TWH – As we reported Friday, October is a popular time for interview Witches. The season also brings a flurry of Halloween-inspired television programming. From the holiday specials to the classic horror films, the entertainment industry capitalizes on our cultural love for all things related to the secular holiday.
![[Credit: MANSOUR DE TOTH via CC lic. Wikimedia]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/512px-Jack-o-lantern-FR-500x375.jpg)
[Credit: MANSOUR DE TOTH via CC lic. Wikimedia]
As we get closer to the actual Oct. 31 date, producers begin offering Halloween-themed episodes of TV series. In its lineup this year, CBS aired a Witch-themed episode of its popular, long-running show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. While the secular Halloween holiday was never mentioned, the show’s title “Book of Shadows” and its subject matter were not arbitrarily chosen to appear in a late October episode.
Sunday’s CSI episode has set off some intense discussion within the Wiccan community. While many believe the show demonstrates a step forward in the depiction of Witches and Wiccans within mainstream entertainment, others were not easily convinced. Massachusetts Priestess Laura Wildman-Hanlon remarked:
I’m annoyed my religion was again dragged out and used as a means to scare people on Halloween. I’m angry at the disrespect paid to my beliefs and my God & Goddess. I’m furious at the writers who could have used the opportunity to debunk these untruths instead of playing to them.
Was the show a simply a means to “scare people” as Wildman-Hanlon suggests? Was it yet another serving of insulting television fare perpetuating the historically-ingrained, sensationalistic construction of Witchcraft? Or was it positive? Did the writers demonstrate any cultural sensitivity?
Before looking at the specifics of the episode, it is important to be aware the CSI program is very formulaic like most TV dramas. “The Book of Shadows” episode was no exception.The aesthetics and narrative structure fell well-within the CSI storytelling boundaries, including the sensationalism, campy humor and graphic displays of internal anatomy.They didn’t stretch the show’s artistic reach to tell this story.
“Book of Shadows” opens with a teenager filming a video while walking through school hallways. This scene is important because it establishes the main characters of the “who done it?” plot. After we are introduced to the players, a burning body comes running down the hall and then falls dead. Interestingly, this dead teacher is labeled “the Burning Man” and, although not known at the time, is a practicing Witch. While just a minor point, this detail, death by burning, becomes the second reference to Witchcraft. The first, of course, is the title.
Although the show is filled with subtle phrases and imagery maintaining its connection to the theme, it isn’t until the second segment that the narrative really delves into subject of Witchcraft. The coroner discovers a “Life Rune” symbol, which he links to Nazism, gangs and crime and which eventually leads investigators to the coven’s temple space.
The temple scene, itself, was filmed in the classic CSI aesthetic while also recalling elements of the horror film. As CSI Nick Stokes enters the dark room, everything is visually obscured by shadow and a tight camera angle. The limited lighting is blood red and, as the slow-moving camera pans across the space, the only recognizable images are a skull and a pentacle.
In typical CSI fashion, the horror-style scene is followed by scientific explanation and visual clarity. In this case, there is a brief dramatic reenactment that parallels the horror-scene. Then the director abruptly cuts to a non-engaging, medium shot of the temple room in nearly full light. Everything is visible. CSI D.B. Russell has joined Stokes in exploring the space.
As they investigate, Russell educates Stokes and the audience on what they are seeing in the room. When referring to the pentacle, Stokes says, “I always thought it was the sign of the devil.” Russell replied, “Well you were wrong.”
Along with other similar type comments, Russell says, “[Wicca] is a Pagan religion.” Putting these two temple scenes together, the show plays first with what the viewer expects and then says, “well you were wrong.” This juxtaposition demonstrates a clear step forward in the representation of Witchcraft and Wicca within a modern context of its own making.
Moreover, the writers also note the important distinction that Wicca is a “Pagan religion.” This statement is critical because it moves popular discourse away from the simple point that “Witchcraft is real” or “Wicca is Witchcraft” to “Wicca is one of many religions.” Although encapsulated in a bucket of typical CSI sensationalism, the show’s narrative does demonstrate that the writers did some real homework.
![CSI: The Book of Shadows [Courtesy: CBS Television]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/csi-Book-of-Shadows-1504-19.jpg)
CSI: The Book of Shadows [Courtesy: CBS Television]
David Hodges is largely present for comic relief within the more serious CSI drama schematic. He always takes a campy and comical attitude toward any subject. However, in this case, he was mocking a religious practice, which proves problematic. Along with his robe, Hodges called his lab a “Wiccan Altar” and mentioned a past Wiccan girlfriend who was “a little too earthy” and didn’t have a “bathing spell.” In addition, Pagan viewers may have been offended by the God and Goddess statuettes on his table. Although meant as harmless comedy, the writers went too far for many Pagan viewers as demonstrated by Wildman-Hanlon’s comment.
While the show’s middle portion largely diverts its attention from Witchcraft and Wicca, the narrative returns to the theme by the end. It is at this point the writers’ attempts at sensitivity fall completely apart. We find out that the killer is a Wiccan mother and teacher; the dead coven member was a teacher and drug dealer; the Wiccan principal was sleeping with a student and the High Priest and school janitor had once been a criminal. While the show doesn’t posit any of these characters as purely evil, they are all framed as damaged goods.
However, more problematic than any of that is the “who done it?”conclusion and various subtle details used to intensify and color the story. First, both murders were done by a Wiccan woman, who had been attempting a healing spell. She apparently needed the blood of a “sacrificed youth.” In once scene, the coroner notes that the dead boy’s blood was removed after his murder, which “suggests a Wiccan ritual.” Considering this line alone, it appears as if the writers fell face first into a vat of cultural stereotyping.
All the earlier positive elements and demonstrations of sensitivity become buried by the failings of the conclusion and other narrative details, such as the janitor brandishing his athame in a threatening manor. Through lines such as “Druid spell” to gain “more power” or “May the blackest of darkness smite you down,” a viewer’s preconceived notion of Witchcraft and Wicca are confirmed.
Why pay attention to shows like this one? CSI: Crime Scene Investigation is a fictional drama that posits its universe as real. For viewers, the CSI environment could be their world. There is no fantasy or mythology here. That is the nature of the genre. As such, it presents Witchcraft and Wicca as something real; something the viewers might witness in their daily lives.
This attempt to bring Witchcraft and Wicca out of a fantasy world and into reality is exemplified by the following exchange. Stokes says, “What happened next? No, let me guess, lightening bolts.” Russell replies, “No. a coven meeting.” This is notable change for the construction of Witches and Wiccans within American entertainment. Where most shows, even live-action, posit Witches and magic as elements of fantasy, this shows says “No they are real. They are parents, principals, janitors and science teachers.”
At the same time, CSI‘s realistic nature makes the mistakes all the more difficult to digest. Wildman-Hanlon remarks:
A couple of sentences muttered by a character that ‘Wiccans are peaceful people who work with the energies of nature,’ is lovely but not when the plot heads immediately back into the fiction line saying beneath our practices of harmony actually lies a darker stance where murder/human sacrifice is, according to our beliefs…our Book of Shadows…an acceptable practice if we deem it warranted.
