KNOWING, …or NOT?
The tag line is: “What Happens When the Numbers Run Out?” It should have been: “What Happens when Hollywood Writers Run Out of Numbers Ideas?” The latest psychic-supernatural thriller to come out of Hollywood has been met with good critical reviews and I must admit that despite my avowed skepticism and a few quibbles, I really enjoyed this intense romp into the darkest realms of woo.
Nicholas Cage does an excellent job portaying the brooding astrophysicist and teacher John Koestler. Koestler you say? This has to be an obvious in-joke to those of us who are familiar with the name or have read any of Arthur Koestler’s books such as “The Roots of Coincidence.” The controversial author left a substantial part of his estate to establish the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh, took an inordinate interest in synchronicity and was one of the first to link such events to quantum physics. Teacher John “stumbles upon” predictions of the future left behind by a seemingly clairvoyant little girl who wrote up her visions detailing precise numbers and dates, leaving them in a grade school time capsule to be revealed fifty years later – with absolute accuracy. Predictions never looked so good!
Add in little touches like the fact that John Koestler is a lifelong atheist (just like Arthur Koestler) and we have a perfect storm ripe to be converted to the new-new age apocalyptic generation. John questions his college class about determinism and generally sets up a classic skeptical debate within the film that kept me interested all the way through. Here’s one of the reasons why:
My interest in mentalism as a branch of conjuring goes back to my basic questioning of a reason for magic to exist. By itself, stage conjuring and magic makes no sense from the get go. Example: A magician shows a green silk handkerchief, shoves it into his closed fist and out pops a red one. So what? What’s the meaning? Other than a clever display of sleight of hand or a pretty little diverting puzzle, such momentary amazement has absolutely no reason to happen. As a kid I loved all magic, but after a while I began to think even the big magic acts were pretty much overwrought with these meaningless exercises. Doves came from nowhere, candles and canes changed into flags and coins multiplied. Big deal. I soon discovered that with mentalism, mind-reading and apparent psychic phenomena the audience is given a reason. The reason may be a flimsy one, but it’s a reason. There was a darker mystery there because these feats were relegated to the territory of the mind which we know so little about. Since we don’t really have clear answers about life after death, why supposed telepathic events occur or what makes synchronistic or coincidental events seem so miraculous, people will believe in it. Or in most cases believe more in suggestions of those things than will believe that a green piece of silk will turn red just because a guy puts it into his hand. This is why I turned to mentalism. It has a inherent plausibility that sets it aside from mere trickery even if in the final analysis the methods used to produce the effects aren’t any different at all. The average person will jump to the conclusion that psychics are real because they inhabit an area that has no guidelines. It’s more philosophy than entertainment.
So hurray! Along comes “Knowing” and gives the non-skeptical world a whole new reason to believe in precognition, clairvoyance and the supernatural. Not to mention another number conspiracy theory to freshen up any ancient Pythagorean, sacred geometric, alchemical or numerological hoodoo that may have been on the wane since “The Di Vinci Code” or “The Number 23.” In this movie it’s all neatly rolled into one little bundle. As a mentalist I can now use effects that utilize numbers and predictions and be assured of a whole new audience! All I can say is, “…Woooooooooooooooo!” Thank you mass media for another validation! We may grit their teeth at this fairytale, but falling for this yarn for anybody but us skeptics is not so preposterous when you see the way the writers and director pulled this all off. The acting is compelling, the story tight and the special effects utterly smashing – in more ways than one.
There’s even a father and son subplot that manages to get under your skin. The Bible comes in for some thumping too, but the sly way writers Ryne Douglas Pearson and Juliet Snowden deftly insert this angle is subtle enough to be palatable even to atheists. I won’t go into the ending and be a spoiler, but suffice it to say that a few more new age beliefs get tossed into this intoxicating brew. Foreshadowing hinted at the socko denouement and I racked my brain during the film trying to figure out how anything other than the classic “waking from a bad dream” scenario would play out, but it didn’t go that route. You will either like the ending or hate it. Either way “Knowing” beats the hell out of the re-make of “The Day the Earth Stood Still” and also offers a nice homage to 1951’s classic George Pal creation “When Worlds Collide.” If you are old enough to remember the last two minutes of that relic of 50’s sci-fi, you will immediately recognize the same in “Knowing.” I highly recommend this film. If you can tuck your skepticism under your hat and just let go for two hours and one minute, you won’t be disappointed. Fellow skeptics; I realize this is a hard pill to swallow, but watching for the reasons I have stated above makes it worth knowing about. Know your enemy.
Warning to Phil Plait: You may become quite annoyed. I’m sure the science in this film is just as far-fetched as the superstitious nonsense it’s based on.
As an adjunct to this film-going experience, once again my teenaged son and I had to sit through several trailers of up-coming television debuts that are rolling down the pike in the next few months. This time instead of ice truckers and lumberjacks, we have been warned we can look forward to the riveting “Deadliest Catch.” This show is about guys who go out in big boats and fish. Waves crash against them and they face losing their load of king crab! What conflict! What adventure!
