Media Noetic Org Uploads Files Bleep Study Guide
| What the Bleep Do We Know!? | |
|---|---|
 Promotional poster | |
| Directed by | William Arntz Betsy Chasse Mark Vicente |
| Written by | William Arntz Matthew Hoffman Betsy Chasse Marking Vicente |
| Produced by | William Arntz Betsy Chasse Mark Vicente |
| Cinematography | David Bridges Marking Vicente |
| Edited by | Jonathan Shaw |
| Music by | Christopher Franke |
| Production | Captured Calorie-free |
| Distributed by | Roadside Attractions, Samuel Goldwyn Films |
| Release dates |
|
| Running time | 109 minutes |
| State | United States |
| Languages | English language Spanish High german |
| Box office | $16 1000000 |
What the Bleep Do We Know!? (stylized equally What tнē #$*! D̄ө ωΣ (k)πow!? and What the #$*! Practice We Know!? ) is a 2004 American pseudo-scientific film that posits a spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness. The plot follows the fictional story of a photographer, using documentary-style interviews and computer-animated graphics, as she encounters emotional and existential obstacles in her life and begins to consider the idea that private and grouping consciousness tin can influence the material world. Her experiences are offered by the filmmakers to illustrate the movie's scientifically-unsupported thesis virtually quantum physics and consciousness.
Bleep was conceived and its product funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the pic forth with Betsy Chasse and Marking Vicente; all three were students of Ramtha's Schoolhouse of Enlightenment. A moderately low-budget independent film, it was promoted using viral marketing methods and opened in fine art-house theaters in the western United states, winning several independent pic awards earlier being picked up by a major distributor and eventually grossing over $10 million. The 2004 theatrical release was succeeded by a substantially changed, extended habitation media version in 2006.
The film has been described as an instance of breakthrough mysticism, and has been criticized for both misrepresenting science and containing pseudoscience. While many of its interviewees and subjects are professional scientists in the fields of physics, chemistry, and biological science, one of them has noted that the motion picture quotes him out of context.[1]
Synopsis [edit]
Filmed in Portland, Oregon, What the Bleep Do We Know!? presents a viewpoint of the physical universe and human being life within it, with connections to neuroscience and quantum physics. Some ideas discussed in the pic are:
- That the universe is best seen as constructed from thoughts and ideas rather than from matter.
- That "empty space" is not empty.
- That thing is non solid, and electrons are able to pop in and out of existence without information technology being known where they disappear to.
- That beliefs about who one is and what is real are a direct cause of oneself and of 1'south ain realities.
- That peptides produced by the encephalon tin can cause a actual reaction to emotion.
In the narrative segments of the picture show, Marlee Matlin portrays Amanda, a photographer who plays the part of everywoman equally she experiences her life from startlingly new and different perspectives.
In the documentary segments of the picture, interviewees discuss the roots and meaning of Amanda's experiences. The comments focus primarily on a single theme: "We create our own reality." The managing director, William Arntz, has described What the Bleep every bit a film for the "metaphysical left".[2]
Cast [edit]
- Marlee Matlin as Amanda
- Elaine Hendrix as Jennifer
- Barry Newman as Frank
- Robert Bailey Jr. as Reggie
- John Ross Bowie as Elliot
- Armin Shimerman as Man
- Robert Blanche as Bob
- Larry Brandenburg every bit Bruno
- Patti B. Collins as Female parent of the Helpmate
Production [edit]
Work was dissever between Toronto-based Mr. X Inc., Lost Boys Studios in Vancouver, and Atomic Visual Effects in Cape Town, Due south Africa.[iii] The visual-effects squad, led by Evan Jacobs, worked closely with the other film-makers to create visual metaphors that would capture the essence of the film's technical subjects with attention to artful item.[three]
Promotion [edit]
Defective the funding and resources of the typical Hollywood film, the filmmakers relied on "guerrilla marketing" first to go the moving-picture show into theaters, and then to attract audiences. This has led to accusations, both formal and informal, directed towards the film'southward proponents, of spamming online message boards and forums with many thinly veiled promotional posts. Initially, the pic was released in only two theaters: i in Yelm, Washington (the home of the producers, which is also the dwelling of Ramtha), 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 than theaters (mostly in the western United states of america), and within vi months it had made its way into 200 theaters beyond the United states of america.[4]
Co-ordinate to the makers of the movie, "Bleep" is an expurgation of "fuck". William Arntz has referred to the flick equally "WTFDWK" in a message to the film'southward street team.[5]
The Institute of Noetic Sciences, a New Age inquiry system that "explores phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models", has supported What the Bleep Do We Know!? and published a study guide.[6]
Reception [edit]
According to Publishers Weekly, the film was ane of the sleeper hits of 2004, as "word-of-oral fissure and strategic marketing kept it in theaters for an entire year." The article states that the domestic gross exceeded $10 meg, described as non bad for a low-budget documentary, and that the DVD release attained even more pregnant success with over a meg units shipped in the first six months post-obit its release in March 2005.[4] Foreign gross added another $v million for a worldwide gross of about $xvi one thousand thousand.[7]
In the Publishers Weekly article, publicist Linda Rienecker of New Page Books says that she sees the film's success as function of a wider phenomenon, stating "A large part of the population is seeking spiritual connections, and they accept the whole world to cull from now".[4] Author Barrie Dolnick adds that "people don't want to learn how to do ane thing. They'll have a little fleck of Buddhism, a piffling fleck of veganism, a lilliputian bit of star divination... They're coming into the marketplace hungry for direction, just they don't want some person who claims to have all the answers. They want suggestions, non formulas."[four] The same article quotes Pecker Pfau, Advertizing Manager of Inner Traditions, equally saying "More and more ideas from the New Age community have get accustomed into the mainstream."
