“[I]n…turning to a well-known author, there is not only an assurance that my time will not be thrown away, or my palate nauseated with the most insipid or vilest trash,—but I shake hands with, and look an old, tried, and valued friend in the face,—compare notes, and chat the hours away.”
The German love of hiking and nature paired with German efficiency and organization is a formidable combination.
The Neanderland Hiking Trail (NeanderlandSTEIG) is a 240-km loop of hiking trails encircling the city of Mettman and the Neander Valley area, all of which is all east-northeast of Düsseldorf. It was opened only in 2014, which means all the signage is brand-new (and well-thought-out). It has its own thorough, informative website (apparently only in German so far). The trail is divided into 17 different sections, each with its own GPS map, and there’s even an app, which appears to have at least some English features.
The way is marked by small red badges affixed to (or painted onto) trees, poles, or signs along the way, so you rarely have to consult a map to make sure you haven’t lost the plot. Almost all of it is within forests and pastures, sometimes on broad paths, sometimes on narrow, almost-overgrown single-track. The path enters cities only at the beginnings and ends of each of the 17 stages, to allow you to catch a bus or a train back home.
What the path shows is how much nature there is in this part of Germany. This might come as a surprise, since the Rhein-Ruhr region is the most densely-settled area in all of Europe. However, the key word is densely: there’s a clear demarcation between compact, circumscribed built-up areas and forests and pastureland. If you don’t allow sprawling suburbs to develop, you can pack a lot of people into a small area, and leave the rest for farming and nature.
I’m doing the trail on my cross bike, which usually works out pretty well. Especially in the northeast portions, there are lots of hills, but they’re not particularly brutal. There are a few gnarly passages, with tons of tree roots and undergrowth, so sometime you just have to portage the bike. But by and large, the trail is quite ride-able, and a skilled mountain-biker could probably do all of it. So far, I’ve only ridden three sections of the trail in full, and each has been memorable. I plan to assault the rest of it over the coming months. Here’s a picture gallery (taken during Stages 4, near Velbert, and 12, in South Düsseldorf) which helps explain why:
Above is a trailer for a German movie, ‘303’ (link here if the embed doesn’t work). The English-language description is:
When biology student Jule finds out she’s pregnant, she sets out for Portugal to find her boyfriend Alex, who works on an organic commune there. Traveling in a Mercedes ‘303’ bus, she picks up hitchhiker Jan at a gas station outside Berlin, who’s traveling to a Spanish fishing village to tray [sic] and find his biological father. They’re both passionate and not very diplomatic, very interested in world affairs and philosophy, and while they’re “on the road”, they have impassioned and deep conversations about capitalism, human nature, love and relationships and the meaning of life. They trip becomes an emotional roller coaster, which finds them falling in love with each other? [sic]
Middle-class kids who inexplicably have months of free time on their hands conversing earnestly about “capitalism” and “the meaning of life”?
Alas, my pressing schedule will not afford me time to see this film.
Here is a tweet from an editor at the FAZ, a German center-right newspaper:
Wenn sich alte weiße Männer durch die Herabwürdigung alter weißer Männer angesprochen fühlen, macht sie das also zu ich-bezogenen Volltrotteln? Schon erstaunlich, wie weit die Bereitschaft zur Diskriminierungsrechtfertigung reicht, wenn es die “richtigen” trifft. https://t.co/ywWdlpdAtK
— Constantin v Lijnden (@cobvl) July 31, 2018
Responding to a tweet that mocked “white men” for being offended at this label, the author tweets: “When old white males feel themselves targeted by disparaging remarks targeted at ‘old white men’, this supposedly makes them self-absorbed morons? It’s pretty amazing how many people are willing to justify discrimination when it targets the ‘right’ people.” The tweeter is a legal journalist with centrist, perhaps slightly right-of-center views.
This illustrates an interesting cultural divide between Germany (and, I suspect, many other European countries), and the US. In Germany, mockery of “white” people certainly does happen — the tweet I cited above responds to exactly this.
