Dear Law & Order:UK composer,

Mr. Zimmer’s and Ms. Gerrard’s attorneys would like to speak to you regarding your use of the Gladiator theme.


NYT asks Stewart, “Don’t shoot the messenger!”

The New York Times decided to take the bull by the horns, and tackle Jon Stewart’s accusations of poor reporting by the media. Unfortunately, David Carr’s Rally to Shift the Blame comes off as a poorly argued, disingenuous attempt to separate the media from the message.

Carr writes, “[Stewart’s] barrage against the news media Saturday stemmed from the fact that, on this day, attacking the message would have been bad manners, so he stuck with the messengers.” What Carr should know—and if he doesn’t, why is he writing for the New York Times?—is that the medium is the message. (Surely Carr has heard of Marshall McLuhan?) What the media sends out is the message we get, whether through the television, the internet, the radio, or paper.

Here’s Carr’s first attempt to make the distinction of message vs. messenger:

It was a beautiful day on the Mall, and who doesn’t like kicking the press around, but speaking of ants, media bias and hyperbole seem like pretty small targets when unemployment is near 10 percent, vast amounts of unregulated cash are being spent in the election’s closing days, and no American governing institution—not the Senate, not the House of Representatives, not even the Supreme Court —seems to be above petty partisan bickering. Mr. Stewart couldn’t really go there and instead suggested it was those guys over there in the press tent who had the blood of democracy on their hands.

The problem is that Stewart never said the press was responsible for unemployment, war, or hatred. What Stewart said is that the press makes it very difficult to effect change in any of these areas, because it’s driven by ratings. From the speech Carr complains about:

We can have animus and not be enemies. But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24-hour, politico-pundit, perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder.

Stewart is absolutely right. I don’t see Tea Party rallies in person, I see what the news channels share of them; I don’t see the administration’s press conferences in full, I see what the reporters and cameras share of them. When politicians make claims, I don’t see investigation into whether the claims are credible; I see “he said, she said” coverage of claims that, if true, must come from alternate universes, since they’re radically incompatible with a shared reality.

The heart of the Stewart/Colbert message

What many media commentators, Carr among them, seem to have forgotten is that the very structure and content of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report is to provide satire and critique of the media. Sure, it’s comedy, but it’s the comedy of the court jester, mixing hard truth with silliness. Truth is relatively easy to say in comedy, and relatively hard to say in the 24/7 news cycle.  That’s probably why news coverage quality has devolved into its current state. (What does the media at large think inspired Colbert to coin “truthiness” as a word, and why do they think so many people immediately appropriated it?)

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are highly aware that the medium is the message, and equally aware of what drives media coverage. This rally was an attempt to expand coverage of their message by creating an event the news media could not ignore. That media might not understand their message or represent it as clearly as Stewart and Colbert would like. Still, those of us tired of seeing the media allow itself to be used by people, parties, and corporations they should be holding in check, were pleased to see that same media forced to cover an event calling them on it.

It’s all cable TV

Carr also argued against Stewart’s observation that, “We work together to get things done every damn day! The only place we don’t is here or on cable TV.” Somewhat disingenuously, Carr responded:

But here’s the problem: Most Americans don’t watch or pay attention to cable television. In even a good news night, about five million people take a seat on the cable wars, which is less than 2 percent of all Americans. People are scared of what they see in their pay envelopes and neighborhoods, not because of what Keith Olbermann said last night or how Bill O’Reilly came back at him.

I call this disingenuous because since everything went digital—since broadcast news ceased to be aired and had to be obtained via cable companies—it’s all cable TV. If it’s not, it’s online, (frequently obtained through cable companies as well), and is driven by either TV channels, stations, or online “newspapers.” And more people than ever are watching the news one way or another, according to the Pew Research Center.

There are many more ways to get the news these days, and as a consequence Americans are spending more time with the news than over much of the past decade. Digital platforms are playing a larger role in news consumption, and they seem to be more than making up for modest declines in the audience for traditional platforms. As a result, the average time Americans spend with the news on a given day is as high as it was in the mid-1990s, when audiences for traditional news sources were much larger.

…The net impact of digital platforms supplementing traditional sources is that Americans are spending more time with the news than was the case a decade ago. As was the case in 2000, people now say they spend 57 minutes on average getting the news from TV, radio or newspapers on a given day. But today, they also spend an additional 13 minutes getting news online, increasing the total time spent with the news to 70 minutes. This is one of the highest totals on this measure since the mid-1990s and it does not take into account time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices.*

I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

The media should take responsibility

That same Pew report noted that, “About eight-in-ten (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage; by a 43%-to-23% margin, more say it is a liberal than a conservative bias.” Jon Stewart isn’t the only one to see skewed coverage, he just had a larger platform to speak out about it. It’s not bias that’s the problem, though, it’s the choice of what’s covered, the style of presentation, the lack of critical evaluation of the data being presented.

Sure, we like seeing conflict and meltdowns. It’s sad but true that it’s more exciting to see someone rudely yell “You lie!” at the President, than to learn whether it was or was not a lie. Whatever side you’re on, you’re more easily engaged by the strong emotions of outrage or support. But shouldn’t at least as much coverage as the video clip be provided about the truth behind the furor? It shouldn’t be necessary to dig deeply online while watching the news to discover the truth behind the news. If it’s not informing us, it’s less news and more entertainment.

