1: ON MILLENNIUM

A show like Millennium appearing just shortly before the end of the current millennium is not incidental - it plays on theories and fears of the end of the world as we know it. It plays on prophecies, taken from various sources, and uses Apocalyptic scenarios to describe a horror that could come true. Is there a point to this?

The same problem accurred in history 1000 years ago. The Christian world believed in the succession of four worldly empires, as described in the Bible:

[Daniel has had a dream of four beasts, and afterwards he is given an explanation:]

These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

(Daniel 7,17-27. King James Version)

The first empire was believed to be the Babylonian, the second the Persian, the third that of Alexander, and the fourth the Roman. It was said that after the end of the Roman empire the end of the world and doomsday would come.

Another theory said that the year 1000 A.D. meant the beginning of the reign of Christ. Why this? In the book of Genesis God creates the world in six days, wheras humans are created in the sixth. The seventh day is the day of rest. So in the third century Iulius Africanus stated that - as 1000 years would mean a day in the eyes of God - Jesus was born in the middle of the sixth day, approx. 5500 after creation. That would mean that the end of the sixth day (and the beginning of the seventh, the day of rest, the day of the reign of the Lord) would begin at 500 A.D. Well, as this obviously didn't happen the way it was supposed to, the date of the birth of Jesus was changed to 5200 a.c., so that the end of the world would set in at 800 A.D. Again a miss, the next date was set to 1000 A.D.

The Saxonian Emperor Otto III, who ruled at the turn of the millennium (king since 983, IMP 996-1002 A.D.), is supposed believed he would be the last emperor. In the year 1000 he changed his name to 'Servus Jesu Christi' (servant of Jesus Christ) in account of the idea that the reign of Christ would begin soon. There are even theories that he might have changed the timeline and added about 300 years just to live in the year 1000 (this theory and preceeding chronologic analyses from: Heribert Illig. Das erfundene Mittelalter [The Invented Middle Ages].) I will discuss that idea later on my General Discussion pages.

There's another point to that story. As in Daniel's dream the end of the fourth (=Roman) empire meant the end of the world. That might be one of the strongest arguments why the Roman Empire never really seemed to end. Please let me pursue these thinking a little bit more. The city of Rome was founded around 753 B.C., and during the centuries the Roman Republic became a world power. With the introduction of the Emperor (=Imperator, abbrev. IMP, that means sth like commander, warlord) the Roman Empire continued as a unity until 395 where the West (Latin) and the East (Greek) parts fell apart. The Western reign was ended in 476, the Eastern Roman Empire continued as Byzantine Empire until 1453 as the true successor of the Roman state. But the West never seemed to accept this. That explains the 'artificial' rebuild of West Rome under Charlemagne (800). Otto III. planned to renew the Empire. The Sacrum Imperium [Holy Empire] continued until 1806 where it was defeated by Napoleon Bonaparte. Even Napoleon saw himself as Emperor, a successor of Cesar. The French Empire (1804-1848, 1852-1870), the 2nd German Reich (1871-1918) and the Russian Czar Empire (1462-1917) and also Hitler's unholy Third Reich declared themselves as successors of Rome.

Thus an idea of the end of an Empire can be used as a legitimation of state power. The reason why I've troubled you with history is that I wanted to show how influential a thesis based upon a thesis that was originally meant allegorical and probably has nothing to do with real world empires can continue to spook within people's minds for a long, long time.

Today's myths are taken from Nostradamus and other 'prophets'. They are supported by climatic conditions, cosmologic constellations, ecological disasters and computer problems. And perhaps there might be some comfort in the idea that everything shalt have an end soon.

Not for me. Nature does not play by the rules of a deliberately set chronology which doesn't even stand for the entire planet, just for the Western culture. The Apocalypse is not a book of dates, of physical destruction, of an end of the physical world - it is a book of justice, a book of trial at the end of our lives - God does not need to wait until everything falls down, remember: He doesn't play by the rules of our time. And it would be much too easy for us to say: Well, it's over, at least we do not have to clean up our mess after all. And if Illig (see above) is right, we might even life in the year 17-something, which would give us much time to consider the end of the second Christian millennium.