However, there is almost always a pushback against the use of “white”, or “white man”, or “heterosexual white man” as a dismissive epithet. Someone will virtually always respond by saying that it’s hypocritical to attack white people for gratuitously identifying someone’s race or gender to dismiss their arguments. Nobody in their right mind, these critics say, would think of dismissing a female columnist’s opinion by saying “That’s women for you — always letting emotions cloud their judgment”, or “Of course this Turkish guy wants to expand welfare benefits — typical!” So why is it any more acceptable to dismiss a white male’s opinion just because of his gender and skin color? To mock white people for their skin color is no better or worse than mocking black people for theirs. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who the target is.
The important thing is that in Germany, this pushback comes not just from the right, but also from the center, and even sometimes the center-left. In the mainstream press, you almost never see a headline or an opinion piece singling out “white” people in a mocking, supercilious tone — and if you do, the response is swift.
Compare this to America. In America, there is a widespread conviction among college-educated people that discrimination can only be genuine when powerful majority groups practice it. When I went to college, in the late 1980s, it was generally assumed that there could be “no such thing” as discrimination or racism against white people, since they were powerful and dominant. To favor a “color-blind” society was seen as a mark of right-wing conservatism — it was a code for undoing affirmative action (hiring preferences for minorities) and entrenching the unfair privileges white people enjoyed from centuries of racism and slavery.
The basic idea is that minorities groups are knowingly given a pass for expressions of racial bias which would be unacceptable among white people. There’s no such thing as “reverse racism” against white people. Here’s one statement of this idea:
“Things like BET, Black Girls Rock or Black History Month are not reverse racist against white people,” Zeba Blay, a Huffington Post Black Voices writer, illustrates in a video. “Because remember, in a society where white is seen as the default race, all history is white history. But racism isn’t just someone feeling superior to another race and then discriminating against them.”
Racism and prejudice aren’t quite the same thing. Racism, rather, is best known as a system in which a racial majority is able to enforce its power and privilege over another race through political, economic and institutional means. Therefore racism can be described as “prejudice plus power,” as the two work together to create the system of inequality.
Note how the author doesn’t say this definition of racism is his opinion, he claims it’s just a fact, like the sky being blue.
I’ll call this idea “racism is always contextual” (RIAC). Or as Lenin said, the question of Who (is doing what to) Whom. RIAC thinking has not only survived to this day, it’s gotten even more deeply entrenched. As a recent analysis pointed out, white American liberals are getting “way more liberal on identity issues”. You now see headlines mocking white people, or males, almost every week in mainstream(ish) news sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post. A few examples: The Post famously ran an opinion piece straightforwardly called: “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.
Of course this editorial was met with “a deluge of criticism“. But that’s not the point — the point was that it ran in the first place. Nobody at the Post apparently thought, even for a second, whether they would run a similar piece entitled “Why Can’t We Hate Jews” or “Why Can’t We Hate Blacks”. Because, to them, RIAC means there is an obvious distinction between hating men (a point of view which you may disagree with or find controversial, but which deserves to be aired) and hating these other groups (a point of view no sane or decent person could possibly hold, and which it is wrong to disseminate).
Another example: the New York Times published a piece by a black professor in which he said he would discourage his children from befriending white people:
I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.
This piece sparked outrage from many readers. But once again, it was published in the New York Times, which obviously thought it a respectable opinion worthy of being broadcast to millions.
I doubt any mainstream German newspaper would have published either of these pieces, although the left-green taz has come close once, and had to defend itself by pointing out that the opinion piece was tongue-in-cheek (g). If you had submitted either piece to a more mainstream German newspaper, it would have encountered a buzz-saw of resistance.
So, to sum up: The RIAC idea, in Germany, is confined to the left. If you endorse RIAC in Germany, you will automatically be pigeonholed as left-wing. If you reject RIAC in the USA, you will automatically be pigeonholed as right-wing.
