It hasn't been that long since 2014's Theory of Everything about Hawking, with Eddie Redmayne, who won an Oscar (to go with the film's 4 other nominations). It didn't make Oppenheimer money, but it seems like it still counts as a prestige film.
I enjoy your books and your posts. Fellow physicist who does research and teaches history. I think that Dirac’s poignant life with lows, aloneness, love and family and then the opportunities found (Anderson) and lost ( the cosmic ray experiments that missed the positron) could be a nice story.
As a millennial, the physics-y movies that made an impression on young me were *Contact* and *October Sky*. But then I became a As a millennial, the physics-y movies that made an impression on young me were *Contact* and *October Sky*. But then I became a mathematician (and not because I watched *A Beautiful Mind*).mathematician (and not because I watched *A Beautiful Mind*).
I once told our former provost that we should recognize every single discipline with a movie or novel that loved them, sort of like designating an official state bird. He was a chemist; I suggested The Martian as the official book/movie of chemistry. He was curious, having not read it: what kind of chemistry was in it? Well, I said, he extracts hydrogen from hydrazine fuel so he can burn it as part of a process for making water, among other cool things. He recoiled from me: "oh my god, that's the worst idea ever, what are you saying?" I was like, hey, he's on Mars, it makes sense, really it does.
But I think it's worth taking a step back and asking: what works of culture inspire readers/viewers to think "honestly, that seems like a great and fun life?" Because those are few and far between in general, and they're often surprisingly oblique. (e.g., the thing with the actual professional role model is not the thing that actually inspires.)
I could see something riffing off of Ashoke Sen's argument that we need physics to figure out whether we can flee vacuum decay with generation ships. It would have to span multiple time periods to show the consequences though, sort of like "Cloud Atlas".
If you want kids to be physicists not to find out the secrets of nature, but to build the kind of expertise that translates well to many useful problems (presumably Sam Altman's motive since, you know, he isn't a physicist right now), then maybe you could make a movie about a physicist who goes around arrogantly debunking stuff. Take anecdotes like Feynman's involvement in the Challenger disaster and build a character that's sort of like the more asshole-ish portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, but who instead of detective work solves problems with dimensional analysis and Fermi estimates.
If you're truly limiting yourself to biopics, your best bet might Robert Noyce and the guys who founded Fairchild Semi and Intel - you've got the sunny setting of California, Shockley as the antagonist, and everybody gets rich at the end. Base it off of Tom Wolfe's article for the literary cred.
The real way to go, considering what the West Wing did to get kids into politics, would be prestige TV - set the show at a grad school (in, again, sunny California) where everyone is beautiful, Sorkin-written, and spend their days creating new technologies and intense personal drama. Some sort of cross between a CW drama and a modern-day Halt and Catch Fire.
Why is it that whenever anyone discusses or depicts physics in public, many physicists immediately turn to "Is this doing the right things to encourage more kids to go into physics?" Is that the only reason to talk about physics outside of a physics department?
There are lots of reasons to talk about a subject in the wider world without worrying about whether it's increasing the number of kids in the STEM Pipeline. Do movies about historical events need to encourage kids to become historians? Or film-makers? Or is it enough to just come away saying "Wow, I enjoyed those two hours!"?
To be clear, I think it's a silly thing to expect from a movie, and would not at all ding OPPENHEIMER for not inspiring kids to choose physics as a career. But since that Altman tweet exists, I think it's entirely reasonable to speculate about what such a film would look like, were someone to set out to make it.
I know you don't expect that from a movie. But Altman isn't the only person out there who sees all depictions of physics through the lens of "Will this make a statistically significant increase in the number of children who enter the STEM Pipeline?' It's a strange fixation.
Yeah, it's a bit weird, and not what I would choose. Kind of on a par with the people complaining that a tightly-focused biopic doesn't get into every one of the many ethical issues involved in WWII.
(At least his wife looks right at the camera and says what kind of Communist she was...)
I think you have discovered why the guys in "The Big Bang" all ended up with girlfriends: there are only so many good "nerd" stories; after those, people want to see drama, romance, and sex.
There was a BBC movie about Feynman and the Challenger disaster, with John Hurt. It was pretty good, but, Ok, not a blockbuster.
I favor Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, or something similar.
Don’t limit your thought to a biopic or drama.
Try to imagine what might appeal to a youngster.
