“How Long will they
Kill our Prophets
While We stand aside
And look?”

-Bob Marley - Redemption Song


In this post-modern industrial age they generally don’t kill them
anymore. Too messy – unnecessary. They have media.

We have all seen “trial by media” – which is no trial at all. It is
opinions, cynical innuendo, and more often than not, a complete
distortion of the facts.

For years I have seen my prophets desecrated in the media. From
teachers and scientific explorers, to ideas and new ways of looking at
the world. The media has depicted these as “wacko” or “new age
science” or “hocus pocus self-help”, while digging up incidences taken
out of context to condemn a person or idea.

“How Long will they Kill our Prophets?”

Ruthe Stein in the San Francisco Chronicle referred to those we
interviewed as “these so-called experts”. I suppose as a writer with
no scientific degree she has determined that the former head of his
Materials Department at Stanford (Bill Tiller) is a “so-called”
expert. Or Candace Pert, who discovered the peptide/receptor model of
cells.

“While we stand aside and look.”

A woman approached me after the SF screening. She was very moved by
the film and mentioned she almost didn’t go because her friends heard
Ramtha was in it and “he’s no good”. Yes, if you believe the story
that “20-20” put out years ago. Ramtha and JZ Knight were judged
guilty by that “News Show”. But who do we believe: a woman who’s spent
20+ years of her life enabling a teaching to go out to help people
she’s never met, or a Corporate News show that is driven by ratings?
And after they get their good ratings, move on to another smear job…

“Kill Our Prophets…”

And not just people --  they kill Ideas. New ways of viewing and
experiencing the world that are different than the status quo. And
killed often by no more than sarcasm. As a reviewer wrote in the Santa
Fe Reporter, the animation was “leftovers from a Pink Floyd Laser
light show”. I personally have studied higher dimensional mathematics,
(topology), and spent years envisioning how that could be conveyed
graphically. Talented and dedicated artists worked with me to realize
that vision. Yet it is trashed by an opinionated reporter. (In Santa
Fe! How Long Santa Fe? )

“How long?”

No Longer.
_____________________________________________________________________

August 3, 2004

Editor, San Francisco Chronicle

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to a review published in your paper of the
film “What the BLEEP Do We Know!?”. My name is William Arntz, and I am
one of the 3 filmmakers who created this film. I am also the one who
financed the film. I believe that Ruthe Stein referred to me as “some
hefty moneybags”. An odd description for someone who earned that money
from creating complex System Management software, and then applying
those funds to something they are inspired and compelled to offer to
the world.

In the review Ms. Stein sarcastically referred to those scientists we
interviewed as “so-called experts”. Bill Tiller was head of the
Materials Science Department at Stanford and is a professor emeritus.
Candace Pert was the discoverer of the peptide/receptor mechanism,
which led to the discovery of endorphins in the human body. She also
spent the last 5 years working on drugs to inhibit the AIDS/HIV virus
from invading those receptor sites. She has been saving lives. And
there are many more examples amongst those we interviewed.

I have never known sarcasm to be a valid response in compliance with
the scientific method. If Ms. Stein has a problem with the science,
bring science to the discussion. Not uninformed sarcasm.

“They're photographed either in some bucolic outdoor setting or seated
by a fireplace, presumably to add gravitas to their statements.” Not
only is this statement inaccurate in fact, but also in assumption.
Some of the scientists were filmed in libraries, or in their labs –
because they didn’t want to take time from their research to go
somewhere. Where is cynical twisting of “facts” part of a review?

In another part of the review Ms. Stein writes (first quoting from the
film): “"Here's a puzzle -- why should we be able to remember the past
and not have the same access to the future?'' To the latter, all I
could think of was Yul Brynner, hands on his hips, proclaiming,  ‘Tis
a puzzlement.’'' Quantum physics experiments have proven that at the
Quantum level, time does indeed move backwards. To ask the above
question is a natural movement to the thinking mind, and one examined
for years by scientists, philosophers and mystics. Not Yul Brenner.

Sending Ms. Stein to review “What the BLEEP” is like sending a dyed-
in-the-wool Republican to review “Fahrenheit 9/11”. As a city
purportedly renowned for its free-thinking, and home to new thoughts,
this review is an insult to those who pursue inquiry into the nature
of reality. What was the purpose, to keep people away from the film?
And why criticize Loew’s Metreon for bringing the film in?

 From the review: “The biggest puzzlement about "What'' is what it's
doing in major movie theaters around the country when it so clearly
belongs on one of those small cable channels given to peculiar
programming.”

Clearly to Ms. Stein, but not to the hundreds of thousands of people
around the West who have seen the film. “What the BLEEP” is in
theaters because it has been extremely successful in the Box Office.
With little advertising it played for 17 weeks at a 750 seat theater
in Portland, OR. Over 60,000 people came to see it there. It’s still
playing 14 weeks later in Tempe, AZ, 12 weeks later in Seattle, 8
weeks later in LA. And has confounded industry experts by usually
hitting its peak attendance 4 – 6 weeks into the run.

