The basic message of the film (that the patterns of nature from the macrocosmic to the microcosmic and from the gross to the subtle repeat themselves implying an underlying unity of consciousness and we all need to meditate and rediscover that underlying unity) is a good message but the film's finer details, the way the message is conveyed, and the stylistic presentation leave a lot to be desired.
The main issue is that everything is presented as objective fact when actually it is just one person's understanding of reality and his interpretation of different spiritual traditions. Instead of being totally upfront and clear about it, the film maker, Daniel Schmidt, hides behind a narrator voice for the whole two hours (which unfortunately sounds uncannily like a trailer voice for Hollywood action movies). Making use of narration in this way makes all that is said sound more believable: the narrator (in any film or documentary) is usually hidden and presents the facts with an all-knowing (God-like) authority which the viewer in general takes on as truth without question. However, a lot of documentaries nowadays (from what I've seen) have moved away from having a narrator at all, and allow the subjects or interviewees themselves present their understanding as they see it which is more in line with a relativistic worldview (i.e. that reality presents itself differently for different individuals). They don't attempt to present the whole picture of a situation or phenomenon but just say that this is one picture, or this is these people's understanding. In so doing they are far more honest than Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds manages to be. This film is presented as giving objective facts of the big picture of reality which is really nothing short of arrogant.
Throughout, tidbits of information are thrown out as fact but without any back-up argumentation or further analysis. To take just two (of many) examples, the film states that heaven in Christianity and nirvana in Buddhism are the same thing, and that the symbol of the serpent in ancient Greece, in ancient Egypt, in Hinduism, and in Judaism/Christianity all represent the same kundalini awakening. Now, it may well be right but it may just as well not be. I mean, these are questions that could start long theological/philosophical discussions with many a well-traversed spiritual practitioner but Shmidt just rushes to simple conclusions that support his point of view.
In many ways, Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds, gives a superficial impression despite trying to be the complete opposite. It seems to want to take in a little bit of every field of knowledge that has ever existed and show that all of it is pointing toward the same reality, but there is no critical thinking, no difficult questions being asked, no deeper line of reasoning. There is no room for the possibility that not everything that is said may not in fact be true. It is a potpourri of wisdom quotes from sages and philosophers, a dash of theoretical physics and geometry, hintings of mysticism, ancient civilisations and religion, the odd reference to less well-known phenomena such as synaethesia, entheogens, and Higgs Boson particles, all told over entrancing fractal imagery, geometric patterns and nature pics together with an alternating soundtrack of at times relaxation/meditation tones and at times dramatic and emotionally charged music. It is a bit ironic that in the fourth part of the film, Schmidt laments the contemporary overuse of technology, the endless playing of video games and surfing on phones and tablets, and what it does to us as people, while at the same time the whole film seems geared towards someone with an attention span of 30 seconds.
The film's subject matter is incredibly interesting but the film does not come close to doing justice to it.
The main issue is that everything is presented as objective fact when actually it is just one person's understanding of reality and his interpretation of different spiritual traditions. Instead of being totally upfront and clear about it, the film maker, Daniel Schmidt, hides behind a narrator voice for the whole two hours (which unfortunately sounds uncannily like a trailer voice for Hollywood action movies). Making use of narration in this way makes all that is said sound more believable: the narrator (in any film or documentary) is usually hidden and presents the facts with an all-knowing (God-like) authority which the viewer in general takes on as truth without question. However, a lot of documentaries nowadays (from what I've seen) have moved away from having a narrator at all, and allow the subjects or interviewees themselves present their understanding as they see it which is more in line with a relativistic worldview (i.e. that reality presents itself differently for different individuals). They don't attempt to present the whole picture of a situation or phenomenon but just say that this is one picture, or this is these people's understanding. In so doing they are far more honest than Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds manages to be. This film is presented as giving objective facts of the big picture of reality which is really nothing short of arrogant.
Throughout, tidbits of information are thrown out as fact but without any back-up argumentation or further analysis. To take just two (of many) examples, the film states that heaven in Christianity and nirvana in Buddhism are the same thing, and that the symbol of the serpent in ancient Greece, in ancient Egypt, in Hinduism, and in Judaism/Christianity all represent the same kundalini awakening. Now, it may well be right but it may just as well not be. I mean, these are questions that could start long theological/philosophical discussions with many a well-traversed spiritual practitioner but Shmidt just rushes to simple conclusions that support his point of view.
In many ways, Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds, gives a superficial impression despite trying to be the complete opposite. It seems to want to take in a little bit of every field of knowledge that has ever existed and show that all of it is pointing toward the same reality, but there is no critical thinking, no difficult questions being asked, no deeper line of reasoning. There is no room for the possibility that not everything that is said may not in fact be true. It is a potpourri of wisdom quotes from sages and philosophers, a dash of theoretical physics and geometry, hintings of mysticism, ancient civilisations and religion, the odd reference to less well-known phenomena such as synaethesia, entheogens, and Higgs Boson particles, all told over entrancing fractal imagery, geometric patterns and nature pics together with an alternating soundtrack of at times relaxation/meditation tones and at times dramatic and emotionally charged music. It is a bit ironic that in the fourth part of the film, Schmidt laments the contemporary overuse of technology, the endless playing of video games and surfing on phones and tablets, and what it does to us as people, while at the same time the whole film seems geared towards someone with an attention span of 30 seconds.
The film's subject matter is incredibly interesting but the film does not come close to doing justice to it.