SCARLETT O´HARA, heroína de una tragedia burguesa

Por Sílvia Colominas[1]

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seenof Knights and their Ladies fair. . .of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books. . .For it is no more than a dream remembered. A civilization . . .

...GONE WITH THE WIND


INTRODUCCIÓN
Las gentes del Sur eran gentes románticas que cultivaban algodón, rendían culto a las leyes del honor y poseían esclavos. La voz de Abraham Lincoln proclamando que una Nación no podía subsistir siendo mitad libre, mitad esclava hirió su orgullo y sus intereses. Y tenían derecho a escoger su destino... ¡La Guerra!


Con estas palabras empieza Lo que el viento se llevó (Gone with the wind, 1939) una obra clave de la historia del cine. “El film de los filmes, una película que todos tienen que haber visto, diríase que la epopeya nacional erótica y emocional” según Georg Seesslen[2]. Han corrido ríos de tinta acerca de esta película pero como bien señala Werner Faulstich en su ensayo La renuncia individual como apelación social[3] son muy pocos los análisis que pueden tomarse en serio al respecto. La mayoría se centran en las circunstancias de la producción, en la búsqueda de la actriz principal, etc. En definitiva, se quedan en la superfície de la obra.

Para empezar el presente artículo nos gustaría desmentir uno de los mitos con los que se ha catalogado esta película. En nuestra opinión, de acuerdo con Werner Faulstich, no se trata del gran melodrama épico sino de una tragedia burguesa porque, a pesar de tener una intensa emotividad propia del melodrama no hay fuerzas del destino en acción, la heroína no renuncia a la pasión a favor de la desdicha –sino bien al contrario, la desdicha le viene por no querer renunciar a su pasión-, el amado no resulta ser un villano y, sobretodo, no hay Happy End ni, por lo tanto, catarsis final.

Toda la estructura de la película está en función del personaje de Scarlett O´Hara (Vivien Leigh) como heroína que fracasa. Su vida es una gran tragedia. Y Lo que el viento se llevó se desarrolla en base a su evolución siguiendo, como señala Faulstich, el conocido modo en 5 actos[4].

1- Los buenos viejos tiempos en Tara. (Scarlett de adolescente a esposa).
2- Guerra. (De viuda infantil a confrontación con la realidad).
3- Recomienzo en Tara. (Consolidación aparente de Scarlett).
4- Recomienzo con Rhett o regresión de Scarlett.
5- Fracaso como destino.

Faulstich afirma que la película no trata de otra cosa que del desarrollo personal de Scarlett y de su fracaso al querer llegar a la edad adulta y madurar pero nosotros no estamos completamente de acuerdo con esta afirmación. Si bien es verdad que Scarlett tiene un carácter infantil, caprichoso y egoísta podemos considerar que, en cierto grado, sí madura. Sería muy cruel e injusto catalogarla exclusivamente de insensible egocéntrica malcriada y, lo cierto, es que no vemos en modo alguno que ella se plantee conscientemente lo de entrar o dejar de entrar en el mundo adulto sino más bien el dejar o no de alimentar su sueño/obsesión pre-adolescente y sobrevivir.

Todo ser humano tiene su lado bueno y su lado malo, es Ser y No Ser. Es la eterna dialéctica Hegeliana entre el Bien y el Mal, la complejidad de las personas radica en esta lucha de contrarios. Como afirma el filósofo disc jockey Chris Stevens (John Corbett) desde la radio K-OSO de la serie conocida en España como Doctor en Alaska, “En cada ser humano hay un lado oscuro todos queremos ser Obi Wan Kenobi y en gran medida lo somos pero también hay un Dark Vader dentro de nosotros. No se trata de que tengamos que elegir entre una cosa u otra porque estamos hablando de la dialéctica, del bien y del mal que coexisten en nuestro interior. Podemos huir pero no escondernos. Seguid mi consejo, enfrentaos a la oscuridad, cara a cara y hacendarla. Como dice nuestro amigo Nietzsche, ser un ser humano ya es bastante complicado así que darle un buen abrazo a la oscuridad del alma y gritar el eterno sí [5]”.

Para comprender y ser justos con el personaje de Scarlett O´Hara no podemos limitarnos a contemplar una única faceta de su complejo –malo y bueno- carácter. Yendo más allá y profundizando en su complejidad observamos que no actúa siempre por y para ella. La clave es ver cómo confluyen en su interior tres cuestiones importantes y, la mayoría de las veces, irreconciliables;

Lo que ella quiere ser,
Lo que se espera que sea,
Lo que es en realidad.

Partiendo de esto vemos que todo es mucho más complicado que lo que viene a decir Werner Faulstich en su estudio. Un estudio que, aunque interesante en muchos aspectos, “incompleto” en otros. Faulstich no contempla el hecho de que al fin y al cabo y entre otras muchas cosas, Lo que el viento se llevó es un retrato psicológico de la obsesión y la historia del Sur y de sus sueños.

Todos los intérpretes de la película viven en un sueño incapaces de enfrentarse con la realidad o quizás remisos a hacerlo. El Sur no quiere saber nada de que sin industria no puede ganar la guerra, Scarlett no quiere saber que Ashley (Leslie Howard) no la quiere, Melania (Olivia de Havilland) no quiere saber que Scarlett ama a su marido, Gerald O´Hara (Thomas Mitchell) no quiere saber que su esposa ha muerto, Rhett (Clark Gable) tampoco quiere afrontar el fallecimiento de la pequeña Bonnie Blue (Cammie King) cuando se desnuca al caerse de su caballo.

Los sueños como negación de la realidad son a menudo los conductores de la historia y son sagrados. Ashley no puede decir a Scarlett que no la quiere, Rhett es casi obligado a batirse en duelo cuando dice a los caballeros confederados que no pueden ganar la guerra. Romper los sueños es el mayor pecado. El Sur, a diferencia del Norte, es bueno porque todavía sueña.

1- Los buenos viejos tiempos en Tara (Scarlett de adolescente a esposa).

Volviendo a la estructura de actos de Faulstich vemos que esta negación de la realidad y esta construcción del mundo ficticio y soñado por parte de Scarlett se encuentra ya al principio. Al oír los rumores de que su amado Ashley Wilkes se ha prometido con Melania Hamilton, Scarlett afirma ...No puede ser verdad, Ashley me ama... Y, al llegar a la fiesta del día siguiente en los Doce Robles, Scarlett le dice a Ashley que quiere hablar con él. Sabe que va a casarse pero no quiere admitirlo. Él le presenta a Melania y ella se siente mal de modo que, en lugar de afrontar la realidad, la derrota, coquetea con todos los hombres en esa graciosa escena en que va subiendo la escalera. Su respuesta ante el fracaso es darse humos, nunca asumir la realidad.

Sí, Scarlett es una niña caprichosa, vanidosa pero al fin y al cabo una niña que, como cualquier niña de 15 años, tiene su sueño y su héroe idolatrado. Scarlett quiere ser la protagonista de un cuento de hadas. Ashley es su primer amor y lo hermoso y fascinante del primer amor es que se tiene la creencia y la fe de que va a ser el único, para siempre.

Scarlett es hermosa. Todos los hombres de la fiesta se sienten fascinados por su belleza y caen rendidos a sus pies. Todos excepto su amado Ashley –en realidad éste también pero no oficialmente, como dice Rhett Butler; no puede ser fiel moralmente a su mujer pero sin embargo no le es infiel materialmente- Es el més por de fer-ho que desig de no fer-ho del “Macbeth” de Kurosawa. Pero este hecho, lejos de desmoralizar a Scarlett, hace que ésta le otorgue más emoción y dramatismo a la historia. Es el exotismo del fruto prohibido. Ashley pasa de ser una opción y un deseo a ser un sueño inalcanzable y, como consecuencia, una obsesión. Obsesión que él mismo alimenta al no ser claro con sus sentimientos hacia Scarlett. Por esta razón ella crece psicológicamente muy determinada y casi podríamos decir “castrada” por él. De algún modo la atrapa dejándose querer y hace que conserve ese carácter entrañablemente infantil del que se le acusa.

A partir de la pérdida real de Ashley, ante la frustración de no haber conseguido lo que más deseaba, Scarlett se empeña en alimentar ese amor y no se permite a ella misma traicionarlo a pesar de que es ficticio. Sólo cabe recordar la culpabilidad que Scarlett siente cuando encuentra la foto de Ashley en su tocador en medio de su momento de felicidad conyugal con Rhett. Es el principio del fin de ésta. Scarlett no se permite ser feliz. Crea su propio mundo imaginario y, como dice Alexandra Ripley, autora de Scarlett, “el hábito de amar a Ashley sustituye con el tiempo al propio amor"[6]. Ripley también afirma y, con gran acierto, que Ashley es la causa de la destrucción de la vida de Scarlett pero por culpa de ella misma que le confiere ese poder incomprensible e irracional –el amor y la obsesión lo son- sobre su persona[7].

Lo que el viento se llevó parece aleccionarnos sobre la inevitabilidad del fracaso del proyecto de Scarlett como heroína porque, como reflexiona Fernando Savater en La tarea del héroe, “(…) lo que plantea la tragedia no es la imitación de la acción, sino la representación de lo ilusorio que la pretensión de acción encierra. (...). El hombre cree poder actuar y se empecina en ello, pero en realidad es víctima de un espejismo (“el hechizo de Ashley” que menciona Rhett Butler), pues lo que le corresponde, su auténtica tijé, es ser arrastrado y condicionado por fuerzas que le superan, que quizá le ignoran y que ciertamente acabarán por aniquilarle juntamente con sus designios[8]”.

De este modo Scarlett asume conscientemente –es su error, su hamartia- el perseguir y adorar a Ashley como su misión –como su aventura para salir de la normalidad diría Savater- y ésta se convierte en su pecado, en el pecado que le hace vivir en su propio infierno. Pero Scarlett no se siente mal por perseguir a un hombre casado, sino por no conseguirlo[9].

