LETTERS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE



INTRODUCTION

On August 4, an E-mail was sent to the mailing list. It had to do with the Media in general, and in particular a review that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. View Email.

There has been an overwhelming response to this. Both applauding the action for speaking out, and criticizing it for meeting the reporter on their level. To date over 500 letters have been sent to the Chronicle. It is of such interest that those letters are posted here.


THE LETTERS - over 500 sent, 469 posted so far
page 1 of 32 - next page

From: William Arntz on Aug 04, 2004 at 06:18 AM

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 - What the BLEEP Do We Know!?


From: Pat Thomas on Aug 04, 2004 at 08:09 AM

Where do you people get your critics. Is Ms. Ruth Stein a journalism student, and serving her internship with your newspaper? Her criticism of What the Bleep do We Know indicates a very shallow perception/knowledge of what is happening in the world of science today. Perhaps she should go back to school, or search for another job within a closed community such as that described by George Orwell in 1984, where people are programmed not to question anything, but accept "what is."


From: Claudia Smith on Aug 04, 2004 at 08:47 AM

Scarey times when even a San Francisco newspaper will pay someone to write a hatchet job on a lyrical and joyous film that presents an integrated view of philosphy and science. At a time when incivility and brutality is admired and presented over and over again both in both our popcorn movies and in our "real life" tv shows, this film is a reversal of all that.

It is hopeful, and it is positive. Sure, it presents folks with their own messages, but the general and it's primary main message is that people have a right to be happy and self accepting. It also gives good reason for commitment to humane altruism.

It talks about the cruelty of negative thoughts and how they cause longer lasting harm both to ourselves and to others than we normally consider when we are wallowing in despair or anger. I personally don't care whether negative thoughts can change water molecules. What I do know is how inner rage and misery can leak out and contaminate a society, turning it toward an admiration for interpersonal cruelty and brutality.

I think you reviewer should have watched the film until she understood it. So much rage and vindictivenss wouldn't have hit the reviewer's page if she had. And you published it. Shame on you! Claudia L. H. Smith Vancouver, WA


From: Cindy St. John on Aug 04, 2004 at 09:05 AM

Dear Sir or Madam, After reading the review of "What the Bleep" written by Ruthe Stein, my main thought is that your publication should be very embarrassed by her ignorance and closed minded attitude. Perhaps it would be wise in the future to send an educated person to do your movie reviews. I also believe that a public apology should be made because of the ignorant trashing of a movie that has changed thousands of peoples lives for the better. Sincerely, Cindy St. John


From: Sharon Argus on Aug 04, 2004 at 09:19 AM

Hi, Just a note to let you know that the film "What the Bleep do we Know" has been a turning point in my life. I have always heard how important it is to love yourself but quickly returned to my normal thoughts of dissatisfaction with my body and how I present myself. I could relate in a very deep way to what this girl in the movie was feeling. How the photographs of water crystals gave her and me a concrete image of the importance of loving oneself. This is a movie that I want all my friends to see and see again. Maybe your movie editor needs to see it again. Sharon Argus, Encinitas, CA


From: Carol Routh on Aug 04, 2004 at 09:21 AM

I find it curious that a newspaper in a city so known for it's cutting-edge thinkers would publish a review such a your of "What the Bleep." You do your readers a severe disservice, and diminish the stature of your paper. A review such as this casts doubt on the quality of your reporting in other areas. You might look to this when trying to discover why thinking readers are dropping their subscriptions to your paper, or passing it over on the newsstand for more thoughtful sources of information. Here in Portland, even people skeptical of Ramtha and JZ found the movie profoundly thought-provoking, and almost everyone I've talked with about the movie has seen it twice, or more. Carol Routh Portland OR


From: Judy Wagner on Aug 04, 2004 at 09:28 AM

I received your review of "What The Bleep" via email and was appalled! To degrade someone like Dr. Candice Pert is shameful! This woman has done more for the human race than your staff could ever do.....and she did it as a woman fighting for her love of humanity and her science in a world dominated by men. I could go on about the other scientists and their contributions to humanity that participated in the film. The world is wanting and needing a new paradigm and it is here....called "Quantum Physics". This explains the world we live in and gives hope for our future. As a reporter, I suggest you read Dr. Pert's book "Molecules of Emotions". Then, maybe, you will have a new insight as to what the film is all about and how we do create the world around us. Yours truly, Judy Wagner


From: Tara Strong on Aug 04, 2004 at 09:29 AM

What the Bleep changes lives. It’s changed mine and many others that I’ve taken to see the movie. It’s REAL, and I guess that that’s a foreign concept for Ms. Stein. I only think it fair for your paper to print another article about the movie on its effect on people. Since that is its purpose.

I’m surprised at you, San Francisco. Your reputation is one for being open-minded. Best regards, Tara Strong Portland, Oregon


From: Beth Doyle on Aug 04, 2004 at 09:38 AM

Editor, I am a licensed psychotherapist and have been utilizing the theory of quantum physics in psychotherapy for the past 15 years to help my clients. It is all based on the science of life and the application to intention and creation of our own reality. Perhaps you need to have someone who review the movie who is able to think in a scientific manner or open to grasping new concepts. This is a movie that I have clients attend since it is a simple explanation of many principles that can immediately change their lives. Beth Doyle, LPC Salem, Oregon


From: Barbara Bruce on Aug 04, 2004 at 09:58 AM

To the editor, Watching this film gave me great hope and comfort. The possibility that the world is beginning to use science to move us from fear to freedom is my life dream come true. I was fortunate enough to be in Portland when the film opened and have referenced this film to all of my friends and family here in Vancouver, Canada, repeatedly ever since.