Here’s my point in terms of the Overton window:
You could definitely put France in the same position as Germany. I call this phenomenon the Transcultural Overton Window Displacement, TOWID™ for short.
I don’t have any particular explanation ready to hand for this (nor am I expressing any opinion on who’s “right” on the issue), I just find it interesting. It also creates amusing cross-cultural misunderstandings: I have personally witnessed Germans mistaking a centrist American for a left-wing extremist, and Americans mistaking a centrist German for a right-wing extremist, based on this TOWID.
Others examples include a right to own guns (Germany: Radical; USA: Popular/Sensible); universal health care (Germany: Policy; USA: still just barely Radical, but moving rapidly toward more acceptance); popular referendums (Germany: Radical; USA: Policy). There are undoubtedly many more, but I need to get back to work. Feel free to add some in comments!
UPDATE: Via Twitter, here are some thoughtful tweets composed by Sarah Jeong, who just joined the New York Times editorial board:
According to a 2001 study, Dupuytren’s Contracture is:
“…an ancient affliction of unknown origin. It is defined by Dorland as shortening, thickening, and fibrosis of the palmar fascia producing a flexion deformity of a finger.”
This is what an advanced case looks like:
I have this in my right hand, although nowhere near as bad as this guy; one of my fingers just bends a little. It’s painless. It will get progressively worse, and one day I’ll need surgery, but for now, it’s just a slight nuisance.
What I did not know until yesterday was that Dupuytren’s contracture seems to be a genetic sign of Viking or Scandinavian heritage:
In his 1963 book, the Australian hand surgeon John Hueston wrote, “Dupuytren’s contracture is virtually confined to people of European descent” (2). Its highest incidence is recorded in Iceland. As expected, the incidence is also high in Scandinavia: In a Norwegian study of 15,950 citizens, DD was present in 10.5% of men and in 3.2% of women (3). In a large 1962 review of published figures, P. F. Early arrayed the countries of European stock in order of incidence of DD: Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. He also commented that the incidence in Australia, Canada, England, and Wales was similar since their populations are of basically English stock, which may itself represent a diluted strain of Danish (Viking) stock (4). The incidence in Sweden is matched in Edinburg. Two different studies by James and Ling in Scotland showed such a high family incidence that DD was described as inherited through a single autosomal-dominant gene of variable penetrance (5, 6).
In a study in the French port of Toulon, 60% of the general population had brown eyes and 40% had blue eyes, but 80% of inhabitants with DD had blue eyes. The latter individuals were traced to the families of Breton and Norman sailors in the city’s history (7).
DD is relatively uncommon in Spain, Greece, and Italy, except for Greece and Italy’s northern Adriatic Coast, which was penetrated by a northern genetic invasion during the Austro- Hungarian Empire.
I first learned of this yesterday, when a relative visiting a Viking museum in Norway sent me a photo in which this link was noted. The text next to the display had almost a note of pride, as in: Look how far we got despite our crippled, claw-like hands!
I don’t have the mind of a poet, so I have to take some guesses here. I suppose the ableist language is the word “crippled”—or perhaps the suggestion that people on the street might occasionally fake being a little bit disabled. The reference to “blackface” must be the black dialect used by the homeless narrator, which is problematic because:
This guy is whiter than me! I hope he’s learned his lesson. He says of the black dialect being interpreted as blackface that he “did not foresee this reading of the poem.” How the hell did he not foresee that in this hypersensitive age of cultural appropriation and racial siloing? Then again, neither of the poetry editors foresaw it either. Nor, apparently, did anyone else who saw this poem before it was published. And all of them solid lefties at The Nation! That’s surprising, isn’t it?
Luckily, Twitter saw it loud and clear. All hail Twitter, our new supreme arbiter of poetic insight and interpretive use of narrative language.
Fortunately, the phenomenon of people being forced to read groveling confessions at show trials staged by autocrats is no more.