En este primer acto Scarlett quiere ser una mujer felizmente casada, aunque, como le dice Ashley, no sabe qué significa el matrimonio, para ella es un ideal romántico; –Eres una niña. Tú tienes pasión por la vida, pero esa clase de amor no hace feliz a un matrimonio-. Se espera que Scarlett sea una señorita educada virtuosa que escoja a un marido adecuado. Pero en realidad y, a menudo contra su propia voluntad y en perjuicio de su persona, es alguien de gran carácter con poca o nula consideración hacia las normas sociales y los roles y obligaciones que ésta establece. Como la Antígona de Sófocles, Scarlett es una auténtica transgresora de las “prohibiciones” estatales. También es una víctima de su fuerza y su arrogancia, pero estas cualidades, aunque la condenan socialmente, le permiten sobrevivir cuando empiezan las dificultades y necesidades.

Y es en este punto donde entra en juego la tercera persona de esta tragedia; Rhett Butler, el gran amante de las causas perdidas, el compañero de aventuras, el “amigo del héroe”[10]. Éste se enamora de Scarlett precisamente porque ésta no hace lo que se espera que haga una señorita. -Usted no es una dama, no crea que es un reproche. Las damas no tienen absoluto interés para mí. Se lo digo como un cumplido y espero verla después de librarse del hechizo del Sr. Wilkes -le dice Rhett Butler a Scarlett O´Hara. Al igual que le ocurre a Fausto con Helena según Gilbert Highet[11], Rhett se siente irremediablemente atraído por la belleza de Scarlett que no radica únicamente en su encanto físico sino también en la rareza de su carácter. Rhett se enamora y obsesiona de la verdadera Scarlett, de la Scarlett que ni siquiera ella misma quiere aceptar que existe y que es –(...) con un hombre que la comprende y admira sólo por lo que es. Creo que deberíamos ser el uno para el otro ya que somos iguales, dos malas personas, egoístas y astutos que nos enfrentamos a las cosas y las llamamos por su nombre-.

Scarlett ha recibido una educación religiosa muy estricta y tiene muy presente la figura de su madre. Estas contradicciones de Scarlett son la causa de su hipocresía, Rhett suele llamarle cariñosamente hipocritilla. Scarlett se pasa la mitad de su vida negando su naturaleza (conflicto entre lo que es/lo que quiere ser/lo que se espera que sea). Ella querría ser como Melania, ser virtuosa y tener el apoyo y el respeto de todo el mundo, por mucho que diga que no le importa. (Se seca las lágrimas que le causan los comentarios que hacen de ella las demás bajando las escaleras mientras ella está escondida debajo). Por eso su obsesión por Ashley. Pero en el fondo ella no es así. Por mucho que quiera y lo desee su manera de ser no puede estar más alejada del de la dulce Melania a la que admira y aprecia muy a pesar suyo. Como dice Savater “el héroe suele ser a menudo de un orgullo poco transigente y proclive a la imperiosidad, pero hay que admitir que a quien tiene fuerte personalidad le es más difícil renunciar a imponerla que a quien vive con un alma en serie[12]”. Melania triunfa porque es verdadera, nunca finge ser nada más que ella misma, una mujer tradicional de la época. Siguiendo su camino Scarlett fracasaría porque no sería sincera con los demás ni con ella misma.

Scarlett niega no saber nada del amor, niega su apego a su tierra –las plantaciones no significan nada para mí- y sus raíces, niega su fuerza de carácter, su amor por la vida... todo por algo que nunca podría ser; una tranquila ama de casa como Melania o, incluso, como su propia madre (I always wanted to be like her (su madre), calm and kind. I certainly have turned out disappointing confiesa la propia Scarlett). Como le dice Rhett Butler; Estás destrozando tu felicidad con ambas manos y persigues una cosa que jamás podría hacerte feliz. Si fueras libre y Melita hubiera muerto y tuvieras a tu precioso Ashley ¿crees que serías feliz con él? Jamás le comprenderías porque lo único que comprendes es

el dinero.

2- Guerra (De viuda infantil a confrontación con la realidad).

En todo esto cabe tener en cuenta las circunstancias sociales en que se enmarca esta historia, la historia de Scarlett. De fondo, como escenario histórico, está la Guerra Civil Americana entre el Norte y el Sur. Sin ninguna duda el hecho de que a Scarlett le toque vivir una guerra, la GUERRA y, como consecuencia, el hambre, la miseria, la muerte, etc. condiciona su carácter y saca a flote su auténtica naturaleza, la que tanto ha querido dominar y ocultar. Una naturaleza que ha causado que muchos críticos vean en este personaje el principio de la Femme Fatale del Cine Negro y de la mujer masculina fuerte y rebelde de las Screwball Comedy de las que Katharine Hepburn se convirtió en máxima representante.

Efectivamente. Scarlett comprende pronto que nunca podrá ser algo que no es y entonces se plantea qué quiere y cómo conseguirlo. Con la carencia de ciertas cosas, espirituales y materiales, comprende hasta qué punto son importantes para ella y decide que quiere tener el poder. Ha fracasado en el campo femenino (amor, hogar, etc.) que ya venía muy definido desde el mundo griego clásico. Como afirma Carlos García Gual[13] “el papel asignado a la mujer en la sociedad era en la reclusión del hogar donde debía servir a la familia; obedecer al padre y luego al marido, tener hijos, criarlos y no alborotar”. El amor no intervenía en los matrimonios, claro está. Tras su fracaso como fémina tradicional, Scarlett se propone triunfar en el campo del hombre (trabajo, dinero, negocios) utilizando todas las armas a su alcance, es decir, sus encantos y admirada belleza.

Así pues hay un cambio de actitud frente al mundo desde su célebre juramento pronunciado en una toma ascendente ante un cielo escalofriantemente enrojecido. Scarlett emprende su heroico viaje a partir de entonces porque empieza a ser

fiel a su origen[14].

3- Recomienzo en Tara (Consolidación aparente de Scarlett).

...A Dios pongo por testigo que no me dejaré vencer y que nunca más volveré a pasar hambre. Ni yo ni ninguno de los míos. Aunque tenga que robar, mentir o matar. A Dios pongo por testigo que jamás volveré a pasar hambre...

Scarlett está sola y sus dos pilares; su madre y su padre, se encuentran con ella de modo simbólico; la tierra y el árbol, únicos elementos que acompañan a Scarlett en este juramento. Scarlett con Tara representa simbólicamente el Sur, se niega a ser derrotada y desaparecer con el viento; Y el viento barrió las tierras del Sur. Tara había sobrevivido para hacer frente al dolor y la derrota.

A partir de este momento Scarlett demuestra su fuerza de carácter y su instinto de supervivencia y se pone a ella misma como prioridad, es la “fuerte tentación de esculpir el mundo a su imagen y semejanza[15]”. Como señala Faulstich en su ensayo Scarlett juega a la adultez imitando la realidad y queriéndola acomodar a su yo[16]. Un paso hacia adelante pero dado de la manera incorrecta porque no atiende a razones. Su búsqueda del poder –y, por lo tanto, su inevitable camino hacia la soledad- le ciega y no le permite ver quién cae por el camino. Domina Tara con mano férrea, especula fríamente sobre el dinero de Rhett, quita despiadadamente a su hermana Sue Ellen (Evelyn Keyes) su prometido y se casa con él sólo por dinero para pagar los impuestos de Tara a los especuladores. Bien podría haber dejado que su hermana se casase con él y haberle pedido el dinero, pero Scarlett no está dispuesta a depender de nadie porque ha comprendido que debe ser fuerte y además le fascina dominar la situación y las personas asumiendo el rol de matriarca de la familia –Soy el cabeza de familia-, un rol por el que recibe más críticas que satisfacciones. Es el afán de dominio de Esquilo, para Scarlett la seguridad que necesita se traduce en el poder del dinero.

Scarlett O´Hara huye inútilmente de su destino hasta ese momento igual que Michael Corleone en El Padrino. Scarlett ha querido hasta ahora creer que sería feliz llevando una sencilla vida hogareña con un marido a su lado, pero ahora con su madre muerta, su padre enloquecido y su Tara destruida, no le queda más remedio que inventarse a sí misma. Ninguna de sus hermanas tiene su valentía, inteligencia y, porqué no decirlo, su falta de escrúpulos, para sacar adelante la hacienda, así que es ella quien debe hacerlo. Nadie le ha explicado cómo, tiene que aprender por ella misma, cometiendo sus errores y siendo criticada sin compasión por los demás. Entorno a Scarlett como heroína hay el vacío social[17] del que habla Savater en su ensayo sobre el esplendor y la tarea del héroe. Scarlett vive en un mundo que se complace de su derrota y no reconoce su heroísmo que no radica únicamente en romper moldes sino también en fundar y conservar todo un mundo, su mundo, el del Sur, representado por Tara.

Porque si hay algo que llama la atención es que Scarlett tiene fama de arrogante y vanidosa pero en el fondo estas cualidades son en gran parte fruto de la inseguridad que le causa la incomprensión de los demás. Nadie, única e irónicamente Melania, ve y valora la parte humana y generosa de Scarlett. Los demás se limitan, con más o menos motivos, a juzgarla por los métodos nada ortodoxos de los que se sirve. Por mucho que haga Scarlett todo el mundo tiene ya una idea preconcebida de ella y según esta idea la valoran, igual que a Melania a la que se considera piadosa y perfecta. Y todo por las apariencias. Un ejemplo lo encontramos en la escena en que los caballeros pagan dinero por bailar con las damas y así recaudar fondos para la causa. Las señoras de la alta sociedad sureña como la Sra. Pittypat (Laura Hope Crews) aceptan esta subasta porque Melania considera que está bien. En cambio, por la misma regla de tres, condenan que Scarlett baile esa noche, porque es ella y está de luto. Todo lo que hace Melania es algo bueno y positivo, en cambio todo lo que hace Scarlett es una ofensa. Su valor sólo se le reconoce en contadas ocasiones y única y paradójicamente por las dos personas que más quiere y odia al mismo tiempo; Melania y Ashley.

Por todo esto puede decirse que es una heroína trágica muy shakesperiana. Se ha hablado mucho de los héroes shakesperianos pero lo cierto es que, como afirma Visvanath Chatterjee, en su ensayo Shakespeare´s Tragic Heroines: Fascinating Women of Finite Variety, en muchas de las obras de Shakespeare, igual que en las tragedias griegas de Sófocles y Eurípides y en esta película de Víctor Fleming, la mujer es la figura central porque las mujeres “son criaturas de circunstancias con unas cualidades de carácter que les confieren una especial dignidad [18]”.

