—Review —Photos Medium: 1) a person claiming to be in contact with the spirits of the dead; 2) to communicate between the dead and the living; 3) a mid-season replacement television drama on NBC...
A stylish show at that, one that’s well-acted and has witty dialogue. That’s no surprise once you take a look at who’s involved: creator Glenn Caron (Moonlighting, Remington Steele); known genre writers like Rene Echevarria (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and executive producer of The 4400) and Moira Dekker (Dark Angel, The Dead Zone).
Based on real-life clairvoyant Allison DuBois, Patricia Arquette (not new to genre work, acting in Stigmata and A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors) wakes from dreams of the future and speaks with the dead on a far-too-frequent basis. Almost like The Sixth Sense: the Series, except that she’s found a way to let her gift pay the bills. She’s called in to consult with the District Attorney’s (Miguel Sandoval) office.
''I see the truth. It's like a freakin' television show!'' Allison DuBois
One of the things that makes this show different is that the lead character, Allison Dubois, is not always likeable. Almost every scene that takes place in their home has alcohol present, a subtle reminder to a throwaway line from the pilot that she drinks to quiet “the voices.” Her gift crowds her bedroom (the dead are always around her) and thus impacts her marriage, especially her husband, played by Jake Weber: it’s hard to talk to someone who is (or thinks that she is) one step ahead of you.
One of my favorite episodes, starring Reed Diamond (from the great Homicide: Life on the Streets), encapsulates all the things that I like so much about the show. Allison dreams about a man who has come to kidnap her daughter. Upon arriving at her job, she finds the man in the D.A.’s office stepping forward as a “Good Samaritan.” He witnessed a robbery and had come forward to offer his full cooperation. Come to find out that her dream involves what he might become, a horrific serial killer, some ten years down the road. She has to confront true evil, referring to him alternately as the bad Samaritan, the golem, the devil, or simply a monster. One of the more creative depictions on the show has the flashes into the killer’s mind portrayed over a comic book-like illustrated background.
“I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.” Leviticus 20:6
Of course, the immediate response in terms of finding a spiritual connection might be to dismiss this show as another sign of our culture trying to mainstream the occult. It’s a knee-jerk response that’s intellectually simple and accomplishes little in terms of wrestling with people and the art that they produce where they are. Still, I can't out-of-hand dismiss such critics.
Now the passage from Leviticus may fall under the category of Old Testament rules, but the point of the passage remains that consulting practitioners of the occult (mediums and spiritists) was no less a sin that being one. This was a sin because only God was to be consulted (through either a priest or prophet, back in the day). [In terms of context, this also sheds a special light on the story of the time when King Saul—the ruler before King David—knowing the laws that he was under, turned around and consulted a medium (the Witch of Endor) in I Samuel 28.]
Allison DuBois is not a religious person though she recognizes that she has a spiritual gift, given from a higher power. What needs to be remembered is that the Bible, from beginning to end, is a supernatural book where magic is treated as real: from the sorcerers that competed against Moses before Pharaoh to the diviners, magicians, and sorcerers of the Babylonian court to the sorcerer who followed the apostles around trying to bribe them to show him how to do miracles.
The occult, unseen spirits, are serious business, so I understand the need for vigilance. Shows like Medium remind us of their reality. We don’t like to be reminded of the spiritual battles waged around us—or we do the other extreme and see the Devil behind every bush. This unseen realm is a mystery to us. However, many critics cross the line from vigilance into hypersensitivity, becoming guilty of fanning the flames of hysteria in order to pursue their own agendas. Before we start casting judgments, we have to remember that the practicing and consulting of mediums was condemned, not the depiction, even as entertainment, of them.
This is an issue that I’m especially sensitive to since I catch similar flak as a horror writer. I’m accused of inviting in evil, playing with supernatural trivia via stories, or making the supernatural alluring or intriguing. It’s one thing to argue that the Harry Potter films and books have the context of make-believe or present the occult as allegorical cautionary tales, but there’s nothing allegorical about Medium. She is what she is and doesn’t care if you believe her. There is real evil in the world, real spiritual forces around us; but creating fear-mongering over television, movies, and books is not the source of it.
