Tolkien v. Jackson

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Hollywood is not how debauched, depraved and decadent its stories are — considering how untouched this area of American culture is from Christian influence, we could hardly expect different. No, what is most surprising is how many films still manage to capture brief flickering lights of truth in an industry that feeds almost solely upon darkness — a darkness that disguises itself as “tolerance” (when it is in fact a refusal to acknowledge any moral law) and “self-empowerment” (that is in reality little more than self worship).

True, our silver screen icons celebrate fornication, adultery, and blasphemy at nearly every turn, but the truth that God has written in their hearts remains, so that, in spite of themselves, they also occasionally celebrate mercy, justice, fidelity, and faith. As a result, you can have an abortion activist like Ed Harris (a man who recently stated that it would be a “catastrophe” if Roe v. Wade were overturned) appearing in a film like Radio that unabashedly argues for the value of every human life.

One of the most striking examples of this disparity in recent years has got to be that between J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings and the filmmakers who adapted his story. All art in one way or another takes on the worldview of its creator, and so it did in the case of this Christian writer. Tolkien acknowledged as much when he called his trilogy a “fundamentally religious work,” and said he resented criticism that his stories “contain no religion.” But if the people behind the films are aware of these sentiments, they are, for the most part, unwilling (or unable) to consider them.

At the recent press junket I attended for The Return of the King, some of the actors, the screenwriters, and director Peter Jackson begrudgingly paid lip service to Tolkien’s well-documented Christian worldview. However, deeper questioning revealed that they had little understanding of how that worldview manifested itself in Tolkien’s work. Something close to desperation drifted palpably on the air as the interviewees grasped at any trendy “ism” — from multiculturalism to environmentalism — trying to recast the Christian subtext of Tolkien’s edifying myth.

Asked specifically about the religious elements in the trilogy, actor Orlando Bloom (Legolas) made a vague reference to an awareness of the “spirit” and “energy” that defined Tolkien’s writing. Further pressed to define that “spirit,” he seemed to strain for words, speaking once again about the film and his own experience rather than the book in question: “It’s very positive. … It’s about a group of strangers, of mixed races, putting aside all of their … differences to come together to make a difference. … And New Zealand, which is a classless society in many respects … that we were all treated with equality there had an effect on us when making this film. … ”

Similarly questioned about the religious themes in the trilogy, director Peter Jackson appealed to Tolkien’s well-known love of nature: “He [Tolkien] hated the way the English country side had been destroyed by the industrial revolution in the 1880s. The Shire represents what happened to the England that he loved. There was pollution, forests being cut down. … ”

While Jackson wasn’t wrong on his point that Tolkien disliked industrial progress, when he proceeded to magnify this element in favor of much weightier and well conceived themes, he demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the trilogy’s defining struggle: “The ring is obviously a metaphor for the machines, the factories, that enslave you, that take away your free will.”

Though many elements in the trilogy might represent harmful industry, it is fairly obvious to Christian readers that the ring is not one of them. To a redeemed reader, the “One Ring” could be symbolic of several things — temptation, lust for power, idolatry — but all of them point to one reality: sin. Small and innocuous as it is, in its hold over those who wear it, the ring is very much like a lion seeking whomever it can devour. In fact, one might say that all the various “owners” of the ring eventually end up becoming slaves to it.

Actor Ian McKellan took a different tack on the question of the books’ religion altogether, refusing even to acknowledge that there are any Christian undertones in the them. Flying in the face of Tolkien’s own assessment, McKellan stated, “I wouldn't say there's an appeal in this story to any particular set of beliefs… I note with delight that Hobbiton is a community without a church. … There is no set of beliefs in this story, no credo.”

However, once the cast and crew moved past their initial hesitations about having to answer questions related to spirituality, their responses to the Christian journalists’ questions concerning Tolkien’s faith began to reveal shared worldviews of their own.