Con todo esto no pretendemos afirmar que Scarlett y Melania sean iguales, en absoluto. Sólo puntualizar que a veces lo único que las diferencia es el dominio de la diplomacia. No es sino a Melania a quien se le ocurre registrar el zurro del soldado yankee que Scarlett asesina.

Scarlett es la fuerza bruta, Melania el diálogo. En ese sentido está más cercana a Belle Watling (Ona Munson) que también se muestra como una persona generosa, compasiva y abnegada.


4- Recomienzo con Rhett o regresión de Scarlett.
Así pues, Scarlett se crea el mundo a su gusto y parece madurar, al menos consigue su ansiada independencia con una desahogada situación económica. Pero entonces se casa por fin con Rhett y al hacerlo retrocede y vuelve a comportarse como una niña. Rhett está obsesionado con ella igual que Scarlett lo está con Ashley. Es su cruzada personal por conseguir que le diga las mismas palabras que le dijo a él. Su intento de suplantar a Ashley en la mente de Scarlett le llevan a tratar a ésta como a una niña caprichosa cuyos deseos hay que satisfacer. Todo por inseguridad y miedo al abandono. Pero sea como sea Rhett consigue hacer feliz a Scarlett, aunque no contaba con el empeño de ella de no admitirlo. Ya hemos mencionado anteriormente la escena en la que Scarlett encuentra el retrato de Ashley y se siente culpable por haberse dejado llevar por su amor por Rhett.

Al ver su mundo imaginario amenazado Scarlett crea una serie de situaciones que llevan a la falta de comunicación con su pareja y, finalmente, a su destrucción. Scarlett empieza a minar su matrimonio no queriendo tener más hijos, encerrándose en sus negocios en la serrería, negándole las relaciones a Rhett... Y finalmente lo único que les une, a parte de su verdadero amor no confesado por ninguno, su hija Bonnie muere. La desgracia persigue a Scarlett y condena a los que están con ella.

5- El fracaso como destino.
Como la Bestia esperó a la Bella, Rhett espera a Scarlett. A Bella, como bien explica Ana María Leyra, “no le importaba vivir en aquella mansión con Bestia pero sólo sentía deseos de irse a su casa[19]”. Scarlett comparte su vida, sus pesadillas y sus caprichos con Rhett pero no sus sueños, éstos pertenecen a su amado Ashley. Como Bestia, Rhett no puede negarle nada a Scarlett y le concede todo lo que le pide con la esperanza de que algún día le diga las mismas palabras que oyó decirle a Ashley; -No empiece a coquetear conmigo. No soy uno de sus petrimetes. Yo quiero algo de usted. Quiero que algún día me diga las mismas palabras que le oí decir a Ashley Wilkes; Te quiero-.

Finalmente Bella reconoce a Bestia lo que siente en el fondo de su corazón;

No me daba cuenta de cuánto os amo. El miedo de perderos me ha hecho comprender que algo más que gratitud me une a vos... Y, al anochecer, la Bestia fue a visitarla como de costumbre. Y por fin el monstruo le hizo la pregunta acostumbrada.
-Bella, ¿queréis casaros conmigo?
-Sí, Bestia- contestó ella con dulzura-.

La de Rhett y Scarlett es una historia trágica como la de Romeo y Julieta porque su final se produce por una serie de azares, pero causados por ellos mismos, no son fuerzas del destino. Si Scarlett no hubiese sido tan orgullosa y le hubiese dicho a Rhett lo mucho que le quería, hecho que ella descubre después de una noche de pasión... Si Rhett no se hubiese mostrado tan frío ante la noticia del nuevo embarazo... Si Rhett hubiese sabido que Scarlett le llamaba a él y no a Ashley mientras deliraba... Todo hubiese sido distinto pero el destino de Scarlett es fracasar.

Scarlett: I must have loved you for years, only I'm such a stupid fool I didn't know it. Please believe me. You must care. Melly said you did.

Rhett: I believe you. And what about Ashley Wilkes?

Scarlett: I never really loved Ashley.

Rhett: You certainly gave a good imitation of it up to this morning. No, Scarlett. I've tried everything. If you'd only met me halfway, even when I came back from London.

Scarlett: I was so glad to see you. I was Rhett. But you were so nasty.

Rhett: And then when you were sick and it was all my fault. I hoped against hope that you'd call for me, but you didn't.

Scarlett: I wanted you. I wanted you desperately, but I didn't think you wanted me.

Rhett: It seems we've been at cross purposes, doesn't it? But it's no use now. As long as there was Bonnie, there was a chance we might be happy. I liked to think that Bonnie was you, a little girl again, before the war and poverty had done things to you. She was so like you, and I could pet her and spoil her - as I wanted to spoil you. But when she went, she took everything.

Scarlett: Oh, Rhett, Rhett. Please don't say that. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry for everything.

Rhett: My darling. You're such a child. You think that by saying: 'I'm sorry,' all the past can be corrected. Here, take my handkerchief. Never at any crisis of your life have I known you to have a handkerchief.
Scarlett: Rhett, Rhett. Where are you going?
Rhett: I'm going to Charleston, back where I belong.

Scarlett: Please, please take me with you.

Rhett: No, I'm through with everything here. I want peace. I want to see if somewhere there isn't something left in life of charm and grace. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Scarlett: No. I only know that I love you.

Rhett: That's your misfortune.
Scarlett: Rhett, if you go, where shall I go? What shall I do?
Rhett: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn![20]

Y aunque Scarlett, igual que Bella, le confiesa su error a Rhett y le dice que le ama no se salva de su destino. ...Te quiero... Estas palabras tan ansiadas durante tanto tiempo por Rhett ya no tienen ningún valor para él. Llegan demasiado tarde. Y su tortuosa relación llena de malos entendidos (It seems we've been at cross purposes) y desgracias encuentra su final en la niebla. Scarlett solía tener pesadillas en las que se veía a ella misma corriendo entre la niebla hacia algo que nunca llegaba a ver. He amado algo que ni siquiera existe le confiesa a Rhett hablándole de Ashley. Ahora, lo que sí existía, el amor de Rhett, desaparece entre la niebla y ella vuelve a estar igual, persiguiendo algo que se le escapa. Esa es tu desgracia pero francamente querida, me importa un bledo.

El problema del poder.
Antes hemos dicho que Scarlett decide dejar a un lado sus ideales románticos y afrontar la cruda realidad; Tara está en ruinas y todo su mundo, el del Sur, ha desaparecido ante sus ojos como había temido Ashley; Todo un mundo que desea estar lleno de gracia. No hay guerra que pueda invadir nuestro mundo, un mundo que quizás no dure mucho... Después de la batalla de Gettysburg el Sur cae de rodillas para no levantarse nunca.

Pero Scarlett se niega a caer con él y resurge de sus cenizas. Ya ha tocado fondo y decide tomar las riendas de su vida y adaptarse a los nuevos tiempos partiendo de un valor sureño; la propiedad de la tierra, para conseguir el nuevo valor burgués del Norte; el dinero. Como afirman Balló y Pérez en La llavor inmortal, esta película es el título más famoso del southern, del género basado en la épica surista de la caída de los valores tradicionales a favor de una nueva cultura política[21].

Scarlett hace un canto al paraíso perdido. Como mujer fracasada en el terreno amoroso decide, como la Andreevna de Txèkhov, con una tozudez digna de su sangre irlandesa, no moverse del espacio en el que ha nacido redescubriendo y sustituyendo en cierto modo a su padre en su amor por la tierra. La Tierra es lo único que vale la pena trabajar, de luchar y hasta de morir por ella porque es lo único que perdura. Scarlett, como dice Rhett, saca sus fuerzas de la tierra roja de Tara. De hecho al final de la película lo que perdura en su mente es Tara y su condición de huir de la realidad. (...¡Tara!...Mi hogar. ¡Volveré a mi hogar y pensaré en algún modo para hacerle volver! Después de todo realmente mañana será otro día). Su famosa frase de mañana será otro día demuestra su necesidad de no afrontar los hechos cuando suceden. Sigue viviendo en su propio mundo, un mundo que ahora girará entorno a Rhett Butler porque su desgracia es no valorar las cosas cuando las tiene (amistad de Melita, amor de Rhett, etc) y desearlas cuando las ha perdido.

Defendiendo y partiendo de Tara consigue no sólo el poder, porque se hace rica, sino también la soledad. Como afirma Ana María Leyra[22] el poder trae consigo una serie de nefastas consecuencias, entre ellas la soledad y la violencia. Una gran mansión, una majestuosa escalera, un gran vacío rodea a Scarlett...

Scarlett O´Hara, ahora Scarlett O´Hara Butler, como nueva rica se obsesiona con conseguir el poder que le confiere el dinero valiéndose de toda clase de artimañas y de su belleza. El dinero y el poder que éste le confiere no son los medios para conseguir algo más allá como podría ser la felicidad, sino que son el objetivo en sí mismo. Antepone erróneamente algo material a su dicha personal. Y, como Hegel dice en Lecciones sobre la Filosofía de la Historia Universal[23], “ (…) no es, por tanto, la dicha lo que elige, sino el esfuerzo, la lucha, el trabajo por su fin. Cuando llega a alcanzar su fin, no pasa al tranquilo goce, no es dichosa. Lo que es ha sido su obra. Esta pasión ha constituido el ámbito de su naturaleza, todo su carácter. Alcanzado el fin semeja una cáscara vacía que cae al suelo”. O, en palabras de Savater, “Su triunfo es su mayor derrota porque por lo que lucha está muy lejos de satisfacerle[24]”.

Scarlett sólo quiere dinero, poder y a Ashley. Para ello recorre un largo y tumultuoso “(…) sendero difícil lleno de meandros y laberintos[25]” en el cual se encamina inevitablemente a la soledad. Al fracaso, pues cuando lo obtiene se da cuenta de que en realidad no le hace feliz.