“The Book of Shadows” was a notable effort with some very positive forward steps in the representation of Witches and Wicca. Unfortunately the writers didn’t go far enough and wound up relying too heavily on good old fashion Halloween entertainment lore for the sake of a scream.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
Thanks for the tip Heather! Indeed, it’s a good thing that the show describes Wicca as a Pagan Religion but hell, did they need to make all the bad guys Witches? And a blood sacrifice? Seriously, sometimes I feel like Buffy did a better job giving a positive image to Witchcraft than anything made since.
And this is why I don’t watch CSI.
Russell is regarded as a tree-hugger by the rest, and this episode was no exception. EVERYONE else, not just the perennial jackhole clown Hodges, makes fun of the Wiccans in this episode. Stokes in particular isn’t usually such a gaping human rectum.
But your review misses a much more important point. The biggest specific untruth about us that CSI told is called the Blood Libel, first used against early Christians, later and most famously applied to Jews: Jews were accused of using the blood of Christian/gentile children in their religious rites. In this case, the “gentile” (cowan) kid is a teenager, but it’s still the Blood Libel. This writer must have realized he couldn’t get away with accusing Jews anymore, so he picked on us instead.
You use the Blood Libel on people when you want to kill them. This was not mere ignorance. This was actively trying to cause indirect harm to Wiccans. He might as well have called the victim Little Sir Hugh.
Needless to say, they don’t mention the Rede at all. If they hadn’t already established all the Wiccan characters as crazy, stupid, psychopathic losers, they could have had one of them point out to her that she forgot that “harm none” doesn’t mean “harm none unless they’re really bad and your child is sick.” And any real Witch would have known that murdering someone else’s son is not going to work out well for the health of yours, or your own.
Btw, “the writers” are a guy named Gavin Harris. I figure he must have had a Wiccan ex he wanted to punish.
I was going to bring it up but you said it perfectly: Blood Libels is just the worst thing one can be accused of. On the one hand, it’s “just” fiction, but still. If they had made the same episode with, let’s say, muslims in the role of human sacrificers there would be a hundred people dead all over the middle East. I guess it’s easier to punch a peaceful supra minority religion instead.
And here we have an anti-Muslim slander in the exact same comment that objects to the blood libel against Wiccans! Dantes, not only does this comment undercut your point, it again reveals you as someone who believes it’s completely acceptable to spread stereotypes and bias in public.
Again, I have flagged your comment, and I sincerely hope it is removed, as your anti-Semitic remark was… was it only yesterday? Spreading a modern version of the blood libel against Muslims is no more acceptable than any other racial slur. Knock it off.
What did I say? Did I say that muslims perform blood sacrifices or something? No? Then what’s the problem? I just wanted to put in perspective two minority religions and see how they are or might be treated.
I am myself rather disgusted to see Pagans being depicted as murderers in such a way that the whole faith (if one could call Paganism a single “faith”) is wicked from the start, and doing so against any religion or group of people is vile. Now one thing I was wondering is, in all honesty, what would happen if CSI portrayed a band of another minority faith doing such despicable deeds ? After all, why the Pagans? Sorry if the first thing that came to my mind was islam. Would you have been less offended had I mentioned Ba´hai or Zoroastrianism?
In any cases, just by thinking about for a while, I realized that if an American Tv series had portrayed a band of muslims performing human sacrifice in the name of their religion (the exact same thing Pagans have been portrayed as doing), there would be much more backlash than a couple angry posts here and there, and violence would probably ensue. Hence, I think, the reason why the writers of CSI would rather target another minority religion, Wicca/Paganism which is by no mean less outraging that if they had chosen another faith.
So yes, I had no idea my comment could be thought to be offensive, t’wasn’t intended as such, but it seems that you may have mis-understood my words. That’s quite sad.
Re. your intial comment: The way you wrote your comment about the repercussions of writing the episode with Muslims instead of Pagans does not lend itself to a clear reading. At first I thought you were saying something about suicide bombing by Muslim extremists being some kind of blood sacrifice, then I read it again and I thought you were saying that there would be a string of revenge attacks for the portrayal; reading it again to try and understand your second comment only left me wondering why you chose such as specific example when your point could have been made just as well using a more oblique example.
Re. your second comment: Bahá’i are consumate pacificsts and practically harmless, especially when compared to many other religions, and the last time Zoroastrians were on anyone’s mind the Achaemenids still ran the Persian Empire. Neither option is comprable to Islam or any of Islam’s equivalents becuase neither has had any meaningful impact on the world in modern history.
As far as the portrayal of Pagans is concerned, it seems rather accurate when you consider those professed Witches, WIccans, Warlocks etc that have commited some heinous crime or act in the name of their religion and been found out and paraded through the media. The community almost unanimously labels such people as not being true [insert appropriate title/rank/noun here] and then more often goes on to then point out how the unfortunate person has lost the connection with reality. Certainly, the episode is senstionalist and flirts with the boarder into crassness, but at the same time it is not all that far off the mark when it comes to portraying Pagans/Witches/Wiccans/whatever that have killed someone to perform their rites.
I understand that my initial comment might have been a bit unclear. Again, I apologize for that, but I think we can all agree that my initial post was not a blood libel against muslims.
My point here is not to criticize islam (not that it is beyond criticism, like any other religion), but to consider the way two minority faith are or could be treated. Islam came to my mind because in Europe it’s basically the minority faith out there (I know it’s more complicated in the US but anyway).
IMO, any member of any religion can, and have killed in their religion/god/scripture’s name and it is sickening, regardless of which religious group it concerns.
However, I would also tend not to give a free pass to any religion or group of people simply on the grounds of their reputation. I know very little about Ba-hai (it’s basically non-existent in Europe) for example, but I doubt every Bahaian person is a saint, or that Bahai religion has never been used to harass other people and cause harm. Even Budhism, which I used to be quite into in my teens, has produced quite a lot of violent massacres.
Also, I might not be an expert, but when it comes to modern Paganism, when was the last time that A Witch/Wiccan/Pagan performed a human sacrifice? I don’t doubt that the aforementioned group is far from spotless (as I said earlier) but in all honesty: Is this CSI episode a fair portrayal of the faith? You said that you are not chocked by it, fair enough, but I am just wandering, again, completely theoretically: If CSI had indeed portrayed a band of muslim performing a human sacrifice (like, a real one, in the sens “my god wants me to kill that other dude” and not just a murder committed in the name of a religion), would you find it fair? Or would you be chocked? That’s basically, the reflection I wanted people to make. Once again, sorry if I was not articulate enough to make that completely clear.
