MikeJanis Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Hello! This is my first post on the site. I've noticed that most of the other movie reviews are pretty short and that mine is, well, long. The reason is that there's just so much to criticize about this movie, so I hope you enjoy! --Major spoilers are included in this review, if you can “spoil” a “documentary.”-- This movie advocates a new theory supporting the primacy of consciousness, and is thus a movie that, while watching it, I found myself loving to hate. Sometimes bad movies can be as entertaining as good movies because they give us Objectivist-types fuel for our philosophical fires. The movie’s basic premise is that we actually create and control reality with our thoughts and emotions. To clarify, they are not talking about a thought which is the seed of an action, but literally the thought itself, and they attempt to prove it with quantum physics. Quantum Physics I know very little about quantum physics, and I believe the movie was written with people like me in mind for the intended audience. Here’s what I got from the movie: Quantum physics is the study of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles, including the electrons and the nucleuses (yes, the entire nucleus) of atoms, at apparently random time intervals and for unknown reasons, can disappear, reappear, and exist in separate places at the same time, which is referred to as the particle’s “superposition.” So, at any given time, we are unable to predict the actual location of any of these particles, and every atom in existence is subject to these behaviors. “A particle, which we think of as a solid thing, really exists in a so-called ‘superposition,’ a spread-out wave of possible locations, and it’s in all of those [locations] at once. The instant you check on it, it snaps into just one of those possible locations.” This means that particles are in many places at once, until you observe them, then they are in only one place. The Observer is the Creator Visual images of this concept show a kid with a basketball, and when the observing character turns away from him, the kid is surrounded by many balls representing possible locations of a subatomic particle (because a particle could be in any place at any time, or in all of those places at once), but when the observer turns back, the kid has only one ball (of all the infinite possibilities, the ball ended up in only one). This is supposed to illustrate how matter could be in any place before it is observed, but how it locks into one place when we look. By the way, they do say that objects large enough to be seen with microscopes have been observed existing in two places simultaneously. So, the scientists in the movie conclude that, since the particles could be anywhere until we look at them, we are actually choosing where they will end up at that exact moment, because until the particles are observed, they are not in fixed positions. Therefore, by observing objects, we force the atoms into fixed positions, so, we create reality. This also means that each individual person creates his own, separate reality, and that that each of us truly lives in our own world, which is totally unique to the worlds inhabited by every other individual being. (I assume each individual animal get its own world too, or do they not have the power to fix the positions of subatomic particles into place like we do?) How Do We Observe Ourselves? This denies the law of self-inclusion. Who’s observing the atoms in our brains that allow us to use them? At this point, the movie’s tone changes a bit, almost as if in reaction to that question. They back off and elude that maybe it’s not us as individuals who are observing atoms and fixing them into place, and thereby creating reality, but maybe there’s some sort of Ultimate Observer who’s doing the observing. So, then they talk about God for a while and assign him the task of being this Observer. Then, they recant a bit and sort of elude that it’s really our own subconscious that exists in an immaterial form, free from the shackles of the neural net, free from the need to be observed in order to materialize. I suppose the subconscious could observe the atoms in our bodies so we could exist first, then would go about observing the atoms of all surrounding objects so they can also exist… Here’s my favorite quote on this subject: “We all have a habit of thinking that everything around us is already a thing, existing without my input, without my choice. You have to banish that kind of thinking. Instead, you really have to recognize that in the material world around us, the chairs, the tables, the rooms, the carpet, camera included, all of these are nothing but possible movements of consciousness. And I’m choosing moment to moment out of those movements to bring my actual experience into manifestation.” Wow. This is saying that the world does not exist independent of our consciousness. Does that also deny the law of self-inclusion? I mean, the world’s here, right? If that guy dies, will the world still be here? Denial of A Priori Knowledge Another silly point the movie makes is that we can’t observe things of which we have no knowledge. They said that the Native Americans on the islands first discovered by Columbus couldn’t see the approaching ships because they had never seen anything like them before, and had no knowledge that such objects could exist. Heheh… I don’t think I have to say anything more about that, it’s just too easy… Emotional Water? As further proof that our minds affect the physical materials around us, the movie offers the work of the Japanese “scientist,” Masaru Emoto, and the results of his experiments with water. It was amusing to me that at this point that they refer to water as one of “the four elements.” So arcane… It seems that when Mr. Emoto taped a piece of paper with an emotional word written on it to a bottle of distilled water, then took pictures of the water with a dark field microscope. He did this with several different words and found that the water reacted differently to different words. Words like love and “thank you” caused the water to make pretty snowflake images, while “You make me sick, I will kill you” caused the water to turn yellow and make a shape like a, well, I don’t know what it was, but it wasn’t a pretty snowflake. All I really have to say about that