Now they’re typed by writers who have run afoul of twitter mobs:
— Anders Carlson-Wee (@AndersWeePoet) July 24, 2018
Anders is obviously a high-minded progressive, but that didn’t help him any more than Bukharin’s fervent Marxism did. Before you set pen to paper, you are apparently now obliged to imagine a solemn tribunal composed of the most hypersensitive and humorless members of all minority groups, and ensure that not a word you write will offend any of them.
There are people who spend all day, every day trying to bring this sort of thing to Germany. Let’s stop them.
The Nation is an American magazine of left-wing politics and culture founded in 1865. It is the longest continuously-published weekly magazine in the US.
One day in the future, both this poem and the reaction to it will be seen as a curious example of a very strange era (and a fallow period) in American politics and culture:
Editor’s note: On July 24, 2018, The Nation and its poetry editors, Stephanie Burt and Carmen Giménez Smith, made this statement about the poem below, which contains disparaging and ableist language that has given offense and caused harm to members of several communities:
As poetry editors, we hold ourselves responsible for the ways in which the work we select is received. We made a serious mistake by choosing to publish the poem “How-To.” We are sorry for the pain we have caused to the many communities affected by this poem. We recognize that we must now earn your trust back. Some of our readers have asked what we were thinking. When we read the poem we took it as a profane, over-the-top attack on the ways in which members of many groups are asked, or required, to perform the work of marginalization. We can no longer read the poem in that way.
We are currently revising our process for solicited and unsolicited submissions. But more importantly, we are listening, and we are working. We are grateful for the insightful critiques we have heard, but we know that the onus of change is on us, and we take that responsibility seriously. In the end, this decision means that we need to step back and look at not only our editing process, but at ourselves as editors.
* * *
If you got hiv, say aids. If you a girl,
say you’re pregnant––nobody gonna lower
themselves to listen for the kick. People
passing fast. Splay your legs, cock a knee
funny. It’s the littlest shames they’re likely
to comprehend. Don’t say homeless, they know
you is. What they don’t know is what opens
a wallet, what stops em from counting
what they drop. If you’re young say younger.
Old say older. If you’re crippled don’t
flaunt it. Let em think they’re good enough
Christians to notice. Don’t say you pray,
say you sin. It’s about who they believe
they is. You hardly even there.
French political elites cling to a threadbare ideological framework in which ethnic differences do not matter in the single glorious melting-pot of the Grande Nation. Because they may not matter. Because they dare not matter!
Some of those groups haven’t gotten the message, as shown by the tendency of French Muslims to engage in physical attacks against French Jews at much higher rates than other groups. The New York Times has a surprisingly blunt article about the phenomenon today:
French leaders fear pitting one side against the other, or even acknowledging that a Muslim-versus-Jew dynamic exists. To do so would violate a central tenet of France — that people are not categorized by race or religion, only as fellow French citizens, equal before the law.
“We are all citizens of the republic, one and indivisible. But this doesn’t correspond to reality,” said a pollster, Jérôme Fourquet, who along with a colleague, Sylvain Manternach, wrote a recent book, “Next Year in Jerusalem, French Jews and anti-Semitism,” published by the respected Fondation Jean-Jaurès, a think tank associated with the Socialist Party.
“All the politicians speak of living together,” Mr. Fourquet said. “And yet, instead, we have de facto groupings based on culture and community. Yet to recognize this is to recognize the failure or breakdown of the French model.”
Gunther Jikeli, a German historian at Indiana University who conducted a meticulous study of Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe, called the phenomenon “blindingly obvious” in a recent opinion piece in the newspaper Le Monde.
In 16 surveys conducted over the last 12 years in Europe, “anti-Semitism is significantly higher among Muslims than among non-Muslims,” Mr. Jikeli wrote.
“There is a kind of norm of anti-Semitism, of viewing Jews negatively,” he said in an interview.
This article nicely illustrates the Other People’s Indians phenomenon: The New York Times immediately flames into outrage if anyone points to ethnic patterns in crime in America. But it’s fine to point out those patterns in other countries.
However, it’s also a nice illustration of another reality of European governance: the tendency to intentionally fail to keep certain types of statistics.