Medium is stocked with great characters walking through well-written stories. Knowing that the show is based on an actual woman makes the show all the more interesting. It has enough twists and turns, some creepy moments, to be truly engaging. All delivered with a deft hand and generous dashes of humor.
Yeah, but all that Leviticus stuff about "not consulting 'spiritists'" (Spiritualists NEVER call themselves the former; I know because I know some!)...
That all was put in there at a point in ancient history where things were getting ever more patriarchal, and the last remnants of the ORIGINAL paganism - namely, Earth-mother worship - was still being eradicated from the Middle East. It was still there, a bit, in the mythology and attitudes of Ancient Egypt, I think: but the Jews and those after them were resolutely patriarchal....
And you know the REAL result of that, Maurice? I finally managed to work it out - and ADMIT it to myself, a couple of years ago. (I think Dan Brown helped me, though!)
The RESULT has been the total WARPING of civilization for millennia; and a lot of wars and unnecessary suffering and violence... MOST of which could have been avoided, IF:
A) people had believed in the Divine Feminine (or at least, in the Goddess and the God, not JUST God!! (male))
B) they had followed the advice of those with talent around them, ie mediums, and had BELIEVED that after death we turn (back) into spirits - and DON'T, either a) go back to dust or "fall asleep" - what rubbish! or b) Go to Hell - which was a later Jewish belief borrowed from a bunch of Persians anyway!!
the leviticus passage isn't the only passage from the bible dealing with mediums or spiritists. it was one of the more explicit.
patriarchal elements aside, the point that i was getting at was why many christians react so strongly to shows dealing with (in their minds trivializing or popularizing) the supernatural.
you raise a lot of good points (though, honestly, i only made it half way through your comment). there is a lot that the church can do better. but i also think that faith and spirituality is big enough to include our doubts and questions.
Glad you think I raised a lot of good points. Somebody just above obviously didn't, though!
So you only made it half-way through, did you? After I poured out my heart about my religious struggles, too! And after I spent all that time reading Josh McDowell in 1999/2000!
I know he's a "conservative" Christian, like that fellow with the funny name, Gumbell is it... actually they seem like two of the nicer conservatives in the faith! And funnily enough I *didn't* argue with much of what he was saying - like, for example, that much of the Bible, if not all of it, including the Old Testament, could be proved to be archaeologically correct, or at least very plausible... That tends to tally with the R.E. I was taught for three years at secondary school, and I never had any cause to disagree with *that*, either... I basically stuck with a lot I learned at school and haven't regretted that decision... Textual points were brought up during this school education, including things like "was it Red Sea or Reed Sea", and just *what* was this coat of many colours thing... was it a coat with long sleeves? Could have been both for all we knew! I always thought.
But as for this thing called "JDP" - it's part of "textual criticism", you must have come across it... Well we only really "touched" on that. And I don't see how it can be PROVED without any original - ie, thousands of years old texts, anyway! And I think that some of the texual criticism of the NT is even sillier... making out that the Gospels were all made up out of, I dont' know what... a few snips called Q which were later elaborated on by 4 imaginative people hundreds of years later... no, don't buy it! I think that the case for an earlier authorship of the Gospels is actually pretty strong! They would have wanted to get that stuff down FAST!! As fast as a non-technological age permitted. (But they could have made actual contemporaneous notes, which however wouldn't have survived, because the custom of the time was to make them on blocks of wood coated over thinly with wax, I learnt that on the web!)
(And still - if you compare it to modern newspaper journalism or indeed blogging - there is no way in which 4 of them would see eye to eye on everything!)
So yeah, I tend to take the Bible pretty much as, well, fact. (A description of events through ancient eyes.)
I scorn all theories that say Jesus didn't exist and that he was made up... most influential made-up character I've ever heard of, then! Anyway, Arthur fans and Robin Hood fans will know what I mean, they always think there was a man behind the legend.
I'll accept most of it, in fact.. EXCEPT, really, the religion that grew out of it. I don't like St Paul (though I recognise him as a fellow high I.Q.!) I think that Corinthians etc. are far inferior to the sayings of Jesus. And I think that Christianity, even early Christianity, soon became more intolerant a few decades after the founder died... otherwise they wouldn't have been so keen on condemning all those types of people to hell, would they??
