John Rhys-Davies on Tolkien and Islam (Q&A)

theonering.net ^ | July 31, 2003 | HannColl

[GOP Jedi]

This is an excerpt from a Q&A given at the Gen Con Game Fair that just wrapped up. John Rhys-Davies, who played Gimli in Lord of the Rings, and also Sallah in the Indiana Jones films, is taking questions from the audience. Here's one of them, taken from a longer intereview:

Question: But my question. those of us who spend way too much time on the internet noticed that you get asked, or all the actors, get asked a lot of the same questions over and over again and so I just wondered what you wished fans or journalists would ask you about.

JRD: Well, I mean there's a difference between fans and journalists; there's a difference between talking about the film, which I think is one of the great pictures of all-time (applause and cheers). But the question I'd like to get asked is 'Does it mean anything?' and uh, I suspect it does. I think that Tolkien is a man living in a particular age of crisis and his life is quite uneventful, really, except for the fact that he's a captain in the First World War. He was at the first battle of the Somme. The British army in the first DAY of the first battle of the Somme I think probably had 20,000 dead and maybe 60 or 80,000 wounded. And that was the first day. You don't go through that sort of furnace without having to ask yourself questions: Why are we fighting? Is the cause we're fighting for a just one? How can I justify the deaths of those men that I'm leading? And I think that

Tolkien found a justification for it. His justification is that there are certain times when your civilization is challenged and if you do not meet that challenge and overcome it, you will lose your civilization.

And I think that there's a terrible resonance between that period of time and our period now. I do think that our civilization is being challenged. We've been challenged internally because I think we've lost so much character, moral fiber, decency, integrity, and I think it's being challenged partly, because we have lost those, externally by fundamental Islam. And I think that if we do not pull ourselves together and recognize that that challenge is there, we're going to end up with people taking a hammer to the Pieta and to the.you know, defacing pictures and portraits in the National Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

But you Americans I think are further along the way of realizing that. I actually think that you're morally a stronger country than Britain is. I'm appalled by what I see in England these days. There was a time when an Englishman's word was his bond and an Englishman didn't steal. Even Welshmen. (laughter) The little town where I live in Wales, well not far from where I used to live in Wales, has one of the highest rates of carjacking in the world. More cars are stolen from Exely and Swansea and places like that than almost any other part of the world, including Bogotá and places like that. I'm ashamed and embarrassed by that but you, know unless we start to affirm that we are not going to steal, that we will not put up with theft, that we will not put up with drug-taking, we will lose our society, and then perhaps it will be for the best that fundamental Islam, which forbids these things, sweeps across the world. I personally dread that thought. I hope one day that I will have great-granddaughters and I am very adamant and determined that one should not lose one's daughter's fingernails to the local Taliban if she dares to paint them.

The resonance between Lord of the Rings and present time is that we need people of courage to take the real challenge to our civilization and meet it head-on and win.

And that is a very unpopular cause, often, and it is very easy to say 'Oh, let somebody else do it'. And that is one of the questions that I wish somebody would ask. At least, one of the answers that I would give to one of the questions that I wish someone would ask (applause).

[Wordsmith]

I'll always remember him as Indiana Jones's archaelogical foreman. "Bad dates".

[Cyber Liberty]

(This is my first post, so be kind if it's a wreck... ;)

Sorry. Forum rules dictate that you be taken out back to the woodshed/cable modem to learn the tune of the hickory stick. Or something like that.

[Wordsmith]

Actually, Jackson also used many midgets in wide angle shots, distance shots, and shots where you only see the back of the actor's head. There's a whole documentary on the "sizing" techniques used in LOTR on the DVD - most of it was done with innovative camera tricks like forced perception, not with computers.

[Alkhin]

That is true, but I also think that when an actor speaks out positively about something, he should be rewarded with praise...kind of the same thing as you would a child (NOT calling Mr. Davies a child, mind you!!!)...if they do something negative, they need to know about it. But if they do or say something that uplifts, then they also need to hear about it.

Its NOT the same thing as saying 'you only listen when they agree with you.' Thats a favorite obfuscation by those who like to muddy the argument. I dont mind if an actor comes out and says what they think of a situation...they are asked to do so all the time, be it for a charity or a political cause. Its when they use that bully pulpit to trash those who would otherwise be sympathetic...and the problem that a lot of Hollywood actors have is they can't get past the idea that they know better than anyone else and therefore to not listen to them qualifies you, the listener as STUPID and MORONIC and UNCHARITABLE and OPPRESSIVE.

