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 2 of 32 - previous page || next page

From: Lois Willman on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:19 AM

I was outraged by the review written regarding “What the Bleep…” I lived in California for 20 plus years and always looked to S.F. as a pioneer in new thinking and stepping outside the box. Obviously, there is a great disparity between what your tainted reviewer gleaned from the film and what the thousands of other viewers continue to celebrate. Lois Willman


From: Chris Henderson on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:37 AM

I am writing in response to a review by Ruthe Stein published in your paper of the movie "What the BLEEP Do We Know!?. The audience for the film is larger than anyone has imagined. Two months ago, my spouse and I drove 6 hours to see it. There are many people where I live that are planning to go see it when it comes within 4 hours of our viewing area. This is the type of film we have been waiting for. Maybe the SF Chronicle needs to consider a reviewer more in step with current day thinking. C. Henderson


From: Linda Jo Hamlin on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:44 AM

Dear Chronicle Review Editors & Publishers, I read your review about "What the Bleep..." and was dismayed at the ego displayed by Ms. Stein. This must have given her a warm feeling to know she knows so much more that real life experts in their fields of expertise. However did you find such a genius to write for you? I would think she would be working those brainy neurons in some other field besides spin and fiction. What a lucky paper that you can have her review films for you.

Sincerely though, I do not live in your area but I am visiting a friend in Marin County. The one thing I wanted to make sure to do while here, was to go see "What the Bleep..." while I was in an area where it is being screened. I live in a small town and wanted to see it as soon as possible rather than the long wait to see if Loew's or Metreon will distribute it there or wait for a DVD.

Written in such a city of diverse perceptions, I was very surprised by the reviewer's vitriolic spewing of spin. Many people are more awake and thinking than you seem to allow for. Sadly, I will try to go out of my way not to read your publication while I am here. I will drink my coffee without illumination from "so-called experts "reading your paper and simply enjoy my morning with out spin. Sincerely, L. J. Hamlin Resident of California


From: Myrna Seibert on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:46 AM

Dim bulbs show little light. I hope you can find a replacement soon so that your newspaper can shine light in the world. Myrna Seibert


From: Your reJSM on Aug 04, 2004 at 10:51 AM

I just read Ms. Stein's review of "What the Bleep?" It is a singularly uninformed and unintelligent piece of writing, not worthy of far lesser publications than the SF Chronicle. As a former Silicon Valley CEO who is currently enrolled in a ministerial education program, I found the film to be highly relevant to the on-going process of bringing spirituality and science into closer alignment -- a major challenge for the raising of consciousness in a sometimes "unconscious world". I would recommend that you assign someone with appropriate qualifications in the areas of science and spirituality to view and review this film. It would be an excellent service to your readership. Sincerely, JSM


From: Raymond Andrade on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:01 AM

TO: The Editor of the San Francisco Chronicle Greetings: I am offended by Mr. Stein's article about the documentary called, "What the Bleep Do We Know". Sometimes we come across a person that relates in a narrow and unconsciousness manner trying to represent the public and I believe Mr. Stein fits the bill. Sometimes a person is filled with too much IMAGE and tries to influence people because he needs feeding rather than fulfill the needs of the people. Other news and/or TV entertainers of one sort or another has fallen from the people because they let the IMAGE get to a point of swelling that it just bursts and that person is no longer before the public again. Raymond Andrade in Olympia, Washington


From: C. Tresenriter on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:03 AM

Ms. Stein is most definitely, as she states in her "review", "missing something".

For the uninitiated, the ideas presented in "What..." require an open and inquiring mind, neither of which seem to be qualities of your chosen reviewer.

I've been studying these ideas for many years and my research indicates that, contrary to Ms. Stein's statement:

" ...... mysticism and organized religion,... the last time I checked were acres apart on most theological matters."

these seeming poles are growing ever closer with the new discoveries in both physics and theoretical physics happening in the recent past. She could have checked the new thinking on these ideas to find that out for herself.

Ms. Stein admitted she had no doctorate in anything and obviously didn't bother consulting anyone who is educated on these subjects. So what we end up with is another biased and uninformed opinion, of which- in the media, we already have far too many. Respectfully, C. Tresenriter


From: Sandy Lofquist on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:06 AM