I don't agree with Christianity's fight with the pagans and the magicians... another thing! Jesus doesn't seem to have said anything about magicians, and I was browsing a site yesterday (I think it was a link off www.luckymojo.com, a magical supply site, so wimps beware! But an interesting one) which claimed that Moses was a black(skinned) magician!!
Anyway, magic's still a very strong tradition in the black South. So these sites say! It seems to help people. Why knock it.
So, anyway, Christians just might be condemning practices which their greatest prophets were - into.
I don't think it's just a question of "doubts", though. I think it's a question of actual social practice. Things, as I said, that if the Christian Church were DETERMINED... they could fix in a day!!
1) Marriage and divorce questions. (Which I think they've managed to smooth or fudge over in the U.S. anyway.)
2) Gay pastors - who REALLY cares what their minister does in bed. (Did people care about MLK - and he was a bit of a "goer", now, wasn't he? But do people think that detracted from his work and ideas?)
No-one cares how many American CEOs are gay... so??
Room for *PROGRESS*, anyone?
3) And, the role of women! Why, for example, are Catholics (who can be pretty SENSIBLE people on occasion, viz. their overall opinion on the death penalty - and that's not new with them, J R R Tolkien for one thought like that too, he was a RC...)... why are Catholics SO resistant to the idea of women priests, and the Anglicans only marginally less so... when the "dissenting" sects have had them for ages.. though nobody seems to want them to, you know, run the show??
This is all VERY good advice I'm giving you, Christian church-goers. Sort out these problems NOW, before they swallow you up!! Before evolution (the social kind) declares you obsolete. Seriously. Never mind JDP, texual criticism, postmodernism... forget Raptures, that's just yet *another* way of trying to get people to avoid *issues*.
Deal with the ISSUES and see if you aren't better off for it!
What, me, personally? Or you? I would imagine that you do it via prayer.
Me... ah, now, I have my own... methods. One thing I now believe is that it's impossible, for me, anyway, to get in touch with ALL of the Divine - all of it at once! It's too big!
So, what you do... is you get in touch with little bits of it. The majesty of nature, for example - that's quite a large bit! Or - those elements of the human personality which manifest themselves as divine, through what they call archetypes.
You take various archetypes (that is the divine) into yourself, and you identify with them... and you try to be them, if possible! THAT is one way to get in touch with the divine!
(Health warning: People who totally become identified with an archetype, esp. by the public, tend to die as a result!
Another warning: Not everybody will appreciate this archetype stuff! Indeed, some Christians will find SOME of the archetypes - namely, the Trickster first and foremost I think - demonic. Perhaps the word should be "daemonic". Ask Philip Pullman.)
But no... if you WANT to be divine, the secret IS, dear reader (actually, Christ said as much!) you can be. Even if it's only for a few minutes at a time!
Literary characters who achieve this to an even greater extent, are, as our friend Sam Ewing was talking about before I put him off (well, challenged him on a few of his less pro-social views), those of the "superhumans"; the superheroes and supervillains of comic books, legends and mythology.
The Joker, for example - yes! is divine, and well he used to know it!
This was before people like Moore and Morrison said that he was the devil and cast him thus... Well. An ignorant age full of unenlightened people such as the above, will see the "devil" behind every bramble bush. Again, consult Philip Pullman as to what he thinks of THAT one. Don't ask me! You won't like the answer!
Short answer: No. Not really. It has to be FELT, you can't "explain" it verbally. (And the feelings involved are often SUBLIME! As I found them in my late teens... feels like possession.) Anyway. No "rituals" are involved in this particular worship, and I don't need them.
I suppose you might say that the two twin themes of "imagination" and "self-identification" played a big part. ALSO - recognising within yourself how much you see of yourself in these characters, and vice versa, and what THEY have given YOU... without you hardly knowing it! (Now even THAT's going a bit too near the crux!)
Archetype worship in the modern age is a VERY sensitive, secretive thing. Especially for someone like myself, who would have KNOWN that none of her schoolmates, for example, would have had any idea of what even the word meant!
It consists for a large part, of making observations and drawing comparisons. (I know, sounds very prosaic.)