Absolute Standards v. Moral Relativity True to biblical philosophy, Tolkien’s characters believe very much in the concept of absolute evil, that there is a terror in the East that must be defeated. Most of Jackson’s cast and crew very much did not.

Though he played Aragorn, great warrior and defender against monstrous evil on screen, Viggo Mortensen the actor was reluctant to pass value judgments, or even admit that the trilogy does so: “It's [The Lord of the Rings] not necessarily promoting one particular philosophy … but saying that if you accept that there are differences in the world and are prepared to embrace those differences, to approach the world in a positive, loving way, you may actually be able to change the nature of the human race.” One wonders how the Fellowship would have fared had they simply “accepted” and “embraced” the Orcs “differences.”

Screenwriter Philippa Boyens also seemed particularly offended by the notion that the battles in the books are predicated upon a fixed sense of good and evil: "The fight [in 'Lord of the Rings'] is not about [an] … agenda-driven sense of right or wrong. Rather it's about Tolkien's humanism … because you don't trust these things when you're a humanist — these tub-thumping notions of what's good and what's evil." Questioned about what constitutes tub-thumping, she answered, slamming her fist into her palm, “You know, those people who go, ‘THIS IS WHAT’S RIGHT AND YOU’RE GOING TO FOLLOW IT.” The notion that the Fellowship was ultimately forcing Sauron to follow their particular version of right evidently did not occur to her.

Later in the day, though, one person was finally able to judge something as wrong. When asked what he would do with the ring of power if he had the opportunity, Andy Serkis (Gollum) stated, "I would banish all religions first of all."

In a letter to a friend, Tolkien once wrote, “The Power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'.” Bringing this belief to bear on his work, he infused his novels with the biblical principle that no one is righteous: Boromir betrays the Fellowship out of lust for power, Gandalf refuses the ring because he recognizes his own weakness, Gollum illustrates a life completely ravaged by covetousness, and even the pure Hobbit Frodo is eventually no match for the seduction of the evil. Yet, while they did an admirable job portraying this reality on screen, none of those responsible for creating these characters were able to see it.

Elijah Wood said of Frodo’s journey, “I don’t know if [a higher power] necessarily pertains to Frodo’s particular journey. The way that Frodo gets through is ultimately in his own will and his courage and his own inner strength … that’s what gets him through.”

Ian McKellan echoed the idea that salvation in Middle Earth comes from within: “I think what Tolkien’s appealing to in human beings is to look inside yourself. That’s why they join a fellowship, they don’t join a church.”

Screenwriter Fran Walsh took this notion further still, even claiming that Tolkien was "passionately arguing for the goodness that resides in men." She went on to say, “If anything, Tolkien’s faith informs the third book — faith that the enduring goodness of men will prevail. … It’s about the enduring power of goodness that we feel in ourselves and perceive in others. … ”

Tolkien knew, and his books clearly show, that there is an order to the universe and, as such, an Orderer. He once wrote to a friend, “I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains … some samples or glimpses of final victory.” He believed, as he told his friend C. S. Lewis, that if he could create an echo of the one true myth, that of Christ, he could disarm cynical readers and point them toward that victory in spite of themselves. While his myth has had significant success at this over the years, it has yet to work its influence on those who introduced it to a new generation of fans. Being confronted with the faith contained in Tolkien’s fiction only seemed to confound the wisdom of these giants of entertainment.

To those (unknowingly?) enmeshed in postmodern ideology, not only is truth up for interpretation, so is the work of truth’s champions. Evidence (such as letters and statements written by Tolkien himself) and facts (such as his faithful attendance and involvement in his church) somehow have no influence on their understanding. Like many college students, the cast and crew of The Lord of the Rings apparently believe that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers when it comes to the meaning of a particular text. Everything is subjective, so that meaning (including Tolkien’s) isn’t based on the author’s intentions, but on the experience of the reader. Good and evil are merely creations of the ideology of the beholder.