The people I have shared the experience with are all interested in viewing the film... some out of curiosity, some for conformation of their own knowing. But all are excited with the reality that we are finally spending money, time and talent to investigate and discuss the issue of 'reality'. If you haven't noticed, people in coffee houses all over the world are sharing ideas, experiences and personal beliefs about life and death with a passion.

I have never read such a blatantly lazy review and am grateful our local paper makes a more of an effort to think before reporting. Shame on you for allowing your readers and loyal subscribers to be fed such narrow minded and archaic thinking. Most Sincerely, Barbara Bruce Vancouver, B.C.


From: Carlton Ward on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:01 AM

The review by Ms Stein was disheartening. I have watched this movie 8 times and believe this to be the single most important movie I have ever seen. It has changed my life and I am now pursuing new avenues in my own life as a result of doors that were opened by "What the Bleep". When people were flocking to the theaters to see "Passion of the Christ" and leaving theaters with guilt and remorse, I left the theater after "What the Bleep" with optimism and hope. My prayer is that as many people who saw "Passion" will see "What the Bleep". In this day and age of biased reporting by news media's across the nation, I feel this review was just another slanderous slice job of a movie that is giving hope in a time when we need it most. Thank you, Carlton Ward


From: Christine Matiyow-Hoff on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:01 AM

Dear Editor, Perhaps the SF Chronicle should send someone to review the movie that knows something about this, or at least has an open mind. Rather than publish a closeminded opinion! For your information, I have seen this movie 7 times. Each time, I see something new. It has helped me in thinking and seeing in a different way. I have been so excited about it I have taken both family and friends and recommend it to everyone! Christine Matiyow-Hoff Registered Nurse, EMT, Nurse-Educator Prineville, Oregon


From: Cherly Merrill on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:08 AM

Hello, San Francisco Chronicle and Staff - especially Ms. Stein - Have you ever heard the saying "A mind is like a parachute. It only works if it is open...."?

I wonder what happened to the hearts of the ones of you who cannot entertain new possibilities, see truth set in front of you as a flower growing up in a pile of manure, and still choose to accept that you are the one seeing the world truly. Are you so in love with the way our world looks as shown on worldwide media? Have you no desire to see our world change for the better? Or, perhaps, you are afraid to have hope that there really is something out there - more accurately within each heart - that could make changes happen for the good of all?

Cynicism is a killing energy. Thank God what we are seeing across the board with the success of this film and Fahrenheit 911 (and there are more coming), is quite clearly that what mascarades these days as journalism and opinion touted as expert are no longer holding much sway with real people. The only thing being killed is your credibility.

Have you taken a good and honest look in the mirror of your own heart lately? There is no time like the present (it's a gift, get it?) to get on the train moving to create Heaven on Earth. "It is much easier to ride the horse in the direction it is going" to quote a rather (in)famous San Franciscan.

The people are speaking to you. Are you listening? Can you see it?

Blessings for full recovery of Heart and Mind - Cheryl Merrill Portland, Oregon


From: Ben Geddy on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:13 AM

Dear Editors: In response to Ms. steins review of "What the Bleep do we know", I can only say, that it is a shame that such a great paper as yours as such lame employees. I always read the chronicle when I am in town (often), and will refrain from doing so in the future. I am sorry Ms. Stein had such a painful childhood, so can not see the forest for the trees (or particles) in our quantum world. Perhaps intense therapy can one day help her heal those wounds. Best Regards, Ben Geddy Sedona, AZ


From: Marguerite Bonnett on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:15 AM

Dear SF Chronicle: To find such a small mind in the backwaters of Tennessee would not be so surprising. But in San Francisco? Well, maybe that’s not so surprising after all. When people set themselves up as “critics”, they often close themselves off to new ideas. Their individual opinions begin to oppress the public they claim to serve. “What the Bleep” simply offered a scientific explanation for what I already have experienced to be true. Many of us complain heartily about the dogmatism of the Right, but I find that dogmatism to be mirrored and just as vociferous on the LEFT. Cynicism is a great protective shell to keep out change. On the way home from viewing WTB, I thought how useless it would be to even have someone review the film for its cinematic merits at all (even though I thought they were quite good myself). The content seemed to me to be of so much more importance than whatever interest the cinematic elements could bring to a discussion. If my thoughts can affect my reality, then The Chronicle’s advertisers (i.e.: drug companies, cosmetic companies, etc etc) would be out of luck. Fancy The San Francisco Chronicle cow towing to Large Corporations!!

My wish for you is that one day, you get it. Sincerely, Marguerite Bonnett Ladera Ranch, California

page 1 of 32 - next page

 

Copyright © 2004 Lord of the Wind Films, LLC - All Rights reserved. The content (written, photography, video, and audio) in this site is for use by the film's producers and Lord of the Wind Films in the promotion of its motion picture "What The #$*! Do We Know!?." Any use not authorized by the producers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.