I can’t believe all the flack you’re getting here over this. Wicca, Voudoun and related practices get stereotyped and misrepresented like this frequently by Hollywood. At this time it is extremely unlikely they would do this with Moslims (not to say they are not stereotyed in many other ways), and if they did, surmising from various well-known happenings, it is very likely that *some* Moslems would respond with fury and vehemence. That blood libel comment was way out-of-line.
I love the way you think! You raise good points! Oh, EVERYTHING seems more complicated in the U.S. Not sure why that is…
Unfortunately I don’t know that what has been seen in the CSI episode is all that dissimilar to what typically happens with these kinds of shows, the ones that need to draw on the real world for their stories. Things are are ‘foreign’ or ‘alien’ in relation to the self, in this case the writer of the episode, tend to be treated as a free ideas bucket for a quick narrative. Not too dissimilar to how mythologies and folklores tend to be treated as a free ideas bucket for computer games and such. As a Literature major, I’m of the opinion that it is just lazy to let the ‘quirky thing d’jour’ do all the work for you, but thats just me and while I say that all shows do this its worth pointing out that CSI did it poorly where other shows have done it well. A 2010 epidose of Bones was mentioned somewhere; Bones also had an episode in New Orleans that revolved around Voudun/Voodoo/Santeria (I haven’t watched the episode for years so I forget if they were clear about which and I cant remember, or if it was vaguely mentioned) that was quite excplicit in its portrayal of the actions of the perpetrator as being against the grain of the rest of that spirituo-magical community. The new Hawaii 5-0 also did an episode featuring witchcraft and was quite explicit in its positive portryals of witchcraft, as well as being very clear that the perpetrator was committing murders as part of his magic because he was a mentally unstable person, not because the magic required it (his mental instability caused him to think that it was required).
As regards Baha’i, I’ve known a few Baha’i and while I couldn’t comment on the harm part (because people have interpreted even the very soft approaches of Hari Krishnas to be harm) I can tell you that part of their principal teachings is world peace (which on its own is not unique) but that they also have very strict rules and codification of those rules. Including cosequences. Anyone who controvenes thsoe rules or works against the principla teachings is no longer Baha’i; even if they call themselves Baha’i all other Baha’i will deny them. In that respect, Baha’i is propely pacifist and in essence it is impossible to BE Baha’i and not pacifist.
I can’t say that I would be shocked, but thats more because I simply know better than for any other reason. I do see what you mean however, and certainly it is a good point to raise because how easily it can spiral out of control. I know that I tend to forget that there really are people who would see something like that and believe it to be so, which only leads to surprise when I come across such people. In that respect, it is problematic for any demographic that is portrayed in a show like CSI because it is out of necessity, reduced to the lowest common denominators.
I should also apologise. I was not so clear with what I mean by Witches/Wiccan’s/Pagans etc. What I mean was that more than once or twice, someone who says that they are a [insert magical person here] has been paraded in the news for killing someone. When in reality they are just a mentality unstable person suffering from delusions.
I get your point, dantes, but I can’t agree with your logic. It is based on a random assumption that cannot be justified without hearing the writer himself answer it or some form of mind reading. You simply cannot know that there was a decision process around the choice of Wicca in that story, that other minority religions might have been considered, or even why the episode was written in the first place.
“Random” in this context, as I intend it, means that your being correct about the assumption is no more likely than your being wrong about it.
It’s called projection. We all do it. It can be a benefit, especially in relationships. But it also has a very high failure rate, and serves to sabotage real dialogue in a forum like this where text on a screen is completely inadequate in conveying the writer’s actual thoughts and feelings… at least, not without at least ten times as many words.
You are right saying that we will never know what went into the thought process of the show’s writer, so everything that has been written so far in this thread is just pure speculation. That is definitely correct.
My initial point that other minority religions like islam were probably never or would never have been considered in the place of Wicca sounds sound to me. Again, it’s just one possibility out of many more. I just think it’s likely. You, and everyone around here have the right to disagree with me but there is no need to call me a blood-libelist on such grounds.
I remain neutral on the personal comments being made here in both directions. Indeed, that neutrality is in keeping with my criticism of assumptions and projections. I’m as prone to them as anyone else.
It’s appropriate in this context to suggest that your other-minority-religion point is a strawman argument. I suggest that the swirl accumulating around it is indicative of it being a strawman. Just a thought.
I vowed not to get into this, but here I am breaking it. I don’t see dantes’ point as a straw man. It’s quite valid, imho, to note that it’s hard to think of another minority religion that would be recognized by viewers getting the treatment Wicca and Wiccan characters got in this episode. Whatever the writer’s intent, he or she would have backed off some of these tropes (blood sacrifice, eg) if it had been about Moslems or Jews.
I wish to emphasize that my opinion is strictly related to the context of this discussion. Dantes’ general point is valid, I agree, but remains vulnerable to the criticisms I and others have offered.
Thanks mate!
Most series do a Halloween episode and a Christmas episode. There are more creative and original ways to do a Halloween episode than to center it on witches (one might, for example, build a plot around Spiritualism), but it’s hardly a random choice.
I liked Buffy’s Halloween episode (the one with the chainsaw)! It was pure fun and no-one was pointed at on this one!
I agree, but I can also imagine a hypothetical conversation with a show’s writing staff that starts with “you can find more creative and original ways…” being drowned out by an uproar of laughter, anger or both.
I’m very cynical about the general creative atmosphere in our mainstream media. The plethora of “reality” shows that are primarily showcases of tits, asses and manufactured drama are the tip of the iceberg. Sequelitis is not a problem, it’s a goal. The names of “road kill” on their path should put them to fatal shame for the waste of talent it represents.
Joss Whedon’s “Buffy” series banked on sexy actresses and graphic (in my opinion, of course) sex and violence. That it was also brilliantly written and produced (and the actresses are all excellent performers) meant nothing, see also his series “Firefly”. That’s just one example.
TV is a writer’s medium, but it is also very expensive to produce, so the tension between excellence and paying the bills is acute.
I don’t have any problem with franchises that promise a familiar product. I just want it to be a good product. I read a lot of mystery/crime novels, and if I like one novel by a particular author, I’m going to read the whole series. After a certain number of sequels, the quality usually suffers. Then the author can either start a new series with fresh ideas or plod along retreading until most readers give up.
Long running dramatic series have similar choices. When a key actor leaves or the writers have used up all the plots and situations that work within the show’s universe (which in American TV usually happens five to seven years along), the course of action most likely to keep both the viewers and creativity is to create a spin off and wrap up the original (in either order). Whedon did that with Buffy and Angel. CSI should have done it when Petersen left. There are spin off CSIs set in other cities which would have benefited from the money wasted on CSI Las Vegas. I like Major Crimes, a low budget, well written series that is a spin off from an earlier series with most of the cast intact.
