Customer Reviews

Independent Lens: The Atom Smashers

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Like some other reviewers I was similarly disappointed with the outcome of this particular production. In its defense, the program's title is The Atom Smashers, thus suggesting a concentration on the scientists rather than on the science. However, the program covers a broader spectrum of issues, and, unfortunately, does not tackle them systematically, thereby leaving the viewer uneasy. This aspect could so easily have been solved by dividing the program into distinct chapters: i) the historical background to this species of nuclear physics, ii) the historical role of Fermilab, iii) the current work at Fermilab through the eyes of the current scientific community, iv) the funding crisis, and a scientific (rather than subjective) justification of continued Governmental subsidy, v) thoughts on the future of subatomic particle physics and the work at CERN.

The lack of structural backbone to the presentation is not alleviated by some scientists' constant use of the colloquial. Ben Kilminster is doubtless a fine particle physicist: he is, nonetheless, a poor communicator in the televisual medium, hampered by a lack of ability to express himself cogently and eloquently. In an attempt to portray him as a figure relevant to youth, with examples of his prowess on roller-skates and in the arena of modern popular music, the program directors do not allow him to come across as a razor-sharp champion of the cause. Similarly, the overly-familiar linguistic expression of Robin Erbacher cancels out what surely ought to be a public conception of advanced science conducted by erudite and inspiring people. The program's public is not dumb; their expectations need to be raised up, not patronized. One also assumes that science at this level is hard and difficult, so scientists' pointing this out will possibly engender more animosity than empathy. They are, after all, doing a job for which they are paid.

While some of the other interviewees speak more formally (and, by extension, more convincingly), the force of their arguments is undermined by the general detraction imposed by the program's unnecessary dwelling on dull aspects of private lives. I am sure all the interviewees are very nice people with decent moral fiber, and so forth, beset by the vicissitudes of the human condition (as are we all!), but this does not make for absorbing scientific interaction between scientists and the general public. When we hear from the great mind of Leon Lederman, a brilliant and attractive ambassador in the field, the program fails to bolster him sufficiently so that even he comes across with an air of resignation. This may well be an authentic representation, but it serves to support what other reviewers have observed, namely that the program appears as an account of a spineless grieving for evaporating funds. Where is the scientists' spoil for the fight? Perhaps there is one, but we would not know it having watched this program. The understandable (emotive) question of why tens of millions of US dollars are not redirected towards cancer research is a hugely potent one in the public's perception of such Government schemes. However, the message that we, as cave dwellers of the 21st-century must continue to venture out and discover our genesis, rather than to retreat, fails to be tackled comprehensively enough in this program. Its communication of a sense of apathy brings to mind the controversial cancellation in the USA of the Superconducting Super Collider at Waxahachie in the early 90s, a skeleton now only resurrected in the popular culture of the West Wing, (and that done brilliantly, of course). For most people it remains forgotten.

On an ironic tangent of the funding question, one witnesses the provision of several cases of champagne to celebrate a milestone of the Fermilab's success. If it was paid for by the Federal Government then here is a missed opportunity for a point of gratitude to be made: a thank you for the taxpayers' money seen as going towards the joy as well as the grit of such a project would have been appropriate.

Finally, a comment about the definition of a Higgs boson in this program. While some of the interviewees coyly play with the notion that this hypothetical mechanism is as impossible to define as it is, apparently, to discover, a metaphorical description could be addressed in a matter of minutes (Lederman's wonderful teaching style comes closest here.) Given that the Higgs is a major aspect of the program's focus it seems ridiculous that more time is not allocated to the science behind the definition. Yes, the mathematical complexity behind physics at this level is daunting for many, if not most. Nonetheless, it must be possible to delineate the subject in a way which takes as its starting point people's intelligence not their lack of it. Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman and Leon Lederman all succeeded, at various points in their lives, to open up the minds of those for whom particle physics is traditionally a forbidding area of scientific concept, observation, theory and experiment. To say that science needs to be more `sexy' is a horrible indictment of the minds of young people. Children do not need the teaching of science to be more sexy: they need it to be taught with a charismatic conviction setting the highest intellectual goals, and underscoring a purpose far beyond the realm of the roller-skate and the rock band.

"Atom Smashers" attempts to make a difficult scientific topic interesting to a general audience, with only partial success.

