I Am

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 had the pleasure of seeing this movie last evening at my daughters high school. Tom & his team brought a unique perspective to the kids of our world. The film asks some interesting questions, but does not presume so much as to provide answers to something so unanswerable. Instead, it challenges the viewer to look inside themselves a bit & to consider how they interact with the world around them. To be open minded to a world of possibilities and more importantly; to not take your role in this world nor the size of your act as insignificant.

To often we adults layered with our cynicism, skepticism & selfishness forget that the world is still brand new to our children. The film reaches out to empower the young & reminds them they have the power to create the world they wish to live in.

Do yourself and your children a favor, take a moment to see this film when it comes out!

While another review described this movie as "liberal," I must say that while it may be, it still had a lot of interesting information in it. At one point in my life, I thought Rush Limbaugh was too liberal, but yet I still enjoyed this movie and have watched it several times.

There were several turn offs, yes. The New Age vibe the movie gives off is one of them. However, this is also a plus, because New Agers must be one of the last groups in America that have an upbeat outlook for the future. I may not agree with them, yet it is totally refreshing to see what is an unusual stance in this day of "doomsday preppers."

The other negative of the film is the kind of glowing nostalgic view of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Yes, both of them may have really done some good in some way, but there were a lot of dark things about Mandela that were pushed under the carpet, and making him look like he could walk on water really does a disservice to history. The same with King, who in some ways did help move America to the "left" politically, but yes, he did accomplish some things that were needed in America.

That being said, there are some really positive things about the movie. The look at America as a consumer-based society. The look at community versus individualism is interesting. Really, all of the interviews in the film are pretty interesting and the movie is worth watching just for this reason.

Lynne Mctaggart, the author of one of my favorite books, "The Field," is interviewed in the film. For anyone wanting to look more at the scientific side of "I Am," I highly recommend getting a copy of "The Field."

I will add as a side note, that while it isn't totally fitting to "I Am," I recommend the book, "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom," by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt expands on some of the same issues, discussing community versus individualism, consumerism, etc., and even discusses some of the political views that affect these topics.

Rather than it being one or the other, Haidt points out that both Left and Right have some truth to them, and that America is better off because both sides exist.

I think that is how "I Am" should be viewed. There is some truth in it, and it should be watched even if you don't agree with every single minute of the movie.

In fact, I think people can grow from hearing different viewpoints even if they don't agree with them. In that respect, "I Am," offers a lot to think about, again, even if you don't agree with all of it.

Right up front, I'm a political/social conservative who is okay with marijuana and gay marriage. This may have prejudiced this review a bit.

First, this is a beautiful movie of self-discovery. And, I do mean self- discovery. There really wasn't a single concept discussed that hasn't been discussed since I was in high school and I'm 70 years old. Actually, these concepts have probably been discussed for the past 5,000 years or more.

However, if you want to experience a man living through his moment of "enlightenment," this movie will give you that. Essentially, he discovers that happiness doesn't come from material things, but from being involved in something bigger than himself, something that makes a difference.

He's very careful to state that you don't need to make a big difference to gain a sense of worth and happiness, even the small, little things make a difference. He supports these concepts with some relatively recent scientific research, that points to the power of matters of the heart and the impact our negative and positive thoughts can have on ourselves as well as others; in fact, the environment around us. As I said earlier, toss out the research and you're left with what philosophers and mystics have been telling us for ages.

One of the major themes sounded very socialistic (this was the political part) , pretty much: From those who have too much, to those who have too little. This is, of course, a common theme amongst progressives (redistribution of wealth). However, something he hinted at was a bit different. He seemed to say that this had to come from the heart, from a personal commitment to help others, to help the community. I would agree and add, that this means that it can't be instigated by any government, you can't order people to love their neighbor. Nothing good comes from trying to do that.

The big disappointment for me, was the lack of any discussion concerning what I consider to be the two most important questions that this line of thought must deal with.

1) What do you do about those who decide to take full advantage of the situation and choose only to take and not to give? In other words, live off of the efforts of others.

2) What do you do about those who decide to manipulate the system to their own personal advantage, both from the financial and the position of power perspectives?

This type of society leaves itself wide open to that, without a very strong central government that makes sure that things stay fair. However, usually those in the government are the ones to take advantage, and no real gains are achieved by the vast majority of the population.

I really wish, someday, someone with these Utopian thoughts would honestly approach the tough questions. ... and yes, this is a movie about Utopia ... but, alas, I'm afraid the tough questions will remain unanswered, utopias will continue to fail and humanity will still be having this dream 5,000 years from now.

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.