I have seen of his Firefly, t’was pretty good, and maybe a bit more intrigue-driven. When it comes to actresses, I don’t think their physique was particularly raunchy. Sure, Sarah-Michelle Gelard (did I wrote it correctly?) was quite a cutie, but besides that…There wasn’t much sex at all, and not that many sexy outfit either… Just to compare with, like, TrueBlood (another excellent show), sex was definitely not a selling argument, and when it comes to the violence…I don’t consider gently kicking latex-costumed actors as being particularly violent…
Overall, I don’t really agree with you, I watched it when I was 10 or so and I never was chocked by either sex or violence. In comparison, I think that Charmed was much more about pretty actresses.
Anyway it’s good that we can at least agree that it was a good series!
..Is your English comprehension THAT bad? Please abstain from flagging people until you learn to read.
Evidently it is. I still find the original comment highly objectionable, and I’m not able to read it any other way, despite dantes’ assurances that he meant nothing by it.
And, sorry, I’m not going to quote the original comment here. That would be rather counter-productive, wouldn’t it?
I agree that dantes’ phrasing was ambiguous enough to support your reaction. I disagree that it necessarily must be taken that way. I offer that opinion not in any devil’s advocate intention, but as one who has also posted in haste and been guilty of similar ambiguity.
I’d be more easily convinced if he were not a repeat offender, Franklin.
Understood.
I would tend to agree. I think he made a valid point, but made it poorly. If broken down into his basic premise (They wouldn’t do this to minority Abrahamic faiths) then I can see his point.
Flip side they get flack in plenty of other places. For example, a recent Congressional candidate actually ran with a “With Jews we lose” campaign… So we can’t pretend we’re the only ones who have it rough here in the States.
Really? That sounds strange, do you have names/context for this?
I can confirm it, though I don’t recall which state it was in. The man was a candidate in a state primary, and apparently he is well known for running very unpopular campaigns. He’s never yet won a primary, as I recall… but indeed, I heard the same story, probably on NPR.
Kentucky Senate candidate Robert Ransdell.
You can find stuff on his “campaign” all over, but here’s one that popped up in my google news feed.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/anti-sematic_kentucky_candidate_for_us_senate_running_on_the_slogan_with_jews_yo.html
I think you are correct, about minority Abrahamic religions when it comes to Jews, Alyxander–and I think the Anti-Defamation League does sterling work to keep it so. Your example, of the overtly anti-Semitic Congressional candidate is a particularly good illustration of why it’s good that they continue to watch the media; I look forward to the time when we’re taken as seriously.
I certainly agree with your main point, that Pagans are not the only religious community that gets targeted for poor treatment in the media.
I don’t agree, however, that Muslims enjoy anything like the level of protection Jews have won for themselves, let alone Christians. I’d say, actually, that it’s diagnostic that even most Pagans find no problem with a flippant observation that, if Muslims were depicted as negatively as Wiccans sometimes are, they’d kill hundreds of people in retaliation. The fact that even a religious minority community like ours thinks OK to insert such a stereotype (the terrorist Muslim) in a discussion of religious bias in the media is a reflection of to what extent we think that religious bias is acceptable–when it’s directed at Muslims, our country’s bias targets du jour.
This is a human characteristic, of course: objecting to prejudice only when it affects us, personally. But it’s not one I admire… I
I agree entirely. You’ll get no arguments from me. 🙂
I think some people look at previous examples of Muslim outrage (Salman Rusdie’s fatwā, or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, for easy examples) at perceived attacks on their religion and draw a stereotype from that.
Obviously, the moderate Muslims get ignored when these incidents occur, because it is the vocal minority that grab the headlines.
Ouch. Normally I am all for people having a bit of fun at our expense in fiction but this is a bit egregious. If the show had one rogue Wiccan practitioner who was a criminal psychotic and dabbling in the black arts and the rest of the Wiccans were spiritual people afraid of the killer in their midst I would be fine with that. Someone saying “Wiccans don’t drain blood, this guy must be crazy” would be just fine. But yeah wall to wall crazy murderous witches goes a step too far.
there WAS an episode of BONES where this WAS done correctly. turned out there was an issue with a…. thing they were doing (not going to spoil it).
I’m curious, could you elaborate? I don’t follow that show so I won’t be spoiled in any cases.
You can read a synopsis of the episode here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1613910/synopsis
Thanks !
I see now…T’looks decent enough in the beginning but the end looks just bad.
It’s only sci having applied artistic licence to what creativity comes from it works look at the interest it’s drawing from us just now managing to still prompt views discussions etc from us I’m cool about it as I see rather I view it sci as just film just art not for arts sake creativitype sake for sakes sake just cause art can justify it having taken my faith group past it’s stereotypical viewpoint from others to others if I made a film where Popeye shagged a witch and olive oil became a Presbyterian as am I then I just see it as a creative information agenda I’m not offended by it knowing I live in secular environment so what sook it up and soldier on witches twitches stitches It.a all for artistic licence if film like sci didn’t get made people would complain so for this reason alone I’m all for creativity yes even if sci script my faith even in a negative light? I would not feel offended and neither do I wish to critique,just observing an interesting subject.
It’s true that, from the Artistic point of view, the CSI writers have all the freedom in the world to write whatever they want, and such freedom should not be denied. However, it is our duty to give feedback to such an creation so that these guys might do a better job and produce an overall more interesting episode when next Halloween comes.
That’s pretty much word salad. I have no idea what you’re saying, except that it seems to be excusing CSI.
So, you’re a bot? If so, I’m either completely delusional to have managed to imagine some kind of sense in your words or you are a very dutiful, well crafted robot.
IT GETS BETTER , but not this time,. I love the show they treated this topic poorly. Just like do with Drag queens and Muslims. They suck but they dont get better by avoiding the topic, What good stories for mainstream SELL them to a BOOK or TV SHOW !
The media pokes at all religions and cultures and historically gets them wrong. But considering how many Pagans, Wiccans and the like that I know why try to capitalize on their own religion, I am not sure we have the right to complain.
? Is organizing a festival a way to capitalize on one’s religion? I don’t think many people make big bucks being pagans. Isn’t this Hexenfest some kind of community/music event? In that case, I kinda fail seeing the parallel between it and CSI.
Capitalising on something doesn’t necessarilly equal making huge profits or benefiting greatly from it. You can have a way of capitalize on something, say one’s religion, and simply not do very well at it. What the link that the original commentor is drawing between Hexenfest and CSI, I think, is that both are capitalizing on Pagan and or Heathen religion/s to their own benefit; the thing with CSI is that they will garner more shock value and thus views, thus money, than Hexenfest and or those who perform/sell/have stalls in some way will.
I see what you mean, but isn’t this Hexenfest set up by Pagans themselves? Like, I don’t really know if one could call it capitalizing if you’re just trying to enrich a scene/movement you are part of.
The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive; a person working to enrich the scene or movement they are apart of can still capitalise on their own actions. Take advocacy organisations for example, a person of the particular demographic the organisation is advocating for can be employed by that organisation as their primary source of income. They are captialising on the movement as well as working to further it.
What in the world is your point? I simply fail to see any correlation between the quote you circled and a Pagan festival ad.