My personal plea to the news media: We are fully capable of being engaged and enlightened at the same time. Please, don’t turn a necessary critique into another conflict. Help us be the educated populace we need to be to defend ourselves against those with more power and bigger pockets.

* The increased attention to news is good for the New York Times web site. From the Pew Research Center: “This year, 17% of Americans say they read something on a newspaper’s website yesterday, up from 13% in 2008 and 9% in 2006.”


12 September 2010. Americans Spending More Time Following the News, Pew Research Center.

Carr, David, 31 October 2010. Rally to Shift the Blame, The New York Times.


Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on the NYT

My husband and I watched the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on TV, curious and hopeful. Along the way, I checked in on different media coverage, including the New York Times’ live blogging of the event. The blogging was sarcastic and impatient, but I was less upset with snide remarks than with what wasn’t said.

The New York Times, along with NPR, ABC, and others, refused to allow reporters to attend the non-partisan rally for sanity, on the grounds they might appear partisan. Such is the sanity of the media. But when the media elides criticism of itself without showing the elision (via “…” or some-such), that’s pretty low. My respect for the paper of record has plummeted in just one day.

Here’s the bit I’m talking about:

2:50 P.M. | Now, a Moment of Sincerity

“What exactly was this?” Mr. Stewart asks. “This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith. Or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.”

“Not being able to be able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate.”

A sharp eye might catch the end quote marks on the first paragraph, but that’s the only clue that a significant rant against the media has just been left out. I commented with the missing words (below), and they posted the comment, which is good.

Under “now, a moment of sincerity” (which by the way, implies the rest was not sincere, an implication I don’t believe), you completely skip the rant against the press and media, without showing the elision. You leave in the bit that shows the importance of the press (“the press is our immune system”) – but below are the words that every news media outlet should take to heart, (with the end and beginning of the two paragraphs you provide above, for context).

“…And we can have animus and not be enemies. But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24-hour, politico-pundit, perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. [Applause.] The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen – or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire [Laughter] – and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected, dangerous flaming ant epidemic.

“If we amplify everything, we hear nothing. [Applause] There are terrorists, and racists, and Stalinists, and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to be able to distinguish…”


How to get the best idea

This was written in response to Ross Douthat’s call for Americans to stop enabling M. Night Shyamalan. We all love him, we all want him to create another wonderful movie, and his lukewarm box office response is not enough to push him to abandon his current approach and do that. A complete flop, Mr. Douthat reasons, will be the rock bottom necessary before Mr. Shyamalan can begin true change.

He may be right. This prompted me to share my personal theory on Mr. Shyamalan. It’s also my personal theory on how to get the best idea, whether you’re writing a story, designing a test, or figuring out the best user-centered taxonomy for a site.

I love Shyamalan’s writing, I love his directing, I love his characters. What I don’t love is how he makes all of the above subservient to an idea that forces them into unnatural, un-storylike forms.

My theory on Mr. Shyamalan: he’s been letting themes take too much control of the story. It’s like the recently-evangelized musician who thinks removing a bad lyric about Jesus is somehow betraying Jesus—instead of thinking that writing the best song possible is a better form of praise. Or the recently-transformed-by-therapy writer whose characters all act in the best interests of each other’s mental health. I believe Shyamalan becomes enthralled by an idea, and the idea drives the story, the writing, and the directing.

I heard that the killer surprise in Sixth Sense was an afterthought. This is how good ideas show up—you follow the story/research/whatever faithfully, and have faith the best idea, or juxtaposition of ideas, will present itself as a result. Clinging to *an* idea throughout the process reduces the chance that the *best* idea—the one rooted in your fullest understanding of story, characters, data, concept—will emerge.

The best way to explore a theme in a story is to establish the situation, and let it play itself out in a means true to the characters. Your concept or theme will emerge much more naturally, and people will be much more engaged.


A ll over the world on Sunday, May 2, at 15:00 UTC, photographers took shots wherever they were. Some were planned, some not (there are rainbows, etc., that could not be arranged).

The New York Times has gathered it all into a global gallery – stacks of photos reaching out to the sky, browsable by stack. Beautiful images, and once again, beautiful UX from the New York Times.


A trailer for A Field Guide to Surreal Botany, to which I contributed a small piece.


Alex O’Neal, as heard on the BBC

After the longest break in the 10+ year history of the alexfiles, I’m back. Today’s post is atypically personal, but I think the event is unusual enough to warrant it. I was on the BBC! (for about 60 seconds or so).

The back story: The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams) recently stated that perhaps a small dose of Muslim arbitration, following Sharia law in a limited manner, might help Muslims integrate into British society.

There was a huge cry of outrage from many online, who immediately envisioned hands getting chopped off and the introduction of religious law into the UK. This was my comment:

Something that would offer both acknowledgment of different cultures and remove divisiveness might be offering all options for dispute resolution to all people. So you could have a limited Sharia law “court,” and a state court, and a Christian court, and whatever else seemed appropriate. All of these options could be made available to anyone, so long as they agreed to abide by it and not switch on the same dispute if they were unhappy (the exception being the state, which could be an ultimate appeal system).

