I Am

"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

This is a complete change of pace from the man who brought us Ace Ventura and Liar, Liar. Here Tom looks at the deeper questions of what is wrong with our world and what can we do to change it. Unfortunately, that makes it sound like homework and it is anything but. Tom uses his skill as a filmmaker and his humor to bring us on a journey of enlightenment with him. He has thoughtful conversations with many of the worlds best thinkers and puts the question "what's wrong with our world" to them. Are aggression and competition really the natural order? Is there a better way? This movie asks the questions and gives some possible answers in an entertaining and non-preachy way. The world is what we make of it, and our experience of life is ours to control.

See this movie!!

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".

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.

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.