You dont hear that attitude from people like Rhys-Davies or Sean Astin, or Elijah Wood, or Charleton Heston, or the rest. What marks them from the rest is the sense of humility in their position. And that gives them far more power than the Woody Harrelsons and Susan Sarandons who scream crudities and insanities at their audience.

[ninenot]

Tolkien was thinking about defending western civilization when he wrote the Ring Trilogy.

To be a bit more precise: ...western Christian civilization.

We know that one does not go without the other--but there are many who forget.

[ninenot]

Ping. Good stuff here.

[Lil'freeper]

So where do we go now?

[ecurbh]

Well for now, you can go to http://www.the-hobbit-hole.net/forum/index.php

[risk]

There was a 'right' side in WWI?

Yes, just as much as there was in WWII. Read up on how the war started, who was involved, and why they wanted to start it. I've made some links (through the images below) to follow.

And if the Austro-Hungarians had won, just consider Turks and Germans everywhere, running everything -- and having to speak German. Young people from all the conquered countries would be forced to enter the German army to serve in Africa or Asia or South America to "keep the natives in line," and Americans and non-German Europeans would always be second-class citizens. And if you think they wouldn't have attacked America after dominating Eurasia, Western Europe, and Africa, think again.

Was it really that bad? Yes! Consider that WWII was just Adolf Hitler, a former Corporal from the trenches who had fought for the Kaiser, wanting to finish off what the great German people had started. He felt that it had only been the weakness of their leaders that kept them from winning. Of course he blamed the Jews, too.

Ypres today

Don't forget the original problem with WDMs: German aerial bombings and German gas. We didn't call them the Huns for nothing.

German "Big Bertha"

[Sam Cree]

I am waiting for a ping from Hair. I have the address to Ecurbh's place, but am unable to access the chat there.

Has anyone tried a reply to 2J to see what happens? I suppose that thread is actually over?

[Pahuanui]

There was a 'right' side in WWI?

Yes, just as much as there was in WWII. Read up on how the war started, who was involved, and why they wanted to start it. I've made some links (through the images below) to follow.

My question was actually rhetorical. I've studied WWI for several years, and am familiar with the details.

And if the Austro-Hungarians had won, just consider Turks and Germans everywhere, running everything -- and having to speak German. Young people from all the conquered countries would be forced to enter the German army to serve in Africa or Asia or South America to "keep the natives in line," and Americans and non-German Europeans would always be second-class citizens. And if you think they wouldn't have attacked America after dominating Eurasia, Western Europe, and Africa, think again.

That's some pretty heady speculation. Do you think that young English men in the British Army at no time were used 'to keep the natives in line'?

Was it really that bad? Yes! Consider that WWII was just Adolf Hitler, a former Corporal from the trenches who had fought for the Kaiser, wanting to finish off what the great German people had started. He felt that it had only been the weakness of their leaders that kept them from winning. Of course he blamed the Jews, too.

It was worse than that.

[El Sordo]

If you ever get the chance, watch the "making of..." disk from the extended FOTR DVD. The visual effects tricks they used were amazing.

JRD was large enough that when filmed next to the Hobbits, no effects were neccesary. His 6 foot frame was larger than say, Sean Astin, by the proper ratio that a Dwarf should be larger than a Hobbit.

[risk]

>>> My question was actually rhetorical. I've studied WWI for several years, and am familiar with the details.

Then I see you really have no point but to suggest that the deaths of millions of allied soldiers was for nothing. But it is you who should be explaining why there was a right side to me instead of the other way around.

>>> That's some pretty heady speculation.

So you think the Germans wanted something less than to rule the world then? What gives you that impression?

>>> Do you think that young English men in the British Army at no time were used 'to keep the natives in line'?

What sort of a question is that? One can't separate the end of the British colonial empire from the world wars of the 20th century.

My grandfather on my father's was a US Marine in WWI and all of his brothers were in uniform, as well. I believe my grandfather on my mother's side was in the Navy. It's too bad you can't ask them why they fought.

My mother warns me to this day that the Germans will do it again. My father's right arm is nearly useless now after the injuries from a German 88mm AAA burst near his B24 have caught up with him.

Good luck trying to explain to me why WWI and WWII weren't part of the same process, and why western civilization wasn't equally threatened by both events. Maybe you think that because war is hell that it's wrong. I'm sure all the countries that were attacked in 1917 felt the same way.

[risk]

ping

[Pahuanui]

My question was actually rhetorical. I've studied WWI for several years, and am familiar with the details.

Then I see you really have no point but to suggest that the deaths of millions of allied soldiers was for nothing. But it is you who should be explaining why there was a right side to me instead of the other way around.

