Once upon a time, when the world was flat and the sun revolved around it, medicine men, philosophers and some scientists held great sway over nations and their rulers and citizens. They did so through ancient forms of double-speak, "scientific theories" that were beyond most people's comprehension, and the fact that most at the time were a heavily superstitious lot.
Times may have changed, and while their influence isn't what it used to be, we still have the "enlightened" souls who attempt to show us the errors of our ways (especially of thinking) and get a few bucks out of our pockets at the same time.
Thus the presence and reported cult phenomenon of the film, "What the #$*! Do We Know!?" (pronounced as "What the Bleep Do We Know?"). A mixture of interviews, animated bits, special effects and a "regular" dramatic story of sorts, the film isn't easy to classify, especially into any one genre.
That may be the point of the picture's directorial triumvirate -- William Arntz (making his debut), Betsy Chasse (ditto after producing various films) and Mark Vicente (ditto after shooting various films) -- who seem to be stating that pretty much sums up life as well. Part science, part philosophical speculation and part new age hokum, the film is all over the board. And despite some interesting and intriguing questions and the fact that it stars an Oscar-winning actress, it's not that good.
I know, I just don't get it because I'm not enlightened and have been brainwashed by today's commonly held beliefs and science that have left me blind to the possibilities out there. Or so say the film's various scientists, philosophers and quacks who admit that their points are understandably hard to comprehend or believe (and that's an understatement).
They also state that what was once commonly accepted science and such was later proven not to be accurate. That's obviously true, but neither they nor the film offer up anything -- convincing or not -- to prove or back up their various bits of conjecture.
And most of that stems from their new age view of quantum physics. I'll admit that some of their points are interesting. But I also liked them better when they appeared in films such as the original "Matrix" and other sci-fi work ranging from "Star Trek" to the efforts of novelist Philip K. Dick.
Yes, it's all far more sci-fi headiness than actual scientific fact, regardless of what the so-called experts may state. The troubling point is that the gullible may fall for much of this hooey -- hook, line and sinker -- without questioning why those who appear don't provide any tangible evidence to support their claims.
Sure, they state that some group meditation lowered the murder rate by twenty-five percent in Washington, D.C. back in the '90s. Yet, they don't rule out any other possible causes (such as a week-long rain event, the annual murderers convention held in Cleveland that year, etc.) if such a decrease actually occurred in the first place.
Interestingly, the filmmakers don't identify their experts until the end of the film. That's probably a good thing since one is someone named JZ Knight who claims to be channeling a 35,000-year-old "mystic, philosopher, master teacher and hierophant" known as Ramtha. Yeah, and to quote Herman's Hermits, "I'm Henry the eighth I am. Henry the eighth I am, I am."
Now, you may be wondering where the Oscar-winning actress fits into all of this mess. Well, the filmmakers apparently thought that a standard documentary format would be too boring for the gullible (which, by the way, isn't a word in the dictionary -- look it up if you don't believe me). Thus, they've added a dramatic representation of the new ageism that's being spewed about.
In that part of the film - which clashes quite badly with the rest -- Marlee Matlin ("Hear No Evil," "Children of a Lesser God") plays a photographer who's unhappy with her life following a failed marriage. She meets a mystical boy -- Robert Bailey Jr. ("Dragonfly," "Mission to Mars") channeling Gloria Foster from "The Matrix" -- and then, apparently doing the Alice in Wonderland bit, goes down the rabbit hole to attend a Polish wedding where she gets snockered and finally loosens up a bit.
Yep, that's about it -- a misguided and not particularly convincing dramatization of what the experts are yakking about. Throw in a bunch of "2001" type effects, some computer animated cells and peptides (who/that imitate the Robert Palmer video for "Addicted to Love") and the result is a mess of a movie.
Like the next guy (or at least film critic), I often enjoy experimental type films that break the rules. And I'm particularly fond of heady, sci-fi thought, theory and wild conjecture. What I don't like, however, is being preached to by a slick-looking offering that features supposed experts who are purportedly telling the truth but really feel like members of a cult.
Who knows, maybe in 500 years what they're saying will turn out to be right and our current thinking will have gone the way of the flat world around which everything rotates. For the time being, I'll stick to my opinion that this is an initially intriguing, but ultimately severely flawed piece of new age propaganda. "What the #$*! Do We Know!?" rates as a 2 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](/images/underground_header.jpg)