Bernard Leikind
My favorite take was over at Roden:
https://craigmod.com/roden/082/
As Kottke describes it, More Science and More Heist Please.
It hasn't been that long since 2014's Theory of Everything about Hawking, with Eddie Redmayne, who won an Oscar (to go with the film's 4 other nominations). It didn't make Oppenheimer money, but it seems like it still counts as a prestige film.
I enjoy your books and your posts. Fellow physicist who does research and teaches history. I think that Dirac’s poignant life with lows, aloneness, love and family and then the opportunities found (Anderson) and lost ( the cosmic ray experiments that missed the positron) could be a nice story.
As a millennial, the physics-y movies that made an impression on young me were *Contact* and *October Sky*. But then I became a As a millennial, the physics-y movies that made an impression on young me were *Contact* and *October Sky*. But then I became a mathematician (and not because I watched *A Beautiful Mind*).mathematician (and not because I watched *A Beautiful Mind*).
I once told our former provost that we should recognize every single discipline with a movie or novel that loved them, sort of like designating an official state bird. He was a chemist; I suggested The Martian as the official book/movie of chemistry. He was curious, having not read it: what kind of chemistry was in it? Well, I said, he extracts hydrogen from hydrazine fuel so he can burn it as part of a process for making water, among other cool things. He recoiled from me: "oh my god, that's the worst idea ever, what are you saying?" I was like, hey, he's on Mars, it makes sense, really it does.
But I think it's worth taking a step back and asking: what works of culture inspire readers/viewers to think "honestly, that seems like a great and fun life?" Because those are few and far between in general, and they're often surprisingly oblique. (e.g., the thing with the actual professional role model is not the thing that actually inspires.)
I could see something riffing off of Ashoke Sen's argument that we need physics to figure out whether we can flee vacuum decay with generation ships. It would have to span multiple time periods to show the consequences though, sort of like "Cloud Atlas".
If you want kids to be physicists not to find out the secrets of nature, but to build the kind of expertise that translates well to many useful problems (presumably Sam Altman's motive since, you know, he isn't a physicist right now), then maybe you could make a movie about a physicist who goes around arrogantly debunking stuff. Take anecdotes like Feynman's involvement in the Challenger disaster and build a character that's sort of like the more asshole-ish portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, but who instead of detective work solves problems with dimensional analysis and Fermi estimates.
If you're truly limiting yourself to biopics, your best bet might Robert Noyce and the guys who founded Fairchild Semi and Intel - you've got the sunny setting of California, Shockley as the antagonist, and everybody gets rich at the end. Base it off of Tom Wolfe's article for the literary cred.
The real way to go, considering what the West Wing did to get kids into politics, would be prestige TV - set the show at a grad school (in, again, sunny California) where everyone is beautiful, Sorkin-written, and spend their days creating new technologies and intense personal drama. Some sort of cross between a CW drama and a modern-day Halt and Catch Fire.
I think a TV series aimed at even younger kids might be best at getting kids to go into the sciences.
Why is it that whenever anyone discusses or depicts physics in public, many physicists immediately turn to "Is this doing the right things to encourage more kids to go into physics?" Is that the only reason to talk about physics outside of a physics department?
There are lots of reasons to talk about a subject in the wider world without worrying about whether it's increasing the number of kids in the STEM Pipeline. Do movies about historical events need to encourage kids to become historians? Or film-makers? Or is it enough to just come away saying "Wow, I enjoyed those two hours!"?
To be clear, I think it's a silly thing to expect from a movie, and would not at all ding OPPENHEIMER for not inspiring kids to choose physics as a career. But since that Altman tweet exists, I think it's entirely reasonable to speculate about what such a film would look like, were someone to set out to make it.
I know you don't expect that from a movie. But Altman isn't the only person out there who sees all depictions of physics through the lens of "Will this make a statistically significant increase in the number of children who enter the STEM Pipeline?' It's a strange fixation.
Yeah, it's a bit weird, and not what I would choose. Kind of on a par with the people complaining that a tightly-focused biopic doesn't get into every one of the many ethical issues involved in WWII.
(At least his wife looks right at the camera and says what kind of Communist she was...)
What kind was she? People's Front of California or California People's Front?
I think you have discovered why the guys in "The Big Bang" all ended up with girlfriends: there are only so many good "nerd" stories; after those, people want to see drama, romance, and sex.
OCTOBER SKY: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132477/
Yeah, that was charming.