Directors William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente started off with a brilliant idea for a novel docu-drama. Bring to the screen for intelligent viewers cutting edge questions and dialog about Quantum Physics (or Mechanics, if one prefers). With the blizzard of recent documentaries attacking and praising the presidential candidates or allowing a former Secretary of Defense one last exculpatory hurrah or following the fortunes of convicted pedophiles seeking to clear their names no one recently has made a film about Quantum Physics.
What we have is from a production values perspective an engagingly original amalgam of live acting, many interviews, data boards and some fine, very original animation. So far so good.
"What the Bleep..." begins promisingly with Marlee Matlin, who doesn't get too many major studio assignments, as a pill devouring, anxious, depressed professional photographer who is perplexed about life's annoying problems (her chief one being having found her boyfriend or spouse in flagrant delicto or, if you don't speak law, in the sack with a bimbo).
Interviews with a number of MDs, scholars and (here's the problem) New Age advocates alternate with animated and acted scenes. Some of the interviewees, whose affiliations are only given with the end credits, are clearly working at the cutting edge of trying to understand the nature of time and the experience of consciousness. An MD who works with patients is cautious and insightful, tethered by his clinical work to ambient reality. Several of the professors line up at varying points on the accepted knowledge to theorizing to speculating wildly continuum.
This is very difficult stuff (I have no background in physics) but a number of the interviewed academics speak plainly and whet the viewer's appetite for more.
The near fatal flaw is the false and in fact anti-intellectual attempt to ordain an equality of ideas by treating with equal time and attention a few outspoken folks whose theories are the stuff of New Age fantasy. One woman who becomes increasingly directive about her cosmic views is revealed at the end to be affiliated with some organization that is, shall we say, below the stature of the world class universities where her fellow commentators study, teach and write.
All ideas should be explored for the viewer's benefit? Imagine a documentary on the latest research in the field of evolution "balanced" by comments from creationists. Amusing? No doubt. Instructive? No, it would be distractive and inherently anti-science.
That's the problem with "What the Bleep..." The desire to balance tips the apple cart away from a deep and well-connected inquiry into some remarkable research in the world of ideas.
Unfortunately Ms. Matlin's role adds little. She is earnest and remarkable insight comes to her through a chance encounter with a little boy with an apparent I.Q. of probably 250 who engages her in shooting hoops with him in a public park. This savant takes her into a level of discourse and discovery that even for a science/philosophy flick is incredible. Actually unbelievable. It just doesn't work well.
So I was disappointed that what might have been a solid voyage to new and exciting ideas was diluted with a lame side drama and the prattling of New Age mystics (the woman referred to above glows with the bright fire reflective of either raging malaria or burning zealotry.)
7/10 (reluctantly because the intelligence of the directors comes through enough to have made this film worth watching. Once.)
What we have is from a production values perspective an engagingly original amalgam of live acting, many interviews, data boards and some fine, very original animation. So far so good.
"What the Bleep..." begins promisingly with Marlee Matlin, who doesn't get too many major studio assignments, as a pill devouring, anxious, depressed professional photographer who is perplexed about life's annoying problems (her chief one being having found her boyfriend or spouse in flagrant delicto or, if you don't speak law, in the sack with a bimbo).
Interviews with a number of MDs, scholars and (here's the problem) New Age advocates alternate with animated and acted scenes. Some of the interviewees, whose affiliations are only given with the end credits, are clearly working at the cutting edge of trying to understand the nature of time and the experience of consciousness. An MD who works with patients is cautious and insightful, tethered by his clinical work to ambient reality. Several of the professors line up at varying points on the accepted knowledge to theorizing to speculating wildly continuum.
This is very difficult stuff (I have no background in physics) but a number of the interviewed academics speak plainly and whet the viewer's appetite for more.
The near fatal flaw is the false and in fact anti-intellectual attempt to ordain an equality of ideas by treating with equal time and attention a few outspoken folks whose theories are the stuff of New Age fantasy. One woman who becomes increasingly directive about her cosmic views is revealed at the end to be affiliated with some organization that is, shall we say, below the stature of the world class universities where her fellow commentators study, teach and write.
All ideas should be explored for the viewer's benefit? Imagine a documentary on the latest research in the field of evolution "balanced" by comments from creationists. Amusing? No doubt. Instructive? No, it would be distractive and inherently anti-science.
That's the problem with "What the Bleep..." The desire to balance tips the apple cart away from a deep and well-connected inquiry into some remarkable research in the world of ideas.
Unfortunately Ms. Matlin's role adds little. She is earnest and remarkable insight comes to her through a chance encounter with a little boy with an apparent I.Q. of probably 250 who engages her in shooting hoops with him in a public park. This savant takes her into a level of discourse and discovery that even for a science/philosophy flick is incredible. Actually unbelievable. It just doesn't work well.
So I was disappointed that what might have been a solid voyage to new and exciting ideas was diluted with a lame side drama and the prattling of New Age mystics (the woman referred to above glows with the bright fire reflective of either raging malaria or burning zealotry.)
7/10 (reluctantly because the intelligence of the directors comes through enough to have made this film worth watching. Once.)