What the Bleep Do We Know?

I ended up writing a mini-review of What the Bleep Do We Know? in a comment on William’s blog, so I thought I’d go ahead and post it here:

I was very unimpressed with the film. It came across as a poorly done self-help video that was trying too hard to be trendy and appealing. The overriding theory of the movie is that an understanding of quantum physics has given scholars a new handle of the reason and purpose of life. They then extend this explanation of quantum mechanics to explain how we can find purpose and value in our lives– going so far as to almost boil it down to a three step plan. And, well… I’m sorry, but I find it just a bit presumptuous for ANYONE– movie, book, television, religion, professor, etc– to give me a formulaic method for my happiness and success.

I guess what I found so egregious about the presentation (in addition to the terrible, synthesized “healing” music that ran throughout the latter portion of the movie during which the antagonist suddenly begins to love herself and love her body and live happily with purpose and meaning after a brief breakdown where she screamed “I HATE YOU!” at the mirror and squirted toothpaste all over) was its presentation as fact. Although the ideas are interesting, and I guess they work for the film-makers, they’re not universal truths, and to present them as such undermines whatever validity they may have had as ideas (at least to me, as a skeptical viewer). Had the movie said “this interpretation of a law of quantum dynamics indicates that such and such…” I think it would have been a lot easier for me to swallow, rather than “the laws of quantum physics are this: which means this: which applies to you like this:”

Furthermore, for what is supposed to be an intellectual movie, I found the moments of intellect and insight to be few and far between. There were a few instances of interesting studies, ideas and theories being cited, but by-and-large(??) the script failed to demonstrate any abundance of intellect, wisdom or understanding on the part of either the screenwriter or the director.

As William pointed out, perhaps half the sources, who presented the films ideas through a series of plainly-shot interviews, had impressive credentials. The other half, however, seemed to be just scholarly hacks and university nuts.

I guess this is turning into a mini-review. Oh well.

A lot of it struck me as very Montana-State-Honors-Program-esque: just a compilation of esoteric, obscure and largely trivial knowledge presented so as to appear intelligent and scholarly. I hate to be the one to say it, but: it’s neither.