong, things go right
[00:37:02] that's drama, that's narrative
[00:37:04] I do have to bring up
[00:37:06] that the potential heroes of this
[00:37:08] story were Yorkshire housewives
[00:37:10] who worked part time
[00:37:12] they could have found the quark
[00:37:14] so many women in this film were these
[00:37:16] women who looked at these photos
[00:37:18] and could have found something
[00:37:20] it's an interesting sequence
[00:37:22] I wanted to talk a bit about that because
[00:37:24] it's the only time they do something dynamic with the camera
[00:37:26] as well, it's a tracking shot that goes down
[00:37:28] these women who are
[00:37:30] appearing into what look like cardboard boxes
[00:37:32] it looks so amateur
[00:37:34] it looks so bodgy, British
[00:37:36] 1930s backroom scientists
[00:37:38] there are these women doing this stuff
[00:37:40] and there's a fantastically patronising interview
[00:37:42] oh my gosh
[00:37:44] we wondered if it would be boring but it's
[00:37:46] far more interesting I find than I thought it would be originally
[00:37:50] various canas have different methods
[00:37:52] some start at the top, some start at the bottom
[00:37:54] it can take as little as 10, 15 minutes
[00:37:56] or it can take anything up to an hour
[00:38:00] I didn't know a lot about it before I came
[00:38:02] I don't think any of us did really
[00:38:04] but we keep learning more and we show in the cloud chamber
[00:38:06] and have more explained to us
[00:38:08] we feel it's really important because
[00:38:10] you find the quark a little really make history
[00:38:12] but also the fact that they then
[00:38:14] test the women to see if
[00:38:16] they're looking at things right, they add
[00:38:18] in a few like wrong things as well
[00:38:20] I'm like, I'm sorry why do we need to test the women
[00:38:22] there's also something about that
[00:38:24] shot, that one tracking shot that reminded me
[00:38:26] of weirdly the opening
[00:38:28] tidal sequence of Coronation Street
[00:38:30] you remember that where the camera moves along those northern roofs
[00:38:32] and it's a tracking shot
[00:38:34] and you see these regular northern
[00:38:36] terrace houses which is a sort of
[00:38:38] cliche about the north, north is full of
[00:38:40] terrace houses and
[00:38:42] it's a similar thing, you're tracking through
[00:38:44] these women, these northern women
[00:38:46] and it's a wonderful piece of British
[00:38:48] 70s sort of classism isn't it
[00:38:50] so these films at the time
[00:38:52] would have been shot on 16mm film
[00:38:54] we obviously film things very differently
[00:38:56] today but
[00:38:58] how do you think
[00:39:00] that must have affected
[00:39:02] how they made the film
[00:39:04] and how would you do it differently
[00:39:06] today? I mean 16mm film is a lovely format
[00:39:08] because the colours are so beautiful
[00:39:10] it takes a lot of lighting, it's hard
[00:39:12] work to shoot on and the other thing is that it comes in
[00:39:14] 10 minute packs, you stick it back on the end
[00:39:16] of the camera and you get 10 minutes, 12 minutes of filming
[00:39:18] and then you have to stop and change
[00:39:20] the film, it's also expensive
[00:39:22] so I think the style of filming
[00:39:24] meant they had to be really clear about what they were getting at every moment
[00:39:26] and don't overshoot
[00:39:28] so I think difference number one
[00:39:30] we don't have that anymore, we can shoot
[00:39:32] as much as we like, we often let the camera
[00:39:34] roll on stuff which they would never do
[00:39:36] so that changes
[00:39:38] the look of the film because
[00:39:40] they tend to go for longer shots
[00:39:42] the interviews on the whole
[00:39:44] you would script the interviews before
[00:39:46] and you tell them what they want to say
[00:39:48] or you'd be very controlled about interviews
[00:39:50] because you just couldn't afford to let interviews run long
[00:39:52] in the same way we do now
[00:39:54] and you couldn't afford to let the film run over
[00:39:56] on other stuff, so you're very careful about what you shoot
[00:39:58] which means that it has quite a
[00:40:00] staged look about it I think
[00:40:02] so first number one, the other thing is
[00:40:04] that once you've shot on film, you have to edit on film