I've been looking for the critical review of the movie "What The BLEEP Do We Know", written by Ruthe Stein and haven't been able to locate it. That is troubling to me, as it's difficult to respond to the article, not having read it. So I will only be able to tell you that I read the article written to your paper by William Arntz, one of the cocreators of the film, that responded to her review. I have seen the movie four times now and each time have found another point that had escaped me prior as I was so focused on absorbing a point understood earlier. I found the movie more than entertaining, I found it both educational and reaffirming. While I don't expect that to mean much to you, I would hope you can impact a movie that draws multiple viewings. I had always thought that the SF Chronicle, being an established newspaper in the San Francisco area, welcomed cutting edge thought. It's a disappointment to hear that the review of this very important film, was written with such an obviously closed mind. Has Ms Stein never wondered at the legitimacy of scripted thought that said science and religion can have no common roots? It is sad enough to know that there are vast numbers of people that are afraid to think in abstract terms on their own. It is sadder to know that many religious organizations consider controlling thought is more important than expanding thought. Surely there is room in society for citizens to be valued as free thinkers, and for organizations not to be threatened at that prospect. Unless of course, they have a history of needing to control thought to continue their existence. I would like to add my voice to those who have also written to you, letting you know that there are a great many people interested in movie-making of this caliber and this subject matter. Ms. Stein is allowed her opinion. But the SF Chronicle is also judged for allowing this closed minded and limited thinker to pass judgment on scientists who have devoted themselves to Quantum Physics, and filmakers who are visonary enough to share that knowledge with the rest of us. Sandy Lofquist Portland, OR


From: Stephanie Potter on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:08 AM

Ruthe Stein's sarcastic review of "What the Bleep Do We know?" could only have me wondering--what rock (in SF, no less!) has she been hiding under the last 30 years? Did she totally miss the 60's? Perhaps that's understandable, but how could she have snored through the last thirty years of scientific inquiry into mind/body connections and quantam physics? The movie was obviously way over her head, and overwhelming to her. (Perhaps even scary?) By the way, except for Ramtha, the speakers were all scientists with impressive and impeccable credentials. There are a lot of reviews out on this movie, and most of them are written by people who take a genuine interest in these ideas. And although you may not realize it, there are a tremedous number of us who do--which is why this movie has been getting sell-out crowds for months at a time wherever it's been shown. Next time send a reviewer who's up with the 21st Century! Stephanie Potter Portland, OR

PS I left SF for Portland about 7 years ago . . .so I saw the movie here, and have been telling all my friends there that this is a MUST SEE movie!!






From: Justis Raynier on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:24 AM

Dear Editor: I read the review of the film What the Bleep do We Know, which I have seen twice and I wonder at the severally limited mind of your reviewer. Should you be sending someone so limited in their perspective to review what I consider to be a very important and possibly ground breaking film that actually offers something to think about and there is not a single explosion in the whole movie. If your reviewer cannot understand the science (of thinking) she should take steps to limit her reviews to formulae movies, that way she can always be right.

What possible reason could the reviewer have to be in error on so many of the comments she made on the movie, who cares if ramtha is in it, would she prefer spiderman, the hulk or some other fictional identity that offers nothing but violence bloodshed and mayhem.

Shame on you for not reviewing the reviewer and censoring her rather than allow her distorted views to smear an excellent film. Candace Pert is a real scientist who wrote a book your reviewer should review, the Molecules of Emotion, the reviewer might learn something about herself had she read it. Justis Raynier


From: Shara Gardner on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:28 AM

Dear Editor, Shame on your reviewer and your newspaper for printing such a scathing review of a film that opens the gateway to new schools of thought. Years ago, in San Francisco, I was among those who birthed the enlightenment of the 60s through music, activism and personal empowerment, so I speak from a history of experiencing leading edge ideology in this city. Though I have been living in Oregon for the past 10 years, I just got back in time to see this horrible review in the Chronical. I was shocked that the film would receive such a biased and personal attack by your reviewer. I saw the film 6 times in Ashland, Oregon, where it ran for about 2 months to sold out audiences. I wanted to get all the details which were presented, and learn from the brilliant minds that contributed to the film. I was not alone. Many of my contemporaries viewed the film multiple times, as well. And in the audience were university professors, scientists, authors, spiritualists, some of whom are quite famous and highly regarded for their contributions to the evolution of consciousness.

Ashland is a community comprising highly educated, artistic and environmentally sophisticated cultural creatives. I thought SF was populated by a large percentage of the same demographic. Apparently, your newspaper doesn't reflect such a readership. For a Chronical film reviewer to demonstrate such arrogance and simple-mindedness in a review makes me believe the Chronical is not a newspaper I want to read.

San Francisco has benefitted economically through the years by having a collective open mind which has encouraged many to test new ideas in science, technology, spirituality, ecology and the arts. Why now, do you close the gate on a film that brings meaning and understanding to some of life's greatest mysteries? I can only surmise that your corporate ownership influences the quality of your editorial opinions and news reporting, and frankly this sickens me. Criticizing entertainment is valid as long as the reviewer makes it clear this is HER opinion. But criticizing the scholars, scientists, spiritualists and contributors to this film is unreasonable and low-class. If she doesn't understand metaphysics, mysticism and spirituality, she should have never been given this assignment. Her sarcasm is revealing of her inability to open her mind to thoughts and ideas which are clearly greater than her small mind can navigate. Your reviewer has likely never spent years of devotion and dedication to deep spiritual values or scientific exploration and she demonstrates no match in the tremendous education and knowledge, scholarship and wisdom of the people who contributed to the film, "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