A writer (such as Anne Rice's) relationship with her most important, mythical characters (such as Lestat) would come the closest to it today. Outside of paganism.
Also - of all things, I came upon a discussion of mythology on the blog of an arch-conservative named Dr Fleming or some such, where I was referred by ITT... Well, in one respect I wouldn't ask these guys for the time of day... but they ARE interested in the ancient world.
Well. Someone there said, that when the ancients (Greeks, Romans... I would add, Norse), when the pagans worshipped their idols of gods, they were NOT - the more sophisticated ones - worshipping images of wood and stone. (As if THESE were the god itself.) They were worshipping the QUALITIES that those wood and stone images attempted to represent, and were "statues" of.
They were basically worshipping archetypes. Had they known it! (Some of the more sophisticated Greek writers, of course, did.)
Our Gods are kind of created by ourselves... but who is dreaming WHO, as Lewis Carroll said...
I don't think that YOU really do very much different, Maurice... only instead of a lot of gods, you believe in one over-god who I've frankly never experienced... And you believe in a god who only incarnated himself as human ONCE... If you believe in archetypes, you believe that these actually incarnate all the time, however imperfectly.
It gives me (great) pleasure to see what I think are modern incarnations of the archetypes... such as Princess Diana, of course. Michael Moore too is one, sorta, as I think I explained to Kevin in a safe obscure corner of his blog. And so on... I think you can probably GUESS which "large archetype" EACH of the above people belongs to, Maurice... if you are at all a Campbell fan!
This could be a great show. However, the constant BED SCENE just kills the whole idea. Joe and THE BED have to go. it is awful !!! Please let Allison go it alone without the family and THE BED. Shape it up, PLEASE.
Holds a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology (with an undeclared major in English) from Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. He works as an environmental toxicologist by day and is a horror writer by night. Obviously his areas of interests includes religious studies, folklore, and myths. He is a notorious egotist who, in anticipation of a successful writing career, is practicing speaking of himself in the third person. Oh yeah, he’s married to the lovely Sally Jo and has two boys: Maurice Gerald Broaddus II (thus, retroactively declaring himself "Maurice the Great") and Malcolm Xavier Broaddus.
12 Comments:
Yeah, but all that Leviticus stuff about "not consulting 'spiritists'" (Spiritualists NEVER call themselves the former; I know because I know some!)...
That all was put in there at a point in ancient history where things were getting ever more patriarchal, and the last remnants of the ORIGINAL paganism - namely, Earth-mother worship - was still being eradicated from the Middle East. It was still there, a bit, in the mythology and attitudes of Ancient Egypt, I think: but the Jews and those after them were resolutely patriarchal....
And you know the REAL result of that, Maurice? I finally managed to work it out - and ADMIT it to myself, a couple of years ago. (I think Dan Brown helped me, though!)
The RESULT has been the total WARPING of civilization for millennia; and a lot of wars and unnecessary suffering and violence... MOST of which could have been avoided, IF:
A) people had believed in the Divine Feminine (or at least, in the Goddess and the God, not JUST God!! (male))
B) they had followed the advice of those with talent around them, ie mediums, and had BELIEVED that after death we turn (back) into spirits - and DON'T, either a) go back to dust or "fall asleep" - what rubbish! or b) Go to Hell - which was a later Jewish belief borrowed from a bunch of Persians anyway!!
So much for patriarchal religion. Bah.
I'm sorry, Maurice, darling, by the way. I shall be good next time!!
I can't help it I'm afraid...
No I haven't got Tourette's... did you know that Grant Morrisson "accused" the Joker of that?? In "Arkham Asylum"... another GREAT, in your view?!?!
Hahahahaha....
the leviticus passage isn't the only passage from the bible dealing with mediums or spiritists. it was one of the more explicit.
patriarchal elements aside, the point that i was getting at was why many christians react so strongly to shows dealing with (in their minds trivializing or popularizing) the supernatural.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
you raise a lot of good points (though, honestly, i only made it half way through your comment). there is a lot that the church can do better. but i also think that faith and spirituality is big enough to include our doubts and questions.
Glad you think I raised a lot of good points. Somebody just above obviously didn't, though!