[00:40:06] and edit on film is a beautiful
[00:40:08] but archaic system
[00:40:10] I don't know whether you remember this in your
[00:40:12] careers, you're on a steam back
[00:40:14] which is this huge piece of equipment
[00:40:16] where you have the film in front of you
[00:40:18] and you have a little lever which runs it backwards and forwards
[00:40:20] and then you have a little cutting block
[00:40:22] so you physically cut the film
[00:40:24] and then you hang the film up
[00:40:26] and then you bring the little short ends
[00:40:28] and you put bits in and move bits around
[00:40:30] and it's a very laborious process
[00:40:32] and you sit, the editors sit in a room with their steam back
[00:40:34] late into the night smoking cigarettes
[00:40:36] in the 70s no doubt
[00:40:38] it means that the style of editing is
[00:40:40] every cut has to be thought about
[00:40:42] and you don't want to cut too much because
[00:40:44] every cut means you have to sell a tape
[00:40:46] a piece of film together
[00:40:48] put the bits up there, make a log of it
[00:40:50] it's really hard work
[00:40:52] so what it means is the editing of the film
[00:40:54] is what we would consider now quite slow
[00:40:56] and that's changed obviously with digital
[00:40:58] and now we all edit digitally
[00:41:00] it means you can throw things around in the edits
[00:41:02] where you can edit very very fast
[00:41:04] editing is the computers take care of it all the process
[00:41:06] and that allows us now to be much more
[00:41:08] careless about editing
[00:41:10] we can edit much more aggressively
[00:41:12] we can edit much faster
[00:41:14] we can sound mix much faster
[00:41:16] and do things in the sound which you could never do there
[00:41:18] so there's a simplicity about that style of filmmaking
[00:41:20] which the film creates
[00:41:22] and it's charm as well
[00:41:24] there is a charm about it
[00:41:26] it has a different feel, has a different quality
[00:41:28] because the editing is slower it has a different quality
[00:41:30] which I think can be marvellous although
[00:41:32] it does also feel a bit
[00:41:34] of its time so it feels dated
[00:41:36] but somehow this film gets away with it
[00:41:38] it's interesting because we talk so much today
[00:41:40] about authenticity in filmmaking
[00:41:42] and you don't want things to look staged
[00:41:44] and yet we do, every time we film
[00:41:46] you're going oh can you just walk here
[00:41:48] to hear just for a little walking shot
[00:41:50] that we can put under voice over and then
[00:41:52] could you do that again and I just need to zoom in
[00:41:54] and make sure it's in focus
[00:41:56] so we do stage everything so much
[00:41:58] but try and make it look authentic
[00:42:00] but back then there was only so much they could do
[00:42:02] because you only had one chance
[00:42:04] but the authentic, I mean the sequences that were authentic
[00:42:06] are the building sequences
[00:42:08] because it's things happening in real time
[00:42:10] and that tracking shot of the women
[00:42:12] where you're tracking down these women staring into their plywood boxes
[00:42:14] and that looks real
[00:42:16] all of a sudden it's got to fly on the wall
[00:42:18] obsdoc feel about it
[00:42:20] whereas the rest of the film feels very staged
[00:42:22] that's the style, that's what the 70s were like
[00:42:24] I mean it all through
[00:42:26] sort of narrative films as well, you'll see the same thing
[00:42:28] that I watched Mean Streets, the Scorsese film
[00:42:30] fairly recently
[00:42:32] and it's the same thing, you can see exactly
[00:42:34] the same thing because they're worried about the film
[00:42:36] the Quadstria film, they shoot it
[00:42:38] everything's very staged, I mean it's actually
[00:42:40] it's one of the first times they use
[00:42:42] a camera on the shoulder in that film
[00:42:44] the editing is very slow, the sound mix is very simple
[00:42:46] and the movements the camera does
[00:42:48] are relatively simple and it's very staged
[00:42:50] so that was what films were like, filmmaking was like that
[00:42:52] digital has really changed our lives
[00:42:54] more than
[00:42:56] I think we appreciate
[00:42:58] So if you were making this film today
[00:43:00] how would your approach be different
[00:43:02] what would the film look like?