Knowing that options were available would encourage people to better understand other denominations, and those occasions (probably a small minority) when people chose to be tried outside their denomination would help the courts maintain an open-minded perspective.

You could limit such options to religions taking up a minimum of 10% or more of the population, so there aren’t too many to deal with.

Wish we had that here.

I was unable to find my comment online later, and thought perhaps it got missed in the updates. Then, today, the BBC Have Your Say people called me and invited me onto the show! They said my comment reflected an unusual viewpoint, and they thought it would be useful in this “worldwide discussion.” (Flattery will get you everywhere, BBC :–) They interviewed me briefly, then called me two hours later when they were airing. I didn’t get to say much, but Bart says I repahsented appropriately (“clear, succint, and insightful”). It was brief, but fun.

At some point the podcast should appear on the BBC, but I don’t know when.


The Oliviers, the anchor riders, and the pier people

Years ago I heard an anecdote about Laurence Olivier: A journalist came to interview Olivier in his home, and was met at the door by Olivier’s friend. The friend gave the journalist a warning: to be sure he held the image he had of Olivier clearly in mind. “Whomever you expect to find,” he said. “that is who he will be.”

This story struck me as sad, and the problem as peculiarly apt to a great actor. (Of course, Meryl Streep—that other great actor of the twentieth century, and possibly the twenty-first—is the exact opposite, balanced and deeply self-aware, so obviously this loss of self is not required to act well.) Another theater soul, Nobel prize winner Luigi Pirandello, used his plays to demonstrate the interactive nature of human existence. Olivier probably related. For Pirandello, there was no “I” at the center of existence, only a series of masks worn in response to the behavior and opinions of others.

I’ve written before about the self being at the intersection of how others treat us and the choices we make, but now I’m thinking about how some people tend to fall more to one side or the other. Bart and I were talking about this, and I wanted to share his thoughts on the matter:

Some people (the Oliviers) only recognize their existence in others’ eyes and get washed out to sea and lost. Some people cling to the pier of the “I” and when the waves come, they are swamped. But the people who realize this interaction is going on face the storm. They know that the center moves, but remains the center. “They know you have to ride it out, at anchor.”

Note: credit for the title goes to Bart as well :–)


The writer’s vow of chastity

Just as Lars Von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg wrote the film maker’s vow of chastity (also know as Dogme 95), so Bart has proposed a writer’s vow of chastity.

A draft of the rules as of August 4, 2007:

The writer’s vow of chastity

The writer will use no modifiers.
No adverbs.
No adjectives.
The writer should act as a behaviorist.
No words describing emotion.
The writer will not make the reader directly privy to a character’s thoughts (no interior dialogue or interior monologue).
The writer may break these rules only when it is unavoidable.

The above may be summarized as, “Not doing the reader’s work for them.”

The summary references advice from C.S. Lewis to his students:

Don’t say it was “delightful;” make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers “Please will you do the job for me.”


The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

A [as written by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens]
C+ [as written by J.R.R. Tolkien]

The Two Viewers

This time, I didn’t go to the midnight opening (I did for The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers). I went to a matinée yesterday with two friends, one an enthusiastic fan who had seen a preview show and knew she would thoroughly enjoy a second viewing, and one a disappointed first-time viewer. They’re both right.

As a longtime Tolkien fan, it’s hard not to wonder what non-Tolkien viewers experience. If I didn’t know the books, I would probably think the movie excellent, if mildly self-indulgent. I would attribute some excessively long moments to Peter Jackson’s relative youth as a director. Artists grow by learning discretion.

In Krzysztof Kieslowski’s Trois Couleurs: Bleu, there is a moment when Juliette Binoche sits in a café and dunks a sugar cube. Kieslowski wanted the cube to melt. He knew that if it took too long a time, the viewer would lose contact with the film; if it took too little, the peace of the moment would not be expressed. Five seconds was enough to make his point and keep his audience. His crew tested multiple brands, seeking a five-second sugar cube, and the moment is perfect. Bleu was Kieslowski’s forty-seventh film. Depending on how you count (measuring The Lord of the Rings as three films or one), The Return of the King was Jackson’s seventh or ninth full-length directed piece.

Continuing as an imaginary viewer, free of Tolkien’s writing through time or ignorance, I would be entranced by battles, impressed by details, and weep through moments such as the lighting of the bonfires. I might be dismayed by the length, and think several moments a little too sentimentally long-drawn. Probably I would leave very happy, thinking Jackson has successfully captured a beloved story in which I was not as invested as a Tolkien fan.

But then, I am a Tolkien fan. And the more I think, the more I mourn. Peter Jackson’s love has accomplished a great deal, it has even brought Middle-earth to the silver screen—but it has left Tolkien’s story behind.

Be warned: the following is written for those who have seen the movie, or know the books fairly well, or both. Spoilers abound for everyone else.

Will the real Denethor please stand up? And the real Aragorn, Gandalf, Faramir, Gollum…. I sound angry. I am.

