lou savage home
back to articles

Harding vs. Jones:
The Revival of an Ancient Art

It was "The Fight of the Minute." The setting was unlikely: The ladies room of a movie theater. Movie goers had just finished watching the 7 PM performance of the film, In the Bedroom. But who would have known that in that very theater sat Tania Harding and Paula Jones, coincidentally attending the same theater, each unaware of the other.

They, like many women, made the typical trek to the bathroom afterwards. What happened then proved to be a powerful lesson to humanity.

"It was all just a routine pit stop." Said Officer Xavier Hernandez.

According to witnesses, a discussion was overheard while various ladies were in various lavatory stalls. Someone was overheard to say, "Was that the biggest bunch of bullsh*t or what?"

From another stall came a response, "I liked it. I think Sissy Spacek was amazing."

"Yea, right." Said the other.

Toilets flushed (and so did faces) when emotions gushed as the debaters met at the sink moments later. It was none other than Harding and Jones meeting face to face, about to enter into one of the most frustrating, and what some believe to be, the most useless, unproductive kind of argument. The argument was going to decide whether Sissy Spacek would genuinely deserve an award for a performance in a film that caused many to ask themselves the question, "Why am I watching this?"

In the Bedroom has continued to frustrate thoughtful movie watchers since it was first introduced to theaters. Crowds of people scratch their heads as they leave the theater, only to wake up the next morning still wondering. It all brings to mind the buzz around 2001: a Space Odyssey back in 1968. People wondered if they were smart enough to understand the film. Had Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke pulled one over on us or was this just the fanciest Sci-Fi film ever made? Who knows? At least it had cool special effects.

Kubrick continued to confuse us up to the time of his death with the film, Eyes Wide Shut. Cleverly, he was able to use conflicting emotional triggers to reel in his audience as in in earlier years. His most effective carrot in Eyes Wide Shut, without a doubt, was the abundant use of naked ladies. In the 1971 film A Cockwork Orange, he used the same stratagem to pit emotion against reason, sexuality against violence. No shorteage of bare skin here. But where A Clockwork Orange succeeded, Eyes Wide Shut came up short. Audiences either weren't falling for it anymore or Kubrick had simply missed the target. Can't win 'em all.

Now as we ponder In the Bedroom, we again calculate and balance the subconscious checkbook. Let's see... we have sexuality with the choice of Marisa Tomei. We have able actors with Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson. We have layers of conflict, but was it enough conflict? We have violence, but was it enough violence? Why didn't we feel paid off? It all adds up to something, but what? Therein lies the conflict of the moment, the conflict that would bring two women together to teach the world two of its most important lessons. First: Some arguments aren't worth arguing about. Second: If you are going to argue with someone and want a quick resolution, hit them.

After the police arrived at the theater, it was obvious that there was only going to be one way to resolve this Jones/Harding thing. It would be the tried and proven arbitration tool used for millennia: a fist fight. This time, though, it would be fought for all to see in the most controlled of environments. The arena would be a boxing ring... on television. The plan was to have Fox TV televise the event. Surely, this would end the mystery: Is In the Bedroom a good movie... or isn't it?

The Ancient Art of Conflict Resolution

Since the beginning of time, boxing, in its various forms, has been the method of choice in deciding who's right or wrong. Coming in a close second to the all time winner in decision making tools, all out war, boxing has provided the everyday citizen with a quick and easy way to prove who's boss.

Those of you who are familiar with the popular phrase, "Your arms aren't long enough to box with God" know that it shows us that even in our frustrations with the Almighty, boxing is the direct path to an orderly universe. Philosophers almost unanimoulsy agree that if one did actually box with God, God would win. According to Oxford University Professor, Dr. Nigel Hathaway, "God is, after all, the Creator, therefore He can't lose a boxing match. When we box with God, we ultimately fail because God would easily defeat us without having to resort to common techniques like, say, the "rope a dope" strategy even though it would be simple for Him to do so. He is a quite capable fighter without them. Also, God is noted for being omniscient, omnipresent and and omnipotent. He simply wins by virtue of His being God. He, in effect, boxes without boxing. It's obvious then," Says Hathaway, "that in daily life, he who boxes best is not only right, he is Godlike."

The use of hand to hand combat to resolve disagreements has been documented for ages.