Primero, al casarse con Carlos Hamilton, se enemista con India Wilkes (Alicia Rhett), la hermana de Ashley. Después como viuda adolescente se gana la mala reputación ante toda la sociedad sureña bailando con Rhett Butler y yendo a vivir con Melania y Ashley a Atlanta. Después pierde el poco apoyo de sus hermanas, al casarse con Frank Kennedy, prometido de su hermana Sue Ellen. Su indiscutible belleza y su éxito entre los hombres le hacen también desde el principio tener la envidia y, por lo tanto, enemistad de las mujeres. Porque sobretodo Scarlett es rechazada por las de su mismo sexo que la ven como una amenaza.

Su obsesión por Ashley le hace perder el apoyo y amor de Rhett. Sus aires de grandeza y sus negocios con los yankees le crean una muy mala reputación y la llevan a convertirse en la imagen que se ha creado. Scarlett es víctima de su propia arrogancia hasta el punto de no tener ningún tipo de credibilidad. Así Rhett, enfadado por los rumores existentes acerca de la relación de su esposa con Ashley, hace que se vista como una buscona para ir a la fiesta sorpresa de cumpleaños de éste que ha preparado Melania.

"(...) el hombre que ejerce el poder es víctima no sólo de la soledad, sino también de una violencia expansiva que contamina sus actos y los de quienes le rodean. Violencia de matices diversos, no siempre condenable o defendible, pero violencia al fin[26]. La actitud de Scarlett y del Sur conlleva violencia. El Sur ama su modo de vida y por defenderlo va a la Guerra, Scarlett quiere defender Tara y dispara contra un yankee haciendo cómplice a Melania, Frank Kennedy muere defendiendo el honor de su esposa, Rhett echa mano de la violencia cuando Scarlett le rechaza... El amor en Lo que el viento se llevó está siempre acompañado de violencia.

Rhett-Scarlett-Ashley. El espacio imaginario.
En Cumbres borrascosas Emily Brönte, según Ana María Leyra[27], pone ante nosotros el despliegue de la actividad creadora misma, crea al creador. Con el personaje de Neli, igual que con el de Scarlett, se podría decir que si tu origen o situación no te agrada créate otro, invéntatelo.

Scarlett no está conforme con el que parece ser su destino; desaparecer como el Sur y ser una mujer más, una estadística. Y se inventa a sí misma creando su propia desgracia, una desgracia mayor que la de llevar una vida humilde y anónima.

Sus mayores esperanzas estaban puestas en Ashley, nunca llega a superar su fracaso con él y, como dicen X. Pérez y J. Balló paga caro su ambigua relación con Rhett que acaba también abandonándola, “En este itinerario de descomposición amorosa la tierra resulta ser el único valor a afirmar[28]”. Y en esta tierra, Tara, Scarlett crea e inventa su espacio imaginario en el que a pesar de la devastadora y atractiva presencia de Rhett Butler quien reina es su amado e idealizado Ashley Wilkes.

Scarlett siente la eternidad del deseo por Ashley. Igual que en La Comedia de Dante el deseo de Scarlett no cesa cuando Ashley se casa con Melania, sino que es experimentado más intensamente cuanto mayor es la separación. Ante la muerte de Beatriz, Dante evidenciaba la indestructibilidad del deseo por su donna angelicata a causa de la muerte. Ashley parece indestructible porque vive en el plano de la imaginación y la fantasía. Rhett lo hace en el de la realidad. Es cierto que a diferencia de Beatriz y de Catalina de Cumbres borrascosas, Ashley no muere, al menos no físicamente pero podríamos decir que sí espiritualmente porque pierde su último ápice de dignidad cuando, ante la insistencia de Melania y los falsos lloros de Scarlett, acepta quedarse ayudando a ésta en el aserradero. Era su última oportunidad de huir de su maldición; su atracción por Scarlett, quien no cesa en su empeño.

Scarlett, al igual que Dante y Heathcliff, se atormenta en su obsesión por la falta de la persona deseada a su lado y desciende a los infiernos sin tener en cuenta lo que escribió Gilbert Durand al respecto; (...) el descenso corre el riesgo en todo instante de confundirse y transformarse en caída[29]. Y esta insistencia de mantener vivo su mundo imaginario, su vida soñada, le impide ver que en realidad el amor está a su lado; Rhett Butler. Hay veces que todo aquello que buscas se encuentra oculto en la única cosa que no puedes ver.

Uno de los mayores hechos trágicos de esta obra es la incapacidad que demuestran estos dos seres humanos, Rhett y Scarlett, de amarse por completo.

De este modo Rhett-Scarlett-Ashley forman, al igual que Heathcliff-Catalina-Eduardo Linton, el conjunto central sobre el que gravita la película. Sus vidas transcurren íntimamente ligadas de modo que la presencia de cada uno de ellos es para los otros experimentada con la inectabilidad del destino.

Conclusión
El final de Lo que el viento se llevó es un final indudablemente trágico pero, visto el desarrollo de su protagonista, el único posible. Es evidente que la relación entre Scarlett y Ashley no puede ser más de la que es porque son demasiado diferentes. Él mismo reafirma su amor y afinidad por Melania según este criterio; Ella es como yo, Scarlett. Es parte de mi sangrey nos entendemos el uno al otro. Pero, sin embargo, Ashley tiene parte de culpa en la obsesión que Scarlett tiene por él porque nunca llega a decirle que no la ama. Escondiéndose en su sentido del honor y caballerosidad, deja que Scarlett crea que hay algo más y ésta se lo reprocha al final; Ashley, you should have told me years ago that you loved her and not me, and not left me dangling with your talk of honor. But you had to wait till now, now when Melly´s dying. To show me that I could never be any more to you than, than this Watling woman does to Rhett. And I´ve loved something that doesn´t really exist. Somehow, I don´t care. Somehow, it doesn´t matter. It doesn´t matter one bit.

En cuanto a Rhett Butler, a pesar de su escepticismo y resentimiento hacia Scarlett no cabe duda –teniendo o no en cuenta la segunda parte escrita por Alexandra Ripley y olvidando por completo la profanación del mito que supuso la serie que se basó en ella- que volverá a caer a sus pies. Porque si hay alguien con dotes de seducción y tozuneria suficientes para conseguir sus objetivos esa es Scarlett. Una mujer con la necesaria determinación para hacer todo lo que se propone una vez se ha puesto a ello.

Pero no sintamos compasión por Rhett porque, a pesar de que Werner Faulstich opine que cualquier camino, Ashley o Rhett, hubiese sido un fracaso para Scarlett[30] –el primero por mantenerla como ama feudal sureña y el segundo por ofrecerle un orden social burgués como ama de casa-, la actitud de Rhett de al infierno con el mundo! es el complemento perfecto para el carácter disconforme por natura de Scarlett. Porque, como dice Alexandra Ripley, si hubo un hombre enamorado que comprendiera y aceptara el carácter ambicioso, vulnerable y en ocasiones entrañablemente infantil de Scarlett, ese hombre fue, sin duda, Rhett Butler[31].

Después de todo, como diría Scarlett, mañana será otro día! Scarlett O´Hara y Rhett Butler siempre serán recordados como los mejores amantes en la ficción americana.


ABSTRACT. In this article the author explores the evolution of Scarlett O´Hara (Vivien Leigh) in Gone with the wind the classic movie directed by Victor Fleming in 1939. The author believes Scarlett isn´t the main character of an epic melodrama, as always it´s been said, but the heroine of a bourgeois tragedy. In order to prove that, she analyses the different stages of Scarlett´s life before and after the American War par excellence, the one between the North and South. Doing such thing it is put forward that Scarlett is a modern female who becomes a tragic heroine because her inner complex conflict is caused by the intransigent social rules that prevailed in her time. The author also explores the quirky loving triangle between Rhett (reality), Scarlett (heroine) and Ashley (fantasy) which could only have a tragic end.

[1] SÍLVIA COLOMINAS es Doctora CUM LAUDE en Comunicación Audiovisual por la Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona desde el 21 de octubre del 2004. En esta misma institución cursó la Licenciatura de la misma especialidad. En la actualidad está luchando para conseguir publicar como libro su Tesis “La frontera física (Cicely, ALASKA) y la frontera imaginaria (realidad y fantasía) en Northern Exposure” de la que ya ha publicado ensayos en diversas publicaciones. El presente artículo lo escribió para la asignatura Tragedia y Cine del Doctorado en Comunicación Social.

[2] Georg Seesslen, Kino der Gefühle, Geschichte und Mythologie des Film-Melodrams (Reinbeck, 1980), p.91 y ss.

[3] Werner Faulstich, “La renuncia individual como apelación social” (Cien años de cine. 1895-1995. El cine como fuerza social, Vol 2. Ed. Siglo XXI), p. 312 y ss.

[4] Werner Faulstich. Op. Cit. p. 316.

[5] Christopher Stevens en la K-OSO en el episodio “Jules et Joel” (3.05) de la serie norteamericana Northern Exposure creada por Joshua Brand y John Falsey en los 90.

[6] “Y ahora Melania se había ido. E incluso el amor de Scarlett por Ashley se había ido, pues se daba cuenta, demasiado tarde, de que el hábito de amarle había sustituído hacía tiempo al propio amor” Alexandra Ripley, Scarlett (Ediciones B), p. 12.

[7] “Ashley era la causa de la destrucción de su vida y lo único que le quedaba de ella”.Ibid.

[8] Fernando Savater, La tarea del héroe (Ed. Taurus), p. 59.

[9] “(...) es identificar para siempre a los ejecutantes con el pecado que eligieron cometer y que ahora les agota por completo. (...) los réprobos no lamentan haber hecho lo que hicieron; al contrario, es lo único que aprueban pero deploran todo lo demás, los resultados que le sobrevinieron, (...) el veto que defraudó su afán de saciedad”. Ibid, p.102.

[10] “Así aparece junto al héroe el amigo, una especie de alter ego que comparte con él la humanidad y admira lo sobrehumano de sus hazañas. El amigo vive fascinado no tanto por los ideales del héroe como por el propio héroe como ideal”. Fernando Savater. Op. Cit. p. 119.

[11] Gilbert Highet, La tradición clásica (Fondo de Cultura Económica. Vol. II.), p. 147 y ss.

[12] Fernando Savater. Op. Cit. p. 127.

[13] Carlos García Gual, Audacias femeninas (Ed. Nerea N), p. 11.

[14] “El héroe nunca olvida quién es, para así poder, finalmente, llegar a serlo; en todo heroísmo hay una fidelidad a la memoria del propio origen, que es de donde viene la fuerza y la determinación”. Fernando Savater. Op. Cit. p. 123.