I understand the necessities of transforming a book into a film. I even admire some of the ways Jackson creatively accomplishes this. In The Two Towers, he inserted a family separated by war in Rohan, then reunited later. The characters were non-existent in the books, including appendices, but their brief appearances gave the audience something to track in a complicated series of raids, battles, and travel. It was useful, clever, and in keeping with the storyline and theme.

What I don’t understand are changes which don’t just alter but diametrically oppose Tolkien’s books. Taking them one at a time:

  • Gollum, Frodo, and Sam.
    I’ll tackle this first, since it upset me most. In the movie, Gollum is trapped by his desire for the ring. He’s incapable of resisting this impulse, and actively works to pit Frodo against Sam. Now, Sam also tries to get Frodo to distrust Gollum. Helping to explain this is a moment when Sam overhears Gollum talking to himself, plotting against the hobbits. Gollum succeeds in separating the two, tricking Frodo into believing Sam finished the companions’ elven food supply behind Frodo’s back, and causing Frodo to tell Sam to "Go home." And Sam goes! On the back doorstep of Mordor, having survived Nazgul, storms, orcs, trolls, and a Balrog, Sam turns around to leave and give it all up.

    Jackson shows Gollum’s history, the centuries of corruption by the ring, and his loss of self over time. The viewer is invited to feel compassion, but also to remain untrusting. Gollum will not change, and is in no danger of doing so. He serves Frodo because Frodo has the ring. The only better situation would be to possess the ring himself. In The Two Towers, we see Gollum try to be good. By The Return of the King, this chance is gone.

    In the books, there is no pinning-the-crime-on-Sam moment. Sam is not certain of Gollum’s perfidy because he overhears him, but because he has a deep emotional distrust. There is no rift between Frodo and Sam, and Gollum is not so foolish as to try to create one. And right up to entering the caverns leading to Mordor, Gollum’s heart is uncertain. Sam’s unreasoning prejudice and cruelty drive Gollum over the edge. Later, Sam carries the ring briefly, and comes to understand what Frodo, all too familiar with the burden, understood all along about Gollum. These are not black and white characters in a clear-cut world of Good and Evil, Light and Dark. Gollum and Sam are complex people in a complex struggle, both wanting to do the right thing, both failing, both succeeding.

    For those who have seen the movie but not read the books, or not recently read them, I offer Tolkien’s final scene on the stairs1, before entering Shelob’s (the giant spider) lair. Read this, then consider Jackson’s breadcrumbs, and ask yourself if the movie added or detracted from the story.

  • Denethor.
    I’m glad I’m not the only one to feel anger over Denethor. LiveJournal’s minirth discusses the "great sucking wrongness" of the film’s treatment of yet another complex Tolkien character, reduced to a simplistic Jackson villain. I don’t want to recreate the argument, but here are my personal complaints.

    Gandalf’s treatment of Denethor and Pippin. Gandalf would never hit anyone with his staff except in battle (and then he usually employs his sword). Not only is this level of discourtesy impossibly out of character, but Gandalf is a steward himself, of Middle-earth! Although not discussed in the movie, his character is not human, but a lesser angel (as are Sauron and Saruman), whose purpose is to combat Sauron and ready Middle-earth’s inhabitants for their own "stewardship" of their world. (This, by the way, also explains Gandalf’s preternatural strength and agility, otherwise incomprehensible in an old man, as Roger Ebert pointed out on Ebert and Roeper.)

    Also wrong is Gandalf peremptorily bumping Pippin with his staff when Pippin offers service to Denethor in repayment of Boromir’s death, and Gandalf’s dismissive treatment of Denethor. See Tolkien’s words on the subject2.

    Denethor’s death. Denethor was a great man, of the same kind as Aragorn, strong, intelligent, deep-seeing, and disciplined. He was not a glutton, hunched over as if in imitation of Shakespeare’s Richard III. He certainly did not flinch from his decisions. In the books, his cynicism springs from his use of a palantír (like the orb Pippin picks up early in the film), which Sauron twists and uses to show misleading information. The resulting despair drives him to attempt suicide for himself and his wounded son.

    From the book. Faramir has already been removed from the pyre:

    Swiftly he [Denethor] snatched a torch from the hand of one [a servant] and sprang back into the house. Before Gandalf could hinder him he thrust the brand amid the fuel, and at once it crackled and roared into flame.

    Then Denethor leaped upon the table, and standing there wreathed in fire and smoke he took up the staff of his stewardship that lay at his feet and broke it on his knee. Casting the pieces into the blaze he bowed and laid himself upon the table, clasping the palantír with both hands upon his breast. And it was said that ever after, if any man looked in that Stone, unless he had great strength of will to turn it to other purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering in flame.

    Much more intense, and adding no more time to the story, had Jackson spent less time studying the Jacksonian Denethor’s eating habits.

    Denethor was another complex character, a good man twisted by deceit and his own pride. He was brilliant and misguided. Gandalf would not treat him with disrespect; for Jackson to treat the character as he did is an insult to the audience and the story.

