What The Bleep Do We Know!?

[Howard Schumann]

WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW!?

Directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, and Mark Vicente (2004)

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a sometimes annoying, often preachy, but always thought provoking documentary about things in life we don't often think about -- the nature of reality and our place in the universe. The film has become something of a phenomenon, having gone from one theater in Washington State to more than 100 in 30 states to a national release by Samuel Goldwyn/Roadside Attractions and has repeatedly played to sellout crowds. Supporting the concept that the only reality is consciousness, it combines documentary, fiction, and computer animation to counter the current scientific/materialist paradigm that human beings are survival machines largely powered by chemicals and genetic coding, at the mercy of a random and uncaring universe. In the view espoused by the film, the universe is directed by conscious choice. There is no chance, no coincidence, and there are no innocent victims.

There is a story of sorts also. Marlee Matilin is Amanda, a depressed wedding photographer whose relationships have not been nurturing and is going through a life crisis requiring her to take tranquilizers to keep going. When she reaches her lowest point, however, she learns to see the world in a different way. Amanda is aided in her quest by computer-generated characters, a precocious pre-teen basketball player, lots of loud music, and entertaining imagery such as dozens of basketballs bouncing at once and water flowing backwards into a fountain. Some sequences, however, especially one at a Polish wedding, were so over the top with cutesy animated special effects that I thought I had inadvertently wandered into an elementary school science fair.

"Bleep", however, is not about weddings but about ideas. Commenting on Amanda's experience are fourteen scientists, mystics, college professors, and philosophers who remain unidentified until the end credits. These include William Tiller (The Science of Crystallization), Amit Goswami (The Self-Aware Universe), and Fred Alan Wolf (Taking the Quantum Leap). The main thrust of the discussion centers on quantum theory, an entirely theoretical abstract branch of science that contradicts other laws of the universe. Quantum physicists state that on the quantum level, the laws of Newtonian physics do not apply. There are no certainties, only possibilities. What governs behavior of matter at the smallest level is consciousness. What you think becomes reality. The chair you are sitting on may feel solid but, according to the physicists in the film, consists mostly of atoms each of which consists mainly of empty space. The stuff inside that space is elusive -- sometimes it acts like a particle, sometimes a wave. One Ph.D. states that "The most solid thing you can say about matter is that it's more like a thought."

Another tenet of the film is that our thoughts and feelings influence the material world. According to an experiment by Dr. Masuro Emoto that has been replicated, the taping of different words such as "love" and "hate" onto jars of distilled water left overnight altered their appearance under a microscope. The conclusion drawn from this experiment is that water is alive and reacts to the emotional fields surrounding it. Since our bodies consist mostly of water, the clear implication is that our thoughts and feelings can alter our biochemistry. The film also tells us that people can be as addicted to emotions and feelings as they are to coffee or tobacco and that if we observe rather than run our internal "tape recorder", we can choose a more satisfying response. Unfortunately, the channeler Ramtha, who otherwise has some interesting things to say, uses the film to launch an attack on organized religion that seems out of place in a film devoted to scientific discussion.

What the Bleep Do We Know!? has been dismissed by many critics who attack the credentials of the speakers rather than seriously consider what they are saying. These critics, who delight in throwing around tired epithets such as "cultist" and "New Agey", fail to note that science is now simply catching up with what has been a basic tenet of Eastern religion for centuries. While I consider "Bleep" to be an important film and welcome its appearance, I feel that it misses the mark in several ways. It encourages turning what is essentially a personal spiritual experience into a rational belief system, and by suggesting that the act of creation is a process of conscious will rather than underlying (and often misunderstood) intention. While the film has its flaws, it does succeed in shaking our deeply ingrained notions about reality and offers much stimulation for those interested in exploring alternative explanations of their experience. If we simply come away with the awareness that the world is a more mysterious place than we imagined, What the Bleep Do We Know!? will have made a unique contribution.

GRADE: B+

[tabuno]

Unlike the "rational belief system" that Howard Schumann seems to perceive as this movie's major thrust over spirituality, this movie fuses both our scientific findings and our transcendant selves. This movie descibes how the external world seems to have bombarded us through the mass media into believing that it is the outside world that controls us, tells us what and how to perceive, what to believe, what to think, and what is reality, when it turn it isn't organized religion that is reality, but only one set of possibilities. This movie is a liberating vision of personal self-exploration (consciousness) that is reflected down to the molcular level rather than a deliberate "intention."

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by tabuno
Unlike the "rational belief system" that Howard Schumann seems to perceive as this movie's major thrust over spirituality, this movie fuses both our scientific findings and our transcendant selves. This movie descibes how the external world seems to have bombarded us through the mass media into believing that it is the outside world that controls us, tells us what and how to perceive, what to believe, what to think, and what is reality, when it turn it isn't organized religion that is reality, but only one set of possibilities. This movie is a liberating vision of personal self-exploration (consciousness) that is reflected down to the molcular level rather than a deliberate "intention."

My only point was that in discussing the idea that we create our own reality in scientific terms and as an exercise in conscious choice, it threatens to turn it into a belief system. I think that the idea cannot be grasped as a concept. People will leave the theater saying, "boy that is interesting. I believe that" but continue to operate their lives as if they had nothing to do with it.

Creation is not a conscious process and can only be understood on the level of experience. That is why films like "What the Bleep" can throw out and discuss interesting ideas but ultimately do not make a difference in the way people live their lives.

[tabuno]

In going over some of the extras on the DVD, this movie seems to have caught on in substance abuse circles and I am trying the movie out on a drug and alcohol group. I hope that what you are saying isn't true because what I am attempting to do will be waste of time on these people and perhaps on the many other emotionally addicted people that other counselors are using this film for. We'll see. I'll let you know.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by tabuno
In going over some of the extras on the DVD, this movie seems to have caught on in substance abuse circles and I am trying the movie out on a drug and alcohol group. I hope that what you are saying isn't true because what I am attempting to do will be waste of time on these people and perhaps on the many other emotionally addicted people that other counselors are using this film for. We'll see. I'll let you know.

It can work if people experience for themselves that they are responsible for their life, not because someone else says it is a good idea. I also hope that it works.