[15] Ibid. p. 127.

[16] Werner Faulstich. Op. Cit. p. 318.

[17] Fernando Savater. Op. Cit. p. 134.

[18] “Shakespeare´s tragic heroines have a beauty and an appeal all their own. They may be as much creatures of circumstances as his tragic heroes, but they have qualities of character which them glow forth with an added poignancy a special dignity”Visvanath Chatterjee “Shakespeare´s Tragic Heroines: Fascinating Women of Finite Variety” en Kenneth Muir, Shakespeare. VARIED PERSPECTIVES (B.R. Publishing CORPORATION. New Wold Literature Series: 90), p. 153.

[19] Ana María Leyra, La mirada creadora. De la experiencia artística a la filosofía (Ed. Península), p.138.

[20] Diálogo transcrito en http://www. Members.es. tripod.de/cinema/vientosellevo.htm

[21] Jordi Balló y Xavier Pérez, La llavor inmortal. Els arguments universals en el cinema (Empúries 74), p. 121.

[22] Ana María Leyra. Op Cit. pp. 65-74.

[23] W.F. Hegel, Lecciones sobre la Filosofía de la Historia Universal (3ª Ed. Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1953), pp. 63 y ss.

[24] Fernando Savater. Op. Cit. p. 133.

[25] Gilbert Durand, Las estructuras antropológicas de lo imaginario. Introducción a la arquetipologia general (Taurus. Madrid, 1982), p. 213.

[26] Ana María Leyra. Op. Cit. p. 67.

[27] Ibid. p. 103

[28] Xavier Pérez y Jordi Balló. Op. Cit. p. 122.

[29] Gilbert Durand. Op. Cit. p. 191.

[30] Werner Faulstich. Op. Cit. p. 325.

[31] Alexandra Ripley. Op. Cit.

El siguiente mensaje lanza una petición de firmas que apoye la publicación de un nuevo libro sobre la serie Doctor en Alaska. Te invitamos a firmar y a expresar el motivo de tu apoyo.

The next message askes for signatures to support the publication of a Northern Exposure´s new book. We invite you to sign and to express your support´s reason.

¡¡¡MANTENGAMOS VIVO NUESTRO ESTADO DE ÁNIMO!!!

Hace ya más de una década que nuestro querido pueblo Cicely, localizado en algún lugar de Alaska, se despidió de nuestros televisores y que sus peculiares habitantes, tanto reales como imaginarios, desaparecieron con él tras la niebla. Pero, a pesar de ello, nuestros corazones y nuestro estado de ánimo nunca les abandonaron porque una vez que tu alma e intelecto siguen a Morty, ya no pueden ni, sobretodo, quieren dejarle atrás.

Protagonizar el heroico viaje al interior de uno mismo abrazando lo salvaje te convierte en ciceliano de por vida y te crea el interés y la necesidad espiritual de seguir en el estado de ánimo de la tundra más allá de sus fronteras televisivas.

Con el fin de conquistar las fronteras mentales e intelectuales y de mantener viva la esencia ciceliana aparecen proyectos tales como “La frontera física (Cicely, ALASKA) y la frontera imaginaria (realidad y fantasía) en Northern Exposure” una Tesis Doctoral que pretende convertirse en libro de valor inestimable para nuestra comunidad. Estos proyectos tienen nuestro apoyo y merecen un medio de difusión.

Para nosotros la K-Oso se mantiene en antena, así que pidamos que nuestra voz esté en el aire!!! ¡¡¡Expandamos nuestros horizontes y seamos escuchados!!!

Firmado:
Dra. Sílvia Colominas. Barcelona, ESPAÑA.
______________________________

KEEP OUR STATE OF MIND ALIVE!!!

More than ten years ago our loved town Cicely, somewhere in Alaska, left our televisions and its quirky inhabitants, as well the real than the imaginary, disappeared with it behind the mist. But, despite this, our hearts and our state of mind never left them because, once your soul and intellect follow Morty, they can´t and, above all, they don´t want to leave him behind.

Living the heroic journey to the self embracing the wildness turns you into a cicelian for your entire life and creates in you the interest and spiritual need of staying in the tundra´s state of mind beyond its television frontiers.

In order to conquer the mental and intellectual boundaries and to keep the cicelian essence alive begin invaluable worth´s projects for our community such like “The physical frontier (Cicely, ALASKA) and the imaginary frontier (reality and fantasy) in Northern Exposure”, a doctoral Thesis that pretends to become a book. This type of projects have our support and deserve to be spreaded.

For all of us the K-BHR is still on active service, so let´s ask for our voice to be in the air!!! Let´s expand our horizons and let´s be listened!!!”

Signed:

Sílvia Colominas PhD. Barcelona, Spain.

____________________________

FIRMAS/SIGNATURES:

1. “Porque Doctor en Alaska es un ejemplo de que la televisión de calidad existe”. Ignacio Gago Fornells. Jefe de Prensa. Academia de las Ciencias y las Artes de Televisión. Madrid, España.
2. Porque es “el pueblo hecho con la materia de la que están hechos los sueños”. Mario Alonso Llamas. León, España.
3. Jaime Marie Lynaugh. NewYork, USA. “It was a wonderful show that many people still consider the finest one they ever watched”.
4. Dr. Metta Spencer. Toronto, Canada. “Joel takes off running, comes over the hill and bursts into town and a new life. For real NX fans they were taken on the same run throughout the whole series. Wishing you all the best in your endeavor!”
5. Ida Woodward. Wichita, Kansas USA.
6. James Kenneth Caruso. Fairbanks, ALASKA. USA.
7. “Por ser necesario un libro en este país sobre esta serie, y por la garantía de estar realizado por una de las mejores especialistas de este país” Javier J. Valencia. Barcelona. España.
8. Alma Sigurðardóttir, Reykjavík, Islandia/Iceland.
9. Dr. Pedro García Martín. Madrid, España.
10. Porque es imperdonable que no exista ningún libro en el mercado español que analice en profundidad una serie que trascendió los límites de la ficción televisiva y que todavía hoy es un referente. Dani Morell Cortés, Barcelona, España.
11. Es un trabajo que transporta al lector hacia horizontes desconocidos pero pletóricos de verdadera sabiduría. Betty Avalos. Asunción, Paraguay (América del Sur)
12. Porque una de las mejores series de la historia bien se merece un libro. Óscar Sueiro López. Barcelona , España.
13. Porque la serie lo merece y porque la bibliografía dedicada al análisis de la ficción televisiva en este país sigue siendo muy pobre, un libro como éste es una necesidad. Gerard Casau. España.
14. Porque todos tenemos algo en común con cada habitante de Cicely, y porque todos vivimos allí. Carme Coma. España.
15. Porque Doctor en Alaska nos llevó a un lugar mágico y alguien por fin explica todos sus secretos. Dra. Concepción Cascajosa, autora de "Prime Time: Las mejores series de TV americanas". Sevilla, España.

Interview to Metta SPENCER.

Northern Exposure is one of the best tv series ever made. It ended more than 10 years ago but it still keeps alive in people´s heart and memory. Now, we speak about it with Metta Spencer, PhD, who has just published an excellent book, Two aspirins and a Comedy: How Television can Enhance Health and Society. This book, that has been released in February 2006, deals with the impact of entertainment in human affairs, ranging from our health (dramas stimulate emotions and emotions can make you sick or healthy), to our ethics (especially as we empathize with good or evil characters) to our social policies (as we learn -- correctly or incorrectly -- how to handle social problems). In order to explain her theories and discoveries, Spencer analizes two television series; Northern Exposure and Street Time, both with Rob Morrow in the main role.

1. How and when did you discover Northern Exposure? Did someone recommend it to you or did you just turn on tv and find it on the waves?

I just happened upon it by chance. I don’t think I’d even heard of it before. But I had just retired and was experiencing quite a bit of pain from osteoarthritis, so I wasn’t working as hard as I had always done before. For the first time in my life I looked at a daytime television series. Northern Exposure was already showing twice a day in syndication, and usually I watched both of them. Somehow the writing absolutely captivated me from the moment I first saw it.

2. Which was your first impression on the show?

I loved it. Absolutely fell head-over-heels in love with the characters, the music, the writing, the little mining town, the mountainous environment, the moose – all of it. Especially Joel Fleischman. What an interesting, lovable character! I felt that he and I had remarkably similar traits of personality and mind. He was my surrogate, going into a setting that I’d never visit, and showing me what it would be like for someone with my own character traits.

3. Which was the thing/character that appealed you the most? Why?

Joel. I identified with him. I felt he was a perfect image of me, apart from having a different gender. My friends don’t see that at all, though. They say that I’m not grouchy, so they don’t understand why I love him as if he were my alter-ego.

4. You´ve already published a book called Two aspirins and a Comedy; How Television Can Enhance Health and Society (www.twoaspirinsandacomedy.com) in which you often quote Northern Exposure, as an example –in my opinion- of quality television and food for soul. When and why did you decide to write that book?

I had never become obsessed with a work of fiction to such a degree before, and it puzzled me. I wondered whether there was something going wrong with me until I found out that it happens to a lot of people, often with beneficial effects. In my own case, I had a happy but calm life without much strong emotion, but when I watched Northern Exposure, I would laugh, cry, leap to my feet clapping, get gooseflesh with ecstasy, and find myself cuddling a pillow with extraordinary tenderness. Then, despite the fact that I had quite a lot of pain, my discomfort would vanish for several hours at a time, especially if the episode had evoked any erotic feelings. This seemed to me to call for some research. When I looked into it I found that it was well known that such emotions actually have a strong analgesic effect: sometimes as strong as a dose of morphine would. And I decided that other people should know about this as a way of giving themselves the feelings that they needed physiologically. I found that it affects the immune system and the cardiovascular system – for good or ill. Stress is harmful, so initially I believed that one should not choose tragedies or cliff-hanger movies or horror shows, since all of those stimulate cortisol and damage one’s health. But later I decided that there are times when one can benefit from such stress in other ways enough to offset its harm to one’s health. I still think everyone should become more aware of the effects and choose films or television mindfully.