  • Aragorn, Arwen, and Éowyn.
    I still don’t understand the need to undermine Aragorn and Arwen’s faith in each other by having Arwen leave for the Grey Havens. It adds to the length of the story, reduces the romance, and gives less reason for Éowyn’s despair and longing for battle.

    There are two pages in the books which completely express Aragorn and Éowyn’s thoughts. Read them here3, and then consider Jackson’s revision. There are some fantastic lines, such as Éowyn’s complaint of the role of women; and Éowyn gets the last word.

  • The Paths of the Dead.
    Another incomprehensible change. The book is much more eerie and frightening. I think Jackson’s horror film background (The Frighteners, Dead Alive) overcame his good sense at this point.

    In the book, the entire company of Rangers, Elrond’s sons, Legolas, and Gimli accompany Aragorn on the Paths of the Dead. Aragorn does not need a sword to pass; the same magic that holds the Oathbreakers to their ghostly existence lets them know that this is Isildur’s Heir, come to free them. Aragorn’s leadership shows itself as all follow him, including horses, and do not give in to fear or madness. Along the way they find a corpse outside a closed door, and Aragorn says:

    Through all the long years he has lain at the door that he could not unlock. Whither does it lead? Why would he pass? None shall ever know! For that is not my errand!" he cried, turning back and speaking to the whispering darkness behind. "Keep your hoards and your secrets hidden from the Accursed Years! Speed only we ask. Let us pass, and then come! I summon you to the Stone of Erech!

    The company rides through the ravine and out into a valley, where they ride past villages and and farms on their way to the Stone. It’s too good not to offer here:

    Lights went out in house and hamlet at they came, and doors were shut, and folk that were afield cried in terror and ran wild like hunted deer. Ever there rose the same cry in the gathering night: "The King of the Dead! The King of the Dead is come upon us!"

    Bells were ringing far below, and all men fled before the face of Aragorn; but the Grey Company in their haste rode like hunters, until their horses were stumbling with weariness. And thus, just ere midnight, and in a darkness as black as the caverns in the mountains, they came at last to the Hill of Erech.

    Long had the terror of the Dead lain upon that hill and upon the empty fields about it. For upon the top stood a black stone, round as a great globe, the height of a man, though its half was buried in the ground. Unearthly it looked, as though it had fallen from the sky, as some believed; but those who remembered still the lore of Westernesse told that it had been brought out of the ruin of Númenor and there set by Isildur at his landing. None of the people of the valley dared to approach it, nor would they dwell near; for they said it was a trysting-place of the Shadow-men and there they would gather in times of fear, thronging round the Stone and whispering.

    To that Stone the Company came and halted in the dead of night. Then Elrohir gave to Aragorn a silver horn, and he blew upon it; and it seemed to those who stood near that they heard a sound of answering horns, as if it was an echo in deep caves far away. No other sound they heard, and yet they were aware of a great host gathered all about the hill on which they stood; and a chill wind like the breath of ghosts came down from the mountains. But Aragorn dismounted, and standing by the Stone he cried in a great voice:

    "Oathbreakers, why have ye come?"

    And a voice was heard out of the night that answered him, as if from far away:

    "To fulfill our oath and have peace."

    Then Aragorn said: "The hour is come at last…when all this land is clean of the servants of Sauron, I will hold the oath fulfilled, and ye shall have peace and depart forever."

But didn’t Jackson have a lot to fit into a short amount of time? Aren’t these changes justified by the necessities of film?

No, no, and no! First, let’s look at how many scenes/plot lines were added which never happened in the books:

  • Arwen’s trip to the Grey Havens, in which she "sees" her future child by Aragorn, and turns around to go back.
  • Arwen’s "dying" because of the war of the Ring.
  • Elrond’s meeting Aragorn in Rohan to tell him this, in which he and Aragorn bizarrely quote Aragorn’s mother ("I gave hope to the Dunedain, I have kept no hope for myself").
  • Gollum setting up the classic Breadcrumbs-on-the-Cloak Gambit
  • Pippin’s sneaking to set the beacon ablaze. Tolkien’s Denethor had the beacons lit before Gandalf and Pippin arrived at Minas Tirith.
  • Pippin and Merry singing about the Green Dragon pub.
  • Pippin singing to Denethor. Though this was a nice way of covering an explanatory montage with Faramir and Denethor, Tolkien’s Denethor was ill-served by it. I do have to say Billy Boyd did a wonderful job.

Next, let’s examine some changes which did not have to affect time at all, but did affect characterization and theme.

  • Denethor’s gluttony, ineffectual behavior, and cowardice at the pyre.
  • Aragorn and Arwen’s temporary loss of faith in their relationship.
  • Elrond’s deceiving Arwen (!)
  • Frodo and Sam’s temporary loss of faith in each other, to the point that Sam starts to go home.
  • Gandalf’s inexcusable rudeness to Pippin and Denethor with his staff.
  • Language. In Tolkien’s books, characters speak as they think. Andrew Rilstone points out in his review of the The Two Towers that Tolkien greatly disliked the casualization of speech in some translations. Characters have a tendency to get more formal as they express deeper emotions, using the language to show the importance of the thought (see the appearance of "thee" in this exchange between Aragorn and Éowyn3, also linked above).