In addition to my response above: because of the multiplicity of Pagan and Heathen beliefs, practices, theology etc it is entirely possible and even probable that at a festival like Hexenfest (or any festival for that matter) there will be someone who feels that their Gods and or Goddesses are being disrespectied in some way (as per the encircled quote).
I see what you mean even better now! But, having never been to such a festival I wander if there are actually people who have been offended and have voiced that sentiment? Heathen non included because they tend to be easily pissed when they face any “non-canonical” stuff.
Its hard to answer your question because one the one hand, the internet relaxes people’s inhibitions quite a bit so they tend to be more vocal about things like being offended about the portrayal of their gods (which apropros of Pagans and Heathens is a stance fraught with peril right from the outset precisely because of the multiplicity I previously mentioned) but then on the other hand, despite what it may seem like on the Internet the majority of people are not that readily offended. Certainly, with you being European and myself being Australian I can also say to you that U.S Americans tend to be more prone to the ‘raw nerve’ approach to social interaction than most others.
Heathens have a a different fuse when it comes to this sort of thing because of the slightly different way they approach things like respect; it’s like being a foreigner and living in Japan. You can go with what is for you, respectful language or tone, but such things aren’t often 1:1.
I haven’t watched CSI original series much since the original lead actor William Petersen left the show, because it’s not very interesting to me anymore. Petersen’s character was well written. In the old days, the show often did episodes set in colorful subcultures not well known to outsiders, e. g. S/M, steampunk, plushies. Most of these episodes showed signs of serious research on the part of the writers and an attempt to understand the POVs of participants. I enjoyed getting a look into subcultures unfamiliar to me and in one case where I did know something about the subculture in question, I thought it was treated respectfully and accurately.
I think CSI’s writing standards have declined.
They did Trekkie subculture, too, without naming it.
One observation on the post, rather than the story: it’s particularly important to correct typographic errors in a quote, as it risks reflecting badly upon/disrespecting the quoted source to leave them.
Could you please correct the quote, “I’m annoyed my religion was again dragged out and used as a means to scared people on Halloween” to read “scare people on Halloween”? Such a prominent error is a bit like fingernails on a chalkboard to many of us–a horror quite outside the scope of the usual Halloween fun.
Thank you. (I will try hard to reign in my inner Grammar Diva for the most part. This one was just too much for me…)
Was the original quote misspelled? Because then they would normally have to write it as:
“I’m annoyed my religion was again dragged out and used as a means to scared [sic] people on Halloween.”
A mere typographic error in the original–assuming a written source rather than an oral interview–should also simply be set right. The [sic] notation should be reserved for more significant errors, in thought or wording. There is no valid fact-finding purpose in preserving an inadvertent typo from a source; doing so is either careless or disrespectful. (I presume it’s the former.)
Rein in (as in slowing down a galloping horse). 🙂
This particular homonym error is so common that I usually restrain myself from pointing it out.
Its raining hear today. 😀
*laughing* A fact I know perfectly well! But I deserved that one; point out another person’s typo, and it’s simply karma that you wind up committing one of your own.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa… Indeed.
I did the same thing on Facebook the other day. Was complaining about people using alter when they meant altar….but I said “It’s altar’s people”….
It’s inevitable. I can’t even complain–making grammar cop comments is obnoxious enough that I must admit, I earned the wrath of the Internet gods. *crooked grin*
I am both, a wiccan AND a forensics major.. i stopped watching television period, only catching tv shows like walking dead or similar shows as they air. shows like CSI are flawed from the start as a forensic tech would not go around waving a pistol at someone and arrest them. many other shows like witches of eastwick and salem are also on my “do not watch” list as they depict witches as serving satan…. CSI and other crime shows like law and order are on my list because of thier inaccurate representations in BOTH religious and professional depictions… a REAL crime scene tech can point out flaws in each scene that the tv show processes.. from the lab to the bench and even to the actions in the field.
Do you think the writers of such Police/Crime shows ever collaborate with actual professional? Would you have any examples of such a show where details you pointed out are fairly treated?
I don’t know about TV, but in movies it is fairly common.
I know this comment is not gonna win me any friends, but I have to say ‘get over yourselves.’ This is entertainment, a business. It’s not education, it’s for amusement. It’s not a documentary; it’s fiction hyped up for ratings. Nobody is looking to CSI to learn about religion. The fact that Danson’s character said Wicca is a religion is, IMO, a big improvement over earlier TV shows that mentioned Paganism/Witchcraft. Lighten up! [ducking from tomatoes and rotten eggs]
No tomatoes… but I think about people like Kat Privett-Duren and her dismissal from Auburn University, and I am less certain that “nobody is looking to CSI to learn about religion.” You and I are both lucky enough to live in fairly liberal parts of the country; I’m not sure but what those who live in places less tolerant than your home or mine might have a very different experience.
Nor do I see the Anti-Defamation League, shrugging off anti-Semitism on the airwaves… which may be part of why there is relatively little of it, these days.
Guess I’m just old and jaded. I know I live in a rarified atmosphere. Volunteering at San Quentin keeps me plenty grounded in real life, tho.
I agree.
It’s a little complicated comparing the ADL and other organized efforts to combat anti-Semitism to similar efforts by witches and Wiccans. The existence of Jews as an identifiable group and Judaism as an organized religion predate literature written by non-Jews depicting Jews and Judaism. This makes comparisons between fictional depictions and consensus reality not easy, but relatively straightforward.
Wicca is more like Rosicrucianism. The Rosicrucian order began as a literary fiction, a kind of manifesto (Fama Fraternitatis IIRC) announcing the existence of a group that almost certainly did not come into being until people reading the manifesto went looking for it.
When a group, religion or spiritual practice has an existence in the imagination of a culture long before it has flesh and blood adherents, it muddies the question of which depictions are accurate.
“The fact that Danson’s character said Wicca is a religion is, IMO, a big improvement over earlier TV shows that mentioned Paganism/Witchcraft.”
Actually it’s worse. They said “it’s a real religion and by the way they sacrifice humans.”
First of all, Hi Macha! It’s Christopher.
Second, Cat is right. There are still places where people will believe this kind of crap, and where anti-Pagan hate is at a high boil.
Which of the many Christophers I know are you? 🙂
http://seejane.org/symposiums-on-gender-in-media/gender-bias-without-borders/
…so especially given the other studies it’s hard to say there’s NO influence there.
So yes, it MATTERS. It’s not JUST entertainment. It’s one of the key yardsticks of “normal” in our culture. It has a massive ripple effect upon the rest of our lives.
I’ve been doing a lot of research on media representation, by the way. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
I will agree that TV and other mass media do create what viewers/readers consider “normal.”
I’m sorry my life does not allow me to get into the many comments on this post, or to view several other websites, studies, etc. But I did want to offer this very brief response to Kat. I will add that I’ve done a ton of media relations and interfaith activity for more than a generation, by which I mean I’m not entirely ignorant of these phenomena, and by which I also mean that I gotta get out of cyberspace and back to preparing Samhain for the Wiccan inmates at SQ.