So you only made it half-way through, did you? After I poured out my heart about my religious struggles, too! And after I spent all that time reading Josh McDowell in 1999/2000!
I know he's a "conservative" Christian, like that fellow with the funny name, Gumbell is it... actually they seem like two of the nicer conservatives in the faith! And funnily enough I *didn't* argue with much of what he was saying - like, for example, that much of the Bible, if not all of it, including the Old Testament, could be proved to be archaeologically correct, or at least very plausible... That tends to tally with the R.E. I was taught for three years at secondary school, and I never had any cause to disagree with *that*, either... I basically stuck with a lot I learned at school and haven't regretted that decision... Textual points were brought up during this school education, including things like "was it Red Sea or Reed Sea", and just *what* was this coat of many colours thing... was it a coat with long sleeves? Could have been both for all we knew! I always thought.
But as for this thing called "JDP" - it's part of "textual criticism", you must have come across it... Well we only really "touched" on that. And I don't see how it can be PROVED without any original - ie, thousands of years old texts, anyway! And I think that some of the texual criticism of the NT is even sillier... making out that the Gospels were all made up out of, I dont' know what... a few snips called Q which were later elaborated on by 4 imaginative people hundreds of years later... no, don't buy it! I think that the case for an earlier authorship of the Gospels is actually pretty strong! They would have wanted to get that stuff down FAST!! As fast as a non-technological age permitted. (But they could have made actual contemporaneous notes, which however wouldn't have survived, because the custom of the time was to make them on blocks of wood coated over thinly with wax, I learnt that on the web!)
(And still - if you compare it to modern newspaper journalism or indeed blogging - there is no way in which 4 of them would see eye to eye on everything!)
So yeah, I tend to take the Bible pretty much as, well, fact. (A description of events through ancient eyes.)
I scorn all theories that say Jesus didn't exist and that he was made up... most influential made-up character I've ever heard of, then! Anyway, Arthur fans and Robin Hood fans will know what I mean, they always think there was a man behind the legend.
I'll accept most of it, in fact.. EXCEPT, really, the religion that grew out of it. I don't like St Paul (though I recognise him as a fellow high I.Q.!) I think that Corinthians etc. are far inferior to the sayings of Jesus. And I think that Christianity, even early Christianity, soon became more intolerant a few decades after the founder died... otherwise they wouldn't have been so keen on condemning all those types of people to hell, would they??
I don't agree with Christianity's fight with the pagans and the magicians... another thing! Jesus doesn't seem to have said anything about magicians, and I was browsing a site yesterday (I think it was a link off www.luckymojo.com, a magical supply site, so wimps beware! But an interesting one) which claimed that Moses was a black(skinned) magician!!
Anyway, magic's still a very strong tradition in the black South. So these sites say! It seems to help people. Why knock it.
So, anyway, Christians just might be condemning practices which their greatest prophets were - into.
I don't think it's just a question of "doubts", though. I think it's a question of actual social practice. Things, as I said, that if the Christian Church were DETERMINED... they could fix in a day!!
1) Marriage and divorce questions. (Which I think they've managed to smooth or fudge over in the U.S. anyway.)
2) Gay pastors - who REALLY cares what their minister does in bed. (Did people care about MLK - and he was a bit of a "goer", now, wasn't he? But do people think that detracted from his work and ideas?)
No-one cares how many American CEOs are gay... so??
Room for *PROGRESS*, anyone?
3) And, the role of women! Why, for example, are Catholics (who can be pretty SENSIBLE people on occasion, viz. their overall opinion on the death penalty - and that's not new with them, J R R Tolkien for one thought like that too, he was a RC...)... why are Catholics SO resistant to the idea of women priests, and the Anglicans only marginally less so... when the "dissenting" sects have had them for ages.. though nobody seems to want them to, you know, run the show??
This is all VERY good advice I'm giving you, Christian church-goers. Sort out these problems NOW, before they swallow you up!! Before evolution (the social kind) declares you obsolete. Seriously. Never mind JDP, texual criticism, postmodernism... forget Raptures, that's just yet *another* way of trying to get people to avoid *issues*.
Deal with the ISSUES and see if you aren't better off for it!