Millennium is not about the end of the physical world. It is about the end of the sane world, challenged by insane human beasts, it is about the strange acts people are enabled to do when they believe in strange things, it is about the end of humanity, about the crisis of humanity, about the rebirth of humanity. The end of a millennium, with all the fears it can create, operates as a catalyst - it can show the human mind, human achievements, human horror. And it shows how people react to the changes our world is undergoing every year. It is about faith, about hope.

The family of Frank Black in the yellow house is the center of humanity and love and compassion in a world that is losing its hope.

March 3rd, 1998

Millennium is a series not about paranormal phenomena but about real monsters, human beings that are acting in a non-human way. But what about Frank's gift? This is a problem I've had since the beginning, also because it looks a lot like the way Samantha Watters from Profiler sees things. But not exactly.

Sam Watters sees things that actually happened, things she does not know about. But Frank just sees things he can imagine because of his experience. He envisiones the crime in his mind - based upon his work. Well, that's the way I've seen it happen in the episodes I've watched up to now.

Or is it some kind of telepathy or remote viewing? Perhaps it is a combination of the two factors: Visions are nonsense if one is not able to interpret them. So the pictures he sees might already be what his mind makes out of them. But it could be that this question is not so important, it's just a detail - if one could assume that someone like Chris Carter would use 'just' a detail...

March 6th, 1998

(please see the following part)

So, usually I would have just deleted the previous part and written it anew, but I didn't do that: To show how wrong I had been, and also, how well I had known I was just speculating. To quote myself, "it's just a detail" - well, I definitely screwed up concerning this estimate. But then, as I've concluded, Chris Carter wouldn't just make use of any details when they had not a function. So you might as well see the previous part as my interpretation of Frank's gift from a first-season viewpoint. That has changed by now.

Season two has given the audience new insight into what it is Frank's gift is about, it has shed new light on it and discussed it to a great extent; but that's not everything. The gift itself has changed, improved, it is not anymore just wild images flowing into his mind; it is now that those images are more and more often related to the show's mythology, to the mythology/religion of the Millennium Group. Now he is not alone, now he gets company: Lara, a fellow colleague, and his daughter, Jordan; and even his (already dead) mother.

Now there are differences visible between Frank's gift and that of Sam Watters from Profiler; simply by the kind of development Frank's gift has taken. He doesn't seem to just imagine the things he sees, he links to another level of reality, a level where time and space do not exist the same way as it is in our normal restrictions of reality. This linkage of his could be similar as what the process of remote viewing describes (as indicated within the previous part); but firstly remote viewing is still highly experimental and not fully explored, and secondly, it might be just a version of some other characteristics and aspects of reality.

But back to my critique on my own piece of writing: The kind of argument I used was somewhat sophistic. Why am I talking about it, what's the deal? The deal is that this is the usual method of our time: We construct our world around us, accept and often deepen the traditions and traditious concepts given to us. This leads to us slowly accepting change; slowly also accepting possible derivations from the norm of science. Science has become a religion; the scientific method a canonized ceremony. Not that there'd be anything wrong with science; the problem is just that science expects proof for everything; that science even in many areas seems to uphold its thesis of the complete discovery of the secrets of the universe and of reality. Science is way too often bound by the restrictions it has given itself; sometimes there is no proof, there is just belief. But not natural sciences, every other field of research shares this flawed kind of argumentation: Just consider how long it took for literature to accept the fact that there have been women and black people and natives writing and narrating literature, too. Just consider that even Einstein couldn't readily accept quantum physics. Just consider that science always seemed to work until a new thesis arrived - which then seemed to fit perfectly into the old picture; but which hadn't been considered before.

