User:Philosophus/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(May 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
What the #$*! Do We Know!?
Directed by William Arntz
Betsy Chasse
Mark Vicente
Produced by William Arntz
Betsy Chasse
Mark Vicente
Written by William Arntz
Matthew Hoffman
Betsy Chasse
Mark Vicente
Starring Marlee Matlin
Elaine Hendrix
Barry Newman
Music by Barry Coffing
Christopher Franke
Elaine Hendrix
Michael Whalen
Cinematography David Bridges
Mark Vicente
Editing by Jonathan Shaw
Release date(s) 2004
Running time 109 min
Language English
Official website
Allmovie profile
IMDb profile

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe⃗ #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a controversial 2004 film that combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality.[1][2]

Topics discussed in the film include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality, though the accuracy of many of the claims made have been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience. These are interspersed with the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her situation. Computer-animated graphics are featured heavily in the film.

Contents

[edit] Synopsis

Filmed on location in Portland, Oregon, What the Bleep Do We Know blends a fictional story line, documentary-style discussion, and computer animation to present a viewpoint of the physical universe and human life within it, with connections to neuroscience and quantum physics. Some ideas discussed in the film are:

  • The universe is best seen as constructed from thought (or ideas) rather than from substance.
  • What has long been considered "empty space" is anything but empty. see Dark energy
  • Our beliefs about who we are and what is real are not simply observations, but rather form ourselves and our realities.
  • Peptides manufactured in the brain can cause a bodily reaction to an emotion, resulting in a new perspective to old adages such as "think positively" and "be careful what you wish for."

In the narrative segments of the movie, Marlee Matlin portrays Amanda, a deaf photographer who acts as the viewer's avatar as she experiences her life from startlingly new and different perspectives.

In the documentary segments of the film, experts in quantum physics, biology, medicine, psychiatry, and theology, along with spiritual commentators, discuss the roots and meaning of Amanda's experiences. The comments focus primarily on a single theme: We create our own reality.

[edit] Production

The film includes over three hundred visual effects shots—a very large shot count for an independent, privately-financed film. Budget constraints required an international effort. Work was split between Toronto-based Mr. X Inc., Lost Boys Studios in Vancouver, and Atomic Visual Effects in Cape Town, South Africa.[3]

The visual effects team, led by visual effects supervisor Evan Jacobs, worked closely with the filmmakers to create visual metaphors that would capture the essence of the quantum concepts while still being attractive. The script required representations of effects such as a forest of nerve cells in the brain, a sea of subatomic particles, an elaborate dance sequence involving human cells of emotion, and the concept of quantum superposition.[3]

The wedding was filmed in St. Patrick's Catholic Church, which was built in 1888 and is located on the corner of 17th and Savier in northwest Portland, Oregon. St. Patrick's is not a Polish parish, as was shown in the movie; historically it has provided services for a primarily Irish congregation.

Some of the interviews were filmed at the University of Washington in Seattle. Most notably, the grand staircase and reading room of Suzzallo Library, the quad, and the front of Denny Hall were used as interview locations.

[edit] Promotion

Lacking the funding and resources of the typical Hollywood film, the filmmakers relied on "guerrilla marketing" first to get the film into theaters, and then to attract audiences. This has led to accusations, both formal and informal, directed towards the film's proponents, of spamming online message boards and forums with many thinly veiled promotional posts. Initially, the film was released in only two theaters: one in Yelm, Washington (the home of the producers), and the other (The Bagdad Theater) in Portland, Oregon, where it was filmed. Within several weeks, the film had appeared in a dozen or more theaters (mostly in the western United States), and within six months it had made its way into 200 theaters across the US.[4]

According to the makers of the film, "Bleep" is a bowdlerization of "fuck". William Arntz has referred to the film as "WTFDWK" in a message to Bleep's "Street Team".[5]

[edit] Reviews

[edit] Movie

According to Publishers Weekly, the movie was one of the sleeper hits of 2004, as "word-of-mouth and strategic marketing kept it in theaters for an entire year." The gross exceeded $10 million, a good showing for a low-budget documentary in which, they say, "scientists discuss the ramifications of recent discoveries in quantum physics and neuroscience." [4]

