I Am

[mlr]

Tom Shadyac's I Am is about as deep as his other cinematic masterpieces: Ace Ventura and Bruce Almighty. We are told that the phenomena of quantum entanglement is the source of human compassion; that aboriginal societies had little element of competition; and on and on. The film ends with All you need is Love playing in the background as Shadyac explicates. Shadyac is a child of privilege and connection which probably played no small part in his Hollywood success. And that success probably played no small part in the ability to shove a camera in front of Desmond Tutu, David Suzuki, etc. These heavily edited sound bytes are about as convincing as an environmentalist commercial from an oil company. Shadyac sold his Beverly Hills mansion and is now roughing it. In Malibu! Had the film not been told as the personal awakening of a little rich boy it might have helped. It reminded me of what Christopher Hitchens said about privilege: To be a spoiled person is not to be well-off or favored by fortune or protected from brute realities. It is to be well-off and favored by fortune and protected from brute realities and not to know it.

Comments

[holy13nation.livejournal.com]

I wondered if that would be the case. Twin to the execrable 'Eat, Pray, Love' (I managed 20 minutes of it on a flight).
Also things like this play right into the whole 'Bloody hypocritical Americans telling us how to live' schtick that seems increasingly prevalent here so if one tries to point out the genuinely radical/forward thinking developments coming out of the US (Hackspaces for example) it falls on deaf ears. Hollywood should stick to films about explosions and fart gags.

[mlr.livejournal.com]

I keep worrying that I'm being too negative, and overlooking what is good.

There were some interesting elements. And I certainly didn't disagree with some of the things he was pushing. But it annoyed me that he persuaded some of the current great thinkers (at least in the U.S.) to be interviewed, and yet managed to do most of the talking himself. The movie emulates the Michael Moore films, and uses almost all of their techniques. To me they are mislabeled documentaries.

His big message: you don't need that 7000 ft. square foot mansion, and all those surplus millions - why not give it all up, just like me, since all things are connected, and the planet belongs to all of us, etc. etc. Since way less than 1% has wealth like this, it's an odd message for the general public, a lot of whom are suffering. And none of this occurred to him before the age of 50 when he was stricken with health issues?

[holy13nation.livejournal.com]

I guess it is that old 'better that they do something than not' angle. But I don't think you are being too negative.I think a lot of lip service is paid to these concerns and causes by those who do little more than that at best. They seem to confuse the act of acknowledging the problem, in huge budget productions, with doing something about them. I know there is one Hollywood producer who did give it all up to move to India and work with children on the rubbish tips. But in the interview I read with him he was very clear that hands on action at ground level is the only way. Not that I can remember his name, shamefully. I can't stand Moore. I think he is a manipulative megalomaniac. With millions. And more than one maid.