What The Bleep?

We still follow Amanda as her uninspired life unravels to reveal the uncertain world of quantum mechanics hidden beneath her normal, waking reality. But in the Director’s Cut, the interviews are lengthened and a full 95% of all interviews is new, never before seen footage exploring the links between quantum mechanics, neurobiology, human consciousness and day-to-day reality.

Featuring 90 minutes of new interviews and two new scientists, Dean Radin, Ph.D., and Dr. Masaru Emoto, and author of The Field, Lynne McTaggart; and introducing Dr. Quantum in 20 minutes of new animation, this is the deeper exploration that you’ve been asking for.

After four years and thousands of hours working with the scientific information presented in What the BLEEP Do We Know!?, the filmmakers were sure about at least one thing: There was much more to know.

As they worked with the material, they laughed and admitted you just don’t get quantum physics, biology and psychoneuroimmunology the first time through. Or the first hundred times through.

Audience responses, website responses, letters, emails and conferences all indicated the same thing: People wanted a deeper understanding of all these concepts, and a deeper knowledge about how they affected them individually and as a collective.

Thus the extended Director’s Cut of What the BLEEP – Down the Rabbit Hole was born.

It’s a documentary. It’s a story. It has mind-blowing special effects. These three elements combine to bring about a film experience that will rock your mind and lift your soul! It’s a new genre about a New Worldview for a new audience. This outrageous film plunges you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated – where neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived by its protagonist – where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought.

It has been called by some theater goers ‘The Handbook to The Matrix’. Like The Matrix it shows you a greater reality behind the one we all accept as true, and you have the ability to create absolutely anything from your own thought while laughing all the way! The difference between this film and that movie is that this isn’t science fiction. It’s even stranger. It’s real. And it’s the first film to say it. And it does so boldly and with a BLEEP of a lot of humour.

The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further emphasis to the film’s underlying concept of the interconnectedness of all things. The chorus members act as hosts who live outside of the story, and from this Olympian view, comment on the actions of the characters below. They are also there to introduce the Great Questions framed by both science and religion, which divides the film into a series of acts. Through the course of the film, the distinction between science and religion becomes increasingly blurred, since we realize that, in essence, both science and religion describe the same phenomena.

The film employs animation to realize the radical knowledge that modern science has unearthed in recent years. Powerful cinematic sequences explore the inner-workings of the human brain. Quirky animation introduces us to the smallest form of consciousness in the body – the cell. Dazzling visuals reinforce the film’s message in an exciting, powerful way. Done with humor, precision, and irreverence, these scenes are only part of what makes this film unique in the history of cinema, and a true box-office winner.

Q: Will the movie be on at my local cinema?
A: Call your local cinema to find out if they will be showing it. If not, tell them you want it to play there. The most effective method to get the film locally is to call your local cinema and tell them that you want to see THIS film in THEIR cinema. This really works!

Q: What is the film rated?
A: Australia – M15+ / New Zealand – TBC

Q: Would the film be appropriate for my children?
A: We recommend that children under the age of 15 have a parent present during the film due to some strong language and one brief semi-explicit sexual scene. We recommend parents see the film first and then make their own decision as to whether or not their children will be able to handle and understand what they are seeing.

Q: Why was the name of the film chosen?
A: The name was first floated out of the filmmakers’ exasperation in trying to find a way to combine all the information and elements in an engaging, entertaining manner. Then the title took on a life of its own, as we realized, What DO We Know? and Who are WE to Tell You Anything? We are not offering the ultimate solution to life’s mysteries, but inviting viewers to ask themselves the What do I Know? question and figure it out for themselves.

Q: How long is the movie?
A: 109 minutes

Q: Where was “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” filmed?
A: Most of the footage for the narrative story was shot in Portland, Oregon. Interviews were taped in Washington State; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco, Philadelphia, Connecticut, Arizona and Oregon.

Q: How long did it take to make the film?
A: While William Arntz first dreamed of making the movie over 10 years ago, most of the active work producing the film took three years.

Q: Why was Marlee Matlin, a deaf actress chosen to play the lead, Amanda, in the film?
A: Ms. Matlin became interested in portraying Amanda after reading the script. The script had been written with the emphasis on showing the dramatic part of the story, more than explaining it in clever dialogue. However, in modifying the script, we saw that Marlee’s deafness does suggest the question: “What slices of reality are WE deaf to?”