Yet if evil is a mere creation ideology, then The Lord of the Rings is nothing more than the story of a group that forces it’s ideology on another group. Why, then, did actors, screenwriters, and director alike revel in the round defeat of Mordor? If evil is merely a creation of ideology, then the victory of the Fellowship deserves our celebration no more than, say, colonialism. Why, then, were actors, screenwriters, and director alike stirred by Tolkien’s depiction of faith, fellowship, and victory? Though the power of their own “rings” may yet be “binding them in the darkness,” let us hope that some part of their hearts recognized echoes of the Other story.

Perhaps over the years, as they look back on their stunning cinematic achievement, Jackson and company will one day come to embrace the truth contained in their films. In the meantime, we can follow Tolkien’s example and continue pointing the lost toward Grey Havens.

I disagree with one aspect of this article -- liberals are every bit as moralistic and judgmental as any conservative -- they're just moralistic and judgmental about different things. Liberalism is self-worship and inevitably leads to nihilism.

I've read about the actors and filmmakers in the LOTR movies and many of them are real lowlifes -- multiple divorces, fathering children out of wedlock. I wonder what goes through their minds when they portray noble, brave, moral and self-sacrificing characters, characters so much unlike them, characters they could not hope to emulate in a million years. But then, they're actors portraying somebody and something they're not. Unfortunately, John Rhys-Davies and Sean Austin (two of the few normal and decent men working on these films) weren't present to give their opinions.

I have mixed feelings about this one... I don't expect them to be scholars of the deeper elements Tolkien fanatics like us get into, but I have heard the actors speak on several occasions throughout the special features and at other engagements. Many of them "get" some of the aspects of the story better than others, some see things like I do, some have a different take. From these excerpts, they sound confused and moronic, but I am not sure it is a fair sample of their understanding. I would defend as most unfairly treated here the writers... who clearly are on record as having a well thought out interpretation of the story meaning, whether they want to emphasize Christian elements or not. Even Ian McKellen had a quote on the Christian themes subject from a different appearance where he showed more understanding than here.

Right you are. Nobody is as intolerant and "holier than thou" as a liberal on the warpath. Yet they cannot enunciate one firm moral principle. All they are sure of is that they are the anointed and infinitely better than thee or me.

For all their moral pretences, liberalism is simply rationalized selfishness, irresponsibility and self-indulgence. It's the outlook on life of a spoiled, selfish 12-year old who wants to do as he pleases, thinks he's entitled to whatever he wants, and demands that someone take care of him when things go wrong.

In liberal land, politically correct moral grandstanding is a substitute for actual personal integrity. In fact, I've noticed that there is a direct connection between the amount of politically correct moral grandstanding a liberal is prone to and his actual lack of personal integrity.

The denizens of Hollyweird tend to be people of low character so it's not surprising that they are usually liberals -- in their world, what counts is not personal integrity but mouthing whatever the fashionable lines are.

The entire film trilogy is a glorious example of how God uses the blind, the unwilling and unaware to present His message to the world. Just like Joseph's brothers, who 'thought evil against' him, and sold him into slavery, their purpose was simply used by God who 'meant it unto good,... to save much people'. Gen 50:20

The fact that such lost people made such a glorious production is a testament to the sovereignty of the Creator they deny.

The writer is right, and it's a well-written essay.

It's just a seemingly age-long given: actors are not (as a rule) people of character and moral/spiritual accomplishment — they just play them on TV. Or in the movies.

One of the classical examples of this, due to the unraveling of the moral consensus of our society, has to be Ingrid Bergman. She portrayed noble and endearing characters with great skill and excellence. She played a nun.

And then she went off, cheated on her husband, had an affair with director Roberto Rosselini.

She was denounced on the floor of the Senate. The public pretty well disowned her.

Then sometime later, she returned to the films (and America) unrepentant and in triumph. But "triumph" over what? That is the question.

Many of these actors had never read Tolkien; I would guess many still haven't read him through. Ian McKellan's published comments, and those of Mortensen, are particularly ignorant and off-base. It is amazing when someone does not even have the intellectual honesty (or education?; both, I suspect) to say, "The author's perspective was X; mine is A." But they've both got their own agendas, and they're both not good.