The documentary portrays the effort of scientists at Fermilab, near Chicago, to find the "Higgs boson," an atom-like particle that many theorists believe must exist, but no one has actually found. Some describe it as key to understanding life itself.

The strength of the film lies in its portrayal of the scientists -- dedicated, passionate people who are unashamed nerds (they write songs using terms from the Unix programming language, for instance). They're likeable folks and they are committed to finding the Higgs boson, though not very good at explaining what it is.

As a viewer, you want to get caught up in this quest, but the film does a poor job of explaining the scientists' efforts. We see researchers planning experiments and we're shown various charts and diagrams, but too little effort is made to explain them. It seems like the filmmakers gave in too easily to the idea that particle physics is really complicated and difficult to understand, so why bother trying.

The other weak point in the film is a clunky section in the middle in which the scientists whine about dwindling government funding for their program. It was like a PBS fundraising drive suddenly interrupting an otherwise engaging drama.

I enjoyed this documentary. I watch a lot of science related programming, so this was okay for me.

It would be good if more people realized how much damage the Bush Administration has done to the sciences, but this probably will not happen. Many Americans just do not have an interest in science. As a country, we are on the way down. Our lead role in the World is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Our next supercollider was shelved years ago due to politics. Meanwhile, the rest of the World moves ahead, and other countries are now becoming the leaders. Beating on our chests and saying "America is the best" is not enough. We actually have to do something to stay the best.

I am a software engineer, and there seem to be fewer and fewer American people that understand anything anymore. Much of our high-tech work is routinely farmed out overseas.

That whimpering sound you hear in your ears is the noise a country makes when it is in decline.

I approached this DVD as a person who hates science courses and wonders if a science documentary could be interesting. I didn't want flashbacks of the obnoxious, revolting man who taught my junior high chemistry class or anything. I really think this work was trying to keep an audience that consisted of more than just physics dorks.

The work begins with physicists playing in a band and taking tango lessons. The work shows clips from 1950s cartoons which add a campy dynamic. Throughout the work there are clips of a 1970s "Donahue" episode and it becomes clear how rare it would be to have a scientist speaking to an everyday audience. However, some of the info presented here is very technical. This work makes you read text and those who like to be spoon-fed won't enjoy that.

Do you remember that the film "Boys to the Side" starts off as a comedy but quickly turns into a discussion about a very serious subject? Actually, many "Simpsons" episodes start off on one topic but actually end with a totally separate one. Well, this work is very appropriate in a time of downsizing. These scientists lose their federal funding. They struggle with "How could I lose my job and how could my financial backers not see how essential I am?!" Many people panic when their skills become obsolete. This has a political edge too. One interviewee said, "Pretty soon we're gonna have two research arenas: Republican science and Democrat science." I understand his fear. However, I was thinking, "I sure would love Uncle Sam to focus on ending breast cancer or AIDS, rather than paying these physicists to sit around being theoretical!" Probably after this documentary was filmed, it was learned that a newly unemployed anthrax researcher may have killed those postal workers in 2001 or so. Sadly, when the government pulls funds, it can drive people crazy, but this work doesn't go there.

The work has a contest aspect. Will these Americans solve this scientific question or will the Swiss? In the 1980s, "And the Band Played On" suggested that American and French scientists raced to see who could locate the HIV virus. If I remember correctly, the Norwegians and the British competed to see who could reach the South Pole first.

Once in my high school physics class, an engineer visited and said, "Well, only 3% of engineers are minorities and only 5% are women." This work starts off by only showing white guys. Twenty minutes in, they show a white woman and a Latina. The white woman speaks about her dating life and you see the Latina speaking Spanish to her young son. So this documentary hands the mic to white men, a white woman, and a Latina, but the few men of color are rendered mute here. The women express that balancing work and family can be hard. Is it hard to maintain an ethnic culture when one is in the lab so often? Did physics help these men to move to the US? How does being a physicist and man of color affect their dating and marital chances? None of that comes up and I'm not pleased about it.

The lab in question is outside of Chicago. As a Chicagoan, it was great seeing O'Hare Airport in this documentary and seeing places that were familiar, rather than just being Any Town, USA.

The scientists were on a quest for some Higgs factor. It would seem like this would be the focus of the work, but it isn't. "Looking for Langston" was barely about Langston Hughes, either. Still, the minimizing of this quest may frustrate science-loving viewers.