James Toback is a name that carries a lot of baggage these days, but in 1987, he released a documentary that defied every single convention of the genre. The Big Bang film isn’t a science documentary. If you went into this expecting Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining cosmic microwave background radiation, you’re going to be deeply confused or perhaps pleasantly surprised. It’s actually a philosophy-driven interrogation of existence. Toback sat a bunch of famous, infamous, and completely random people in front of a camera and asked them the biggest questions imaginable. What is death? Why are we here? Is there a God? Does sex explain everything?
It's raw.
The movie feels like a snapshot of a very specific moment in New York intellectual history. You have everyone from professional basketball players like Darryl Dawkins to the legendary cinematographer José Luis Alcaine. Even Donald Trump makes an appearance long before his political life, looking remarkably young and talking about—you guessed it—himself and his legacy. It’s a strange, swirling mix of egos and honest vulnerability.
What The Big Bang Film Actually Tries to Accomplish
Most documentaries try to teach you a fact. This one tries to provoke a feeling. Toback’s approach was basically to grill his subjects until the "performance" dropped away. He wasn't interested in their resumes. He wanted to know if they were afraid of the dark. The film uses the literal "Big Bang" as a metaphor for human creation and the spark of consciousness.
Honestly, the pacing is erratic. Some interviews feel like they last an eternity, while others are quick, jagged bursts of insight. You’ve got figures like the astronomer Fred Hoyle—the guy who actually coined the term "Big Bang" (ironically as a joke because he hated the theory)—providing a weirdly grounded contrast to the more "woo-woo" philosophical ramblings of the artists in the room. This tension between hard science and human ego is exactly what makes the film stay in your head long after the credits roll.
The Weirdest Cast Ever Assembled
Think about this lineup for a second. You have:
🔗 Read more: How Old Is Paul Heyman? The Real Story of Wrestling’s Greatest Mind
- Polly Draper, an actress dealing with the nuances of life and fame.
- Darryl Dawkins, "Chocolate Thunder" himself, talking about the universe.
- Barbara Kopple, a powerhouse documentary filmmaker being put on the other side of the lens.
- Sheila Kennedy, a Penthouse Pet.
- Elaine Shore, an elderly woman reflecting on the end of life.
It shouldn't work. It really shouldn't. Yet, by stripping away the context of why these people are famous, Toback makes them all equal under the gaze of the universe. It’s a leveling of the playing field. When you're talking about the heat death of the universe or the possibility of an afterlife, it doesn't really matter how many points you scored in the NBA or how many buildings you own in Manhattan.
Why People Keep Finding This Movie Decades Later
We live in an era of highly polished, three-act-structure documentaries on Netflix. Everything is explained. Every mystery is solved by the end of the 90-minute runtime. The Big Bang film is the opposite of that. It’s messy. It’s grainy. It feels like you’re eavesdropping on a private dinner party where everyone got a little too drunk and started talking about their existential dread.
The cinematography by Barry Markowitz is intentionally claustrophobic. The camera stays tight on the faces. You see the sweat. You see the hesitation in their eyes when they realize they don't actually have an answer for why they exist. This is the "Big Bang" experience—not the birth of stars, but the sudden, explosive realization of one's own insignificance.
Is it actually "Scientific"?
Not in the traditional sense.
If you are a student looking for a visual aid for your physics homework, please look elsewhere. This film treats the cosmological Big Bang as a springboard for metaphysical speculation. It’s more interested in the why than the how. Toback leans heavily into the idea that sex and creation are inextricably linked to the cosmic beginning. It’s a very Freudian take on the universe, which was very "in" for the 80s New York art scene but might feel a bit dated to modern audiences.
💡 You might also like: Howie Mandel Cupcake Picture: What Really Happened With That Viral Post
The inclusion of Fred Hoyle is the most "science" the movie gets. Hoyle was a brilliant mind who famously championed the "Steady State" theory. He hated the idea of a beginning to the universe. To him, the Big Bang was a "vulgar" idea. Watching him interact with Toback’s high-concept questioning provides a fascinating look at the sociology of science. It shows that even the most brilliant minds are guided by their own aesthetic preferences and philosophical biases.
The Controversy and the Director's Legacy
It’s impossible to talk about this film in 2026 without acknowledging the elephant in the room. James Toback’s reputation has been thoroughly dismantled by numerous allegations of sexual misconduct that came to light during the #MeToo movement. This casts a dark shadow over the film. When you watch him push women in the film to talk about their most intimate fears or sexual experiences, it takes on a predatory undertone that viewers in 1987 might have dismissed as "edgy filmmaking."
Does this ruin the movie? For some, absolutely. For others, it makes the film an even more complex artifact of a time when "auteur" status granted men a terrifying amount of psychological power over their subjects. It’s a film about the human condition made by a man who, as it turns out, had a very specific and often destructive way of interacting with that condition.
Key Takeaways from the 1987 Experience
The movie doesn't offer a "conclusion." It just... stops.
But it leaves you with a few lingering thoughts:
📖 Related: Austin & Ally Maddie Ziegler Episode: What Really Happened in Homework & Hidden Talents
- Everyone is equally clueless: From billionaires to athletes, no one actually knows what’s going on.
- The power of the close-up: You can learn more about a person’s philosophy by watching their eyes than by listening to their words.
- Science is human: Even the most objective theories are born from human minds with human flaws.
How to Watch it Today
Finding a high-quality stream of The Big Bang film is surprisingly difficult. It hasn't received the 4K Criterion treatment that many of its contemporaries have. You can usually find it on niche arthouse streaming services or, if you’re lucky, a grainy upload on a video-sharing site.
If you decide to seek it out, don’t watch it while scrolling through your phone. It’s a movie that demands you look these people in the eye. It’s a conversation. It’s a confrontation.
Your Next Steps for Exploring 80s Arthouse Cinema:
If the philosophical madness of Toback’s work intrigued you, your next stop should be the filmography of Errol Morris, specifically A Brief History of Time (1991). While Morris is much more structured and visually inventive, he shares that same obsession with the intersection of human personality and cosmic truth.
Alternatively, if you want more of that raw, unvarnished 80s New York vibe, look into the early works of John Cassavetes. Though his work is scripted (mostly), the "truth-seeking" camera style is a direct ancestor to what Toback was trying to achieve with his interviews. You might also want to look up the actual writings of Fred Hoyle to see why he fought so hard against the Big Bang theory—it’s a masterclass in how scientific "truth" is often a matter of perspective until the data becomes overwhelming.
Check your local library's Kanopy access or look for out-of-print DVD copies on secondary markets if you want to see the film in its original, intended clarity. Understanding this movie requires understanding the era of "The Me Generation" crashing into the vastness of the cosmos.