The critics offered fairly mixed reviews as seen on the movie review website Rotten Tomatoes.[6] Dave Kehr of the New York Times described in his review of the movie, the "transition from quantum mechanics to cognitive therapy" as "plausible", but went on to state that "the subsequent leap—from cognitive therapy into large, hazy spiritual beliefs—isn't as effectively executed. Suddenly people who were talking about subatomic particles are alluding to alternate universes and cosmic forces, all of which can be harnessed in the interest of making Ms. Matlin's character feel better about her thighs."[7]

[edit] Books

The filmmakers worked with HCI Books to expand on the movie's themes in a book titled What the Bleep Do We Know!?—Discovering the Endless Possibilities of Your Everyday Reality. According to HCI president, Peter Vegso, "What the Bleep is the quantum leap in the New Age world," and "by marrying science and spirituality, it is the foundation of future thought."[4]

In a Publishers Weekly article about the book, New Page Books publicist Linda Rienecker says that its success is part of a wider phenomenon. "A large part of the population is seeking spiritual connections, and they have the whole world to choose from now," she says. "They're beginning to realize that there is a universal force and it doesn't matter what you call it, it's how you connect to it." [4] Author Barrie Dolnick adds that "people don't want to learn how to do one thing. They'll take a little bit of Buddhism, a little bit of veganism, a little bit of astrology... They're coming into the marketplace hungry for direction, but they don't want some person who claims to have all the answers. They want suggestions, not formulas."[4]

In the same article, Bill Pfau, of Inner Traditions, says "New Age community have become accepted into the mainstream," attributing the acceptance of the ideas in the movie to the baby boom generation, which grew up alongside the New Age movement from the late 1960s onward.[4]

[edit] The Little Book of Bleeps

The Little Book of Bleeps was created by the filmmakers after they observed movie patrons taking notepads to the theaters to capture the essence of the film. The book contains excerpts from the movie personally selected by filmmakers Arntz and Chasse.[8]

[edit] Featured individuals

The film featured several interviewees for the documentary portion, including

  • JZ Knight, a spiritual teacher who is also identified in the narrative portions as the spirit "Ramtha" that Knight is channelling,
  • Dr. Candice Pert, a neuroscientist, who cellular bonding site for endorphins in the brain, and in 1977 wrote the book Molecules of Emotion,
  • Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, an independent physicist, who recently wrote The Yoga of Time Travel: How the Mind Can Defeat Time,[11] and
  • Dr. David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University. While it may appear as though he supports the ideas that are presented in the movie, according to a Popular Science article, he is "outraged at the final product," because the filmmakers interviewed him about quantum mechanics unrelated to consciousness or spirituality, and then edited the material in such a way that he feels misrepresented his views. [12]

Other interviewees in the film include Joe Dispenza, a chiropractor, author, and a devotee of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment;[13] Miceal Ledwith, author and former professor of theology at Maynooth College in Ireland; Daniel Monti, physician and director of the Mind-Body Medicine Program at Thomas Jefferson University; Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, psychiatrist, author and professor; and William Tiller, Professor Emeritus of Material Science and Engineering at Stanford University, and employed by the Institute of Noetic Sciences. [9]

[edit] Controversy

According to Physics Today, the film invokes quantum physics to promote pseudoscience.[14] The article also states "the movie illustrates the uncertainty principle with a bouncing basketball being in several places at once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the movie gradually moves to quantum "insights" that lead a woman to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god, and on to even greater nonsense."

John Gorenfeld reports that three directors are devotees of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment and JZ Knight/Ramtha.[15]

The Guardian Unlimited published an article summarizing the reactions to the film by some British scientists. Richard Dawkins states that "the authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us", concluding that the film is "tosh". Professor Clive Greated writes that "thinking on neurology and addiction are covered in some detail but, unfortunately, early references in the film to quantum physics are not followed through, leading to a confused message". He also questions whether modern physics cannot be married with institutional religion as the film implies. Simon Singh called it pseudoscience, and said the suggestion "that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics" was "ridiculous balderdash." According to Dr Joao Migueijo, reader in theoretical physics at Imperial College, the film deliberately misquotes science. [16]

