InnSaei
- 2016
- 1h 15m
IMDb RATING
6.5/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
A story of soul searching, science, nature, and creativity, "InnSæi" takes us on a global journey to uncover the art of connecting within in today's world of distraction and stress.A story of soul searching, science, nature, and creativity, "InnSæi" takes us on a global journey to uncover the art of connecting within in today's world of distraction and stress.A story of soul searching, science, nature, and creativity, "InnSæi" takes us on a global journey to uncover the art of connecting within in today's world of distraction and stress.
Photos
Virginia Prescott
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (voice)
Jamin Warren
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (voice)
Malala Yousafzai
- Self
- (archive footage)
- Directors
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Featured review
Mostly Fake
This movie is a shining example of how people are tricked into believing that ridiculous off the wall stuff is science-based. They claim throughout that science backs up what they are saying but never explain how or show the outcome of any scientific research. And they jump from one intriguing topic to another quickly in hopes of distracting you from the fact that they've failed to back anything up. Based on some of the other reviews I've seen, this was very sadly effective.
I was very interested in this subject matter. I wanted very badly to enjoy this movie. But I am so sad to say that I just couldn't. This movie felt strange in so many ways. Opens with the common mistake of including the story of the documentary film maker's life, which (surprise) turns out to have nothing to do with the rest of the movie at all except that by the end of it she has decided to make the movie we are now watching. It's unnecessary to spend what feels like 15 minutes explaining to us that the movie we're watching is the result of someone's interest in the subject discussed in the movie. We already know that to be true of every movie ever before we start watching. That trite trope is the documentary equivalent of starting an essay with the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of a word.
Lots of strange editing choices were made, which makes me wonder if the editing was overall the main problem. At times the images accompanying the spoken commentary seem to be totally random pieces of pretty or artsy footage spliced together in no particular order.
The content itself is also lacking. Numerous subjects are mentioned quickly in passing with no elaboration. This is especially true when it comes to the science that supposedly backs a lot of this stuff up. We're quickly told that a lot of research is being done on something and before we can hear the kind of details that would reassure us to the validity of some of these ideas, they've moved on to some Icelandic guy singing in a cave, which (again, while very pretty) seems sort of unrelated. It feels like a dodge. It left me with more questions than answers. And with such a short running time, it's curious why no one thought, "We could make this a normal length movie if we elaborated a little bit on all of these subjects." Some parts of it feel factually incorrect, like when it is suggested that modern pollution and violence in video games begat violence against women, when everyone knows women have been oppressed and mistreated since, gosh, prehistoric times (even if you try to pretend, for a moment, that the relationship between pollution and sexism isn't questionable enough on its own).
Or consider the extended segment on meditation in schools at the end. It's neat that kids are learning mindfulness, but it seems much less related to the subject of intuition than say, the Polynesian navigators whose prowess for detecting land masses from afar defies all logic, which is explained very briefly in comparison.
The interviews are the best part, but even they often feel like poor choices. There is a moment in the movie when Iain McGilchrist (who provides probably the best content of the entire thing) describes the feeling of meeting someone who seems totally normal on paper, but gives you the funny feeling that they can not be trusted. That is an apt description of about half of the expert commentators who appear throughout the movie. Some of them feel very unreliable, but maybe only because you start to question the judgment of anyone willing to appear in this film. Maybe they would be more believable if there was just a little more information to back them up.
And why do you let a performance artist who makes a living creating shoes made out of crystals and other equally zany pieces of abstract art explain the neuroscience of how she can look someone in the eyes and affect their brain waves? This is like asking a palm reader to explain to you how she can see your future. It lends her no additional credibility. I want to hear it validated by an independent source, preferably a scientist or doctor of some kind.
The fact that we would want that kind of objective point of view on most of the stuff they cover feels so obvious that it seems like the film maker is purposely keeping it from us. My guess is that a hard scientific look at some of these subjects would discredit much of what we've been presented here.
I was very interested in this subject matter. I wanted very badly to enjoy this movie. But I am so sad to say that I just couldn't. This movie felt strange in so many ways. Opens with the common mistake of including the story of the documentary film maker's life, which (surprise) turns out to have nothing to do with the rest of the movie at all except that by the end of it she has decided to make the movie we are now watching. It's unnecessary to spend what feels like 15 minutes explaining to us that the movie we're watching is the result of someone's interest in the subject discussed in the movie. We already know that to be true of every movie ever before we start watching. That trite trope is the documentary equivalent of starting an essay with the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of a word.
Lots of strange editing choices were made, which makes me wonder if the editing was overall the main problem. At times the images accompanying the spoken commentary seem to be totally random pieces of pretty or artsy footage spliced together in no particular order.
The content itself is also lacking. Numerous subjects are mentioned quickly in passing with no elaboration. This is especially true when it comes to the science that supposedly backs a lot of this stuff up. We're quickly told that a lot of research is being done on something and before we can hear the kind of details that would reassure us to the validity of some of these ideas, they've moved on to some Icelandic guy singing in a cave, which (again, while very pretty) seems sort of unrelated. It feels like a dodge. It left me with more questions than answers. And with such a short running time, it's curious why no one thought, "We could make this a normal length movie if we elaborated a little bit on all of these subjects." Some parts of it feel factually incorrect, like when it is suggested that modern pollution and violence in video games begat violence against women, when everyone knows women have been oppressed and mistreated since, gosh, prehistoric times (even if you try to pretend, for a moment, that the relationship between pollution and sexism isn't questionable enough on its own).
Or consider the extended segment on meditation in schools at the end. It's neat that kids are learning mindfulness, but it seems much less related to the subject of intuition than say, the Polynesian navigators whose prowess for detecting land masses from afar defies all logic, which is explained very briefly in comparison.
The interviews are the best part, but even they often feel like poor choices. There is a moment in the movie when Iain McGilchrist (who provides probably the best content of the entire thing) describes the feeling of meeting someone who seems totally normal on paper, but gives you the funny feeling that they can not be trusted. That is an apt description of about half of the expert commentators who appear throughout the movie. Some of them feel very unreliable, but maybe only because you start to question the judgment of anyone willing to appear in this film. Maybe they would be more believable if there was just a little more information to back them up.
And why do you let a performance artist who makes a living creating shoes made out of crystals and other equally zany pieces of abstract art explain the neuroscience of how she can look someone in the eyes and affect their brain waves? This is like asking a palm reader to explain to you how she can see your future. It lends her no additional credibility. I want to hear it validated by an independent source, preferably a scientist or doctor of some kind.
The fact that we would want that kind of objective point of view on most of the stuff they cover feels so obvious that it seems like the film maker is purposely keeping it from us. My guess is that a hard scientific look at some of these subjects would discredit much of what we've been presented here.
helpful•2011
- pagenoah
- Feb 22, 2017
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- InnSaei - The Sea Within
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $28,221
- Runtime1 hour 15 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content