Movie critics offered mixed reviews equally seen on the film review website Rotten Tomatoes, where information technology scored a "Rotten" 34% score with an boilerplate score of 4.6/x, based on 77 reviews.[viii] In his review of the film, Dave Kehr of The New York Times described the "transition from quantum mechanics to cognitive therapy" as "plausible", merely stated likewise that "the subsequent leap—from cognitive therapy into large, hazy spiritual beliefs—isn't equally effectively executed. Suddenly people who were talking well-nigh subatomic particles are alluding to alternate universes and cosmic forces, all of which tin can be harnessed in the interest of making Ms. Matlin's graphic symbol feel better about her thighs."[9]
[edit]
What the Blip Practice Nosotros 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."[ii] It offers alternative spirituality views characteristic of New Historic period philosophy, including critiques of the competing claims of stewardship amongst traditional religions [viz., institutional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam] of universally recognized and accepted moral values.[10]
Academic reaction [edit]
Scientists who have reviewed What the Bleep Practise We Know!? have described distinct assertions made in the flick as pseudoscience.[xi] [12] Lisa Randall refers to the film as "the bane of scientists".[xiii] Among the assertions in the film that accept been challenged are that water molecules tin exist influenced by thought (as popularized past Masaru Emoto), that meditation can reduce violent offense rates of a city,[xiv] and that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the basis of all beingness." The pic was likewise discussed in a letter published in Physics Today that challenges how physics is taught, saying instruction 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 incorrect with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the motion picture gradually moves to breakthrough 'insights' that lead a adult female to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the breakthrough channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-one-time Lemurian warrior, 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 face up unjustified extrapolations of breakthrough mechanics," a shortcoming which the authors aspect to the current teaching of quantum mechanics, in which "we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered".[eleven]
Richard Dawkins stated that "the authors seem undecided whether their theme is breakthrough 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 item just, 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 run across the picture, stating: "I promise information technology develops into a cult motion picture in the United kingdom as information technology has in the US. Science and engineering science are important for our future, and anything that engages the public can only be a expert thing." Simon Singh called information technology pseudoscience and said the suggestion "that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves nosotros can change at a fundamental level via the laws of breakthrough physics" was "ridiculous balderdash". Co-ordinate to João Magueijo, professor in theoretical physics at Imperial Higher, the film deliberately misquotes science.[12] The American Chemical Society's review criticizes the film as a "pseudoscientific docudrama", saying "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people tin travel backward in time, and that thing is actually idea."[xiv]
Bernie Hobbs, a science writer with ABC Science Online, explains why the picture is incorrect about quantum physics and reality: "The observer event of quantum physics isn't most 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 merely applies to sub-atomic particles—a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It'southward at that place. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that brand up the rock are there as well." Hobbs also discusses Hagelin's experiment with Transcendental Meditation and the Washington DC rate of violent crime, proverb that "the number of murders actually went up". Hobbs further disputed the film'due south use of the ten percent of the brain myth.[15]
David Albert, a philosopher of physics 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 is linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness".[one]
In the picture show, during a word 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 run into Columbus'south ships because they were exterior their experience. Co-ordinate to an commodity in Fortean Times by David Hambling, the origins of this story probable involved the voyages of Helm James Melt, not Columbus, and an account related by Robert Hughes which said Cook's ships were "...complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding". Hambling says information technology is likely that both the Hughes account and the story told by Pert were exaggerations of the records left by Captain Melt and the botanist Joseph Banks.
