Jump to content

What the Bleep Do We Know!?: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
subsequent pronouns make the word "female" clumsily unnecessary
Mavrisa (talk | contribs)
47 edits
Grammar
Line 34: Line 34:
einstein year, What the Bleep do we Know. Retrieved December 28, 2007.</ref><ref name="PW" />
einstein year, What the Bleep do we Know. Retrieved December 28, 2007.</ref><ref name="PW" />


The film has been criticized <!-- By critics/scientists such as X and Y -->for misrepresenting science<ref name="Physics-Today" /><ref name="boggle" /><ref name=ABC /><ref name=ACS /> and containing [[pseudoscience]],<ref name="Physics-Today" /><ref name="boggle" /> and has been described as [[quantum mysticism]].<ref name=laweekly><url=http://www.laweekly.com/columns/quark-soup/quantum-mysticism/9195/></ref>
The film has been criticized <!-- By critics/scientists such as X and Y -->for misrepresenting science<ref name="Physics-Today" /><ref name="boggle" /><ref name=ABC /><ref name=ACS /> containing [[pseudoscience]],<ref name="Physics-Today" /><ref name="boggle" /> and has been described as [[quantum mysticism]].<ref name=laweekly><url=http://www.laweekly.com/columns/quark-soup/quantum-mysticism/9195/></ref>


== Synopsis ==
== Synopsis ==

Revision as of 00:24, 15 December 2009

What the #$*! Do We Know!?
Movie promotional poster for What the Bleep showing the difficult-to-render title.
Directed byWilliam Arntz
Betsy Chasse
Mark Vicente
Written byWilliam Arntz
Matthew Hoffman
Betsy Chasse
Mark Vicente
Produced byWilliam Arntz
Betsy Chasse
Mark Vicente
Starring interview partners: David Albert, Joseph Dispenza, Masaru Emoto, Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, Stuart Hameroff, Miceal Ledwith, Daniel Monti, Andrew B. Newberg, Candace Pert, Ramtha, Jeffrey Satinover, William Tiller, Fred Alan Wolf;
CinematographyDavid Bridges
Mark Vicente
Edited byJonathan Shaw
Music byBarry Coffing
Christopher Franke
Elaine Hendrix
Michael Whalen
Distributed byRoadside Attractions
Release date
2004
Running time
109 minutes (Theatrical) 324 minutes (Director's Cut)
LanguageEnglish

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative that posits a spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness. The plot follows the story of a deaf photographer; as she encounters emotional and existential obstacles in her life, she comes to consider the idea that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world. Her experiences are offered by the filmmakers as an illustration of the movie's thesis about quantum physics and consciousness. The 2004 cinematic release of the film was followed by a substantially changed, extended DVD version in 2006.

Bleep was conceived and its production funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente: all of these individuals are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.[1] A moderately low-budget independent production, it was promoted using viral marketing methods and opened in art-house theaters in the western United States, winning several independent film awards before being picked up by a major distributor[2] and eventually grossing over $10 million.[3][4]

The film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[5][6][7][8] containing pseudoscience,[5][6] and has been described as quantum mysticism.[9]

Synopsis

Filmed in Portland, Oregon, What the Bleep Do We Know presents 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.
  • "Empty space" is not empty.
  • Matter is not solid. Electrons pop in and out of existence and it is unknown where they disappear to.
  • Beliefs about who one is and what is real form oneself and one's realities.
  • Peptides manufactured in the brain can cause a bodily reaction to an emotion.

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, interviewees discuss the roots and meaning of Amanda's experiences. The comments focus primarily on a single theme: We create our own reality. The director, William Arntz, has described What the Bleep as a movie for the "metaphysical left".[10]

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.[11] 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 film's technical subjects with attention to aesthetic detail.[11]

The wedding was filmed in St. Patrick's Catholic Church, which was built in 1888 and is located in northwest Portland. 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.

