what the bleep? - the film

This past weekend a bunch of us got together to watch the movie: What the Bleep Do We Know? We rented it because lots of folks in our area look to this particular movie as a sort of spiritual guide and as a way of living. In short, we wanted to see this film to be "culturally literate."

This is the first post in a series about the m ovie called "what the bleep?". MO and I will facilitate this dialogue in four specific areas between our two blogs. Today I'll begin with a general commentary on the film as a "film."

**DISCLAIMER: If you haven't yet seen this movie, I recommend that you view it with an open mind... something the producers of this film did not do in their presentation.**

Synopsis: When I heard about "What the Bleep...?" I was immediately interested. It was to be a film about how spirituality and science related to one another through a dual presentation of (1) experts in various fields and (2) a fictional story woven throughout the film. The film does in fact present one view of science and spirituality interrelating and it does include a fictional story of sorts.

Bias: Unfortunately, the entire film reeked of bias. I was thoroughly disappointed with the a priori assumptions that were made. It was absolutely clear that the film was produced with an agenda under the guise of being a documentary presenting theories. There was no room for any theories about faith, science or emotions save the one specific theory expounded by the film-makers. Therefore, this film cannot be viewed in any way as an academic documentary because every other possibility of how the "research" (I use that term VERY lightly) could be interpreted were not given any credence whatsoever.

Presentation: Great idea, poor execution. As we will see throughout this series, the film brings up really important questions about current scientific research, understanding emotions/physical nature of life and how spirituality mixes in the milieu. Unfortunately, the research was presented in "sound bites," such that statements were pulled out of context and mixed with various other statements from other researchers. It seemed that the editors "used" these sound bites to make the "experts" say what they wanted them to say. (BTW, you can call them "researchers" and "experts" if you want to... their credentials which are shown at the conclusion of the film are for the most part far from any sort of legitimate repute. For instance, one of their researchers who spends a lot of time talking about how he creates his day each day received his degree from a school in Atlanta that recently lost its accreditation as a viable educational institution.) Great idea to mix this research in with a fictional story; unfortunately, the story did not illumine the research at all. In fact, it took away from the research and even refuted the research--making it farcical at times (as MO will talk about in the emotions and chemicals post).

Dialogue: We had a good dialogue following the film; and we feel a bit more "conversant" with the culture in our area. I hope you'll participate in this dialogue between our two blogs. If you haven't seen the film, I recommend that you see it if you feel it could help you understand your particular culture's worldview better. (I will warn you about the unnecessary sexual innuendo that goes on, and on, and on for the better part of thirty minutes.) If you're looking for a movie to help you connect dots between science, faith and the physicality of human existence... this isn't it.

UPDATE (September 20, 2005; 7:30PM): My buddy Dan found this linkage to an article by Wikipedia on What the Bleep Do We Know? Turns out that much of my criticism about the production of the film is shared by this online encyclopedia. Two quotes from Wikipedia should suffice for now:

The filmmakers assembled a panel favorable to their views to make their point. Through creative editing, voice-overs, and special effects, points are raised, discussed, and illustrated in ways designed to inform as well as entertain. Critics have voiced concerns that the film is disingenuous and that it selectively presents information, while not presenting contradictory information.

The film presents scientific experts to support the film's underlying philosophy, but, by and large, the scientists have previously been involved in promoting similar ideas. Arguably, their presence in the film represents the filmmaker's efforts to find scientists sympathetic to the film's ideas. Given the selection process, the scientists do not represent the general scientific community's views. (emphasis mine)

Pictured in my post is one of the "experts," Ramtha. Here's Wikipedia's description of her:

JZ Knight/Ramtha appears frequently in the film. In the film, she appears to be a scientist or spiritual teacher of some kind. By the end of the film, during the credits, she is identified as the spirit "Ramtha" who is being "channeled" by "JZ Knight." The three people who wrote, directed, and produced the movie are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Knight was born Judith Darlene Hampton in Roswell, N.M. The spirit, Ramtha, who she claims to channel, is "a 35,000 year-old warrior spirit from the lost continent of Atlantis and one of the Ascended Masters." (Knight speaks with an accent because English is not Ramtha's first language.) (emphasis mine)

In this series:

1. The film (Adam's blog)
2. Emotions and chemicals (MO's blog)
3. Leap of faith (Adam's blog - guest writer!)
4. The science of it all (MO's blog)

Comments

[Zogg]

"...We rented it because lots of folks in our area look to this particular movie as a sort of spiritual guide and as a way of living."

"...We had a good dialogue following the film; and we feel a bit more "conversant" with the culture in our area."

Could you please expand on what you mean about the "culture in our area?"

[Jared]

e-mail I did send...response there was not.

[Joe Thorn]

Great movie to talk about. One of our "cultural exegetes" at Grace said he thought the film was scary; wooing, in a bad direction. I agree, but what it does is present the possibility of, and need for, radical shifts in our understanding of science and reality itself. I just think they came up with the wrong answer. I'm eager to read your thoughts on the whole.

[adam feldman]

zogg~ i had been wanting to see this film since it came out about a year ago. i recently heard several "regulars" @ the coffee shop that i work at talking about the film, how it had impacted their lives, and expressing a desire to study it together. if anything, seeing this film will help me understand part of their worldview and give us something to talk about. hope that answers your question... narf!

joe~ i'm excited that mo is doing this series with me. it should lend itself to a variety of dialogue and viewpoints. (the links will be updated as we post the various, uh, posts.) anyway, i agree that the film does challenge our current approach to science. i would suggest that our popular approach to science is as though what science gives us cold, hard "truths." really science just offers us degrees of certainty based on hypothesis, experiment, etc.. this film approached pretty much everything as "truth," and left little to no room for hypothesis. but, i'm giving too much away... we'll talk about that in a future post!

[adam feldman]

oh, and one more thing, zogg, i didn't mean to insinuate that the entire culture in this area looks to this particular film for said guidance. only a handful of folks were talking about it and it was clear to me it made a huge impact on them... hence, why i wanted to see it to become "conversant."

[BaristaDave]

talk about a movie that can get you thinking. I thought "What the Bleep" was an excellent internal conversation starter. a great beginning to some inspiring thought experiments. but definately no answers. the true disappointment (I have to agree) is in the faulty presentation of "FACTS." Adam, I remember after you went to see "The Passion" with me, I said that I wish more belief systems could have their own movie. well, i guess it is time to get those flavored shoelaces I've always dreamed of.

and hey, what's this about a coffeehouse job?

[adam feldman]

barista dave! yeah, pretty disappointed with the presentation of this film. turned out to be more propaganda than it did information dissemination.

yeah... i'm a barista now myself... i'll make you a latte when you visit...