Q: Why are the names and titles of the Scientists and Mystics only revealed at the end of the film?
A: For artistic reasons primarily, but also because we felt it was important for the audience to be able to focus on the message being said and not its messengers.

Q: How authentic is the science in the film?
A: How “authentic” is any science? Newton’s theory of gravity is very authentic, and very incomplete. Just ask Einstein. The quantum physics, neurology and molecular biology is authentic based on current findings. The Water Crystals work is gaining ground in scientific circles. Dr. Emoto’s work has been published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, February, 2004.

Q: Why is the film controversial?
A: It suggests a change to the current paradigms and positions of power and that’s what the world does – makes a controversy out of it. The filmmakers are happy to be able to address any controversy surrounding the film. Click here to go to the Reviews Page on the US website where some writers have raised some controversial questions about the film.

Q: My religion does not adhere to the concepts of this film. What do you say for us who are not in agreement with what the film espouses?
A: It’s not that your religion doesn’t adhere – it’s that what YOU believe in doesn’t adhere. The fact that your set of beliefs includes a particular religion is just one example in your list of beliefs. Everyone has his or her worldview. In our view, there is not One Way, but six billion Ways.
We direct this film and its concepts to everyone’s innate ability to decide for themselves what is real and true. Our hope is that people think about their beliefs and paradigms, instead of just blindly accepting them. In the end, we decide for ourselves. As Bob Marley said, “Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds.”

Q: What are the spiritual influences of the filmmakers?
A: The list is long and varied.
William Arntz’ first influence was his college physics classes, studying quantum mechanics and relativity. The lack of fundamental explanations sent him toward metaphysics, and first Rudolf Steiner and the Theosophists. From there it was reading as much as possible – his favorite being Carlos Castaneda. In 1982 he met his first teacher – Rama, and studied various forms of Buddhism for 13 years. Then, in 1996, he followed a friend out to Washington and was introduced to Ramtha, with whom he studies currently. Click here for his bio.
Betsy Chasse “thought I didn’t have a spiritual bone in my body.” But after a highly successful career in film production, she became disgusted with the meaninglessness of the films being made and pulled the plug on that life. She spent months sitting alone thinking she just wanted to make a film that would change people’s lives. She started attending classes at SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship – founded by Paramahansa Yogananda). It was there that the door to the unseen worlds began to open, and in walked Mark Vicente with a script for What the Bleep Do We Know?! Betsy took on the project, moved to Washington, where she met Gordie and Ramtha. She married Gordie and became a student of Ramtha. Click here for her bio.
Mark Vicente knew from a young age that media and motion pictures in particular are the most powerful way to reach people. I always pondered the question “What if this powerful form was used to uplift people rather than keep them trapped in the corporate and religious food chain, merely consuming products and dogma without the knowledge to create life on their own terms?” He arrived on the planet as a Christian; performed a brief stint as a New-Ager – until he realized that the latter was: “a bit like being a Democrat – well intentioned, politically correct but lacking balls.” His dream drew him from his native South Africa to California where he became aware of Ramtha’s work in the early 90′s and has been a student at RSE (Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment) since.

Q: I see all three filmmakers are students at RSE. Is this a recruitment film?
A: The short answer is No. During the making of the film it was decided that what was important was the message, not the messenger – whoever that may be. Some people may be inspired to check out RSE, and some people may be inspired to major at MIT in quantum teleportation.
In this film we invite viewers to entertain the concepts espoused by all the wonderful beings we interviewed. All of whom are connected with, or have been connected with, a major U.S. university such as Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, UCLA to name a few. Ramtha does say “we create our reality,” which is part of what he teaches, but Fred Alan Wolf, John Hagelin, Amit Goswami, and Bill Tiller also say it. It’s the message, not the messenger.

Q: How was the film funded?
A: In the early 90′s William wrote a piece of system management software called AutoSys. He sold it and his company, then did another software startup, which he also sold. The profits from these sales were used to fund What the BLEEP. As he said at the opening, “I guess I’ll find out soon whether I’m a visionary, or just have a VERY expensive hobby.”

Q: I heard there is a text version of the film. Is this true?
A: It’s not a text version, but it is a book of the most requested quotes of the film, along with images from the film. We call it “The Little Book of BLEEPS”.

