I Am

I like the moral premise and idea that all life is connected and happiness is not directly related to money once basic needs are met, but when the filmmaker resorts to pseudoscience trickery he alienates me . Somethings can't or don't need to be proved.The filmmaker shows yogurt with meter probes "reading" his feelings.The next one that got me was the"random number generators that all stopped when there was a major catastrophe. What they are used for anyway? Why they stopped did not impress me.What does a computer care about a tsunami? Is it alive? If you want to prove something with science you have to show more data. So if you want a show that starts with a nice warm cooperative premise and ends with trickery this is a good "bait and switch" for you.

PS:Happiness is living in a Malibu beach mobile home with 10 million in the bank and a career in Hollywood film directing.Does that compare to the the average struggling person in a mobile home park with no other options? Now I must stop myself.

This is movie shows the ability we have to change and shift the world as we know it. Tom did a wonderful job with this documentary. The high school students who were in attendance to the screening began to ask deep questions. Questions that brings me faith in a new world that works for everyone.

Be the drop the in the sea and make a difference. Tom's work is spurring work that I've already begun. I highly recommend this movie to everyone, including our teenagers. If I had a chance to see this as a teen, I would've related. It took me 37 years of my life bouncing back and forth of seeking the truth on opposing sides of issues. I've found the answer is not in a position against anything.

"Love is all we need." John Lennon

Director of goofy comedies like Ace Ventura, Tom Shaydac had an epiphany after a life-threatening bicycle accident and did this sweet documentary, I Am, to answer two simple questions: What's wrong with our world? What can we do about it? Enlisting the brain power of intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, among others (some more celebrity than brainy), he gets a surprising unanimity.

With its liberal leaning threatening to capsize the project, scholars and Shaydac agree that community rather than individualism (watch out Ayn Rand) is the answer, love rather that selfishness. It has been popular of late to attack the American dream of individual achievement in order to glamorize the Christian philosophy of loving your brother and helping your neighbor.

Disagreeing with this notion is akin to being a grumpy capitalist, so no one in this soft documentary disagrees by arguing, as anyone might, that American individualism is what built the USA into a superpower, starting as it might with the exhortation to "go West, young man (woman)" or believe in "self reliance." I contend that both charity and individualism can work together for a better world, but Shaydac seems in no mood to compromise, or more appropriately, collaborate.

Pretty images, Rumi recitations, and new-age music are the background the curly-coiffed Shaydac employs to keep a glow on the message, which is consistent and suspiciously pat. For instance, shots of loving animal and human families don't necessarily make his case because most will naturally love and nurture their own regardless of charitable pieties.

I have to give Shaydac credit for shucking his material gain like his Hollywood mansion and moving into a Malibu trailer park with his utility bicycle. Unlike Michael Moore, he walks the walk (or rides the ride in the case of that bike).

I Am is a comfortable tome on the effectiveness of love, a concept difficult to denigrate.

"In your light I learn how to love. In your beauty, how to make poems. You dance inside my chest, where no one sees you, but sometimes I do, and that sight becomes this art."

Rumi, Art as Flirtation and Surrender

A successful and wealthy Hollywood director/producer, Tom Shadyac, following a nasty bicycle accident and ensuing significant PTSD, recovered to put together this wonderful documentary concerning the philosophical components of what creates a satisfied and happy life/community. What was found that when it comes right down to it, all we really need is love. "I Am" is a documentary & solution of our global problem, attempting to instill consciousness and awakening into its viewers, one person at a time. It is 76 minutes of happy talk, Koyaanisqatsi-style (Francis Ford Coppola/Godfrey Reggio's 1982 documentary) with slow-motion stock footage, reflective historical archival excerpts and a mixture of relevant film clips ("Wall Street," "It's a Wonderful Life"), quotes from Ralph Waldo Emerson, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Gandhi, splices of spiritual songs w/ incredible poignant lyrics- all teamed to emotional tie-ins that elevate the human spirit with empathy, empowerment & a brilliant understanding of connection and a desire to want to "make a difference". Its style and method has much connection to Michael Moore documentaries, but doesn't leave the viewer in such an angry and impotent mood post showing. Likewise, the film uses the producer's own life story to show that "more" doesn't equate to "happy". It illustrates how a common thread of disorder/dissatisfaction is inter-weaved into our whole western culture's neurosis, intuitively then, & at the individual's psyche this subsequent emotional instability (dis-ease) is obviously the response to a total disconnection from the interconnectedness of all life, & its interdependency of nature, community, and rightful, unselfish purpose. Our responsive and internal behaviors seem to shout "defense mechanism" as protection to the affront priorities of our culture's "smoke and mirrors". The film's title is not a proud declaration but an acceptance of responsibility. Shadyac holds himself up as a prime example of the conspicuous consumption that many native cultures consider a sign of mental illness.

Putting together a lot of the best contemporary minds of science, politics, spirituality, philosophy, statesmen and poetry, as well as prominent authors of esoteric concepts blending "the physics of consciousness" and "the biology of love", Shadyac set out to answer two questions: What's wrong with our world? What can we do about it? The unequivocal agreement he ascertains is that we're (as a species) hard-wired for cooperation rather than competition, we should listen and behave more from our hearts (and less from our heads), that science and abstract mathematics do change over time, have manipulative appeal with long time consequences are often NOT the answer and with this- the fundamental nature of man is essentially benevolent and not cruel.

Though the answers to these two questions appear voluminous, complicated and opaque, the flow of this movie shows a glowing and simple answer. Yes, people are good, and this movie is a positive and expansive experience. The movie is open to the miraculous nature of existence and the potential for change rather than extinction and other untoward direction of decay and devastation.

I started to watch this film, but I turned it off after about 10 minutes. If you think I shouldn't make any comments about it because of that, then stop here.

It's not that I couldn't watch it; I didn't want to watch it. Because the beginning of this film was filled with so many errors in logic, I felt. I noticed that the interviewees were setting up false dichotomies and setting things in opposition that don't have to be viewed that way. Also, the approach seemed to be socialistic, based upon the opinion that the best way to be is cooperative. This approach, as stated, allows no room for treating individuals as special (or even as individuals) if carried to the logical conclusion.

Which brings me to my main objection. I had the feeling that if I voiced any dissent to the views presented based upon arguments of logic or reason, the answer would probably be "you need to escape the limitations of logic", in one form or another. This is something I am not willing to do. As a thinking animal, I function that way.

A less severe criticism I have is that some terms being used by the interviewees were being used very loosely--in a fuzzy way that promotes misunderstanding, not clarity. A certain amount of this is unavoidable, but I don't prefer conversations that "live" in the fuzzy regions of our existence.

I am not saying the film contains no ideas that are true or valuable. But I think I know those already.

It is one thing to condemn what we might call excessive competition (my success promulgated on, and designed for, your failure), but competition in general is a valuable (and inescapable) condition.

I think one can watch this film and pick up nuggets of truth, but this film seems to be couched in what I consider to be a dangerous approach to thinking and evaluating.

Since I did not watch the entire film, I have not given it a score. To those who choose to watch it and who gain benefit from it, I say "Good".