I say this with all the goodwill in the world.
liz, social issues aside (i tend to deal with them in my personal blog), how do you draw closer to the divine?
What, me, personally? Or you? I would imagine that you do it via prayer.
Me... ah, now, I have my own... methods. One thing I now believe is that it's impossible, for me, anyway, to get in touch with ALL of the Divine - all of it at once! It's too big!
So, what you do... is you get in touch with little bits of it. The majesty of nature, for example - that's quite a large bit! Or - those elements of the human personality which manifest themselves as divine, through what they call archetypes.
You take various archetypes (that is the divine) into yourself, and you identify with them... and you try to be them, if possible! THAT is one way to get in touch with the divine!
(Health warning: People who totally become identified with an archetype, esp. by the public, tend to die as a result!
Another warning: Not everybody will appreciate this archetype stuff! Indeed, some Christians will find SOME of the archetypes - namely, the Trickster first and foremost I think - demonic. Perhaps the word should be "daemonic". Ask Philip Pullman.)
But no... if you WANT to be divine, the secret IS, dear reader (actually, Christ said as much!) you can be. Even if it's only for a few minutes at a time!
Literary characters who achieve this to an even greater extent, are, as our friend Sam Ewing was talking about before I put him off (well, challenged him on a few of his less pro-social views), those of the "superhumans"; the superheroes and supervillains of comic books, legends and mythology.
The Joker, for example - yes! is divine, and well he used to know it!
This was before people like Moore and Morrison said that he was the devil and cast him thus... Well. An ignorant age full of unenlightened people such as the above, will see the "devil" behind every bramble bush. Again, consult Philip Pullman as to what he thinks of THAT one. Don't ask me! You won't like the answer!
could you explain a bit more of how your archtype worship works.
Short answer: No. Not really. It has to be FELT, you can't "explain" it verbally. (And the feelings involved are often SUBLIME! As I found them in my late teens... feels like possession.) Anyway. No "rituals" are involved in this particular worship, and I don't need them.
I suppose you might say that the two twin themes of "imagination" and "self-identification" played a big part. ALSO - recognising within yourself how much you see of yourself in these characters, and vice versa, and what THEY have given YOU... without you hardly knowing it! (Now even THAT's going a bit too near the crux!)
Archetype worship in the modern age is a VERY sensitive, secretive thing. Especially for someone like myself, who would have KNOWN that none of her schoolmates, for example, would have had any idea of what even the word meant!
It consists for a large part, of making observations and drawing comparisons. (I know, sounds very prosaic.)
A writer (such as Anne Rice's) relationship with her most important, mythical characters (such as Lestat) would come the closest to it today. Outside of paganism.
Also - of all things, I came upon a discussion of mythology on the blog of an arch-conservative named Dr Fleming or some such, where I was referred by ITT... Well, in one respect I wouldn't ask these guys for the time of day... but they ARE interested in the ancient world.
Well. Someone there said, that when the ancients (Greeks, Romans... I would add, Norse), when the pagans worshipped their idols of gods, they were NOT - the more sophisticated ones - worshipping images of wood and stone. (As if THESE were the god itself.) They were worshipping the QUALITIES that those wood and stone images attempted to represent, and were "statues" of.
They were basically worshipping archetypes. Had they known it! (Some of the more sophisticated Greek writers, of course, did.)
Our Gods are kind of created by ourselves... but who is dreaming WHO, as Lewis Carroll said...
I don't think that YOU really do very much different, Maurice... only instead of a lot of gods, you believe in one over-god who I've frankly never experienced... And you believe in a god who only incarnated himself as human ONCE... If you believe in archetypes, you believe that these actually incarnate all the time, however imperfectly.
It gives me (great) pleasure to see what I think are modern incarnations of the archetypes... such as Princess Diana, of course. Michael Moore too is one, sorta, as I think I explained to Kevin in a safe obscure corner of his blog. And so on... I think you can probably GUESS which "large archetype" EACH of the above people belongs to, Maurice... if you are at all a Campbell fan!
This could be a great show. However, the constant BED SCENE just kills the whole idea. Joe and THE BED have to go. it is awful !!! Please let Allison go it alone without the family and THE BED. Shape it up, PLEASE.
Post a Comment
<< Home