By our own inflexibility and arrogance we ourselves force us into a position where that what's left from our flexibility will someday vanish, too. We create definitions and concepts and confine reality into them, confine ourselves by the reality thus created; confine us by structures which, firstly man-made, won't be controlled that easily as created - dangerous borders, dangerous restrictions, dangerous separations and segregations. We must not lose our ability to take a step aback to be able to take a glance at the greater picture. Then, we might be able to look more openly at such extraordinary phenomena as portrayed by The X-Files, Millennium or science fiction and horror in general.

November 29th, 1998

Horror that is defined by strange creatures can simply induce fears because it works with unusual elements. May it be monster-like aliens, a T-Rex or Raptors, may it be Eugene Tooms, DPO or any other strange creature or person - those create fear simply by their appearance. Of course one would be afraid of an Tyrannosaurus Rex that would like to have a small luch on a campsite or so.

Millennium uses another approach. The Millennial monsters are human beings. They might not act humane, but they are humans. Serial killers, murderers, fanatics - those are real. Their deeds carry a message of destruction and vulnerability, but they still are humans. So Millennium is just an ordinary crime show? Oh no. It is the way of showing the things, of portraying the characters, again a matter of atmosphere. It is set in the claustrophobic and terrifying setting that also The X-Files and Space: Above and Beyond use. In some way this can also be found on The Commish, although this series works in another way. But Millennium combines the best of all these series: Chris Carter, James Wong & Glen Morgan and John Peter Kousakis.

In a way, Millennium is a more grown-up version of The X-Files, grown up in the meaning of not using paranormal phenomena but real horror to tell tales of light and darkness. That doesn't mean that I don't like those X-Aspects, but the reduction to a more concrete danger creates a much more severe meaning for the viewer. One cannot lean back, mumbling to oneself that there are no mutants or aliens or monsters like that. This escape doesn't exist any more.

Star Trek in a way opened the minds of the beholder to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and The X-Files gave this idea kind of a more present-day approach while they played on the fears of the people by inventing new monsters that would represent those fears, like Tooms is the nightmare of anyone who wants to install a burglar alarm. Millennium goes one step back and one step further at the same time: Humans have to face their own monsters before they can face new ones, but perhaps there is no more time, we might not have the luxury of more time. The time is near, not the time of the end of the world, but it could be the time of a new inhumanity, of new wars, a new human-made horror. So in the end we have nothing to fear but ourselves. And who cares? We shalt not wait too long, we should worry about the future - but we still have hope.

March 11th, 1998

I have observed a lot of discussion centering around the question whether or not violence on TV or in the cinema might have a destructive impact on the audience. I want to place my opinions about this on the Millennium pages because this is a show about violence. But I’m not a psychologist, I’m just presenting my thoughts on that.

There’s a difference of how violence is being shown - one way is the 'harmless' way - the result is not really shown and not really discussed. The other way, the way Millennium and The X-Files mostly use, either shows the ugly parts or does unmistakingly make clear what has just happened. Both variants have their pros and cons. The first way is preventing from shocked reactions of the audience; it is a much more pleasant way of watching violence. If the killing of people leads to the effect that they just are not seen anymore on the screen, then it can be quite neat and tidy - a nice way of killing, so to say. The same holds true for shows like Tom & Jerry or their much more cruel Simpsons-counterpart Itchy & Scratchy. On comic shows like those, violence doesn't lead to destruction, doesn't have negative effects - the victims of violence survive every time.

The first way is also present in action films like the Bond movies, 'Lethal Weapon' or 'Die Hard'. Don't get me wrong - I love those kinds of movies. I'm just describing. So in those kinds of movies, it is mostly that there are criminals or otherwise evil persons who have to be stopped; and the investigator has to use any means necessary. We see a hero kill other people; is that wrong? Of course killing others is wrong; but in such movies the hero is just acting on self-defense or assisting in an emergency. Such actions have to be explained, the motives have to be made clear - and it is mostly done. There is always made clear who the 'good' and who the 'bad' guys are.