Not feeling so grouchy and jaded at the moment. 😉
Oh, dear. Yet more Hollywood stupidity. I’m glad I quit watching shows like this eons ago!
I am just disappointed that in this day and age, television shows find it incapable of presenting our community in a positive light. They had an opportunity to dispel many myths, misconceptions, and down right ignorance regarding our religion. They promote a stereotype that would never exist in our community, as it violates our law: Do what thou wilt if it harm thee none.
For those who find it upsetting that Wicca has been portrayed as fostering the nuttiness of nutcakes, my response is that most serial killers and others who commit heinous crimes were brought up in Christian households. Ted Bundy, for instance, was reared Methodist. Just sayin’…
That is something that Tv shows rarely emphasize or even mention though and I think that’s where the crux of the problem lays.
Problem is, “normal” things are seldom mentioned in criminal profiling.
People look to “other” the criminals, and they do this by seeking out some way that the individual sits outside the socially accepted “norm”. Classic example would be the Columbine shootings, where they drew attention to the music interests of the perpetrators.
Notice how music tastes go unmentioned in other cases. Same with religion.
You got that exactly right! Before accusing someone of something, be sure he isn’t like yourself. Then and only then it’s time to polish the rocks.
To be honest, the older I get, the less concerned I am with popular depictions of Paganism, regardless of accuracy. If someone actively tries to suppress my right to religious freedom, then yes, I will fight back furiously. But otherwise, outside perceptions of my religion do not have an impact on *my* perception of my religion.
I’m not out to proselytize, which means I definitely don’t have to worry if the issue at hand will have any effect on the growth or spread of my religion, and I’m not going to change the way I feel about my religion because of how it’s portrayed on a crime drama. So, ultimately, which is more important: What *they* think about what I do, or what *I* think of it?
I am not surprised by CSI. Disrespecting segments of society and using prejudicial stereotypes is their stock in trade. I won’t watch their offensive shtick.
I think CSI used to be better. There was a recurring character called Lady Heather who was a professional dominatrix. She was portrayed as competent, sane and ethical, and her clients were not ridiculed. The writers gave the CSI supervisor intelligent questions to ask her about her business (his character being a brainy man with a scientific outlook and perhaps a touch of Asperger’s Syndrome), and she gave him answers that were pretty much standard S/M PR. The two of them also carried on a low key flirtation.
That’s an example of one reason I used to like the show. They made an effort to depict groups with exotic or unusual practices in a kind of participant-observer way, rather than using them for cheap jokes or shock value. That is quite unusual on broadcast TV.
Wow, that character looks gorgeous! Too bad she isn’t in the show anymore…
I like the fact that what the media displays about wicca has become a little more realistic. We’ll get there some day 🙂
Sounds like the only positive was that it showed there are pagans in the 21st century…Hollyweird seems to think that we all died out at the end of the Hyborian Age….
“David Hodges is largely present for comic relief within the more serious CSI drama schematic. He always takes a campy and comical attitude toward any subject. However, in this case, he was mocking a religious practice, which proves problematic. Along with his robe, Hodges called his lab a “Wiccan Altar” and mentioned a past Wiccan girlfriend who was “a little too earthy” and didn’t have a “bathing spell.” In addition, Pagan viewers may have been offended by the God and Goddess statuettes on his table. Although meant as harmless comedy, the writers went too far for many Pagan viewers as demonstrated by Wildman-Hanlon’s comment.”
You simply need to ask yourself whether, if this were a show about a Christian ovictim and murderer, a similar “campy and comical” attitude would have been on display. Maybe Hodges could wear a bishop’s red hat, call his lab a Cathedral altar, mention a nun who “should have been baptized a bit more often. ” A cross, a statue of a saint, and a picture of the pope could be placed on the table.
We all know that would never have aired. Christians are entitled to more respect. Which tells you what you need to know about this scene.
Exactly! There’s definitely a double standards between different religions. Some are entitled to more respect or treated more carefully for whatever reasons and other are considered queer enough not to be handled as respectfully.
Hi,I’m witch tolerant artistic merit is all sci were applying giving interested,justification for plots and sub_plots art for arts sake is easier but I feel sci cover them critics negative views.in the past witches were persecuted but once science found out it was not witches killing people,but a specific micro organisms found in bakers wheat flour ththis vindicated witches as more creative than destructive this is an honest observation on an interesting subject witches? It’s cool and very creative I feel ok witches really exist so reel yo neck in and let’s smile ever positively upbeat witches are very cool very interesting.
Flounder Robinson
Wow. Robo spam.
“. I’m angry at the disrespect paid to my beliefs and my God & Goddess. ”
No one has to respect your beliefs or the deities you think exist, all they need to do is respect your right to believe them.
I don’t suppose this is any better or any worse than the News media and their ISIS crap. What terrorists have to do with the Great Goddess is anyone’s guess; and what Wicca has to do with that story is another guess. 🙁
You do know what ISIS stands for don’t you?
Yes, but in the Guardian they spell it Isis (because of an assholic editorial policy). I call it Daesh (which is what people call it in Arabic).
Let’s agree to call it IS or Islamic State once and for all.
Except that it’s not Islamic, it’s not a state, and we’re drifting off topic.
It certainly is Islamic, although by no means the only or dominant variety of Islam. And it’s certainly conquering and holding territory, like a state, with aspirations of ruling an even larger set of territory.
I agree it’s not the best place to enter such a slippery slope. Let us just agree that, in their own eyes, they are islamic, and that, in practices, they are basically operating as a state.
Also, I would rather call it islamic state rather than ISIS. But it’s just me.
whats funnier is that they mixed their religious paths since when has the ancient celtic druid and the 1950s wicca been the same and used together in a coven?
They didn’t appear to know the difference, did they?
But a) Wicca as we know it started in 1939, not the 1950s, and b) no one today is practicing real ancient Celtic Druidism, and thank gods, because they were some nasty pieces of work!
There are strands of Celtic reconstructionism happening. Not sure how far along they, are, but it is happening.
So in a discussion about the insulting of a Wicca on a TV show you come in and insult another pagan religion!? And there are plenty of us reconstructing it.
What, eclectic syncretism? I thought that was pretty common.