But darn, they're really good actors. Just remember that word: ACTORS. They pretend to be someone they're not, for a living.

Dan

The fact that such lost people made such a glorious production is a testament to the sovereignty of the Creator they deny.

You know the old saying that "God works in mysterious ways." A group of often stupid and sleazy filmmakers and performers are some of His mysterious instruments.

I'm amazed at how these actors could be so immersed in this work for so long and still come out on the other side so absolutely flippin' clueless.

not unusual

there are many reasons for going into acting.

Some actors merely see it as a craft..but ALL art is a way of exploring the subconscious, and expressing in it parts of yourself.

Sometimes those parts of yourself are small, but you still can dredge them up to make a performance.

So Anthony Hopkins can play both CS Lewis and Hannibal Lector convincingly...because somewhere inside him is a seeker of truth, and inside him is cruelty.

so you have pacifists like Mortensen playing a king and warrior, and an openly gay man playing the very masculine fatherly Gandalf...because inside each of them are these traits, maybe traits that are weak or lessened by other traits that are stronger.

If an artist/actor/musician seeks for truth in his art, he is obeying God, and often what comes out is greater than the artist himself...it is a grace.

Interestingly, when Tolkien was asked which character he identified with, he said Faramir: a warrior who was a scholar...except, Tolkien said, that he (tolkien) was not that courageous...

What an amazing article--it's hard to believe these interviewees said these things and managed such a shining marvel as the LOTR movies.

It is so clear, at least to me, that the ring is absolutely a metaphor for sin -- whether you call it human (elvish-hobbit-dwarf) frailty or something else. Even Frodo could not resist its lure in the end--and Something had to intervene to save him. Duty-sacrifice, good-evil...

These folks in this article seem to be trying so hard to avoid what's plain in front of them, yet they delivered the Truth to us with near-perfection when they spoke JRRT's words!

Yep, you're right. Examples could be multiplied almost endlessly.

My wife has a policy that makes great sense. She just avoids hearing anything the artists whose art she enjoys (particularly movies/music) have to say, because 9+/10 of the time it's terribly disappointing, at best.

It's really true. They play (PLAY) these noble, deep, accomplished characters. Then when you hear them speak in their own person... well, to call them "idiots" is to slander all true idiots.

John Rhys-Davis is a real exception.

Dan

I'm amazed at how these actors could be so immersed in this work for so long and still come out on the other side so absolutely flippin' clueless.

It's a wonderful, albeit tragic, illustration of that verse in First Corinthians:

I Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (KJV)

< /Tub-Thumping >

Dan, your are right on the money about actors. An actor's job is fundamentally to stop being himself and take on another persona for an hour or two. In order to make you believe it, the actor has to believe it himself at some level, at least for that moment.

For example, take the scene where Gandalf explains to Pippin that death is not the end, but a glorious beginning where the clouds are rolled back and one enters a realm of light. I am sure Ian McKellan would have denied that (or at least denied any certainty of belief about it) both before and after filming that scene; but I am equally certain that for the space of a few moments, he actually believed those lines as he delivered them.

I am not so concerned with the actors as with the screenwriters and director. As I look back on the trilogy, I think the few places where it went wrong can be traced to their lacking the same moral compass that Tolkien had. They got lost in the orcs and swords part and forgot, for a few screen minutes, where Tolkien was trying to go. Fortunately for me, those moments were few and Tolkein, with the force of his basic story, was able to drag them, kicking and screaming, where they needed to go.

re: “I wouldn't say there's an appeal in this story to any particular set of beliefs… I note with delight that Hobbiton is a community without a church. … There is no set of beliefs in this story, no credo.”)))

I just have to LOL--what a self-serving and self-congratulatory credo Ian M is spouting!! He dislikes the disapproval that Catholics (representing all Christians) afford him, so there ARE no Catholics

This really is a good essay--

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.