WHAT THE BLEEP DO I KNOW (about new age-y movies)?
So I've been going and checking out what passes for Buddhism here in the You Ass of Aye and at two of the lectures I've attended the teachers have highly recommended the film What The Bleep Do We Know. I thought I oughta see what American Buddhist Masters seem to think is a truly great and wonderful film so I caught it last night.
I found it difficult, myself, to get quite as ecstatic about this movie as those Buddhist guys I saw seemed to be. I mean War of the Gargantuas is still a much better piece of Buddhist cinema. Seriously.
The film kinda reminded me of the works of science fiction writer Philip K. Dick. Dick based lots of his novels on very profound and meaningful philosophical ideas then proceeded to populate those same books with talking slime molds from the moons of Jupiter and sentient but disobedient household appliances. This was fine because the reader immediately knew which ideas were being presented as intriguing speculations on the nature of reality and which were just sci-fi fun. But Dick also wrote some pure philosophical works which are unfortunately really disappointing because in those it often becomes very clear that Dick himself had trouble distinguishing between his profound ideas and his own imaginative fantasies. Same with this movie. For every good idea they bring up, they trot out ten more ranging from some that are interesting in a science fiction type way but hardly relevant to truly goofball new age nonsense.
Over the course of its running time, What The Bleep introduces us to a host of profound thinkers none of whom are identified until the very end. I assume this is an effort to get us to judge the ideas on their own merit rather than being impressed by the credentials of the speakers. But watch out cuz there's a ringer amongst the group. While most of the speakers are respected scientists, philosophers and theologians, one of them is a supposed spirit being of some sort channeled by someone who claims to be a medium. All through the film whenever this person came on screen I was kinda rolling my eyes thinking, "What the bleep kind of degree does this idiot have?" Yet I get the feeling the filmmakers were unable to make any meaningful distinction between that person's fluffball fantasies and the occasionally very important theories a lot of the other speakers were advancing.* (see below)
I didn't take notes as I was watching, so it's hard to get real specific about which ideas I liked and which were just plain goofy. I liked a lot of the speakers' insights about the workings of the brain and how habitual patterns of thinking can cause it to almost hardwire itself into a specific way of viewing the world which in most, if not all, cases is way off the mark. That's a very important thing to understand. It's something you can notice yourself through the process of doing zazen and it's good to see it has a basis in science as well. Plus it's illustrated by some pretty nifty computer graphic images. I also liked that some of the speakers seemed to have at least a vague grasp of the Buddhist idea that "form is emptiness and emptiness is form." That is to say the idea that our inner world and the material universe are mutually interdependent, that one cannot exist without the other. They don't seem to be able to get past the artificial separation of the two and see that one actually is the other. I also liked that many of the speakers questioned the existence of a permanent self or soul and the existence of a God who somehow remains apart from the universe He created. Though, again, I'm not quite certain where exactly some of them were going with this.
Some guys in the film also talked about the way reality is actually much more than we can ever perceive. And they spoke about how we ought to be cautious in thinking that our perception of reality are truly clear given that historically most of the stuff human beings thought was absolutely true turned out to be utter bollocks. One guy ventured the opinion that religion — not just one particular religion, but religion itself as a force within the human consciousness — had done great damage to humanity and added "and great damage to the World Trade Center," which was an opinion I ventured on this page back in September 2001 before a bunch of readers jumped on my case and I decided maybe folks weren't ready to hear that yet.
What I didn't like was a lot of the stuff about the supposed power of thought and how thought or pure consciousness somehow creates physical reality. Granted it was mostly the channeled spirit being who came up with this stuff. But several of the scientists seemed to believe it as well. Thought really isn't that significant. The experiential side of reality is significant. But thought is just the most infinitesimal fraction of that. In the end, consciousness doesn't really exist. It's just another one of our ideas.
There was also a bit too much speculation about the existence of parallel universes for my taste. While I love that idea as a basis for science fiction, I don't think it has any place in serious philosophy. After all, even if it's true, what possible relevance is there in the idea that maybe there's another universe somewhere in which J.F.K. is still alive and John Kerry won the 2004 election? We're just talking about fantasy when we should be looking into the nature of the reality in which we actually live. Plus I wasn't too sure about the photos they showed of water molecules that were supposedly transformed after being blessed by Zen monks. I'm just thinking, "Really....?" Not to mention wondering if I now have the power to turn ordinary tap water into Root Beer.
The problem I have with Buddhists in America thinking this movie is the bee's knees isn't that the film doesn't contain some real truth. It's the idea that Buddhism is all about really deep thoughts and insights or amazing speculations. We're losing the point of Buddhism if we think it's all about inventing newer and cooler explanations for the workings of the universe. That stuff has its uses. But it's really not the point.
For my nine bucks, the real point of What The Bleep (thought the movie itself doesn't seem to know this) is when they speculate that the discoveries of quantum physics could lead humanity to a new kind of morality, the understanding that we ourselves are ultimately responsible for the world we live in. This is the meat and potatoes (or tofu and potatoes if you're like me) of Buddhism. Had those asswipes who attacked the WTC understood that it was they themselves who were responsible for the existence of the Great Satan America, things would've been a lot different. No matter what situation you find yourself in, it is a situation you made for yourself. And that includes everything, baby. Even all the stuff you think you had nothing to do with. If you don't like the President or his war, to take a popular example, try and understand how you created both of them yourself. Every suicide bomber and every Texas yokel on Bush's cabinet is you. Not figuratively. Literally. There is no one else they could possibly be.
Yet it seems as if the film makers don't know quite what to do with this very important idea. We end up with the message that what this means is you ought to stop moping around and go out there and take charge of your life. Cuz maybe there's another Universe out there somewhere where your boyfriend didn't sleep with your sister in your own bed or... um... something. It's a bit fuzzy and solipsistic the way they put it. Kinda like speculating that maybe you're really a brain in a jar somewhere and the whole Universe you perceive is an illusion created by wires hooked up to your cerebral cortex.
The problem is you won't ever really understand the full implications of such an idea just by thinking about it. Thought simply isn't that powerful. The understanding you need is beyond all thought or comprehension. And really, you don't have to go very far at all to get beyond all thought or comprehension. The boogers up your nose are beyond all thought. The zits on your forehead can never be comprehended. You need zazen and lots of it to break those habitual thought patterns.
All in all I'd say it was an OK film. Me, though, I liked Team America better. There were more marionettes having sex in that one.
* THIS JUST IN: According to a very nice article on salon.com, that trance channeler was more than just a ringer in an otherwise objective project. Apparently the supposed spirit being was heavily involved and the movie may in fact be more-or-less an "infomercial" for his, uh, her, uh, its school of Enlightenment. Which would explain a hell of a lot! I'm leaving this page up as is for now. But I may have to do a pretty radical rewrite. Stay tuned...