    In Jackson’s world, people are more casual and less careful of each other. The only reason I can see for this is a distrust of the audience’s ability to parse Tolkien’s words, which seems somewhat arrogant, since those are the words that made the books as beloved as they are.

On some profound level, Jackson’s psychology needs a simpler world. He is uncomfortable with formality and so must his characters be. He is uncomfortable with nuance, and so a "whispering darkness" must become glowing green ghosts. He is uncomfortable with shades of grey and so his characters must be black and white. He is uncomfortable with trusting friendship or love, and so Aragorn and Arwen lose faith, and so do Frodo and Sam. This, when one of Tolkien’s major moral themes is support and trust despite imperfections and disagreements.

Perhaps the best choice for Tolkien fans is to simply love Middle-earth. As my fiancé pointed out, Tolkien wanted to create an English mythology more than he wanted to write a work of fiction. If we look at Middle-Earth as a world unto itself, then we can choose between Tolkien’s interpretation and Jackson’s, and delight in their differences. It’s a deeper way of being true to Tolkien, and celebrating Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings as the work of love it is.

1. The stairs of Cirith Ungol

Excerpt, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (The Two Towers, Book Four, chapter VIII)

Having climbed the stairs of Cirith Ungol, Frodo and Sam rest while Gollum scouts ahead in the caverns. They are exhausted from the climb. Sam tells Frodo to sleep while he keeps watch.

And so Gollum found them hours later, when he returned, crawling and creeping down the path out of the gloom ahead. Sam sat propped against the stone, his head dropping sideways and his breathing heavy. In his lap lay Frodo’s head, drowned deep in sleep; upon his white forehead lay one of Sam’s brown hands, and the other lay softly upon his master’s breast. Peace was in both their faces.

Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo’s knee — but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.

But at that touch Frodo stirred and cried out softly in his sleep, and immediately Sam was wide awake. The first thing he saw was Gollum — "pawing at master," as he thought.

"Hey, you!" he said roughly. "What are you up to?"

"Nothing, nothing," said Gollum softly. "Nice Master!"

"I daresay," said Sam. "But where have you been to — sneaking off and sneaking back, you old villain?"

Gollum withdrew himself, and a green glint flickered under his heavy lids. Almost spider-like he looked now, crouched back on his bent limbs, with his protruding eyes. The fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall.

2. Gandalf on Denethor

Excerpted from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King, Book Five, chapter I)

Pippin and Gandalf have left after Pippin’s first encounter with Denethor, Steward of Gondor. Pippin has not only offered but sworn allegiance to Denethor. Gandalf is speaking.

"He [Denethor] is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best. He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those who dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dangerous to try.

"Remember that! For you are now sworn to his service. I do not know what put it into your head, or your heart, to do that. But it was well done. I did not hinder it, for generous heart should not be checked by cold counsel."

3. Éowyn and Aragorn

Excerpted from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King, Book Five, chapter II)

The sons of Elrond have arrived with a company of Rangers from the North, to help Aragorn. Elrond sends word to "Bid Aragorn remember the words of the seer, and the Paths of the Dead." At dinner Aragorn announces his intention to take these paths. Afterward, Éowyn confronts him alone.

[Aragorn] turned and saw her as a glimmer in the night, for she was clad in white; but her eyes were on fire.

"Aragorn," she said, "why will you go on this deadly road?"

"Because I must," he said. "Only so can I see any hope of doing my part in the war against Sauron. I do not choose paths of peril, Éowyn. Were I to go where my heart dwells, far in the North I would now be wandering, in the fair valley of Rivendell."

For a while she was silent, as if pondering what this might mean. Then suddenly she laid her hand on his arm. "You are a stern lord and resolute," she said; "and thus do men win renown." She paused. "Lord," she said, "if you must go, then let me ride in your following. For I am weary of skulking in the hills, and wish to face peril and battle."

"Your duty is with your people," he answered.

"Too often have I heard of duty," she cried. "But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?"

"Few may do that with honour," he answered. "But as for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord’s return? If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no."

"Shall I always be chosen?" she said bitterly. "Shall I always be left behind when the Riders depart, to mind the house while they win renown, and find food and beds when they return?"

"A time may come soon," said he, "when none will return. Then there will be need of valour without renown, for none shall remember the deeds that are done in the last defence of your homes. Yet the deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised."

And she answered: "All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear pain or death."

"What do you fear, lady?" he asked.

"A cage," she said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire."

"And yet you counselled me not to adventure on the road I had chosen, because it is perilous?"

"So may one counsel another," she said. "Yet I do not bid you flee from peril, but to ride to battle where your sword may win renown and victory. I would not see a thing that is high and excellent cast away needlessly."

"Nor would I," he said. "Therefore I say to you, lady: Stay! For you have no errand to the South."

"Neither have those others who go with thee. They go only because they would not be parted from thee — because they love thee." Then she turned and vanished into the night.


Occult symbolism in Gothika


Gothika is one of those films that can be interpreted in a variety of contexts, and that’s precisely what I love about it. It’s not just another horror story with a lovely heroine, but a movie that dances between mystery and the occult, while adding a thematic depth not often seen in the genre.