The date, 2011. The scene: An office in the French Ministry of Interior. Jean-Georges Marie Beauvais de Courgette, Special Assistant to the Undersecretary of the Statistical Service, begins a memorandum: “There are some troubling…patterns…shall we say, in the evidence we collect concerning who is engaging in anti-Semitic harassment and attacks in France. Certain…discrepancies are become clearer, which relate to certain…socially sensitive communities.”
His colleagues immediately swing into action:
In 2011, the French government stopped categorizing those deemed responsible for anti-Semitic acts, making it more difficult to trace the origins.
When you hear a Western European talking head or government official deny the existence of a problem by saying there is “no evidence” for it, this usually means the government has intentionally decided not to collect the evidence.
A few days ago I watched ‘Die Habenichtse’ (‘The Have-nots’), a German movie from 2016, based on an award-winning 2006 novel of the same name.
The plot revolves around Isabelle, a thirtysomething graphic designer, and her romance with and marriage to Jakob, a thirtysomething lawyer. It takes place in both Germany and the UK.
Julia Jentsch was good in the main role, she’s a fine actress. Overall, though the movie was quite dull.
There are two levels to its dullness: one specific to this movie and script, and a much more general kind of dullness which afflicts most movies made within the German public film-subsidy system, as this one was.
Since I think this movie’s a good example of the problems with German movies, I thought I’d take it as an exemplar.
First, a digression. At this point, I don’t think many people would challenge the statement that there’s something wrong with the German movie business. Germany is a large, prosperous, well-educated society. It should be a major player in international cinema. But it punches far below its weight. German movies connect with foreign audiences so rarely that it’s a big story when they do. This is not how it should be: a country with this much talent and funding should produce at least 3-4 German-language movies every year which catch the eye of higher-end international audiences, as is the case for France and Japan, to say nothing of the UK. (German TV series, on the other hand, are steadily improving.)
Instead, Germany produces maybe one movie like this per year, and that’s counting very generously. And even the movies which attract international attention rarely attract international enthusiasm, much less a cult following. The majority of German-language movies produced with film subsidies show to German-only audiences of a couple thousand people, then slide silently into obscurity. German culture-types are generally aware of this underperformance, and respond either with acute analyses (g) or defensive justifications.
Now let me point out the problems with Die Habenichtse.
- The characters never do anything interesting. Isabelle is a graphic designer, but she doesn’t burn with creative energy. She never addresses her work or sources of inspiration. She never says or does anything particularly interesting. The same is true of Jakob the lawyer, although he has a minor nervous breakdown during the movie. A very dull nervous breakdown, which is only hinted at.
- The main characters never say anything interesting. The German characters are neither witty nor insightful nor profound. They spend most of the time silently moping, even when they’re together. There is no repartee, no in-jokes, no chemistry, no sardonic commentary (except for one pretty good joke*). Their arguments are just ordinary spats and disagreements.
- I didn’t care what happened to them. Which is basically a consequence of #1 and #2, plus the fact that the characters weren’t appealing. They weren’t revolting, either. They were just blah.
- The movie actually seemed allergic to anything interesting. Jakob the lawyer works for a law firm which represents the heirs of Holocaust survivors trying to reclaim property in East Germany. Wow! That really does sound interesting, doesn’t it? But perhaps only 10% of the screenplay relates to this work, and you are never shown any interesting details. Nor is there any exploration of the various ethical dilemmas the work raises. The characters hint at these things, but then the thread is dropped, and the story returns to the dull relationship between Jakob and Isabelle. I wanted to grab the director by the lapels and say: “Jesus Christ, can’t you recognize drama, conflict, and moral complexity when you see it? No, don’t drag the script back to Jakob and Isabelle’s relationship! I don’t care about that! Neither does anyone else!” The same thing goes for Isabelle’s art. Instead of learning what drove her to become an artist, how she cultivated her talent, or what her aspirations are, we see her boring fights with her partner.