It’s tickling to see the high and mighty opinions and outrage over a piece of tele-fluff. In my many years I have seen this reaction from just about every group there is over some show or another. Yes, Virginia, Christians too have been mocked on tv, many times in fact. Every stereotype and extremist has been walked out and put on display for entertainment. Usually little or no research was ever done to back up a story. And let us all be real for a minute: If the show depicted reality, no one would watch it. Real forensics is cinematically boring. Real wiccan worship is ecclectic and also a tv yawn. And in a show where there are villains and crazies, of course everyone in the script will be villainous and a nut job, be they witches wiccans, druids, catholics, mormons, cheerleaders, gays, women, men, vampires, rock stars, puppies… ok not puppies, but you get my meaning. When one group is “targeted” for an episode, expect them to play all the parts. Even the unflattering ones. This is a Crime Drama, not a Documentary, which I find sometimes just as fake. I don’t know or care which version of the Dieties you personally worship. I just know that you don’t live your life on a day to day in a blissful haze of spiritual connection and one-ness with all. This is REAL life not IDEAL life. Everyone is flawed. Even a witch can go kookoo. Get off your high horses, get your broomsticks out your asses, and realize that the ONLY legitimate gripe here is that they wait for Halloween to air the “witch” episode. And who says no one today is practicing real ancient celtic druidism? You don’t know. Really. People it is a stupid tv show, like so many I have had to endure in all my years of society’s ignorances. The whackadoos that will “take it to heart” were already predisposed in their opinions and no show on tv is really gonna change that. Be happy for the little steps in positive representation that will seep into the subconscious of the rest of the audience. Little steps make up the stairs to the light.
Wow, did I really say all that?
Well, this is pretty much self-superior nonsense.
1. Wiccans are unfamiliar to most people.
2. When something’s unfamiliar, people tend to believe what they hear about it.
3. They wouldn’t do this about a familiar religion. (Compare, for example, the Buddhists in an early episode; some of them were murder suspects, but it was a person prejudiced AGAINST them who was the actual murderer.)
4. ALL the Wiccans in this episode were wackos of one sort or another.
5. That sends the message that all Wiccans are wackos, because most people don’t know any Wiccans IRL.
6. This is not a positive representation.
7. An increase in accuracy will make people recognize us better — and then think we’re wackos. That’s WORSE than having Witches be cackling green-skinned monstrosities; no one’s going to be mistaken for one of those.
8. If anyone were practicing real ancient Celtic Druidism, bodies would turn up from time to time.
9. If you mean the “Druids” Bonewits started up, I’ll laugh in your face.
Define “real”. Reconstructionists are definitely working on it but I doubt you’ll find any bodies. Philosophical evolution is a good thing. As for “self-superior” you might be projecting a bit.
Is it philosophical evolution or pragmatism, though? 😉
I am beyond offended by this episode. They would never make such tacky cooments about Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist . I can barely finih watching this episode. The producers need to join us in 2014 where, by in large, we try to respect one another.
#Disgusted
#agreed
Hmmm……the Wiccan “needed the blood of a sacrificed youth” for her healing ritual? Police experts look at crime scenes and then conclude it “suggests a Wiccan ritual” by the way a teenager was sacrificed? While it’s good that the show got it right that Wiccans are a Pagan religion, the show otherwise sounds like a throwback to Satanic Panic era slanders. Only this time, they are actually using the term “Wiccan” rather than vague and amorphous cults. Just the kind of press Pagans, Wiccans, and Polytheists need.
It’s exactly that: They are still causing harm to the community, but over time they got better at aiming.
Y’know, there’s one way I miss the days when Pagans were less self-critical and divided. Fifteen or so years ago, if a piece like this appeared on “Wren’s Nest”, the perpetrators would have received 100,000 pieces of completely irrational hate mail from outraged Pagans, mostly blaming them for poorly understood or even nonexistent genocides. Truth suffered, as did our relations with others, but even the most hardened offenders were a little cautious about f*cking with us.
This would also apply to all those incidents in small towns we’ve been hearing about lately, the prayer incidents and others. If a small town library in the late ’90s, banned the Pagans from using the meeting room, they got inundated with rage and bile, called genocidal murderers and worse, by people all over the country. Other libraries read about it in professional publications and were shocked into doing the right thing.
Some of it, I think was reaction to the Satanic Panic, which was over, but still recent. Myths of the Burning Times seemed more real because of what we’d had to hear about of go through. We were angrier, more fearful, and looking for ways to come out of the shadows, albeit safely. Our rage was turned outward, and not against one another, as it is now.
I’m not really pining that much for the old days. Our current crop of leaders mostly do a good job. Respectability, truth, and constructively resolving conflicts mostly work. But sometimes, I feel nostalgic for the days when you could roll with the rage, let go of all pretense of rationality, and kick some fundie ass.
That is beautifully said! I never lived in those times, but I guess it must have been kinda sweet. Maybe it’s the fact that nowadays everyone’s trying to be most respectable, inclusive, politically correct and overall soft-spoken. Maybe it’s the times we are in…
It’s easy enough to dismiss CSI’s ability to influence viewers’ decisions because it’s “just a show,” or it’s “clearly science fiction,” but the reality is that many viewers believe it is true.
For example, when I went to school for criminal justice, several of my teachers referenced the “CSI Effect” in a courtroom. The backbone of police work – interviews, confessions, piecing together the clues, etc. – has been broken by jurors who zone out long monologues and are easily captured (by both the defense and the prosecution) with fancy pictures, graphs, and other CSI-looking paraphernalia.
There are people who really believe everything they see on the show is real. For example, it is true that you can take an impression of a tire print and use it to identify a vehicle, but unlike in the show where this happens in a few minutes or a few days, the reality is that there’s only one facility in the country who processes tire impressions and they’ve got a nine- to twelve-month turn-around.
It’s a difficult thing to discern between the harmless nonsense and the dangerous nonsense that get promulgated on TV. Kudos to the Wild Hunt for sifting through this one.
Similar problem ongoing with the (woefully awful) “Vikings” television show.
“It’s just a show” or “it’s just entertainment” should not be a valid excuse for the perpetuation of misinformation.
Is it really that bad? I ain’t a Viking fanatic like many so I’m not the kind of person who would lash out every time there’s a slight error but I’ve heard lots of stuff about the show, both in favor and against it so I’m still a bit hesitant to give it a try.
I know a lot of people that enjoy it, but my interest is in the material culture, not the soap opera, so it holds zero interest for me.
(There are Anglo-Saxons wearing some bizarre plated brigandines and 16th century open-faced burgonets, for example.)
Now that I think about it, it is very telling that CSI airs an episode about Wicca a few days ago and The Wild Hunt has an article up on it already. Vikings is pretty damn popular, is nearing its third season, and attempts to actually depict pre-Christian Norse religion, and yet I can’t remember seeing an article that seeks to find out what Heathens think about the show (and I’d imagine Heathens are pretty opinionated about it) and its depiction of Norse religion. I guess that the quota on articles on Heathens is always met with Heathens-are-racist articles, leaving no room for something like that.
You’re touching a nerve I think. There’s indeed a bit too little stuff about Heathenism on TWH.
Possibly because of the argument about whether Heathenry is actual p/Pagan or not.
I’d say the TWH do pretty well with it, personally.
I don’t know if I’m alone on this but in my opinion:
Modern Paganism = Pre-christian European religion.
I know lots of Heathens try to distance themselves from Wicca/Paganism in general but I find it sad and counterproductive. We’re all in this together, regardless if we call upon Óðinn, Woden, Herne, Zeus, or the Goddess.
Others see it differently, in numerous ways.