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".[12]

The Institute of Noetic Sciences, a New Age research organization that "explores phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models", has supported What the Bleep Do We Know!? and published a study guide.[13]

Reception

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 article states that the gross exceeded $10 million, which is referred to as not bad for a low-budget documentary, and that the DVD release attained even more significant success with over a million units shipped in the first six months following its release in March 2005.[4]

In the Publishers Weekly article, publicist Linda Rienecker of New Page Books says that she sees the film's success as part of a wider phenomenon, stating "A large part of the population is seeking spiritual connections, and they have the whole world to choose from now".[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] The same article quotes Bill Pfau, Advertising Manager of Inner Traditions, as saying "More and more ideas from the New Age community have become accepted into the mainstream."

Film critics offered mixed reviews as seen on the movie review website Rotten Tomatoes.[14] In his review of the movie, Dave Kehr of the New York Times described the "transition from quantum mechanics to cognitive therapy" as "plausible", but stated also 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."[15]

New Age community reaction

What the Bleep Do We Know!? has been described as "a kind of New Age answer to The Passion of the Christ and other films that adhere to traditional religious teachings."[10] It offers alternative spirituality views characteristic of New Age philosophy, including critiques of traditional religion's moral values. The movie was well received at film festivals where New Age adherents are demographically strong, for example Sedona, Arizona.[10][16]

Academic reaction

Scientists who have reviewed What the Bleep Do We Know!? have described distinct assertions made in the film as pseudoscience.[17] Amongst the concepts in the film that have been challenged are assertions that water molecules can be influenced by thought (as popularized by Masaru Emoto),[3] that meditation can reduce violent crime rates,[8] and that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the ground of all being." The film was also discussed in a letter published in Physics Today that challenges how physics is taught, saying teaching fails to "expose the mysteries physics has encountered [and] reveal the limits of our understanding." In the letter, the authors write "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." It went on to say that "Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided," and that "a physics student may be unable to convincingly confront unjustified extrapolations of quantum mechanics," a shortcoming which the authors attribute to the current teaching of quantum mechanics, in which "we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered."[5]

Richard Dawkins stated 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 wrote 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". Despite his caveats, he recommends that people see the movie, stating, "I hope it develops into a cult movie in the UK as it has in the US. Science and engineering are important for our future, and anything that engages the public can only be a good thing." 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 João Magueijo, professor in theoretical physics at Imperial College, the film deliberately misquotes science.[6] The American Chemical Society's review criticizes the film as a "pseudoscientific docudrama", saying "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought."[8]

The film's central theme—that quantum mechanics suggests that a conscious observer can affect physical reality—has also been refuted by Bernie Hobbs, a science writer with ABC Science Online. Hobbs explains, "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." Hobbs also discusses Hagelin's experiment with Transcendental Meditation and the Washington DC rate of violent crime, saying that "the number of murders actually went up." Hobbs also disputed the film's use of the ten percent myth.[7]

David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics are linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."[18]

In the film, during a discussion of the influence of experience on perception, Candace Pert notes a story, which she says she believes is true, of Native Americans being unable to see Columbus's ships because they were outside their experience. According to an article in Fortean Times by David Hambling, the origins of this story likely involved the voyages of Captain James Cook, not Columbus, and an account related by historian Robert Hughes which said Cook's ships were "...complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding". Hambling says it is likely that both the Hughes account and the story told by Pert were exaggerations of the records left by Captain Cook and the botanist Joseph Banks. Historians believe the Native Americans likely saw the ships but ignored them as posing no immediate danger.[19]

Other critics

Skeptics such as James Randi described the film as "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[20] The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry dismisses it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense," where "science [is] distorted and sensationalized."[21] A BBC reviewer described it as "a documentary aimed at the totally gullible."[22]

Journalist John Gorenfeld, writing in Salon, notes that the film's three directors are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which he describes as having been called a "cult."[18]

Book adaptation and sequel film

In mid-2005, 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. HCI president, Peter Vegso, stated in regard to the book his company was publishing, he believed that "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]

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.