- The movie was shot in black-and-white for no discernible reason. The action is set in 2001 and 2003 in Berlin and London. The cinematography was competent, even good, but not particularly distinctive or ambitious. Nowadays, there are any number of interesting options between color and black-and-white. Unless there’s a very good reason for doing so, shooting a movie in 2016 solely in black-and-white is an affectation.
- The only interesting characters in the movie were artists, and even they weren’t that interesting. When an American movie needs a character full of soulful wisdom or magic powers or crazy do-anything spontaneity, it often wheels out a tired trope Spike Lee calls the Magical Negro. Germany has its own equally tired trope: the Krazy Kunstler. He (it’s usually a he), dresses and acts real funny, does whatever the funk he wants, follows his impulses no matter where they lead, and speaks the truths no-one else dares to. (Of course, he lives a comfortably middle-class life, and most of his income comes directly or indirectly from the state or rich patrons, but we will discreetly gloss over that.). Yeah, there’s two of those in this picture, one of them actually named “Ginka”. Ginka!
I asked myself: Why was this movie made? The characters do not come from the working class, which is neglected by most movies. They aren’t charming or funny or perceptive. There is only one intense dramatic confrontation in the movie, which is spurred by an implausible sub-plot involving a drug addict who somehow manages to live in a ₤2000/month townhouse apartment in London.
German art-house movies are beset by one all-encompassing fear: seeming too “Hollywood”. German screenwriters and directors are obsessed with being everything Hollywood is not: authentic, modest, naturalistic, low-key, and oblique. German art-house movies are, therefore, peopled with fairly ordinary-looking people with crooked teeth, who don’t give Sorkin-like canned speeches, who make silly mistakes, who may not be very bright or articulate, who aren’t all that appealing, and who spend most of their time just trying to manage ordinary relationships.
This aesthetic is not totally misguided, by any means, and can be refreshing. The crushing idiocy and ubiquity of superhero movies — in fact, the very existence of superhero movies — is a sign of cultural bankruptcy to all thinking persons. Ordinary stories need to be told. The problem, though, is that German movies tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Movies need not be packed with ridiculous characters and stupid catchphrases and bombastic music and relentless, over-the-top conflict.
But they should be at least somewhat more interesting, unusual and/or entertaining than ordinary life.
What else are they for?
‘The Staircase’ is the series-length true-crime documentary series that started that wholesome genre, way back in 2004. It follows the case of Michael Peterson, an American military veteran and war novelist who faced trial in 2003 in North Carolina for the murder of his wife. He says he found her unconscious and covered in blood at the bottom of a staircase in their home. The prosecution claimed he had killed her by hitting her in the head with a fireplace tool.
There are many odd things about this series. First, it was made by a French director, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, for Canal+ in France, where the first episodes were broadcast. How and why a French director got interested in an American criminal case must be an interesting story. Second, the series is still going on: de Lestrade has followed all of the twists and turns in the appeals of the case up to even 2017, and has kept adding to the original episodes, which were filmed in 2003.
The result is a gripping portrayal of American criminal justice system, and I say that as a former American criminal-defense attorney. It shows the system almost in its ideal form Peterson had money, and bought a team of fabulous lawyers and investigators and experts. In fact, we see discussions of how much this defense is costing him — the fee was ultimately somewhere in the neighborhood of a million dollars. This allowed the defense to chase down every single piece of evidence imaginable, and attack the state’s case from every possible vantage point.
And we see exactly how they did it. That’s another startling thing: de Lestrade gets complete access to the defense team and even Peterson’s home and family. We see his lawyers discussing very sensitive stuff with their client (such as fees) which had my lawyer-confidentiality alarm blaring at deafening levels. This extreme level of disclosure could only have been authorized by a direct order from Peterson himself to let it all hang out.
