Tolkien v. Jackson

Boundless Webzine ^ | 2004 | Megan Basham

[Siamese Princess]

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.

[Corin Stormhands]

Ring ping.

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.

[Molly Pitcher]

Agree with you SP....the liberals claim the "Superior" moral ground....

[T'wit]

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.

[Siamese Princess]

Thanks for pinging the Rings fans. Hopefully, more people will join the discussion.

[ecurbh]

Ring Ping!!

Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.

[HairOfTheDog]

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.

[Siamese Princess]

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.

[Maigret]

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.

[BibChr]

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

[Siamese Princess]

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.

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.

[Guenevere]

#9..Good point!

[Guenevere]

I also remember Ian Charleston, the actor who played the missionary/runner in Chariots of Fire...excellent acting...believable!

Charleston died only a few years later from AIDS.

[LadyDoc]

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...

[Mamzelle]

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!

[BibChr]

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

[ksen]

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 >

[Gordian Blade]

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.

[Mamzelle]

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--

[BibChr]

Do you know that he rips pages out of the Bible when he finds it in motel rooms?

Guess which ones. /c8

Dan