The second way is the one which is much uglier and much nastier than the first one; it is the way horror movies or series show violence: The act of violence is more or less shown, but much more important is the focus on the results. Violence looks ugly - best accomplished in David Lynch productions. This way the act of violence is made definitely clear as something evil, something dark and bloody which can also lead to a physical reaction of the audience, at least feeling for the specified body part and checking if it is still there. Of course this kind of portrayal of violence is not suitable for sensitive persons; but then this way of portraying violence is much more grown-up, shows much more understanding for the wrongness of violence.

Does violence on tv or in the cinemas motivate violent behavior? If that were true entirely, then this would mean that before tv, there were no crimes and no vilence. And in addition to that, I don't think that people are that dumb. They are able to differenciate between tv fiction and their own 'reality'. The problems which cause violence and violent behavior cannot easily be turned down by shutting down violence in fiction. In addition to the upcoming of television, serious problems of society have arisen; not because of television but because of other tendencies: Because of a materialistic perspective, because some parents do not really care for their children and because some children do not really care for their parents. It is about responsibility; but television cannot destroy an intact family, an intact society. Television is an indicator, a reflection of problems occuring outside the television world - if parents do no longer talk to their children and discuss topics dealt with in television, if society doesn't any more care about its victims, if every single one of us denies their responsibility for any other; then it is not television to be blamed but the people who caused the problems consciously or unconsciously.

September 4th, 1998

Millennium is a show centering its stories around a mixture of ancient prophecies, unexplained phenomena and Good and Evil in general. Being a spin-off from The X-Files, the show will never have closure or a solid definition of what it is about. Those shows, Twin Peaks, The X-Files and Millennium, belonging to the major shows of the nineties, share a certain element of uncertainty and of connection with some post-structuralist approaches; never really revealing their intentions but always undermining the common view of reality.

A new dimension in tv and movie storytelling originating partly from programs like Star Trek is the multi-dimensional view of things; the in-depth look into areas once hidden or seldomly discussed; a look right into the face of the enemy and an attempt to look at it much more closely; an attempt to deconstruct traditional concepts and to surpass old ways of thinking. Deconstruction will lead not to confusion (at least not primarily) but to a much more thorough view of things, to a deeper understanding, looking behind scenes and faces and masks and conventions.

Of all the confrontations discussed in those shows, one major element is returning into storytelling which has long been the domain of fairytales and horror stories and religious discussions. Well, the shows I mentioned are horror shows, but they also connect this element with others - they create a mixture of genres, they are in fact beyond any definition and genre. But what they did is that they have come to be well known and quite successful, widening the audience for stories once restricted to much smaller groups. The element talked about is the duality of Good and Evil; the return of dualistic and somewhat metaphysical and anti-enlightment thought; a widening of options.

The face of Evil is being portrayed in truly deconstructed and non-defining manner; never revealing too much and never showing it all. But never morality or ethics dissappear - on the very contrary they are strengthened by showing what adversaries await confrontation. This approach creates new responsibilities, a new understanding of actions and of life in general. But neither a silly paranoia nor a stupid acceptance of the unexplained are propagated; on the contrary: To be able to deal with certain phenomena one has to talk about them and not to deny them. But the unexplained is never seen as something not to be touched - rather as something to be explored. The final frontier has shifted and expanded into the present and not just into the future.

The face of Evil is shown as a mask, as something both acting and inacting; a possession if you wish. Frank Black might be the hero, but he is not safe from inclusion of those elements - in ep. 2.1 'The Beginning and the End' he clearly murders the man responsible for kidnapping his wife's; it starts with self-defense and turns into both revenge and cold-blooded prevention; it is murder disguised as self-defense. Not even Frank is safe from it. Evil is shown as an entity of its own; looking for hosts - as in the X-Files episode 3x14 'Grotesque' - it finds people, using them. But Evil is not shown as something ultimate; it can be fought and resisted. There remains hope.

(see also the continued discussion of this topic in Dark Matters)

September 6th, 1998