Which, as the film proceeds, you realize is something he would do. He’s smart, articulate, and something of a drama queen (it turns out he’s bisexual, and occasionally visited male prostitutes, a fact which comes out at trial). He says he’s innocent and has nothing to hide, and this seems credible, even if his protestations of innocence — and basically everything else he does — appear a tad histrionic and calculated. He’s also intensely self-aware; he understands how some of his actions and statements must look to the jury, and even ruminates, before the camera, about how the justice system must treat people who, unlike him, have to rely on public defenders. (The answer is: not well).
The lead lawyer, David Rudolf, is also sharp as a tack. He has the typical trial-lawyer blend of agile intelligence, worldly wisdom, and total partisanship for his client. He is obviously having a ball — finally, he’s got a client who’s smart, didn’t leave incriminating evidence or talk to the cops, and who can pay for him to prepare the case of his dreams.
Rudolf also gets to parade his forensic skills before an audience of millions. He speaks in complete paragraphs, without ‘uhs’ or ‘ahs’, and with plenty of wry jokes and clever turns of phrase. (Yet he’s too good for his own good: some members of the jury find him too slick — which, in North Carolina, probably includes an element of too Jewish). His opening statement is soulful, his cross-examinations pointed without being snotty, and his tactical know-how formidable. In one conversation, he manages to dissuade Michael Peterson from testifying on his own behalf (always a bad idea, for reasons many clients don’t understand) while making it seem as if this were Peterson’s own idea. We see Rudolf and his team grapple with the hundreds of strategic and tactical decisions needed to prepare a complex legal defense. My favorite bit is the day before trial, when Rudolf is telling Peterson how to behave in front of the jury (don’t look bored, don’t look at the jury, don’t laugh) and reminds him to trim his giant, furry eyebrows.
One thing that always strikes me is why all these documentaries are made in the United States (or, rarely, the UK), never in France or Germany. German and French documentary producers seem to lack any curiosity at all about how their own justice systems operate, although they’re more than happy to shoot thousands of hours of footage about how the American justice system works. Even when German TV producers do address the justice system, they ignore the actual rules which govern it and focus all their attention on the sort of stuff they talked about in their college journalism or philosophy seminars (the nature of guilt, man’s inhumanity to man, the position of minorities, the cold logic of capitalism, etc.). They never get the legal stuff even close to right — they don’t even try. Every German crime show is a parade of laughable legal howlers.
Europeans seem to believe that actually addressing the rules of evidence or burdens of proof or expert opinion about blood spatters in a halfway realistic way would be too boring and technical. Of course, they’ve got it backward: moralizing, didactic screenplays drawn from college-dorm bullshit sessions quickly get stale, while shows that feature genuine people mastering complex tasks under real-world conditions have an enduring and universal appeal, even if the jobs themselves are highly specific to one culture. Which is why tens of thousands of German and French people will be mesmerized by The Staircase, while nobody in the UK or the US has heard of Tatort.
Nice to encounter a fair and reasonable summary of your work in a best-selling book, especially one whose argument you find congenial.
If you’d like the longer version of this argument, you can buy, or borrow, or otherwise acquire my 2010 book, Ending the Death Penalty: The European Experience in Global Perspective. And if you’re wondering: Yep, it’s written for non-lawyers.
A friend in Düsseldorf spotted this sign offering a €50 reward for the return of their veiled chameleon (which is called a ‘yemen chameleon’ in German):
It reads “It may sound unlikely, but unfortunately, our chameleon seems to have run away.
REWARD 50 EURO.
He’s probably curled up in a corner of our apartment, but we wanted to cover every base. He’s not dangerous or poisonous, just kind of a punk.”
The little arrows next to the picture say he “likes to eat flies and crickets”, “moves slowly and is fragile”, and has a “helpless, usually skeptical expression”.
This is what happens when you live in a city full of creative types. (1) They keep foofy-ass pets, and when they lose them, (2) painstakingly craft the most eye-catching missing posters you’ve ever seen.
In fact, I’m not sure this isn’t mainly an ingenious freelancer marketing scheme. (‘Did this missing-chameleon poster catch your eye? Wouldn’t you like your ads to do the same?’).