On the one hand, you have the inclusivists, who expand Modern Paganism to include the Middle Eastern and Egyptian forms of pre-Christian cultural religion, as well as mingling of religious ideas, including ChristoPaganism. Some even going so far as to include religions like Shinto and/or Hinduism, amongst others.
On the other hands you have the exclusivists, who deny the validity of an over-arching term that attempts to encompass
a myriad distinct religions, based solely on the fact that they share a non-Abrahamic base.
For my part, I am an exclusivist who sees no reason why the various adherents cannot work together on shared goals.
I have always been a highly disturbed by this so called christo-“paganism” and have always found people who did too much into non-European lore to be a bit odd (cultural appropriation anyone?). But I would tend to agree with you that, despite a sometimes completely different ideology and/or worldview, both of the groups you mentioned basically come from the same place. There shouldn’t be a wasting of energy in such infighting.
Cultural appropriation is a curious beast.
It can be applied in a lot of different ways. For example, could we say that the use of European mythology and folklore in the USA is cultural appropriation?
Could we say that the reconstruction of long-dead cultural ideals is appropriation?
There are arguments for and against, but you are always going to see someone annoyed.
Within modern (inclusive) Paganism, it seems that eclectic syncretism is the most common approach. Does it really make any more (or less) sense for someone to combine Germanic and Greek practice than Greek and Sumerian, for example?
Thing is, Heathens may (or may not, it’s hardly monolithic) be reconstructionists, but they are not all re-enactors.
As such, for many, the show has little bearing on their Heathenry. My approach is as a bit of a history geek.
Its gods-awful terrible. I made it halfway through the first episode, but between laughing and crying so hard I couldn’t watch any more.
Offered as a general comment. Grains of salt provided upon request.
I’m fascinated by the creative process. I’ve watched my talented daughter’s art and illustrations evolve over the last ten years or so with awe and astonsishment, mostly because I can’t do visual art to save my life. But writing is something with which I’m intimately familiar, and I’ve spent many hours with writers (mostly theater) discussing their specific work and listening to them describe their processes. One more thing: my brother was a film major, and “forced” me to go to movies I’d never heard of or would have given a second thought. He talked about what he was learning constantly.
Ahem. Not claiming credentials. Actually, hopefully defining my limitations. Anyway…
Writers, especially those attempting to adapt a story between two very different mediums, might have an agenda, might want to convey some specific message, but cannot be assumed to be doing anything except wanting to tell a story, tell it effectively, and tell it well enough that the audience will come back for more. I believe visual artists can be described the same way, but I must let the visual artists in the house confirm or deny that themselves.
Take a story with which I am intimately familiar. I lost count at around 30 the number of times I’ve read The Lord of the Rings. I can usually find a specific passage within a couple of minutes. I anticipated Peter Jackson’s screen adaptation with equal parts excitement and dread, and I can tell you that he consciously made storytelling choices to make it happen. I can see them, right there on the screen. I am left to agree or disagree with those decisions, but in the end IMO he kicked ass and deserved an Oscar for each movie. I still mourn the exclusion of Tom Bombadil (Tom Baker would have been perfect in that role), I applauded making Arwen an active character and nearly threw up at how that changed the significance of Aragorn’s sword.
Please don’t take me wrong. I completely support the open criticism of protrayals of our belief system(s). What I can’t abide is blithe assumptions about the motivations of the storyteller in the absence of the storyteller actually being asked about them and giving a detailed response in answer. I’m surrounded by stongly opinionated theater professionals, actors whose skills and talent make them the peers of anyone you can see on a screen of any size, writers of subtle wit and profound depth of thought struggling to express that in their plays, directors who look to me like they’ve sworn a blood oath to fulfill the writer’s purpose or die trying. I see them after a performance or run, I listen to them talk about it, and without exception they’ve put their personal agendas of any kind aside to tell a story.
Them, I know. I assume I know something about Peter Jackson and his staff based on my knowledge of the story and my guarded projection of my own sensibilities upon his creative process.
I’ll keep it simple and say that I side with Christopher Tolkien.
When they talk about strange bedfellows, the novel and the movie should be at the top of the list. The “independent” film “industry” started out as an attempt to replace the kingsize bed with two doubles, but ended up pushing them together and starting an orgy.
😉
I agree with Christopher Tolkien 100% when it comes to the Hobbit movies, which are completely awful. I can agree in part about LotR, but for the most part Peter Jackson’s vision of Middle Earth is so awesome and overwhelming that I can’t help but love the LotR movies, even if I strongly disagree with some choices. When The Fellowship of the Ring movie came out, I went to the theater not having followed anything about the movies, so I didn’t know what to expect, and I didn’t have very high expectations. That movie, though, deeply impressed me, and everything from the Shire to Rivendell to the mines of Moria to Lothlórien were so well done visually. And I can’t say anything against how such iconic scenes like Gandalf facing the Balrog on the bridge of Khazad-dûm were brought to the screen. Just watching all of the documentaries in the extended editions shows how much passion, effort, and attention to detail went into the LotR trilogy, and it would be wrong, imo, to not respect that.
Well said! If the LOTR hadn’t come out, there would not be nearly that big of a space for fantasy/pre-christianity/magic in the popular psyche today. The movies can be criticized for sure, but they have achieved something real.
I do agree that the LotR movies are somewhat better than the Hobbit travesties, but they are certainly not beyond criticism.
Whatever anyone says, the LOTR movies are still much more faithful and better overall than the Hobbit.
I join Lēoht in agreeing with Christopher Tolkien. In the meantime, I recognize that a truly faithful rendering of any of JRR’s stories would never be commercially viable.
That’s the crux of the problem. I think it’s better to end up producing an action-like movie that will enthrall millions than making an over-artsy sluggish one that no-one will appreciate.
I’m one of those cantankerous, stubborn and miserable gits who believes that it would be better to do no adaptation than to do a poor one.
Except that I’m not stubborn, no way, no how! 😉
I’ve not read the source book for that one.
That said, there are movies I refuse to acknowledge the existence of.
A modern and still current example of personal agenda in storytelling is the creator of “The West Wing” and “The Newsroom”, and author of the script for “The American President”, Aaron Sorkin. His personal politics is unabashedly liberal (please join me in stipulating what “liberal” means), and his writing shows it clearly. His storytelling is strong and occasionally profound, and anyone who pans it because of his personal politics is missing out on the work of a master of the storytelling craft.
I did happen to see the show. Although I was a little off-put by the blood sacrifice reference and the bathing reference, the rest didn’t bother me too much personally. If you take an honest look around, there are many people in many different religious paths whom are “damaged goods.” Paganism is not new to this, but no, this is not who we all are. Personally when I look at a show like this, it is just that, a show. I was happy to see valid references and a point of making sure the “team” understood that Wicca and Witchcraft was not as scary as what was impressed upon the masses throughout history. I would rather watch that episode than the series Salem, AHS Coven, or even Witches of East end.