[00:43:04] The RNE is about 2008
[00:43:06] I got the opportunity, it was very early on in my career
[00:43:08] to make a three part series
[00:43:10] for the BBC about the history of
[00:43:12] atomic physics
[00:43:14] so in many ways I did make this film again
[00:43:16] in 2008 with Jim Alcalely
[00:43:18] and specifically this one was the
[00:43:20] third part of the series
[00:43:22] which was about the birth of particle physics
[00:43:24] and the search for the quark and everything
[00:43:26] and I'd forgotten about this original film
[00:43:28] that I'd seen and I went and we
[00:43:30] told the story, we told the story of Murray Gilman
[00:43:32] and Feynman and we went
[00:43:34] and shot stuff in locations
[00:43:36] that were appropriate for them
[00:43:38] and then we went back to the Stanford Linear Accelerator
[00:43:40] Slack which is where they had that big
[00:43:42] discovery and we stood
[00:43:44] in the same hall that they filmed in
[00:43:46] and something in my mind
[00:43:48] must have come back about that moment
[00:43:50] because I remember being overwhelmed
[00:43:52] by this space going
[00:43:54] oh my god, this is history, this is history, wait a minute
[00:43:56] I remember something about this
[00:43:58] and I think we did a piece to camera with Jim
[00:44:00] where he sort of says this is where it happened
[00:44:02] this is where the moment that
[00:44:04] protons were discovered to have
[00:44:06] a structure inside and two kilometers
[00:44:08] basically word for word
[00:44:10] we rewrote without knowing at the script
[00:44:12] that Paul Vaughn had said
[00:44:14] in 1974
[00:44:38] and then without thinking about it
[00:44:40] we did the same music sequence
[00:44:42] on a buggy
[00:44:44] and zoomed him down the corridor by the accelerator
[00:44:46] we cut to a helicopter shot
[00:44:48] and then we did a final piece to camera
[00:44:50] in the bottom bit looking across the whole thing
[00:44:52] so without knowing it
[00:44:54] I did remake that film almost exactly
[00:44:56] but I think obviously the lessons we
[00:44:58] learnt now is that we tell stories in a slightly different way
[00:45:00] we tell them faster
[00:45:02] we might have to be a little more
[00:45:04] thoughtful about this, about
[00:45:06] bamboozling people with science in a way that they didn't
[00:45:08] there and they just, the assumption was
[00:45:10] that if you were doing this, you know what you know about atoms
[00:45:12] we had to go here's what an atom is
[00:45:14] so I think we have to
[00:45:16] nowadays have to be a little bit more thoughtful
[00:45:18] about the level of understanding of the audience
[00:45:20] I don't know whether that's right or wrong to be honest
[00:45:22] I think there's an argument both ways
[00:45:24] and then
[00:45:26] what we did which is also what they did
[00:45:28] is we made it into a story
[00:45:30] it was an unfolding story of discoveries
[00:45:32] things went wrong and things went right
[00:45:34] and then they got this and this and this
[00:45:36] but we also picked up from the end
[00:45:38] although I've always wanted to make
[00:45:40] the final finishing story
[00:45:42] which I don't think anyone's done yet
[00:45:44] which is where is this science now
[00:45:46] where is particle and quantum physics
[00:45:48] where is the standard model now
[00:45:50] and I think there is another story to be told
[00:45:52] so commissioners if you're listening
[00:45:54] Tim is available to make the film
[00:45:58] he already knows everything about it
[00:46:00] but it will be just remaking that
[00:46:02] film a third time
[00:46:04] but with a new ending
[00:46:06] to wrap things up then
[00:46:08] what does this film mean to you
[00:46:10] for me it means the wonder
[00:46:12] of science, the wonder of physics
[00:46:14] more specifically
[00:46:16] but it means that moment
[00:46:18] where my eyes were opened
[00:46:20] to the possibilities of this
[00:46:22] crazy
[00:46:24] exciting, wondrous world
[00:46:26] of physics
[00:46:28] out there that answers questions
[00:46:30] that looks at questions that are as big as the universe
[00:46:32] and has answers that are as small as an atom
[00:46:34] it's like all of this sort of... it's big
[00:46:36] it opened my mind to
[00:46:38] big scale in a non-religious way
[00:46:40] that is sort of religious
[00:46:42] and then I think
[00:46:44] later in my career
[00:46:46] when I was making science documentary
[00:46:48] it gave me a pattern
[00:46:50] an idea of how science can be told
[00:46:52] so I think it did both those things
[00:46:54] so yeah, I'm very happy I saw it in 1974
[00:46:56] it did change my life
[00:46:58] I studied physics at university
[00:47:00] I then
[00:47:02] became a science communicator
[00:47:04] in television science director and producer
[00:47:06] so yeah, it changed my life
[00:47:08] forever
[00:47:10] thanks for bringing it in
[00:47:12] and thanks for coming in that's been
[00:47:14] wonderful to talk about and to watch it actually
[00:47:16] I really enjoyed
[00:47:18] both watching and talking about it
[00:47:20] thank you so much Tim
[00:47:22] thank you, it was a great pleasure, cheers