Skeptic James Randi described the film equally "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant case of abuse by charlatans and cults".[16] Eric Scerri in a review for Committee for Skeptical Research dismisses it every bit "a hodgepodge of all kinds of beatnik nonsense," where "science [is] distorted and sensationalized".[17] A BBC reviewer described it every bit "a documentary aimed at the totally gullible".[18]
Co-ordinate to Margaret Wertheim, "History abounds with religious enthusiasts who have read spiritual portent into the system of the planets, the vacuum of space, electromagnetic waves and the big bang. Only no scientific discovery has proved so ripe for spiritual projection every bit the theories of quantum physics, replete with their quixotic qualities of uncertainty, simultaneity and parallelism." Wertheim continues that the film "abandons itself entirely to the ecstasies of quantum mysticism, finding in this aleatory description of nature the cardinal to spiritual transformation. As one of the film's characters gushes early in the proceedings, 'The moment we acknowledge the breakthrough self, nosotros say that somebody has get enlightened'. A moment in which 'the mathematical formalisms of breakthrough mechanics [...] are stripped of all empirical content and reduced to a ready of syrupy nostrums'."[xix]
Journalist John Gorenfeld, writing in Salon, notes that the film's 3 directors are students of Ramtha'due south Schoolhouse of Enlightenment, which he says has been described as a cult.[one]
Book adaptation and sequel flick [edit]
In mid-2005, the filmmakers worked with HCI Books to expand on the film'southward themes in a book titled What the Blip Exercise We Know!?—Discovering the Endless Possibilities of Your Everyday Reality. HCI president Peter Vegso stated that in regard to this book, "What the Bleep is the quantum leap in the New Age world," and "past marrying science and spirituality, it is the foundation of futurity idea."[4]
On Baronial 1, 2006 What the Bleep! Down the Rabbit Hole - Breakthrough Edition multi-disc DVD set was released, containing two extended versions of What the Blip Practice Nosotros Know!?, with over xv hours of textile on three double-sided DVDs.
Featured individuals [edit]
The motion-picture show features interview segments of:
- Dean Radin, Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) in Petaluma, California and proponent of paranormal phenomena.
- John Hagelin of Maharishi University of Management, director of MUM'southward Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy, and iii-fourth dimension presidential candidate of the Transcendental Meditation-linked Natural Law Political party.
- Stuart Hameroff, anesthesiologist, writer, and associate director of the Centre for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, who developed with Roger Penrose a quantum hypothesis of consciousness in the books The Emperor's New Mind, and Shadows of the Mind.
- JZ Knight, a spiritual teacher who is identified in interview segments as the spirit "Ramtha" that Knight claims to channel.
- Andrew B. Newberg, banana professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital, and doctor in nuclear medicine, who coauthored the book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Scientific discipline & the Biology of Belief (ISBN 0-345-44034-10)
- Candace Pert, a neuroscientist, who discovered the cellular bonding site for endorphins in the brain, and in 1997 wrote the book Molecules of Emotion (ISBN 0684831872)
- Fred Alan Wolf, independent physicist, author of Taking the Quantum Leap, winner of the 1982 National Volume Honour in science, and featured in the documentary moving-picture show Spirit Space. Wolf has taught at San Diego State University, the Academy of Paris, the Hebrew Academy of Jerusalem, the University of London, and Birkbeck College, London.
- David Albert, philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience, who according to a Popular Scientific discipline article was "outraged at the final product" of his interview which he felt misrepresented his views virtually quantum mechanics and consciousness.[20]
- Micheál Ledwith, author and sometime professor of theology at St. Patrick'due south Higher, Maynooth;
- Daniel Monti, physician and director of the Mind-Trunk Medicine Programme at Thomas Jefferson University;
- Jeffrey Satinover, psychiatrist, author and professor;
- William Tiller, Professor Emeritus of Textile Science and Engineering at Stanford University;
- Joe Dispenza, former Ramtha School of Enlightenment teacher,[21] chiropractor.
Awards [edit]
- Ashland Independent Film Festival – Best Documentary[22]
- DCIFF – DC Independent Flick Festival – Grand Jury Documentary Honour[23]
- Maui Picture Festival – Audience Choice Honor – Best Hybrid Documentary[24] [25]
- Sedona International Movie Festival – Audience Pick Award, Most Thought-Provoking Film[25]
- Pigasus Honour – an annual tongue-in-cheek award, this particular award's category was #3: "to the media outlet that reported as factual the nigh outrageous supernatural, paranormal or occult claims".[16]
See as well [edit]
- Mind-body problem
- Hard trouble of consciousness
- Law of attraction
- List of films featuring the deafened and hard of hearing
References [edit]
- ^ a b c Gorenfeld, John (2004-09-16). ""Bleep" of organized religion". Salon . Retrieved 2017-12-12 .