Note: While I will try to avoid spoilers, I will be referring to scenes and issues raised in the film, which could—well, would, of course—affect a first viewer’s experience. Be warned!

The mystery: how does a brilliant, accomplished psychologist end up accused of murder and incarcerated in her workplace? Is a persistent apparition of a young girl a murder victim, a suicide, or an externalized clue to a past trauma? Did a loving wife suddenly kill her husband, and if so, why? Who is “Not Alone”? And of course, whom can you trust? On this level the movie succeeded for me, providing clues without giving away the solution too soon, and making psychological suspense not only interesting but relevant.

As an occult horror film Gothika uses the familiar—ghosts, possession, a tragic past, questioning reality—with effective ease. From the opening session between Dr. Miranda Grey (Halle Berry) and patient/fellow inmate Chloe (Penelope Cruz), questions of possession and repressed memory are raised, to follow the viewer throughout the film. When Miranda switches from staff member to patient, does she share more in common with Chloe than their residence? I don’t want to say more about this, because I don’t want to give away too much.

I do want to speak about the themes which permeated the movie, while also fitting neatly into the plot itself. These things didn’t seem contrived, but more a natural extension of the story into its surroundings. The primary theme seems to be spiritual and psychological rebirth and growth. I’m uncertain if this is the work of the writer, Sebastian Gutierrez, or Mathieu Kassovitz, the director. Perhaps it was a collaborative effort.

Without giving a away plot details, I can only list the moments which left this impression. Here goes:

  • Water imagery. Miranda is immersed in water three times, one of which provides a salvation of sorts. Her pivotal first encounter with the mysterious young girl occurs in the driving rain, immediately after crossing a river. And water is an essential part of a metaphor occurring early in the story, showing how our only access to reality is through our perception.
  • Numbers. Miranda swims a personal best of 55 laps early in the film, something I think represents an internal, spiritual "personal best" which she reaches for in the story. She is incarcerated in room 33, a number loved by occultists and conspiracy theorists, and the age at which Jesus is said to have died and been resurrected. The number 22, which appears when a major part of the mystery is solved, is also a favorite of occultists, and associated in numerology with the ultimate self-actualized personality type. That 55=33+22 solidified my belief that Gothika‘s symbolism is not accidental.
  • Colors. Miranda Grey is frequently clothed in gray, and almost nothing is just "black and white" in this movie. Obvious, but nice. I’m uncertain if other colors, in particular red, are deliberate or not.
  • The anima sola. This is an archetypal image of a female (hence anima, not animus), imprisoned and surrounded by flames. It represents a soul in the Catholic purgatory, being purified (tormented) until it can go on to heaven. Who this is changes according to the context of the story. The anima sola is nicely counterpointed by the "Not Alone" phrase, repeated throughout the story, and also changing according to context. The same character(s) are both isolated and burning, and not alone.
  • Clues from the script. Adding to visual imagery are lines like, "Let me circumcise that for you," "Let’s go wash away your sins," and "I see everything, so I’m God," which helps reinforce the spiritual undertone of the theme. A comment about opening doors near the end further reinforces the idea of spiritual development.

I don’t really have much more to say, except that I thoroughly enjoyed Gothika.

Oh, one last postscript: watching this, I couldn’t help thinking of the astonishing Jacob’s Ladder (1990), which also blurs the edges between reality, psyche, and nightmare. Viewers who liked Gothika might enjoy this film. They might also enjoy The Crimson Rivers, also directed by Kassovitz, which is an excellent psychological suspense thriller.

Postscript. I forgot to mention that the opening with Miranda and Chloe’s session takes place on a Friday night. There’s no point I can think of in the plot that makes this worth specifying, so it is probably another key to Gothika’s symbolism. Good Friday is the traditional date of Christ’s death, and Miranda awakens three days later; Friday also has superstitiously ominous connotations on the 13th, though I didn’t catch a date in the film.


The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Ok, Tolkien fans, the review below is well enough; but if you want a truly hilarious, erudite essay on the subject, please check out Andrew Rilstone’s review.

First impressions

Let me begin by saying that The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a wonderful movie. Last night, in a packed theatre at an 11:59p showing, the film captivated a tired, sleepy audience. Several times applause broke out spontaneously. The Two Towers is definitely another success for Peter Jackson, as once again Middle Earth has come to life on the silver screen.

One of the most notable achievements is Gollum, the ancient halfing corrupted and given unnaturally long life by the One Ring. Played by Andy Serkis, with the aid of brilliant CG work from special effects company WETA Digital, Gollum steals the show. It’s impossible not to react to the mixture of fear, hatred, and poignant longing. Serkis successfully captured Tolkien’s sense of both the comedy and tragedy of Gollum’s character and situation.

What price romance?

Still, as a longtime LOTR fan, there were plot changes in The Two Towers which I did not understand. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson made several story changes, all of which were comprehensible in light of the movie format. For example, an elf named Glorfindel is combined with the character of Arwen (Liv Tyler), so that it is Arwen who comes to the aid of Strider/Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and the hobbits as they make their way to Rivendell. Some plot lines were deleted, and explanatory information from the appendices is included to further the audience’s understanding of the characters.