is that it’s a good thing that water knows Japanese (that’s what he used to write on the papers), because imaging trying to teach water the subtle difference between their, there, and they’re! Emotional You The movie attempts to explain what our emotions are, because if we know what drives us, we’ll be able to better create the world to our advantage. Their explanation is actually plausible, and describes the process by which the hypothalamus gland, when cued by the brain, creates chemicals (different chemicals for each and every emotion) that cause us to experience the sensations of our emotions (e.g. a rush of excitement, euphoria, or paralysis). As far as I could tell, they weren’t inferring that the chemicals were the cause of emotions, only the creators of the sensations we feel. These chemicals are spread to every cell in the body via the bloodstream, and the cells respond to them. Over time, if enough of a certain type of chemical (emotion) is experienced, our cells can become addicted to it. The Power of Self-Talk At this point, the movie describes the effect our self-talk has on our selves. It is repeated several times that our bodies are made up almost entirely of water, and if emotional words can have such an effect on bottled water, imagine what our emotions can do to our selves! And, since we are able to create reality, imagine the power our thoughts have on our selves. Granted, self-talk is very powerful, so for stressing that I give the movie one point. For saying that it occurs though some sort of magic ability we possess, but of which we may be unaware, I recall that point. That concludes this review. I recommend this movie to Objectivists because it’s a philosophy based movie, and I believe you’ll have as much fun picking it apart as I did. And, if you haven’t seen the movie, I left several points un-discussed, so there will still be some surprises for you. Enjoy! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 (edited) Wow, I could tell from the title exactly what kind of rubbish this movie was. A friend of mine said I should watch it and told him I didn't want to waste 2 hours of my life. Glad I didn't. Edited March 28, 2005 by erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeJanis Posted March 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Wow, I could tell from the title exactly what kind of rubbish this movie was. A friend of mine said I should watch it and told him I didn't want to waste 2 hours of my life. Glad I didn't. I think it can be good for us to see movies like this one (as long as it doesn't turn your stomach) because of the "Know Your Enemy" theory. Knowing the difference between an "active" and "open" mind, we know that we aren't required to deeply consider every piece of trash philosophy that we encounter, but considering the philosophies of others can strengthen our own ideas. Or, it can make you feel like , in which case maybe it's not the best idea. You're definitely right about the title though, it really should have been a dead giveaway (not that I expected much in the first place)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxixcxk Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 Another silly point the movie makes is that we can’t observe things of which we have no knowledge. They said that the Native Americans on the islands first discovered by Columbus couldn’t see the approaching ships because they had never seen anything like them before, and had no knowledge that such objects could exist. Heheh… I don’t think I have to say anything more about that, it’s just too easy LOL. Funny you should mention this part b/c after seeing the movie about 9months ago (or whever it came out), the only part I remember was the Indian thing. I remember saying to my friends, "What the !@#!? If that chick can't see the ship, why can he!?" Then I remembered he was a shaman, had cool face paint and body decorations, and wasn't white--so he must have had special powers. Wow, I could tell from the title exactly what kind of rubbish this movie was. A friend of mine said I should watch it and told him I didn't want to waste 2 hours of my life. Glad I didn't. lol good call The title should have been, "What the Bleep Do they Know?", or "How Many Times Can We Appeal to Authority?" or "Holy Crap this Movie Completely Sucks and is a Waste of Time, Don't See it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeJanis Posted March 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 lol good call ..."Holy Crap this Movie Completely Sucks and is a Waste of Time, Don't See it" HAHAHAhahahahahahaha...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 (edited) Denial of A Priori Knowledge Another silly point the movie makes is that we can’t observe things of which we have no knowledge. They said that the Native Americans on the islands first discovered by Columbus couldn’t see the approaching ships because they had never seen anything like them before, and had no knowledge that such objects could exist. Heheh… I don’t think I have to say anything more about that, it’s just too easy… Maybe they meant we couldnt see them 'as ships'? Kind of like how if I look at a medical scanner picture taken of the inside of a mother's womb, I will just see a blob rather than the picture of a foetus which is 'seen' by a doctor who knows what to look for? I dunno, I'm trying to think of ways it could make sense because that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read Edited April 1, 2005 by Hal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxixcxk Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 I dunno, I'm trying to think of ways it could make sense because that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read Oh no nono lol, they were definitely talking about completely NOT seeing the ship. In the movie, if I remember correctly, the shaman taps the lady on the forehead and POOF!! the ship appears!! You should see the movie though, it's a comic relief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeJanis Posted April 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 Oh no nono lol, they were definitely talking about completely NOT seeing the ship. In the movie, if I remember correctly, the shaman taps the lady on the forehead and POOF!! the ship appears!! You should see the movie though, it's a comic relief. Right, because they were saying that at first the shaman could see strange ripples in the water, but couldn't figure out what was causing them. Then, after staring in their direction, they suddenly appeared as if out of thin air! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Passion of the Koresh Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 I would just like to take an excerpt from John Olmsted's review of this abomination that I think is pure gold. If [chiropractor Joe Dispenza, using Ramtha's version of neuroscience]is right that we live in an imagined world not grounded in reality, testing his theory on your drive home would lead to a carnage of competing versions of where the road begins and ends. I would like to add that a hard determinist would truly and mercilessly gut this movie with the following bombshell: the presence of random events would not support a "free will" unconstrained by causality, but would only make reality unbearably inconsistent. Oops, I guess the "truth" they so desperately sought wasn't the comforting fairy tale they thought it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cellar door Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 I *%@#ing know that I'm not shelling out $$ to see this *^!% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nk2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 it's really frustrating to read a lot of people's comments who say they're objective, but then state they refuse to see this movie after reading a couple negative comments. i love hearing everyone's OPINIONS about this movie, but i for one would like to see both sides before making my final decision on what IDEAS i think are more valid. quantum physics is theory! nobody's trying to lie to the general public. appreciate this film for what it is: an opportunity to think. ideas are harmless, it's when people take it to the next level of hard core beliefs and therefore truth where things get fouled up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 Okay, I don't remember anyone here saying that these were "objective" reviews. Objectivists beleive in objective reality (which by the way, is contradictory to this movie). That doesn't mean that Objectivists are going to Objectively portray something they hate. People seem to use the term objective in place of "open-minded." Objectivists are NOT open-minded. They have active minds. I for one can think about whether an argument is valid without hearing its counter argument. The truth of an idea should not be dependent on the ideas that disagree with it. ideas are harmless, it's when people take it to the next level of hard core beliefs and therefore truth where things get fouled up. (bold mine) If you think that, you won't get very far here. Ideas are not harmless. If I have the idea that it is ok to kill someone, then I become very dangerous. I don't know what you are implying by the phrase in bold. Just because you believe something does not make it true. "Believe" also implies that you aren't really sure, so how can you be sure that it is "truth?" Just as a friendly tip, some of the people on this forum (myself included) tend to get cranky when a newbie decides to criticize them in his/her first post without knowing who they are talking to. You might want to start with an Introduction. Do you know what Objectivism is? What do you mean by "objective?" Do you think Objectivists are supposed to be objective? Also please note that there are spelling and grammar rules on this forum. The rules can be found here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nk2005 Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 all previous comments about objectivism aside... i prefer to formulate my opinions after hearing both sides from the source. i don't understand why others have posted comments that are so against this movie simply based on another person's viewing of it. go see it for yourself! make up your own mind, don't let someone else make it for you. that is my main point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxixcxk Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 Hi nk2005, and welcome to the forums. appreciate this film for what it is: an opportunity to think. Although I appreciate the cognitive reframe, I thought the film had some ulterior motives. ideas are harmless, it's when people take it to the next level of hard core beliefs and therefore truth where things get fouled up. What about this ^ ^ idea as well? In what category would you place it? i prefer to formulate my opinions after hearing both sides from the source. Me too ..which is why I originally saw the movie. In my school, it was under much adjulation so I thought it give it a try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 i prefer to formulate my opinions after hearing both sides from the source. i don't understand why others have posted comments that are so against this movie simply based on another person's viewing of it. go see it for yourself! make up your own mind, don't let someone else make it for you. I will volunteer you to jump out of an airplane both with and without a parachute so you can objectively determine which method is best right from the source, then. The whole point of movie reviews is so that you can a.) find good movies and b.) avoid crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 The "documentary" in question was produced by a cult; the scientists interviewed were indignant because their comments were taken out of context in order to support things like supernaturalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 No comment to your comments. Welcome! Uhm ... You signed up just to write that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Welcome! Uhm ... You signed up just to write that? That post was deleted for lacking intellectual content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Emotional Water? As further proof that our minds affect the physical materials around us, the movie offers the work of the Japanese “scientist,” Masaru Emoto, and the results of his experiments with water. It was amusing to me that at this point that they refer to water as one of “the four elements.” So arcane… It seems that when Mr. Emoto taped a piece of paper with an emotional word written on it to a bottle of distilled water, then took pictures of the water with a dark field microscope. He did this with several different words and found that the water reacted differently to different words. Words like love and “thank you” caused the water to make pretty snowflake images, while “You make me sick, I will kill you” caused the water to turn yellow and make a shape like a, well, I don’t know what it was, but it wasn’t a pretty snowflake. What is a dark field microscope? How does it work? What does it display? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 (edited) A microscope which works by reflection, not transmission: the specimen is placed on a dark background and lit from the front, as against a traditional microscope which lights from behind the specimen. Did anyone else notice that this 'scientist's' name is 'Emoto?' Seems too coincidental to me. As in made up. Edit: Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto -Q Edited July 20, 2006 by Qwertz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto Thanks for the link. This guy is a scam. Otherwise he would have collected Randi's million dollars for providing a valid double-blind study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemuel Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Bored one night, I went to the theater for this one. When the psychic (pshycho?) medium came on the screen, I walked out of the theater. The ride home was more stimulating. I didn't see how it ended, but I remember hoping the film reel would blink into nonexistence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychotrope Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 It's scary how any film maker with the right connections and a budget can push his/her irrational view in a professionally produced documentary and make it look like authority (see Michael Moore). I think that what documentaries like this (which should really be called "propogandumentaries") bank on is the fact that most people naturally assume that "if it's in a documentary, it must be true." But movies like this don't even deserve to be called documentaries. Dictionary.com's definition of "documentary": Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. Unfortunately most of the "documentaries" you see today, and pretty much all of the ones that win awards for "best documentary" don't conform to this definition. But the definition is changing. Although I believe it was traditionally a part of the definition of "documentary", it seems that the "objective" part of the definition is often dropped through common usage so that a documentary ends up being "something someone put together that makes some statements about some stuff." Wikipedia defines a "documentary film" as "a broad category of cinematic expression united by the intent to remain factual or non-fictional." In the end, I think that viewers still mistakenly hold the view that a documentary is an objective piece presenting factual information. But documentary makers subscribe to the newer definition which simply says that it falls in the realm of "non-fiction" work. It is this discrepancy of expectation that creates problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 I majored in film, and we had to spend a whole semester on documentary alone. I realized right away that there is no objective definition of 'documentary.' The closest I've been able to come is "a propaganda film made outside the egis of government." The idea (taught by my card-carrying Communist professors) that documentary strives to be 'unbiased and nonjudgmental' explains the ambiguity: every time you turn on the camera, you are making a judgment call about what to include (inside the frame) and what to exclude (outside it). 'Documentarians' shoot hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of footage for a feature-length film, which must all be edited down, selecting between what should be in the final product and what shouldn't - a process of discrimination. The moment someone calls their film a documentary, they are lying to you. They are trying to tell you that their film is an unbiased collection of facts presented for your evaluation, when it isn't. I look at things made for TV serials (like 'Modern Marvels' on the History Channel, for example) which don't call themselves documentaries and I see a much better product. Modern Marvels (generally) asserts that technology is a good thing, which most 'documentarians' would call inapropriate, even though they make similar value judgments all the time. The term 'documentary' is something applied by the filmmaker. But since it doesn't really mean anything, it's just a way of circumventing rational discussion - I call my work a documentary, and it immediately becomes an authority against all argument. It's a sneaky way to try to win a debate, and it's been eroding the difference between truth and fiction for nearly 100 years. The first recognized 'documentaries' are the works of Dziga Vertov, who, unprompted by the Soviet government, made films like Man with a Movie Camera praising the Soviet work system. They were propaganda made outside the egis of a government, and nearly every major documentary since has had some kind of propaganda (though not necessarily political). I got Ds that semester, because I took this view of documentary and put it into the assignments - I made propaganda pieces, including a very good one on socialized medicine (and how it was evil evil evil!) The assignment was to do "an unbiased portrait of a person," which meant follow someone around with a camera, then edit together all the interesting parts. Well I did exactly that - I followed my mother, a surgeon, around for a couple of days. Then I edited together all the times she ran into problems with the increasing socialization of medicine in America. Then I had her do some voice-over to tie it all together. Big anti-communism moment at the end. I got a D, because (I was told) we 'weren't supposed to make a position piece.' Mine was the only one the class wanted to see again - I even had people not in the class asking about it. I tried to get it shown during the class's annual 'Documentary Night,' which was open to the public, but the professors had discretion and rejected it. Maybe I'll toss it up on the internet somewhere some day. Documentary, bah. -Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 You could post it on http://youtube.com/ I'd love to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.