I don't want to judge an entire three-part series on its
first episode, but I was deeply disappointed by Part One of
The Enfield Haunting. I won't say too
much until I've seen all of it, but so far so bad. The true story of the
Enfield
poltergeist is a fascinating one, and that is why I demand that any
fictionalization of it be respectful and rational. This series enjoyed max-hype
by the TV networks and their press, and so everybody was fondly anticipating
it, especially those with an interest in the paranormal especially if they are
familiar with the real
Enfield case.
This however was crude and very pretentious attempt at a post-modern
filme noire. There was lots of
false-suspense, prolonged facial close-ups and other pat pseudo-intellectual abstract
devices. I do wish modern TV producers would stop showing us how clever they
are and started being more sensible. The pace was achingly slow, to the point
where it almost ground to a halt several times. Some of the shots were so badly
lit that I couldn't even see what was going on. The script was clichéd and
lame: "Wot's goin' on 'ere then?"... "We're tryin' to contact
the poltergeist."... "Oh, well I'm just gonna go and do me
'omework." was fairly typical of the dialogue level. That was merely
annoying, but what disturbed me was an element of cultural Marxist daring which
is all too common in modern TV drama. I'm not that bothered by the injection of
controversy for controversy's sake alone; I just consider it boring and regard
it as something bad writers use as a substitute for a proper story to engage
the viewer; however when it involves children that's another matter. There were
entire scenes in which Janet Hodgson and her family discussed her menstruation
that were gratuitous and unrealistic; they hinted at sexualization. The
underage characters swore several times and in one scene we were shown Janet,
an eleven-year old girl, using the toilet; is that kind of thing really
necessary? What point are they trying to make here? It's all extremely distasteful
and frankly sinister; it reeks badly of Common Purpose. I'd have respected the
producers if they'd made even a minor effort to resist it, but they didn't. The
one bright spark was the casting of the veteran actor Timothy Spall, best known
for his outstanding performances in
Wind
in the Willows,
Auf Wiedersehen, Pet
and
The Sheltering Sky. His portrayal
of the demure and troubled psychic investigator Maurice Grosse was excellent.
The interaction between him and his colleague Guy Lyon Playfair was passable, In
the story Playfair is manifestly based on Gilderoy Lockheart from
Harry Potter. I feel churlish about my
criticism in a way because I really wanted to like this programme. It is faithfully
told from the point of view of the family and the viewer is left in no doubt
that the poltergeist is real. It might improve in Parts Two and Three.
Source: http://features.sky.com/enfield-haunting/.
Before the programme even hit the air, a prelude was
published in
The Guardian, in the
form of an article by Deborah Hyde, the editor-in-chief of
Skeptic magazine and known online as the blogger
"Jourdemayne", often described as a "Skeptic witch", see:
http://www.jourdemayne.com/. I've
encountered her myself several times, for example see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/consciousness-beyond-individual.html.
Unlike me she rather enjoyed
The Enfield
Haunting. She also differs with the suggestion that the paranormal is
ignored by mainstream science and gives examples, including some of those that
I discuss in the background links below. As you can see in those links I
totally disagree and I explain why. She's right about the phenomenon not being
repeated under controlled circumstances, ie in a laboratory, but this is
unfortunately inherent in the nature of the subject. Spectral entities are not
usually obliging enough to turn up for appointments at scientific institutions;
I think paranormal investigators do the best they can under the inescapable circumstances
of their trade. As you can see from my HPANWO Radio interview with Don Philips
and Steve Mera, link below, methods have been designed over almost two
centuries of psychical research to channel the subject into a form where it can
be examined effectively in the field. Parapsychologists do control for the
critiques made by Skeptics, as Don and Steve explain. For instance Don knows
how to eliminate electromagnetic interference from his EVP recordings by making
them in a Faraday cage and even underwater. Don plans to record one while scuba
diving! Skeppers like Ms Hyde appear to be oblivious to the real practices of
parapsychology, or she seriously underestimates them. She provides examples of
people who have been fooled by hoaxes; she gives the case in point of the
Cottingley Fairies, which was also perpetrated by a pair of young girls, just
like the Fox sisters were too. Leaving aside the distinct possibility that the
Fox sisters' confession may well have been false, see:
http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/paranormality-by-prof-richard-wiseman.html,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1920 study of the Cottingley Fairies hardly compares
to an investigation using modern electronic detectors; Maurice Grosse himself
was a computer engineer. Ms Hyde suffers from sleep paralysis, like I do, see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/sleep-paralysis-and-shadow-people.html,
and puts some of the experiences Janet suffered down to that. She might be
right in a few of the individual occurrences if judging them separately, but
viewed holistically with the entire phenomenon that explanation does not fit.
The Hodgson family had recently experienced upheaval after the acrimonious
breakdown of the father and mother's marriage; the mother was bringing up all
four children on her own. Poltergeist activity is often focused on people with
emotional problems, particularly girls in early adolescence, but Ms Hyde's
suggestion is that the entire
Enfield
poltergeist case might simply be a hoax played by two upset youngsters, and for
that same reason. Grosse and Playfair were kind and attentive towards their
young charges; perhaps they alleviated Janet and Margaret's yearning for their
absent father. Maurice Grosse had also been recently bereaved of his own
teenage daughter, also named Janet, in a motorcycle accident and therefore
possibly developed his own transference problem with the girls.
Armchair psychological supposition is very fashionable
nowadays, and it's all very well, except that it deviates the narrative from
the underlying point which is whether the evidence for real paranormal activity is there or not. If the evidence is there
then these fantasy Freuds will have to take a back seat. Like Deborah Hyde I
was not there at the time. We only have Playfair and Grosse's study to go on; the
books they write for example. In the article Ms Hyde insinuates that Guy
Playfair, one of the original psychical investigators of the Enfield case,
appeared on the This Morning TV show
in 2012 because he was motivated by a desire to market his new book about the
poltergeist; I wonder if she would have made that same observation if a Skeptic
like Prof. Richard Wiseman wrote one on the matter. If the investigators don't
write those books we have no easy access to the information. I'm sure Ms Hyde
does not object if we read all possible information available and make up our
own minds; I'd never try and dissuade anybody from reading her Skeptic magazine, indeed I occasionally
pick up a copy myself. However she then has to respect the rights of people to
put their own side of the story into print. Another thing that really troubled
me was that Ms Hyde quotes somebody at the time: "...Several psychiatrists and health professionals thought that
the whole thing would stop if Grosse and Playfair just left the situation
alone..." She doesn't name these people. However what is being suggested
here is that the investigation of the supposed poltergeist was a child welfare
issue; for whoever originally said that, it is bordering on slander. I would
say to them, whoever they might be, dispute the evidence for the reality of the
poltergeist before resorting to defamatory slurs. So make your own mind up,
dear HPANWO-reader, but if you decide that there's nothing to the case except
fakery and delusion then go ahead and think that; but if you do so try to
concentrate on the lack of evidence thereof rather than the personal flaws of
the people involved.
And: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/programme-135-podcast-don-philips-and.html.
