Being in Heaven gets one more week at Palace
The independent self-development film’s season has been extended due to a positive response from the audience.
The original exhibition deal with Palace Cinemas included two sessions a day for one week (Jan 28-Feb 3), plus three Sundays to complete a month. It has now been extended until February 10, in addition to the Sunday screenings, and could be further extended.
Director Michael Rowland said he was not aware of the box office results; producer John Coroneos added that they won’t be released until the cinema run is completed and a report is presented to the investors, “so there are no misunderstandings for them”.
Rowland did know that Being in Heaven had performed “better than other films screening at the same time at Palace” and that Sydney had been the film’s best market, with 130 people attending the first evening session (followed by 102 in Melbourne and 74 in Brisbane).
For anyone who has started reading Rowland’s “book” of 37 pages, I finally found the source material for the claims to “mind power” referred to at the beginning.
On page 3, it says: “Let’s look at some scientific studies which show the power of the mind over the body.” It goes on to list results of experiments by a “Dr Biggs” (no reference given) who can induce physical injury or “stigmata” in patients, through hypnosis, which correspond to past trauma. Eg. causing actual scars or bruising to spontaneously appear on the patient. This is supposed to illustrate the power of the mind over the body.
I did a quick google of “dr biggs hypnosis” and came up with the study that Rowland refers to. It’s from the book “Human Personality And Its Survival Of Bodily Death”, by Frederic W. H. Myers. Published in… 1904! I don’t think they quite had our rigorous scientific standards back then.
http://chestofbooks.com/new-ag.....rt-31.html
You can read there about Dr Biggs and his 1885 “scientific studies”, with which Rowland would convince us of his premises. Quite fascinating to read actually, in a Poe-esque kind of way. The author, Frederic W. H. Myers (1843-1901), who wrote up these studies, was a “poet and psychical researcher” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....enry_Myers).
Rowland even uses the term “the intellectual character of the organic process” to refer to mind-over-body phenomena, which is the exact terminology used in this 1904 publication. It’s rather reminiscent of ancient terms like “humours” from Greek attempts long ago to systematise bodily and mental functions.
If some 1885 experiments in hypnosis is all Rowland can refer to as proof-of-concept for this Real Law of Attraction, it’s no surprise he doesn’t give references in his book. The fact he refers to them as “scientific studies” and “from the medical profession, not ordinary hypnotists” perhaps indicates he feels medicine and science hasn’t moved on much since the late 19th century.
If that’s not enough silliness, there’s even The Journal of Popular Science edition from 1896, 11 years later, where it says that Biggs’ experiments are “not sufficiently well authenticated to to make them of much value by themselves” (http://tinyurl.com/y924etg – p347 – thanks Google Books!). So, even other scientists in 1896 were dubious of the good Dr Biggs.
I think this illustrates, more than anything else, how authors of self-help movies and books (The Secret, What the Bleep, etc) expect the average person to believe anything they propose, without the simple courtesy of references or the assumption we might expect real evidence of some kind. We’re expected to take everything on faith – or rather, give from the wallet on faith.
I wouldn’t mind going to the see this movie, just so I can ask Rowland why he expects us to have faith in the writings of a 19th century experimenter in hypnosis? I like to think we have moved on a little since then.