Are we not dumbing down to the bottom of the fishiest barrel here? What’s next “Catch of the Day,” featuring Hooter’s waitresses describing the chef”s special? I’m sorry. What must we do to get “The Skeptologists” on the air! My son offered his opinion on this and gifted me with his quick-witted advice that the only way we are going to ever get our show picked up by a major network is if the entire cast wears John Deere hats and we all drive Silverado Kingcab 4x4s into off-road underbrush. I fear he may be right. Are you listening ABC? I can grow my beard out and I know I have a toothpick somewhere. Ryan are you listening to the youth market here? America has spoken!
Actually, “Catch of the Day,” featuring Hooter’s waitresses sounds pretty good.
Nice review, particularly the insight about magic not offering a ‘why’. My experience of magic & illusions has been the bigger the illusion the bigger my ‘so what?’ Those huge big-time illusions never impressed me. Up close sleight-of-hand impresses me though.
Were you kidding about the Hooters waitress show?
*sigh*
Yes I was kidding about the Hooter’s waitress show. However, great ideas sometimes happen by mistake or start off as a joke. If you think about it, just about anything on the air today could fit that description. So if any network execs are reading this, I’m sure I can help spearhead a truly marvelous show for you: I envision it as a sort of spin off of “Americas Next Top Model” and if the big networks think it’s too risque, we could run it on the Food Channel. Menus would be discussed and prospective diners would be given the chance to decide which waitress makes which dish sound the most appetizing. Side bar segments could include why certain male customers prefer certain things “on the side,” etc. Of course,(barring any compnay policies that might prohibit such activities)the inevitable dating and marriage proposal gambits could all be worked into each episode and the winning waitress would have their chance to share thier own “dream date” fantasies. What a fresh new concept! I have a lot of good ideas. Execs, you know where to find me.
Not many.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/knowing/
Mark, you could make it big as a Hollywood TV producer. Get 4 bowls. Write random things on post-it notes, split them up among the bowls. Blindly pull one from each bowl. Make a TV show out of it: Babes + Weedwackers + Miami Beach + Saran Wrap. It’s a show!
Or just rip off other TV shows…. Growing Up Skeptical, When Skeptics Attack, uh… America’s Funniest Skeptical Podcasts, um… Everybody Loves Phil… hmm… Ultimate Cage Fighting: Sylvia Browne Vs. James Randi………
“Ultimate Cage Fighting: Sylvia Browne Vs. James Randi” – I’d pay to see that
What can I say, I guess it takes all kinds.
My wife and I saw this on our anniversary last week, and I would have to vehemently disagree with every single point that Mark makes. :) I found the story just boring, the science insultingly ridiculous, the “atheist” professor a typical caricature, and the symbolism (especially the end scene) could not have been less subtle were it delivered with a blunt object.
Nic’s acting was just outright stupid; there are several instances where he adopts the pose of storming deliberately forward ignoring the questions of other characters, to the point where we are forced to wonder whether he is capable of walking and talking at the same time. (Full disclosure: I’m not exactly a fan of Cage, though Adaptation is a good flick).
The special effects at the end were OK, I suppose. So I guess, my review is: apart from the boring story, insulting subtext, and poor acting, it was great. :)
I remember seeing the trailer and thinking “is this going to be some good mindless fun or is it going to make me puke?” Seeing the warning to Phil Plait and GAZZA’s post I think I’d better wait for the DVD. The X Files was bad enough for me (I saw it as an in-flight movie). Dr. Scully the Google researcher … not even the literature search sites typically used by academics, oh no, every geek does their research with Google; I was surprised she didn’t get all her medical knowledge from the Wikipedia.
I just watched this with my friend, and we just giggled most of the way through it. The acting was wooden, the script apalling (“John, think of the children!”), the SFX hard to swallow, and the plot non-existant.
I was worried that I wouldn’t like this movie because of the obvious Woo factor, but I shouldn’t have worried, as I was distracted by all the other things wrong with it.
For those who “vehemently disagree” :) with my recommendation to see “Knowing”… Yes, I know how you feel. Me too. But you missed my point: KNOW YOUR ENEMY! That’s what makes this film worth seeing. It’s like a really bad magic act. We still see them all the time in Vegas, (and the one we all saw on The Chupacabra Cruise to Mexico which I’m sure many will never forget…)films like this are what The Skeptologists need to review on the air. Who besides Rotten Tomatoes is willing to pull out all the stops to burst the woo bubble on stuff like this? Oh, and I forgot to mention the obvious fertility symbol of the two cute bunnies… woooooooooooooo.
People..it’s JUST a movie….
The generally rational and pro-science Roger Ebert LOVED it:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090318/REVIEWS/903189991
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/knowing/
Good reviews? You be the judge. You may hate critics, but you can’t say that they gave it good reviews!