Q: Why are you calling them “the filmmakers?” Most films seem to have writers, producers, and directors with little overlap. Why is this film different?
A: The three “filmmakers” joined forces to make this film to communicate the ideas to a world out of balance. And it was only in that topsy-turvy, best of times/worst of times, spirit of get-beyond-your-Ego-to-do-the-best-for-the-film collaboration that the movie emerged. Maybe that’s why the film is different…

Q: Can I send the filmmakers a message telling them I support their making of this film?
A: Yes. A special email address has been set up for this very purpose.

Q: What inspired the filmmakers to do this film?
A: The inspiration for this film came from a number of different directions. And with that many fingers pointing – it could not be ignored. The first finger was the continual convergence of the two great modes of human inquiry – science and spirit. Quantum physics, neurology and molecular biology seem to be saying things that are in agreement with what mystics have been saying for centuries. Furthermore science as a language of the spirit seems to cut across old beliefs and superstitions, and present ideas in a way that encourages people to examine for themselves and make their own decisions.
Another finger was the availability of sophisticated hi-tech movie making at an Indie budget price. The computerization of the film making process has given non-studio productions the ability to make sophisticated effects-rich movies.
And lastly, the middle finger, is raised in response to what is currently out in social consciousness regarding “entertainment”. Cops, robbers, boy meets girl, man kills man, is boring at best and harmful at worse – and we the filmmakers think a lot of people are ready for something different.

Q: Who is the composer?
A: Christopher Franke was chosen to compose the music for this hypnotically beautiful and moving soundtrack because of his early work with Tangerine Dream, his subsequent solo career, and his resonance with the subject matter. When originally asked if he would work on the project he said “I think I’ve been writing the music for this film all my life. But I never thought a movie would come along that would actually do it.”

Q: I saw the movie, and during the subway scene, I was moved to learn more about Dr. Emoto’s work. Is there anywhere I can go to find out more?
A: Yes. If you would like more information on Dr. Emoto’s Messages from Water,

Q: In the scene in the movie where Amanda marks herself with blue hearts, what is going on?
A: She has realized how thoughts affect the body, and like the messages taped on the bottles of water, her message (i.e. the blue hearts) communicates directly to the world of thought, or intent, that she loves her body. But if you really want to know – apply the scientific method – and try it.

Q: I am curious about the wedding reception scene. I see the attitudes of gluttony, victimization, lust, anger, resentment, shame, covetousness, and tyranny played out by the characters and underlined by the hospital IV’s. Is this another take on the Seven Deadly Sins?
A: Deadly addictions maybe, but sins – no. According to the science, emotional addictions are like any chemical addiction – once you’re addicted, you’ll do anything for a fix. We make a point in the film that these addictions are part of the human condition, and that it’s up to each human to decide whether or not to stay addicted.

Q: I found some of the depictions of women in the wedding reception scene to be unflattering and misogynistic. Can you explain this choice?
A: The wedding reception is a very exaggerated scene, like a cartoon. It explores the territory of emotional addiction, whether it’s to food, victimization, power, alcohol, or sexuality. The filmmakers felt it was important, for the sake of clarity, to exaggerate the temptations, and presented the actors as characterizations for Universal Human Truths. They felt that with broad comedy, the point that we all have our demons to overcome could be made and laughed at, instead of suppressed and protected. The attempt was to let it all rip, expose human nature in all of its weaknesses, and note that we are all in on the joke, not holding ourselves above this human dilemma in a sanctimonious state. The filmmakers here employed the old adage that laughter is the best medicine.

Q: I have a topic I’d like to present and discuss with the “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” community. How can I find the online message board?
A: A Message Board is set up on the Australian website, and an online Discussion Forum is available at Noetic Sciences Knowledge Centre. Discuss the movie, the symbolism, the acting, the music, and more. Read what others have said and post your own insights and thoughts.

Q: Where can I find more materials to understand the scientific concepts presented in the film?
A: There are a great number of books available, some of them by the scientists and mystics interviewed for the film. There is a section on the US website to help you find books and other resources related to the subject matter of the movie.

Like to read other viewers’ comments on the film and add your own? CLICK HERE

By the same token, it’s also true that the people themselves who were interviewed in the film do not completely agree with each and every statement made in the film. Many professional perspectives are presented. The filmmakers chose to represent them all in the film, but it could never be possible in a film– or, perhaps, in life! – to get a group of 14 extraordinary people such as these to agree completely on a single cosmological view.