I am thoroughly disgusted with this film review and with the Chronicle for its sloppy, biased and sarcastic report. It would behoove you to print a retraction and apologize for the reviewer's personal ineptitude in reviewing the film, and perhaps even do a human interest piece about the filmmakers, scholars and scientists who contributed to a phenomenon in the film industry – a film that has confounded corporate theater executives by its tremendous grassroots appeal using no violence, no human degradation, no crime, drugs or filthy language. Now there's a real story! Shara Gardner Stinson Beach, CA


From: Michael Torphy on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:39 AM

Dear Editor, I grew up in the great city of San Francisco and to this day I'm am thankful for that. It was a city of open mindedness and a forerunner for change. I'm eternally grateful to that city for giving me the basis of a life that is open minded, open hearted and forever seeking the truth of who and what we are as living, self-aware beings.

I've been away from that city for some years now and have to wonder what happened. In reading the review on What The Bleep... and the subsequent response from one of the film makers, and after having seen the movie twice, I have to also wonder why the Chronicle doesn't hire intelligent film critics. I have to agree vehemently with the film maker. This film is on the cutting edge of film making, both in it's presentation and by the means it has gotten into theaters around the country. Not only that, its success in those theaters challenges the closed-minded in such a way that it can be evolutionary to the consciousness of this planet. This movie didn't have to seek to go different towns & cities, the towns & cities have sought the film. Heaven forbid that our culture should evolve consciously. Oh yes, by the way, is the world still flat? Maybe your critic has something to say about that also.

I live in a small town in Grand Junction and I'm going to see the movie again with more than 30 people from a church that only has an average attendance on Sundays of 60 to 70. More of that congregation will be going to other showings on other days. My point is, supposedly, we're not as sophisticated as your great city. Umm?

Wake up, humankind is changing and we want to know more and will seek eternally to try and understand who and what we are. Closed mindedness is quickly sinking in its own ocean of unimaginative thinking. Why go down with that ship? Concerned about our media, Michael Torphy


From: Camila Restrepo on Aug 04, 2004 at 11:58 AM

Dear Miss Stein, After reading your review of What the Bleep, I have to agree with you that you ARE definitely missing something. Included in this letter is the text of the response to your review by William Arnst, one I think perhaps you should read a few times so that you can get your facts straight, despite your own admission that "you don't have a doctorate in anything". If you try, I am confident you can remember these Facts. I also recommend that you go see the movie again, and this time leave your bigotry at the door. Just in case you forgot:

*bigotry*Big"ot*ry, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them. n : the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot [syn: dogmatism

I read some other reviews you wrote and noticed that you like films that fit a certain profile, a standard action, drama, documentary or anything that does not push the boundaries of your brain and thinking ability. Good for you. You've got a great little box there. Whenever you decide to step out of it and look around, you'll find that there's a whole universe out there that will challenge you at every one of those steps - if you want it to. It's really up to you. Otherwise, you will continue as you are, bigoted and unifiormed. It is blatantly obvious to the rest of us that if something is too different from your norm than it is labeled as bad in your world. I for one, am happy to report that even though you are a sad example to me, I don't think of you as bad and am doing what I can to give you a clue that different CAN equal good.

See the movie again - with the facts you now have in mind. Let us know what your _informed_ opinion is. Best wishes,


From: Helen Simmons on Aug 04, 2004 at 12:24 PM

I would like to ditto the following response to the SF Cronicle: Thank you, Helen Simmons, Mount Vernon, Washington


From: Mary Jane Cuyler on Aug 04, 2004 at 12:35 PM

Dear San Francisco Chronicle, As I am sure you will be completely inundated with indignant letters deploring Ruthe Stein's review of What the Bleep, I will refrain from meticulously tearing apart her article - partially, if truth must be told, because the job would simply be too easy. Let me just say this: the San Francisco Chronicle is one of the better-known papers in the US, and I find it appalling that you would allow such a poor writer to be on your staff. Her cardinal sin? Betraying her (rather phenomenal) ignorance; and laying it out for all the world to read. Her review reeks of a college student's campus paper writing assignment. As a film critic she is at liberty to criticise the film itself; as an ignorant woman with neither a PhD in science, or even a passing knowledge of quantum mechanics, it is most assuredly not hers to scoff at the concepts presented in the film. The interviews were not scripted; the science was not invented in order to create the movie. Therefore, when she attacks the scientific theories in the film, with all the petty wit she can muster, she moves out of the realm of film critic and simply reveals herself to be uneducated, close-minded, and ignorant. I would suggest that you ought to take a closer look at her articles before you publish them, as her flippant review certainly lowered my estimation of your paper. Oh, by the way, 'bucolic' implies 'pastoral' and that particular adjective is not even slightly applicable to any setting in which the scientists were interviewed. Sincerely, Mary Jane Cuyler Bellingham, Washington

page 2 of 32 - previous page || 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.