In The Two Towers, I had the feeling that Jackson’s normally strong editing choices were compromised by more than pacing and time. Several changes significantly altered major plot lines, and some additions did not seem to add to the story itself.

For example, in the books, Arwen and Aragorn are in love, and this leaves Arwen with a terrible choice: should she cleave to the man she loves, becoming mortal, or leave Middle Earth with her father for an immortal life across the sea? Elrond (Hugo Weaving) understandably does not want his daughter to die, and tells Aragorn, the long-lost heir to the thrones of Gondor and Eriador, that his daughter will not lose her life for anything less than a king. Aragorn works long and hard towards this goal, finally achieving both his throne and his wife. Along the way, Eowyn (Miranda Otto), a princess of Rohan, falls in love with him and is gently but firmly rejected. This contributes to a general despair at her situation, causing her to recklessly throw herself into battle.

In the film, Arwen not only considers the option of leaving Middle Earth, she actually begins the journey to the Grey Havens, where the elven ships depart. Both Aragorn and her father persuade her to do this. While in Rohan, Aragorn does not encourage Eowyn’s attention, but he does not discourage it, either, and tells her his love has left for “the undying lands.” An inserted (not from Tolkien) scene in which Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom) believe Aragorn to be killed allows an extended interlude of discussions about this between Aragorn and Arwen, Elrond and Arwen, and a telepathic exchange from Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) to Elrond, in which she recaps her opinion of the fading world, soon to be ruled by weak humans, already eloquently expressed in The Fellowship of the Ring.

Some might argue that this provides explanatory information for people who did not see the first film. But Jackson himself has stated that he wanted to continue the story as Tolkien did, from the point he left off in the last film. He even went so far as to suggest that those who had not seen The Fellowship of the Ring or read the books would probably not profit from seeing The Two Towers. So that’s not the reason.

Likewise, with a segment that interrupts an action-packed story, already busily balancing numerous separate, concurrent plot lines, Jackson cannot say that this was in aid of pacing. The feeling I had was that this was inserted solely for the purpose of allowing screen time for Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, and Hugo Weaving, and adding more of a romantic interest. Nothing was added to the main story, and in fact some character development was abandoned. It sticks out like a sore thumb, much as the romance in naval thriller The Caine Mutiny seems unsuited to the story – and in fact was not in the book. Has Hollywood been making decisions here?

Elves at Helm’s Deep?

There are other small differences which didn’t seem to add to the story:

  • In the book, while the battle of Helm’s Deep does include the elf Legolas and the dwarf Gimli, the brunt of the struggle is between the people of Rohan and the minions of Saruman – including some deceived men. Later, in The Return of the King, Elrond’s sons, along with some of Aragorn’s people, come from the North to join in the battle against Mordor. In the movie, though, an entire company of Elves arrives in the nick of time to aid in the battle, for no apparent reason except to make the point, already made by the composition of the fellowship in the first movie, that elves are participating along with all the other free races of Middle Earth.
  • In The Fellowship of the Ring, Boromir (Sean Bean) tries to take the ring from Frodo by force. He soon regrets this. This incident leads to some brief mistrust and concern when Frodo meets Faramir (David Wenham), Boromir’s younger brother. This is very brief, for almost immediately upon discovering Frodo’s burden (through a slip of the tongue by Sam), Faramir assures Frodo he will not take the ring. “Not if I found it by the roadside would I take it,” he says, and stands by that.

    In the film, Faramir seems almost as ensnared by the ring as Boromir had been. He discovers its presence by intimidating Gollum. He immediately declares he is taking Frodo to Gondor, and it’s clear that he wants its power used on behalf of his country. An exceptionally ethical character who is a friend of Gandalf’s is transformed into a repetition of his brother, in a plot line where the contrast between the two brothers is crucial, particularly in the third book.

  • In the book King Theoden of Rohan (Bernard Hill) is misled and confused by the words of Saruman (Christopher Lee), spoken through his agent, Wormtongue (Brad Dourif). After speaking with Gandalf, of his own will Theoden throws off the shackles of this deception. Wormtongue likewise is given a choice – stay and redeem himself by fighting beside his lord, or return to Saruman and declare himself a traitor.

For some inexplicable reason, the film decides to portray Theoden’s befuddlement as a kind of possession, with Gandalf magically performing an exorcism. Wormtongue is driven out with absolutely no choice in the matter. The concept of free will, so important throughout the books, is abandoned for these characters.

Good choices

Please don’t get me wrong – there are many changes and additions which enhance the film. One notable addition is the tracking of one family across Rohan, as the forces of Saruman invade. This ties a complicated story line together nicely, doesn’t take up much space, and is in keeping with the rest of the plot. The handling of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum’s journey to Mordor is beautifully done and extremely accurate. And while initially I wondered at it, Treebeard’s being shown ravaged trees by the hobbits Merry and Pippin provides a simple, explanatory catalyst for the attack of the Ents upon Isengard.

Overall, the movie is excellent. But fans should not expect it to match the faithfulness to Tolkien shown by The Fellowship of the Ring. I hope that Jackson is back on track for the final chapter, due Christmas, 2003.