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,
  • Andrew B. Newberg, assistant professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital, and physician in nuclear medicine, who coauthored the book, Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science & the Biology of Belief (ISBN 0-345-44034-X),
  • Candace Pert, a neuroscientist, who discovered the cellular bonding site for endorphins in the brain, and in 1977 wrote the book Molecules of Emotion.
  • Fred Alan Wolf, an independent physicist, who recently wrote The Yoga of Time Travel: How the Mind Can Defeat Time,[25] and
  • David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, who according to a Popular Science article, 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.[17]

Other interviewees in the film include Joe Dispenza, a chiropractor, author, and a devotee of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment;[26] Michael Ledwith, author and former professor of theology at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth; Daniel Monti, physician and director of the Mind-Body Medicine Program at Thomas Jefferson University; 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.[23]

Credits

Filmmakers

Cast

Physicists

Neurologists, anesthesiologists and physicians

Molecular biologist

Spiritual teachers, mystics and scholars

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

Awards

References

  1. ^ Yahr, Harriette (Sept. 9, 2004). "Let's get metaphysical". Salon.com. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Tom Huston, "Taking the Quantum Leap... Too Far?", What is Enlightenment? Magazine. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  3. ^ a b http://www.einsteinyear.org/bleep/ einstein year, What the Bleep do we Know. Retrieved December 28, 2007.
  4. ^ a b c d e f Ron Hogan (9/5/2005). "New Age: What the Bleep? Categories conflate, confound, connect". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved 2007-12-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b c Kuttner, Fred (2006). "Teaching physics mysteries versus pseudoscience". Physics Today. 59 (11). American Institute of Physics: 14. doi:10.1063/1.2435631. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)}
  6. ^ a b c "The minds boggle". The Guardian Unlimited
  7. ^ a b What the Bleep are they On About?! Australian Broadcasting Corporation
  8. ^ a b c Wilson, Elizabeth (2005-01-13). "What the Bleep Do We Know?!". American Chemical Society. Retrieved 2007-12-19.
  9. ^ <url=http://www.laweekly.com/columns/quark-soup/quantum-mysticism/9195/>
  10. ^ a b c Kehr, Dave. "'Bleep' Film Challenges Traditional Religion, Attracts Following". beliefnet.com. Retrieved 2007-12-30.
  11. ^ a b "Cinefex article detailing the visual effects for the film".
  12. ^ Our power is in our ability to decide - Can you? Ideas Coaching
  13. ^ Institute of Noetic Sciences. What the Bleep Do We Know!? Study Guide
  14. ^ What the Bleep Do We Know? Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes
  15. ^ Kehr, Dave (2004-09-10). "A Lesson in Harnessing Good Vibes". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  16. ^ Sedona Film Festival
  17. ^ a b Mone, Gregory (2004). "Cult Science Dressing Up Mysticism as Quantum Physics". Popular Science. Retrieved 2008-02-17. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  18. ^ a b Gorenfeld, John (2004-09-16). ""Bleep" of faith". Salon. Retrieved 2006-11-29.
  19. ^ Fortean Times
  20. ^ a b 2004 Pigasus awards James Randi Educational Foundation
  21. ^ Review[dead link] by Eric Scerri of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
  22. ^ Review at BBC Movies
  23. ^ a b Wagner, Annie (2006-02-08). "David Albert: 'What the BLEEP' Is Wildly and Irresponsibly Wrong". The Stranger. Retrieved 2006-11-30.
  24. ^ "Faculty for the Physics Minor of Maharishi University of Management". Retrieved 2007-06-30.
  25. ^ Fred Alan Wolf: Fred Alan Wolf Videos from Thinking Allowed
  26. ^ Dr. Joe Dispenza from "What the Bleep do we Know" - Beyond the Ordinary Dot Net
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&oldid=331713392"