I'll thank you not to attribute positions to me that I do not hold, and I have not in the least suggested that the deaths of Allied soldiers were for nothing. The deaths of soldiers from all combatant parties were for nothing. WWI is the most tragic example of a completely avoidable conflict in history. It was for nothing and accomplished nothing other than set the stage for even more bloodshed in WWII.

That's some pretty heady speculation.

So you think the Germans wanted something less than to rule the world then? What gives you that impression?

Yes, I do not think that the Germans wanted to 'rule the world', or desired it to any particular degree greater or lesser than any of the other involved parties.

Ever since Germany defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, all the major powers of Europe had been considering plans for the next war, seen as inevitable given the conflicting ambitions of the major powers.

Germany had the Schlieffen Plan and the French Plan XVII. Austria-Hungary had Plan B and Russia Plan 19.

>>> Do you think that young English men in the British Army at no time were used 'to keep the natives in line'?

What sort of a question is that? One can't separate the end of the British colonial empire from the world wars of the 20th century.

I haven't tried to.

My grandfather on my father's was a US Marine in WWI and all of his brothers were in uniform, as well. I believe my grandfather on my mother's side was in the Navy. It's too bad you can't ask them why they fought.

Why? The opinions of individual soldiers or sailors have precious little to do with the plans of empires and armies.

My mother warns me to this day that the Germans will do it again.

Quite frankly, having lived, worked and gone to University in Germany, and having been married to one, I speak from some experience: your mother is wrong.

My father's right arm is nearly useless now after the injuries from a German 88mm AAA burst near his B24 have caught up with him.

Which applies to WW1 and the motivation of the powers involved in it exactly how?

Good luck trying to explain to me why WWI and WWII weren't part of the same process, and why western civilization wasn't equally threatened by both events. Maybe you think that because war is hell that it's wrong. I'm sure all the countries that were attacked in 1917 felt the same way.

Oh, please. Get real. I haven't suggested that WW1 and WW2 were not part of the same 'process', as you put it, or sequence of events. WW1 led directly to WW2, and Western Civilization was most certainly threatened. Those facts have nothing to do with my prior statements.

WW1 was, for lack of a better term, wrong. Stupid, pointless and totally avoidable.

As to the countries that were attacked, the alliances that were in place at the time assured that blame could be equally placed all around.

[weegee]

"His justification is that there are certain times when your civilization is challenged and if you do not meet that challenge and overcome it, you will lose your civilization. "

BUMP

[Monkey Face]

We all fight for our concept of freedom. Those of us in America are more educated in the freeing processes than are the people who are being misled and deceived by tyrants and dictators who have nothing but their megalomaniac greed to prompt them in their sinfulness, no matter what country they live in or what lies they tell.

Oppression and cruelty have been with us since biblical times. It's not going to change today, just because we don't like the history of the world. We have to MAKE it change. One person at a time. Be brave. Bell the cat.

Your parents and mine paid for this country. Half of my ancestors were here to meet the other half, and I'm not going to give it up because someone doesn't like my religion, my freedom, my opportunities, and my willingness to sacrifice in the name of God.

All I can say, risk, is that without people like you and my own ancestors, this country would be speaking languages few of us are familiar with.

[Monkey Face]

Let's emend that: Almost everyone in this country has scarificed SOMEthing in order to live here and take advantage of life without tyranny and dictatorship. This country has, several times, come close to being under the fists of dictators. We have managed to vote them out of office, and elect people who are level-headed and just.

Do not mistake compassion for weakness. We are not cowards, we will not kiss behinds, and we will fight for the Red, White and Blue. Make NO mistake about that!

[risk]

>>>> Yes, I do not think that the Germans wanted to 'rule the world', or desired it to any particular degree greater or lesser than any of the other involved parties.

There's where we differ. Go ahead and think what you like, because you haven't changed my mind in the least. Kaiser Willhelm's cabinet wanted war, and they would have obtained it anyway they could. And their goal was nothing short of domination of all of Europe. And it isn't hard to imagine that if such appetites were possible, they could never be satisfied with anything less than control of the world.

While France and Germany align to try to dominate the EU, and therefore control Europe "politically," and while France and Germany attempt to create a counterbalance to American influence in the world, keep thinking that there is no danger. You're safe for now. After all, your German Univeristy experience was so cosmopolitain.

[Deb]

You can't imagine how much he loves this country. He says the things we all feel but are afraid of sounding self-serving. John isn't shy about it. He never passes up a chance to praise America and tell people he thanks God for it. He also says that, "George Bush will one day be considered one of your greatest Presidents".

Jaws drop on that one.

I start looking for the nearest exit when I feel it coming.