5. Would you say your book supports Leonard´s statement that movies are white human´s folklore?

Yes. He calls them “healing stories.” But of course not all movies have such healing effects. If you can tell great truths with drama, you can also tell great lies, ones that mislead people into making serious errors in their own lives.

6. Two aspirins and a Comedy... interesting title... If it were Two aspirins and the Comedy... which Comedy will it be?

People differ so much that it’s impossible to pick one “best” comedy – or best anything. There’s never going to be a time when we will all agree in our tastes. For one thing, we have different physiological needs. Some people need thrills, others find excitement unpleasant. Some people like slapstick; others want genuineness and depth of personality. I myself love stories about characters who are similar to myself, with all my flaws, but whom I can laugh at while empathizing easily. For example, ‘Thanksgiving’ was a wonderful episode. I don’t laugh at people for whom I have no empathy. It seems rude. But I could almost always empathize with Joel.

7. In your book you reflect on the good and bad effects that fiction can have in people´s health. It seems that if you were a doctor and need to prescribe a fiction to cure a person, you´d recommend Northern Exposure. Is it right? Would NX be your first option?

Yes, but you can’t prescribe things that way. I showed the series once a week, two episodes per evening, to six of my dear friends, but they all hated it and made such nasty comments (especially about Joel) that I finally got angry and stopped showing the series. You can’t expect people to ever react the way you do. Some will, others won’t. The only answer to that is to watch different shows.

8. Why did you select Northern Exposure as an example of positive television entertainment?

Because it was intelligent, wise, and it showed genuine human issues almost as if it were a documentary. There was no canned laughter, no joke-machine humor. The characters talked the way real people do, in a natural, comfortable way. There was no violence, and each show had a message or two – but not one that hit you over the head. You’d have to pay close attention to the insights that it offered, and it was worth watching again and again. There are certain episodes that I’ve watched thirty times. There are a few that I’ve watched once and will never look at again because they were so unpleasant.

9. Did you have to re-watch the show for your book or did you already have it recorded? Or maybe did you remember it well enough?

I have kept watching it for my own pleasure over the years until recently. I suppose I haven’t seen an episode now for six months or more. I have almost memorized the lines – not on purpose but out of familiarity.

10. Which were your previous ideas (preconceptions) on the show? I mean before starting your research investigation for the book (speak with fans, read articles, interview people from the show, etc).

I don’t think I’ve changed my opinion of any episodes much as a result of talking with other viewers. Maybe I’m just stubborn and opinionated, but my emotional reactions to the show are decisive, and if I dislike the way some characters are behaving, I will have negative emotions and nothing can make me change those emotions or the opinions that I form on the basis of those emotions.

11. Did your previous ideas change during the process of researching? Did the fans or the people from the show whom you speak with make change your ideas? How? Can you tell me any example?

No. I certainly had deep conversations with people on the My-Cicely list and another list that I belonged to for a while. Some of the richest conversations of my life occurred on-line. It is astonishing to find that these “strangers” can become important in one’s own life. I think some of the best discussions occurred during the first three years – before you were participating in the My-Cicely group. You may be able to find some of those essays in the archive. I haven’t looked, but I think they are all kept someplace.

12. I met you through the online list called My Cicely. I found it when I was making the research project for my PhD on Northern Exposure. I decided to be a part of the list because I wanted to meet fans of the show, I was sure they´d help me to find interesting material on NX (essays, articles, books, etc). I must confess the reasons why I signed on the list were selfish but I finally became another mooser, those people from the list are great and I felt (and feel) at home, in Cicely, AK. When and why did you begin to be part of that cicelian community?

When I started watching the show, I didn’t even know for a long time the names of the actors. For example, I could see the name “Cynthia Geary” on the credits, but it didn’t say that she was playing Shelly. So I needed some basic information, and I probably searched the Internet for names of lists. Actually, I don’t remember how I found it, but I loved it and became good friends with some of the members. We would also fight passionately over various topics. It’s surprising that such relationships at a distance can become so meaningful.

13. Which are the most important things – in both senses, professional and personal- you have learned being a part of this virtual Cicely?

I’ve made friends. By now I don’t think of these relationships as resources for understanding the show or understanding entertainment in general. By now they are just friends of mine – good, permanent friends.

14. Did you like Joel or did you just love him?

Most people would have phrased the question the opposite way: Did I love Joel or just like him? But you’re right to put it the way you did. I think it was Marie who wrote on the My-Cicely list that she wept for hours when Joel left Cicely and again when he left the show. She said, “My husband said, ‘I didn’t think you even LIKED Joel.’ She replied ‘I didn’t like him. But I loved him.’”

Sílvia: Yes, I was quoting that fan´s story you explain in your book :-)

Metta: That was the way I felt. But of course I never DISliked him. He didn’t usually irritate me the way he annoyed many of my friends. I could smile at his limitations, for I have the same limitations myself.

15. You describe Joel as the antihero... What about Vladimir Propp´s concept of the hero-victim?

That wasn’t a type that I had in mind when thinking of Joel, though I see how you could make that connection. As Propp describes him, a hero may not be a particularly good person, but may suffer (e.g. be a ‘hero-victim’) or even be predominantly evil (the ‘hero-villain’). It is true that Joel suffers, but I think this does not qualify him to be a hero-victim because he is the author of his own suffering. He could be having a wonderful time. So I call him an “anti-hero,” which is not the same as victim or villain, but is simply a person who does not qualify to be a hero. Joel was never heroic until the very end, and I didn’t much care for that transformation. I liked him better as a grouchy young man living on the earthly plane, dealing with such everyday problems as his patients’ dishpan hands and constipation. When he became spiritually advanced and gave up complaining, I felt that I no longer could see myself in him, and so he was not doing my spiritual homework for me anymore. I was disappointed. Probably I wouldn’t have been disappointed if he had become a successful, mature physician who could carry on a successful love relationship with Maggie. But he abandoned his patients and became some kind of spiritual adept, though he couldn’t combine that status with the everyday mastery of living skilfully in this society.

16. In your book you also often refer to Street Time, like the other face of the same coin... NX´s opposite. You compare both series. Do you think these tv series are opposite? Maybe comedy versus drama?

I’m not sure I’d call Northern Exposure a comedy. It had warm elements of comedy but it was also deep. People revealed their inner struggles and predicaments. The contrast with Street Time refers to the thrills that a crime show stimulates. Northern Exposure never gave me a moment’s adrenaline. That’s what Street Time tried to do all the time. I didn’t much like that aspect of it, though some of my friends preferred it. In any case, they are absolutely different kinds of shows.

17. Why did you decide to compare NX to Street Time and not to other series like The Soprano?

I don’t think I could have tolerated the emotions that The Sopranos evoke, whereas I could stand to watch Street Time fairly comfortably, except for one scene that has a torture and murder. After watching one season of The Sopranos, I decided that I didn’t ever want to see another episode. It made me feel sick and guilty for a day or two after watching each episode. Nobody should have to go through that.

18. Do you believe in the thrill gene?

Sure. I don’t think there’s any scientist who has studied it who discounts it. It’s the dopamine receptor number D4. It’s all established empirically. The only thing is, I’ll bet there are several other genes that affect us in comparable ways. They are only beginning to identify these genes.

19. You write Peace Magazine, so you prefer people throwing tomatoes instead of shooting. I think everybody prefers it in real life, but also in fiction? Could you never justify violence on modern fairy tales or myths?

Oh, it’s not entirely a moral issue. At least, one cannot be categorical about wanting no violence whatever. The point is, there are lots of factors that influence the meaning that an act of violence will convey. For example, my favorite movie of all time was Gandhi, which had several scenes of violence. But one saw them while empathizing with Gandhi or his followers, to whom violence was appalling. If, on the other hand, you see the violence through the eyes of the person carrying it out, you may identify with that character and want to emulate him.

There are also other ways in which the meaning of an act will be changed by the context of the plot. And there are times when I go to watch a violent show that depicts something horrible because I think it’s important to understand what that is like. Schindler’s List is an example. I went to see that and I was obviously opposed to the Nazis who perpetrated the violence. Still, I think that most violent films don’t teach us anything valuable enough to be worth the unpleasant experience of watching them.

Sílvia: Have you ever watch 24? In the last episode I watched the organisation of the government where Kiefer Sutherland´s character, Jack Bauer, works for, captures a man that has important information to find the bomb a terrorist group has taken, after destroying the Air Force One and probably killing the President of the U.S. They really need to be able to interrogate that man. They´re in a hurry. But the new President is so weak and don´t let them to use violence, he needs to think more about it, but they don´t have time... Moreover that man has a lawyer from Anmistia to protect him. So Jack decides to leave the organization –not really, he simulates it to avoid problems to the organization-, the organization lets the man outside where Jack captures him, tortures him and obtains the information they REALLY needed to find the terrorist group. The watcher, me at least, feels identified with Jack and accepts him to use violence!!! It´s an extraordinary situation and the character that has an inapropiatte behaviour is the new President who, as soon as he knows what Jack did, decides to capture him. I accept the President must show Jack he´s the boss but he makes the F.B.I to capture Jack in the middle of an important mision and the terrorist group escapes. Finally the new President realices he´s not ready to guide the nation and askes for someone to do such thing. What do you think about fiction situations like this I´ve just described that showes the violence through the eyes of the person carrying it out? Do you think this violence is justified because Jack workes for the government and he´s not the terrorist?

Metta: I have not seen that show at all and I wouldn’t want to publish a critique of anything that I hadn’t watched. However, I cannot justify the use of torture under any circumstances. I do believe that society needs law enforcement officers, but they must be honorable individuals who are trying to protect us. Whenever possible, their means should be non-violent. As a message to society, we need stories that show us how to solve problems rather than answering violence with violence. If you’ve seen Munich you’ll recognize the conclusion: that violence just leads to retaliatory violence rather than solving anything. “Restorative justice” is the approach that I advocate in the book. It can be just as exciting as shows about crime and punishment.

20. Do you believe tv series like C.S.I., La Femme Nikita, Alias, Law&Order, The Closer, etc create or promote violent attitudes in their watchers?