And what is the purpose of criticizing a national theater chain for
stepping outside the box and showing something that is different? It
is criticism like this review that insures dumbed-down movies. So is
it “peculiar programming”, or is it different programming? Does the
world want to see different ideas, presented in an utterly unique
cinematic style, or “James Bond 56”?

There is a vast audience responding to this film – something that
would be interesting to be reported. I personally have had 3 people
write and say that viewing this film stopped themselves or a dear one
from committing suicide. If you visit our guestbook
(www.whatthebleep.com/guestbook) you will see many similar responses.

I would like to close by quoting an email that I received as I was
writing this. (A coincidence some would say, others would say an
omen):

Hi folks,
I saw the film on Saturday and I was just blown away.  I'm 66 years
old and have been thinking this way around these principles most of my
life from the time I was about 9 or 10 years old.  I thought I was the
only one!  I'm so glad to see I'm not and that there are people
actually studying and talking about these ideas.  It gives me hope.
(Ms) Terry Rose
San Francisco

Yours truly,
William Arntz
Co-Producer, Co-Director, Financier

_____________________________________________________________________

Ps. I sent that email to the Chronicle just before sending this one.
If you are also thinking “How Much Longer shall they kill our
prophets”, click on the link below to send a message to the Editor of
the San Francisco Chronicle:
send a message
(We are CC’ing ourselves so we know how many emails go to them.)

You can read the entire review here:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/23/DDG257QTL41.DTL&type=entertainment
(The entire review is also copied at the end of this email)


And you do not have to be in San Francisco to respond. It is a global
network, with the above review published on the web. It will be our
global community that responds!

In Phoenix the “What the BLEEP” viewers were so enraged by the review
(similar to the one above) that they buried the newspaper under a sea
of emails and letters. That newspaper published another review and a
few subsequent articles describing “the phenomena”. 14 weeks later
we’re still playing there.

The only way things change is if we make a decision to change them. Do
we stand aside and look, or do we speak up?

“It’s time to get wise. It’s time to be heard.”


PPS: Feel free to forward this email.



_____________________________________________________________________

San Fransisco Chronicle review of Friday, July 23, 2004

WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW!?


Docudrama. Starring Marlee Matlin. Directed by Mark Vincente, Betsy
Chasse and William Arntz Not rated. 111 minutes. At Bay Area
theaters.).

"What the #$*! Do We Know!?'' breaks a cardinal rule of box-office
success -- always come up with a title that audiences can remember
and pronounce. Furthermore, typing all those substitutes for epithets
involves entirely too much staring at the keyboard. So for purposes
of my review, this extremely odd little movie will heretofore be
referred to simply as "What.''

What the #$*! is "What"? It's partially a ponderous documentary
featuring interviews with what's described as "14 top scientists and
mystics,'' none of whom are identified until the end, so you don't
know whether the talking head spouting off about the meaning of life
has an advanced degree in physics or mysticism. They're photographed
either in some bucolic outdoor setting or seated by a fireplace,
presumably to add gravitas to their statements.

These so-called experts offer supposedly weighty insights, dropping
the science of quantum physics into the equation whenever possible --
I suspect to intimidate the audience. They say things like, "The new
model of science says what is happening inside us will create what's
outside us,'' and, "Here's a puzzle -- why should we be able to
remember the past and not have the same access to the future?'' To
the latter, all I could think of was Yul Brynner, hands on his hips,
proclaiming, " 'Tis a puzzlement.''

Another puzzlement is what Academy Award winner Marlee Matlin is
doing in "What.'' On the other hand, perhaps it's not so surprising
considering that this extremely gifted deaf actress has had a hard
time finding movie work. She appears as a fictional character, a
professional photographer whose work and life are meant to exemplify
the notions proposed by the "experts.'' So as one of them ponders
whether we see with our brain or with our eyes, Matlin is shown
watching kids blow bubbles, begging the question of whether they're
really in front of her or a creation of her brain waves. Maybe I'm
missing something (I confess to lacking a doctorate in anything), but
couldn't this question be settled if she stepped a few feet closer
and attempted to burst one of their bubbles?

Matlin deserves a lot of credit for her efforts at enacting the hard-
to- track issues posed in "What.'' She bugs her eyes out in amazement
and contorts her face, presumably to express how complicated these
thoughts are.

The movie, which took a trio to both write and direct, purports to
show how "the distinction between science and religion becomes
increasingly blurred, as we realize that, in essence, both science
and religion are describing the same phenomena!'' At least that's
what it says in the press release, which, not surprisingly, is given
to the same hyperbole and use of exclamation points as the film. No
distinction is made between mysticism and organized religion, which
the last time I checked were acres apart on most theological matters.

The biggest puzzlement about "What'' is what it's doing in major
movie theaters around the country when it so clearly belongs on one
of those small cable channels given to peculiar programming. The
independently produced feature must have some hefty moneybags behind
it to afford this level of distribution. Something is going on here.
It may take quantum physics to understand what, or should I say
"What?'' - Ruthe Stein

_____________________________________________________________________