Thanks for the link to the Roger Ebert review BillDarryl. Minus the magic analogy, he makes much more sense than I did in mine. But hey …that’s his job and he gets paid plenty for it. Worth reading. If you don’t care about spoiling the ending and are willing to follow through and read his later blog, he says a lot more abouit it and eloquently points out the basic flaw in logic contained in the determination/free will premise and adds:
“Believe me, I know the plot is preposterous. That’s part of the charm. You go to an end-of-the-world thriller starring Nicolas Cage looking scared to death, and you’re in for a dime, in for a dollar. I love to dissect improbabilities in movies, but with “Knowing” I simply didn’t care. I was carried by the energy. The premise, about that little girl in 1959 sealing up her letter, is preposterous. Every ad starts with that. What were you expecting, the Scientific American?”
As a mentalist, I was carried away with that damn envelope too. Right. …It’s just a movie.
To be clear – I’m not saying that the woo is why I didn’t like this movie. That’s just suspension of disbelief – I would be unable to enjoy superhero movies if I required all films to be scientifically plausible (which would in turn rule out Watchmen, and I don’t really want to live in a world where I couldn’t enjoy that).
I’m disagreeing, rather, with the idea that the movie was entertaining and well acted, as I found it to be neither of those. But as I say – it takes all kinds; about the only thing I’m taking away here is that I won’t NECESSARILY like any movie that Mark recommends. :)
@Gazza:
Mark seems to be saying “watch the movie to see the sort of thing that people like to believe”. I think I’ll wait for the DVD (that should be out next week – haha); I’ve got myself too much work and it looks like I won’t have any free time until the new year – blah. Yet somehow I still can’t stop talking to colleagues about teaming up for new projects.
@MadScientist: Wow, I hope you manage to come for air – year isn’t even half over yet. :)
I’m not sure that anyone really believes anything similar to Knowing. There are a few numerology references that I suppose some people might by, but the ending is just pure fantasy. There are a few cases where the “skeptic view” is shown in a somewhat negative light, and you have the usual Hollywood Atheist (ie they all change their minds right at the end, and they’re all atheists because of some deep trauma – whatever), but nothing particularly in your face there (in my opinion – it is possible that Mark saw something I missed, of course, and I’m certainly not planning to see it again to find out).
That said, I suspect it’s a lot better than “What the %$%# do we know?” or “Expelled”, and on a par with “Signs”. It’s certainly not the worst movie I’ve ever seen (that would be “Ghost in the Machine”, still the reigning champion after over a decade), or even a terrible movie – it’s just (IMHO) not a GOOD movie either. There is certainly room enough for personal preference here, of course.
Plenty of people believe in things similar to “Knowing.” Trust me, I worked in the biggest Spiritualist church in Orange County, CA. And it’s not just numerology. …Oh no. Everything is fair game when you are in the “church” environment. The ending is pure fantasy huh? Apparently you have forgotten about The Rapture and let’s not count out the mass death cult of Heaven’s Gate. It’s all too real for some folks. They live, breath and exist for just such hokum. Sad really, but if you can keep a stright face like I did, you can pitch ANYTHING and even start your own church or group if you happen to have absolutely no conscience. It’s easy. With the help of England’s premier Hoaxer Tony “Doc” Shiels, we put together a whale/alien conspiracy that was tied into the annual California whale migration in 1999. The pitch was: aliens were going to finslly come out from their undersea lair and break the inter-species communication barrier with the help of the whales and dolphin langauge experts. We got the cover of FATE Magazine with that one and shortly after that, Art Bell’s Orange County Chat Club showed up in full force at my “lecture” on the subject. A few mentalist bits and they were all eating out of the palm of my hand. In fact, if I hadn’t insisted on steering the gathering away from the Art Bell crowd, they would have gone on for hours without me. Throw them a ball and they will run and run with it. The full sroty is written up in “Psychic Blues” in the chapter: “The OC Occultist.” Doc and I are hard at work on another whopper that will be coming along soon. We have no shame…
Well, maybe it’s just me, but yeah – I count the Rapture and the Heaven’s Gate beliefs as pure fantasy. :)
I look forward to the book.
There are shows that are based on myth-busting on TV, they are just outnumbered by the woo shows. But you can’t assume that this is because most people believe they are true, they just happen to be entertaining. I love watching the likes of Sylvia Browne and John Edward do their thing. Personally, i never found either very convincing, though. BTW, you aren’t by any chance related to John are you? You seem to cover a lot of the same territory, though from opposite sides of the fence.
NOOOOOOOO. I’m not related in ANY way to John Edward. I was using the “Edward” name long before John Edward ever showed up on the scene. My real name is Mark Edward Wilson. When I started perfroming at The Magic Castle back in 1975, Mark Wilson (of “Magic Land of Alakazam” fame…) was on the Board of Directors there and I was told that if I wanted to work there, I would have to chose another name. Since The Amazing Randi was already taken, I decided to use my middle name Edward. The rest is history and I often wonder if John Edward (if that is indeed his real name)saw me doing mentalism somewhere and thought it a good name or what… Hope this isn’t TMI.