I don’t watch such shows much so I can’t give a fair answer. I did watch Law and Order for a while, years ago. It was interesting, and it addressed some theoretical legal problem that kept me engaged intellectually. But the characters were shallow and we never saw much about their inner struggles or personal growth. I don’t think one could learn anything valuable as a human being from such stories. The richest forms of literature explore characters, not action plots. At least that’s my opinion. But some people with thrill genes want excitement and I cannot tell them that it is wrong to watch that kind of thing. I do believe, however, that it’s possible to create action films in which the protagonists are not trying to find some bad guy to blame but rather trying to prevent harm (as peacekeepers, say, instead of fighting soldiers) and trying to find solutions to problems. The search for solutions can give a viewer plenty of adrenaline if the writers do a good job. And in that way, they can offer good examples for viewers who also have to solve similar problems.

21. In NX as well as in Street Time, Rob Morrow played the main role. Did you like Kevin Hunter?

During the first season I did, though he was going downhill morally there too. He was at least expressive and loving. In the second season he came across as quite a hard character.

22. I read the interesting interview you made to Rob Morrow. You asked him about Kevin Hunter and asked him to imagine the storyline of the series throughout the seasons. Morrow explained he wants to be liked and the way he acted to make Hunter more human, he put the example when his brother shows him his brother-in-law´s dead body in the car. Do you think Hunter was better in the screen than in the script thanks to Morrow´s work as an actor? Any example?

Yes, you just pointed to one example – though he actually didn’t get to play it the way he wanted to. Or rather he did play it that way but they edited out everything that made him appear human. The six friends who watched the show in my living room all turned against him eventually. But it wasn’t Rob’s fault. He wanted to show feelings but Richard Stratton would not allow him to do so.

23. Sometimes (almost always) Joel Fleischman feels like a prisoner who´s suffering a sentence in Cicely, Alaska. Kevin Hunter was a real prisoner who´s out of jail now that tries to live his life but life seems to have another plans for him. Somehow both are men in extraordinary circunstances they can´t control. Joel needs to change but doesn´t want. Kevin wants to change but maybe he can´t. How would you define these two men in sociological terms?

I’m not sure Kevin really does want to change. At one level he may, but he has that thrill-seeking gene and it runs his life. He and his wife never have a discussion about how to take up a career other than dope-smuggling. Surely if he had been serious about changing, they would have shown it in their conversations.

Sociologists who specialize in deviant behavior have, at least in previous generations, been preoccupied with questions about how much life is determined by circumstance as opposed to character traits. One could pose that question here. Joel’s misery in Cicely was created by his own limited imagination, so one has to smile at him with a little pity. At first the viewer pities Kevin Hunter too because circumstances seem to reduce his options so sharply. I think gradually, though, we all have to say that he could change if he really wanted to. He just loves the “rush” of smuggling dope. He’s completely different from Joel, who never likes thrills. Every dog in Cicely can scare Joel just by running up to lick his hand!

24. In Justice in a Nonjudgmental Society you describe "Crime and Punishment" episode very well and observe that a conclusion like that wouldn´t happen in real life... Would you accept Mike´s defense and the final episode´s conclusion if Chris was a killer?

Maybe. If a person really is transformed, then he’s gone past the kind of behavior that he previously followed. For example, I know of a true story about a murderer in South Africa during the apartheid period who was put into prison when the regime changed. He asked to speak to the wife and daughter of his victim. They came to see him and realized how sorry he was, so they forgave him and hugged him. Such things happen. I wouldn’t say, of course, that every criminal who claims to have changed is telling the truth.

Sílvia: So, I guess you´re against the Death Penalty, right?

Metta: Yes. In almost all Western societies it has been abolished. I wish it were in the United States too.

25. Brand created NX thinking about the fish out of water. In your book, according to Freud, you say Joel has the two things a human being must have; work and love. In your opinion which is the main issue in Joel, his relationship with Cicely as a community (work) or his relationship with Maggie as a mate (love)?

One can only answer that in hindsight, I suppose. I think the viewers assumed that his developmental task was to learn how to belong to that community through his work. However, in the end he leaves town without even saying goodbye to anyone, so obviously he never took that challenge seriously. He did take seriously the love relationship with Maggie, though he never made a success of that either. I think he never really understood what she wanted from him.

26. Many people speak and believe in “telebasura” (I don´t know the english word. Can it be bad, junk tv?) but I do believe we can also speak about quality and author television. In page 208 you mention in NX everything started changing because Chase appeared on stage. Do you think it was the beginning of the end? Brand era vs Chase´s one?

Yes. But it didn’t show up for a while. Season five wasn’t bad. It was not as good as earlier ones, but mostly it was good. Season six was terrible. That was Chase’s fault. He never cared for the show – said it was too “precious.” At least, that’s what I heard confidentially. But the other producers started slacking off too.

27. Brand told you he never read Campbell but his play is often quoted in the series, before Brand left it, and Brand studied literature... What do you think?

I can only guess, and I don’t have any basis for guessing. But I will anyhow. I feel confident that he told me the truth. My guess is that he read Jung, not Campbell, and he must have heard through the grapevine about such notions as the hero’s journey. You don’t really need to read Campbell to pick that idea up. It’s floating around in the culture.

28. I agree with you when you say that Chase meant a difference... a bad one. Our dear cicelians didn´t care to him. They became the landscape for new and unappealing characters. The third emotional motif you mention is the screwball comedy represented by Fleischman and O´Connell´s couple. In the middle it often appeared someone... Did you like Mike Monroe?

Nobody, absolutely nobody, liked Mike Monroe. Pity. The actor was talented but the character was too weak to be likeable. Besides, he was stealing Maggie from Joel, and everybody loved Joel. Well, most of us did anyway.

Sílvia: In that point I have to disagree. I loved Mike!!! And Anthony Edwards did an excellent work!!! I didn´t care Maggie was with Mike because I didn´t like her a lot and I knew it wouldn´t work, Mike would leave. As you well know I adore Joel, is my fave one, and if he´s happy with Maggie I can accept it. I know many people didn´t like Mike because they didn´t want Joel to suffer, but I didn´t see him suffering a lot, and in any case, as I said before, I knew Maggie in the end loved Joel, not Mike. Althought she can be so nasty saying things like she can accept Joel´s death but not Mike´s one... come on! I try to justify Maggie and her horrible words thinking that she´s too rational with Mike, but with Joel she can´t, it´s passion, and she can´t control having sex with him.

I think Mike wasn´t stealing her from Joel. Joel and Mike respect themselves. The problem is Maggie herself, even if it wasn´t Mike in the middle, Joel and Maggie can´t be together at all just because of Maggie, she analizes everything!!! You said before that Joel never understood what did she want, I think neither did I. Joel is easier than Maggie. Everything Joel says about women in general, or even about life, Maggie thinks is about her and her person and takes every Joel´s action or word as a personal attack!!!

I´ve seen many tv series and I know how they work and I knew Mike was only a temporary character despite they maybe created him to replace Joel. As time showed, he wasn´t replaceble.

Metta: As I said above, it’s impossible to answer such disputes objectively. We all have our own reactions and we’re entitled to them. However, you’re the first person I’ve met who liked Mike. I talked to producers who told me that introducing Mike was the biggest mistake that Josh Brand made. No wonder he didn’t last long.

29. In the final episodes the writers decided to join Maggie and Chris. What do you think about this relationship? As you well know, in the list people has often discussed about where Maggie went in the last episode. Who was she looking for... What´s your theory?

I think the explanation was given in the script but edited out. Janine Turner was recovering from a gallbladder operation so she wasn’t well enough to perform a major part of that episode. But in the story, she was supposed to have been flying to see Mike Monroe, but she changed her mind and came back to Chris.

Sílvia: To see Mike? Really?

Metta: That’s what I understand. I don’t think I bought that particular script personally (I bought about half of them) but someone else reported that it was there.

30. You keep that the relationship between Joel and Cicely´s quirky community makes Joel and us, the watchers, learn a lot... What about religion and tolerance lessons?

Tolerance, sure. Religion – not in the usual sense of the word. It’s not really about ritual or liturgy or the community that comes from belonging to a particular religious group. Instead, I’d say that Northern Exposure explores certain very high-level philosophical issues that all religions address to some extent: freedom of the will versus determinism, for example. Whether the world is a random place or whether there is a plan behind the events that are unfolding. Whether to be attached to others and fully engaged with this social, material world or instead to try to transcend it and cultivate spirituality. Things of that sort. No TV show that I ever saw before would try to deal with such questions. I adored it for that reason, even when I disagreed with the message it offered.

31. What do you think about episodes like "Kaddish for Uncle Manny" for example? Did you accept and understand Joel decides to celebrate the Kaddish with his cicelian friends instead of with other jewish people?

Of course I accept it, but I never understood why it was formulated in an either/or way. Why did Joel have to send away the Jews when he decided that Cicely was his community? He could have invited everyone.

Sílvia: I spoke with Melvoin about this episode and this Joel´s decission. He told me it was Brand´s idea. Melvoin is jewish and he wasn´t sure it was the right decission, he was afraid people, above all jewish people, feel offended but finally he liked the episode, he understood it went to a higher level thanks to Brand. Also he felt better when he saw the watchers –even jewish ones- loved the end and wrote letters expressing that feeling.

You can find the entire interview at http://www.cicelyonline.com/nttf/art_melvoin2.htm

Metta: Yes, I talked with Melvoin about that episode too. That’s how I remember he explained it to me.

32 Jeff Melvoin wrote the great part of episodes that speak on Joel´s religion. Did you speak with Melvoin about this? What did he tell you?

I wasn’t aware that he wrote most of those episodes. But he did tell me about his misgivings regarding the "Kaddish for Uncle Manny" episode. I think he still wasn’t sure in his own mind whether that was the answer he’d take as a Jew himself.

33. Which is your fave NX´s episode? Why?

Maybe "First Snow". The conclusion gives me joy like nothing else I can recall. And that was written, I think, after Brand left the show.

34. I think one of the episodes you liked the least was "Northern Lights"... Why didn´t you like the way our dear cicelians act, what Shelly describes as showing team spirit? I´ve read your reflection on that episode. I agree the conclusion wasn´t well written. I liked Joel´s moral but the episode wasn´t well written enough to get it. But what cicelians did first was trying to convince Joel and offered him a kind of deal (food, etc). So, yes they finally acted in a nasty way but they also offered a solution and Joel didn´t accept it.