- ^ a b Cipolla, Benedicta. "'Bleep' Film Challenges Traditional Religion, Attracts Following". beliefnet.com . Retrieved 2007-12-30 .
- ^ a b "Cinefex article detailing the visual furnishings for the moving picture". cinefex.com. Archived from the original on 2007-08-04.
- ^ a b c d east Hogan, Ron (2005-09-05). "New Age: What the Blip? Categories conflate, derange, connect". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 11 August 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-28 .
- ^ "Our power is in our power to decide - Tin you?". ideascoaching.co.uk. Ideas Coaching. Archived from the original on 27 May 2007. Retrieved xx August 2007.
- ^ "What the Bleep Do Nosotros Know!? Written report Guide" (PDF). noetic.org. Institute of Noetic Sciences. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-05-12.
- ^ "Box role results". BoxOfficeMojo.com . Retrieved August 3, 2010.
- ^ "What the Bleep Do We Know?". Rotten Tomatoes . Retrieved Jan 11, 2022.
- ^ Kehr, Dave (2004-09-10). "A Lesson in Harnessing Good Vibes". The New York Times . Retrieved 2008-01-06 .
- ^ "'What the #$*!' makes 'Bleep' so popular". Fort Worth Star Telegram. 2005-01-22.
- ^ a b Kuttner, Fred; Rosenblum, Bruce (November 2006). "Teaching physics mysteries versus pseudoscience". Physics Today. 59 (11): fourteen. Bibcode:2006PhT....59k..14K. doi:x.1063/i.2435631.
- ^ a b Magueijo, João (xvi May 2005). "The minds boggle". The Guardian Unlimited . Retrieved Jan 11, 2022.
- ^ Randall, Lisa (2011-09-twenty). Knocking on Heaven's Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modernistic Earth (1st ed.). New York: Ecco. p. ten. ISBN978-0-06-172372-8.
- ^ a b Wilson, Elizabeth (2005-01-xiii). "What the Bleep Do We Know?!". American Chemical Society. Retrieved 2007-12-19 .
- ^ Hobbs, Bernie (June 30, 2005). "What the Bleep are they On About?!". ABC.cyberspace.au. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
- ^ a b "Annual Pigasus Awards Appear". randi.org. James Randi Educational Foundation. April 1, 2005. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
- ^ Scerri, Eric (September–October 2004). "What the #$'! Do They Know?". 28 (five). Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved Jan 11, 2022 – via csicop.org.
- ^ Russell, Jamie (May 17, 2005). "Review: What The Bleep Exercise We Know!? (2005)". bbc.co.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. BBC Movies. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
- ^ Wertheim, Margaret (June 10, 2004). "Quantum Mysticism". LA Weekly. Archived from the original on March 16, 2008. Retrieved 2010-07-21 .
- ^ Mone, Gregory (Oct 2004). "Cult Scientific discipline Dressing Up Mysticism every bit Quantum Physics". Popular Science . Retrieved 2008-02-17 .
- ^ Connell, Joan (1997-03-08). "The New Age Spiritualist and the Old School Scholars". Washington Mail service.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-condition (link) - ^ "Third Almanac Awards - 2004 Films". ashlandfilm.org. Ashland Independent Picture Festival. Retrieved 2010-07-21 .
- ^ "About". dciff.org. DC Independent Flick Festival. Archived from the original on March iv, 2009. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - ^ Baccil, Pat (2004-08-11). "What the... Bleep.... Practice We Know the Docu Drama". press.xtvworld.com. Press XTVWorld. Retrieved 2010-07-21 .
- ^ a b Patchen, Nancy (2004-10-17). "What the 'Bleep' Do We Know?". Boloji.com. Boloji. Retrieved 2010-07-21 .
Further reading [edit]
- Bruce, Alexandra (2005). Beyond the Blip: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to What the Bleep Exercise We Know!? . New York: The Disinformation Company. ISBN978-1-932857-22-1. OCLC 427510693.
External links [edit]
- Official website
- What the #$*! Exercise We Know!? at IMDb
- What the #$*! Do We Know!? at AllMovie
- What the #$*! Practise We Know!? at Box Role Mojo
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F
0 Response to "Media Noetic Org Uploads Files Bleep Study Guide"
إرسال تعليق