Look Into My Eyes

A group of professional psychics advise their clients on-camera, while at other times the psychics bare their own souls to an interviewer seated off-camera. True believers may love this stuff, cynics may scoff at it, and the open-minded may at least be willing to give it a chance--an attitude that will no doubt be helped by the sheer drama and compelling nature of the stories themselves. One psychic reveals that she went into the business following the sudden death of her mother; another joined the ranks of "animal psychics" when, out of sorts and at a crossroads in her life, she read something about that aspect of the business and decided to give it a try. (The notion of communicating with pets--especially dead ones--might be the most hard-to-swallow part of the whole movie.) Many of the pros have been struggling to make a go of it in the arts--as actors, writers, or otherwise--they all seem to live in modest New York City apartments, and everybody, medium and client alike, has suffered abuse or experienced the death of a loved one or is burdened by dreams deferred. They're all alone and lonely, partner-free and quietly desperate. "Look Into My Eyes" is not for everyone, but if you think you might enjoy a talking heads documentary about a fringe profession that features seances and the like--not to mention the troubled folks who are grateful that the profession exists--it's most definitely the movie to see. Surprisingly absorbing and thoroughly watchable, even if you're a (moderate) cynic like me.

The trailer promises a new look at the world of psychic readings, but what we get are sometimes too-intimate looks at the lives of a series of scammers who sell the illusion of talking to the dead or to pets or to dead pets in order to comfort people who are emotionally fragile and clearly not the sharpest knives in the rack.

That suckers go to psychics for succor is no great revelation, although this documentary seems to think it is, and then it goes to pains to say that's okay. In that very modern falsehood of thinking validating everyone's feeling is a good idea. Maybe just tell the person, "Hey, your dog's probably dead, but who knows?" and let them live in reality. Don't too many of us hang on to deception? Isn't that part of the reason we're descending into a totalitarian regime in 2025?

While no names or narration are given to guide us, the documentary all but exposes each of the "psychics" as hucksters, many of whom seem mentally ill and who narcissistically see only their own pains in everyone elses's. Other just seem like empathetic people who spout feel-good nonsense as band-aids, and you have to wonder what their clients really think afterward. But we never hear from them.

It's very telling that many of the fleecers portrayed here talk openly about their dreams of art and acting. It seems that while they never made it to Broadway, they all found their stages, given the lovely size of many of their apartments.

It's also telling that they all come from disempowered, disenfranchised communities (women, gay, African American), a sad reminder of how effective is the brainwashing done by the elite and/or religion (in this case, the delusion of an afterlife and of magic).

In the film *Look Into My Eyes*, a doctor consults a psychic to help her process the death of a little girl who died in her ER. Is this seemingly intelligent woman deluded? Are any of the clients who seek out those who profess to have otherworldly powers out of their minds for doing so? And what about these so-called magic people? Do they truly believe in their ability to speak with the dead and see into the future? The film doesn't ask.

Instead, this documentary on psychics who work around Manhattan doesn't judge its subjects. Rather, the viewer is simply presented with people (most of whom are frustrated, if not failed, actors) who are as confused and hurting as anyone who feels the need for supernatural guidance.

Personally, I appreciated the lack of judgment throughout the picture. By not putting anyone on the defensive, we are allowed to glimpse this world with the mask off. None of the clairvoyants seem confident in their alleged powers. They all express doubt. One man is devastated when his attempt to read someone fails spectacularly, appearing genuinely hurt when his talent falters.

In fact, the sadness throughout the film is hard to miss. As the movie reaches its conclusion, one thing becomes clear: we all carry a lot of trauma, and some of us are willing to try anything to resolve it. Humans don't want to believe that bad things happen just because they happen. We are desperate to make the incomprehensible make sense. And people don't care if you have to fabricate answers to give them that solace. After all, which would you prefer: a world where a little girl is shot dead and that's the end, or one where her death is the beginning of a brand new adventure?

Of course, death is death. No, you don't go on to other things when you take your last breath. But while that may be the truth, the truth doesn't always set you free.

This was a beautiful documentary. I loved hearing people's stories. It flowed beautifully, too. Im not a skeptic at all but i use my discernment. I would only pay to see two of the psychics. I cringed at some readings in the movie. I also cried for the girl and her animal. I enjoyed every moment of this documentary. It would have been nice if all the psychics were legit. It seemed like some of them were legit and some probably just wanted to be in a movie to advance their "acting" career. Im definitely glad I watched this, but at times it was hard to see people being scammed in front of me for example when they would ask the clients questions.

Not sure what the intention was for this documentary. Exposing fake or terrible psychics? It does a disservice to the subject matter. There are some talented mediums who don't prey on people. I can't tell if these psychics are just terrible or fraudulent. Either way, each one of them show many signs of depression. That is exploitive. Is it expose' or exploitation? Problematic either way. If expose' was intended, perhaps we should have been able to hear from psychics with a solid reputation to fairly try to defend the subject matter. I've had some good experiences with psychics where the information could be validated by me without leading the psychic.