Sorry, but I was so horrified by the cruelty of the Cicelians that I was emotionally devastated. Suppose you found out that all your dearest friends and relatives were sadistic torturers. How would that make you feel? That’s how I felt. What they did was a crime against humanity.

35. Reading “The trouble with trascendence” (chapter 9. pages 231-232) you say that “The Quest”, the episode where Joel leaves Cicely and the series, imparted a wrong lesson because it seemed it was too easy for him to leave Alaska and come back to New York. Why do you think it seemed too easy? I think it didn´t seem easy but somehow it showed Joel was in peace, he got the Nirvana...

That’s what was wrong with the message: It told the viewers to give up their commitment to this world and become ethereal and spiritual, but that means we couldn’t be effective in working on solving the world’s problems. I thought that was a poor lesson to give to the world. It is completely contrary to the decision that I made in my own life as early as when I was seven. I decided I would refuse to go to heaven because I wanted lots of problems. This world needs me, and it needed Joel, but he abandoned it. That was a religious mistake.

Sílvia: I see the opposite way. I mean, I think another reading is that Cicely is the dream. Joel in Cicely and, above all, in Manonash, is somehow an ethereal and spiritual existence. He has finally found himself and he´s ready to face reality, to solve world´s problems coming back to NY. The key isn´t Joel disappearing behind the mist in an spiritual way where NY seems a myth, the City of Emeralds, but in the Ferry coming back to real NY.

Metta: But he abandoned his patients and any sense of community. He left without even saying goodbye to the people he should have loved. That kind of detachment from the intensity of human relationships is not my notion of religious attainment. It broke my heart to see him fail so tragically.

36. Imagine you find a place like Cicely, Alaska... Would you leave it or would you like to stay there for the rest of your life? Why?

I could go either way. I am sure I could find ways of making a contribution to Cicely and I’d find pleasure in doing so. But if I decided to leave, I think I’d try to do so in a way that kept my human relationships there rich and rewarding.

37. Imagine you can spend an entire day in Cicely, Alaska. What would you do?

I’d spend some time at the Brick, and if I could visit Joel and watch him at work, I’d love to do that too.

38. You had the chance to meet Rob Morrow and interview him. Did he tell you something about the way he thought Joel´s character was that surprised you?

Yes, he was very pleased about the way Joel developed at the end of the show. I hated that.

39. Speaking about Fleischman Morrow told you that “he comes back to New York with something to offer.” What do you think Fleischman finds in Cicely that he can offer in NY?

Beats me. He stops whining. I suppose that’s an advance. He can tolerate more challenges and hardship. But that’s not enough to make up for his lack of passion.

40. In your interview you mention Only Love and Matthew Hiller and you say he´s the perfect fulfillment for Joel. In which sense? I don´t know this movie.

Spoiler warning: Matthew Hiller also was a doctor. He was uncertain whether to become a doctor of a concert pianist, but finally he chose medicine. He went to Africa with Doctors Without Borders and fell in love with a young Italian woman doctor there. He is shot by rebel troops and almost dies. To save his life, she promises not to marry him. He is distraught about that and can never play the piano again, nor can he get on with his life for many years. However, he becomes a VERY successful doctor and discovers a cure for some kinds of cancer. He eventually marries a wonderful cellist who had been his dear friend when they were in college. Then the Italian woman doctor reappears, needing his treatment for her own cancer. She dies and he can now let go of his unresolved love for her. He goes home to his wife and resumes playing the piano with her. The fulfilment that I saw in Hiller was that he became a success professionally and emotionally mature. He was capable of love relationships and made a successful marriage. He accomplished things in this world, not by leaving it and attaining enlightenment. I admire that. Joel was a failure professionally (he abandoned his patients) and a failure in his relationship with both Elaine and Maggie. In the end he departs, looking more like a wisp of smoke than a man of flesh and blood. I preferred Hiller.

41. We spoke about Chase´s era and the beginning of the end. Here it´s the typical and the eternal question... Did you suffer the SSB (Sitxh Season Blues) of NX that was mentioned by Walt Hammontree for the first time?

Oh yes. I sobbed when Joel left and I felt disheartened by the moral and psychological deterioration of the Cicelians.

42. This is your opportunity to solve Joel´s future... If you had the chance to write the last episode, which would be for you the perfect ending for the series including all the characters? (You can rewrite the show from "The Quest" or from "Tranquility Base" or any other episode...)

Oh, thanks a million! Okay, here’s what I’d do. I’d have Joel and Maggie reach a full-fledged marriage without ambivalence. I’d have the travelling optometrist come back and pair up with Chris. I’d have Dr. Ginsburg come to town and make a deal with Joel and Maurice, who would build a fine pulmonary hospital in Cicely. Six months of every year, Ginsburg would run it, while Joel took over his practice in New York. Maggie would fly back and forth to New York, bringing patients to the hospital and living with Joel in Manhattan when he was there. They would have a couple of kids and live happily ever after. Would that suit you too?

Sílvia: LOL. You really love happy endings!!! I don´t know... I know it can sound strange but I have never thought about it at all!!! I´m afraid there´s any perfect ending for that series. I mean I feel lucky it´s not up to me to rewrite the show because I´m sure that, whatever I´d write, there´ll be someone disappointed!!! :-) But I´d erase the episodes after "The Quest", that´s for sure (the only moment I like is the Iris Dement moment, but so hard to watch!!!)
I like your vision but, althought I love happy endings, I love –I accept at least- the way Joel ended in the show. I love the City of Emeralds myth and I understood his final decission of leaving... It was perfect for my Thesis!!! LOL.
As a fan, I´d not end Joel with Maggie... I´d make her to join Greenpeace with lovely Bubble Man. I´d create a spanish doctor (medicine doctor or not, whatever), called Sílvia :-) to be the perfect partner for Joel. Can I?
I also like Brigadoon´s idea that one of the persons you interviewed (can´t remember who, Joe Lazarov?) told you.

Metta: I don’t have to give you permission since it’s all hypothetical. But I believe that the story was a message about working through relationships, and it showed that Maggie and Joel failed. That’s sad.

43. NX follows the MTM model and has rich intertextuality. Iain Crawford observed four major groups; literature, music, film and television. Which of these groups do you think it´s better used in NX? It´s the key?

Sorry, I don’t know Crawford’s categories so I won’t try to answer this one.

Sílvia: I´ll send you Crawford´s article if you want but, in any case, I´ll re-formulate the question. Crawford just establishes these groups observing characters references to them. Chris in the K-BHR mentions books and music, Ed quotes movies and Shelly and Joel –even Maurice- mention series and television. Maurice mentions he loved Bonanza and Joel mentions Love boat when he´s playing golf, for example. So, which references (to literature, music, etc) are better used in the series, are the key, in your opinion?

Metta: Sorry, it’s still not a question that I can answer.

44. The group of literature is clearly represented by Chris... It seems the word & language is very important in NX but also silence... Which moral do you get on NX´s dichotomy between Marilyn (silence) versus Joel-Chris (word)?

I guess I can’t answer this one either. I am a verbal personality, so I certainly would rather spend time with Joel or Chris than with Marilyn, though I like her well enough. I’m not one of those people who see her as particularly wise. Not at all.

Sílvia: So, when Joel goes Up River and learns to keep silent until Marilyn arrives... Did you undertand or like it? Do you understand why Joel wants to learn to stop speaking all the time?

Metta: No, I thought he was fine the way he was. I thought Marilyn was not very bright. Likeable, yes, but not intelligent. And I was offended by her dismissive attitude toward Joel, as if he were a mental basket case while she was a paragon of wisdom.

45. I think NX is a metaphor. The journey to Cicely, Alaska is a journey to the self, to the inner landscape. A friend of mine thinks that Joel never left NY at all. If you observe, Alaska, the last frontier, becomes the center of the world. There you can meet russian, german, south american people or you can even meet the evil or learn italian. Cicely is as cosmopolitan as NY. So Joel travels to the self, to his mandala. Would you agree with this symbolic reading of the show?

I guess so. Certainly something special was going on there or it would not have gripped my own soul so deeply. I would say that watching that show and loving those characters was one of the most profound experiences of my life. But I’ll never be able to explain it, even to myself, and your metaphor doesn’t take me very far toward an explanation either. But it does allow one to talk about it as a profound emotional trip, which it certainly was.

46. What do you think about the myth of the garden in NX and the East (Joel) versus the West (Alaska)?

I’m not very oriented toward myth and metaphor, to be honest. I have tried practically every type of psychotherapy in the distant past, but not Jung.

47. Which of these words, utopia or eutopia, better defines Cicely?

I don’t know. I’ve never heard of “eutopia” and it’s not in my dictionary.

Sílvia: Eutopia comes from the greek eu-topos (ευ-τοπος) “good-place”. Utopia would define Cicely as the perfect place, too much perfect to be true. But eutopia would define Cicely just as a good place, beneficial one. Which one would you select?

Metta: If it were perfect it wouldn’t be interesting.

48. You describe NX as a Healing Myth. If you had to select an episode who represents NX´s essence –the entire series- as a Healing Myth, which one would you select? (I think two good options should be "Cicely" or "Lost & Found" because both of them show the fish out of water hearing a myth (tale?) that heals him and helps him to realize which is his situation and he decides to open his heart and eyes to his new community).

Maybe that’s a better reason to explain why I loved "First Snow" so much. Joel really grew. Ruth-Anne teaches him to accept death by saying, “Do you reproach yourself when the leaves fall from the trees?” Beautiful. And Maggie and he express their tenderness. People can gain a lot for themselves through vicarious tenderness, as from empathizing when Maggie touches his cheek and says, “Bon Hiver, Fleischman.”

49. In Emotionally Appropriate Friendship you defend NX showed that lying isn´t always a good choice, not even friendship seems to justify it. Do you think friendship or love never justify a lie?

I don’t think I’ve ever taken a position on that question. I know this much: If you always tell the truth, there will be more “aliveness” in your life. It won’t necessarily be all fun, though. Telling the truth will bring up matters that you’d rather avoid. I tell a lie every now and then. It’s usually cowardice rather than concern for a loved one that prompts me to do so. Cowardice in the sense of avoiding the bad opinion of others. I don’t necessarily feel proud of doing it, but it’s probably not my worst character flaw.