What the bleep do we know!? (2004) Directed by: William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente
Gog's Rate: 0/5
Personally, I find docu-films very interesting. I saw sometime ago a poster promoting the film: "What the bleep do we know!?", and yesterday, I finally got to see it. At the very beginning of the film, I had the feeling that I was watching something very good, but at the end everything goes wrong and the film turns into a complete nonsense.
The film consists on two parts, but I'll only speak about the excerpts of interviews with people who are supposed to be serious scientifics. Only at the very end of the movie, the spectators can read their names and achievements.
The film starts speaking about quantum physics. It's quite an interesting topic, and it's explained in a way that most of the people would understand it. The second part it's about physiology: how does our brain construct proteins, and how do these proteins affect the cells in our body. These two parts have a couple of controversial points, but everything is (in my modest opinion) right. The third and final part, speaks about religion and God, and many other things that do not have any relation with science.
The film tries to convince the spectators, that using only the power in our mind, we can proyect our reality (as in quantum physics, there's nothing until you try to measure it). It tries to establish an analogy between life and quantum physics, that is a complete stupidity.
The positive thinking theory is well-know in psychology (see for example: Daniel Goleman's "Emotional Intellegence" or Maxwell Maltz's "Psycho Cybernetics"), and it's proven to work. What really annoys me is that this basis it's used to tell us about religion, to criticise religion, and to present some american new age sect (School of Enlightenment or similar), whose leader is also interviewed in the film (a blonde woman who seems to be an ET).
I fell in the trap, If you ever see this movie, stop the tape after one hour. It's a friend's advice.
Note: Check this link and you'll get convinced: wikipedia
1 comment:
I haven't seen it, but I liked the idea of showing the name and position of the interviwed people in the end!
You know, when for example in the beginning of the interview they show that this is professor X from Stanford University or MIT, you give up thinking and accepting what he is talking about most of the time, because you are affected by his name or position. Otherwise when you don't know him, you analyse his idea more freely.
Post a Comment