An article published by Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports that Associate Professor Zdenka Kuncik, Professor Peter Schofield and Professor Max Colthear have criticised the film's ideas that quantum mechanics means an observer can consciously affect reality, saying: "The observer effect of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles... this only applies to sub-atomic particles - a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." The article also discusses Hagelin's experiment with Transcendental Meditation and the Washington D.C rate of violent crime, noting that "the number of murders actually went up," comments on the film's use of the ten percent myth.[17]

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Fortean times have both discussed the story of the Native American's "perceptual blindness" to European ships. Both agree that there is a real psychological phenomenon of perceptual blindness, but find the historical details of the account given in the film to be unconvincing. The Fortean Times concludes that the story originated with Captain Cook. [18]

[edit] Credits

[edit] Filmmakers

  • William Arntz: Producer, Director, Screenwriter
  • Betsy Chasse: Producer, Director, Screenwriter
  • Mark Vicente: Director, Director of Photography

[edit] Cast

[edit] Physicists

[edit] Neurologists, anesthesiologists and physicians

[edit] Molecular biology

[edit] Spiritual teachers, mystics and scholars

[edit] Visual effects

  • Evan Jacobs – visual effects supervisor
  • Atomic Visual Effects – brain animation
  • Mr. X Inc – cells animation
  • Lost Boys Studios – basketball sequence, rabbit-hole effects

[edit] Awards

  • Awards given in 2004:
    • Ashland Independent Film Festival – Best Documentary
    • DCIFF – DC Independent Film Festival – Grand Jury Documentary Award
    • Maui Film Festival – Audience Choice Award – Best Hybrid Documentary
    • Houston World Fest – Platinum Remi Award
    • Sedona International Film Festival – Audience Choice Award, Most Thought-Provoking Film.
    • Pigasus Award – "Category #3, to the media outlet that reported as factual the most outrageous supernatural, paranormal or occult claims". [19]

[edit] Sequel

On August 1, 2006 What the BLEEP – Down the Rabbit Hole, Quantum Edition multi-disc DVD set was released, containing two extended versions of What the BLEEP Do We Know!?, with over 15 hours of material on 6 DVD sides.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ What the Bleep do We Know!? IMDb.com
  2. ^ What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Official site whatthebleep.com
  3. ^ a b Cinefex article detailing the visual effects for the film.
  4. ^ a b c d e f What the Bleep Do We Know" Publishers Weekly
  5. ^ Our power is in our ability to decide - Can you? Ideas Coaching
  6. ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/what_the__do_we_know/
  7. ^ Kehr, Dave. "A Lesson in Harnessing Good Vibes", The New York Times, 2004-09-10. Retrieved on 2006-11-30. 
  8. ^ Little Book of Bleeps Amazon.com
  9. ^ a b Wagner, Annie. "David Albert: ‘What the BLEEP’ Is Wildly and Irresponsibly Wrong", The Stranger, 2006-02-08. Retrieved on 2006-11-30. 
  10. ^ Faculty for the Physics Minor of Maharishi University of Management. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
  11. ^ http://www.thinkingallowed.com/2fwolf.html
  12. ^ Mone, Gregory. "Cult Science: Dressing up mysticism as quantum physics", Popular Science, October 2004. Retrieved on 2006-11-29. 
  13. ^ http://www.beyondtheordinary.net/joedispenza.shtml
  14. ^ Kuttner, Fred; Rosenblum, Bruce (November 2006). "Teaching physics mysteries versus pseudoscience". Physics Today 59 (11): 14. American Institute of Physics. 
  15. ^ Gorenfeld, John. ""Bleep" of faith", Salon, 2004-09-16. Retrieved on 2006-11-29. 
  16. ^ "The minds boggle".The Guardian Unlimited'
  17. ^ What the Bleep are the On About?! Australian Broadcasting Corporation
  18. ^ Questioning perceptual blindness Fortean Times
  19. ^ 2004 Pigasus awards James Randi Educational Foundation

[edit] External links

[[Category:2004 films]] [[Category:American films]] [[Category:Films set in Oregon]] [[Category:Films shot in Oregon]] [[Category:New Age]] [[Category:Religious culture of the Pacific Northwest]] [[de:What the Bleep Do We Know]] [[es:¿¡Y tú qué sabes!?]] [[he:בליפ]] [[nl:What the Bleep Do We Know!?]] [[pt:What the Bleep Do We Know!?]]