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

theonering.net ^ | July 31, 2003 | HannColl

[Deb]

We can't afford the pay cut.

[BibChr]

That's terrific. Does it seem to you, also, that those not American-born often either see the greatness of America with greater clarity than many of its "natives" (i.e. JRD) — or else totally miss the entire picture (i.e. Mortensen), with relatively few middlers?

Dan

[Pahuanui]

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.

I have no desire to change your mind. I simply point out factually incorrect or unsupportable historical theory when I see it.

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.

Yes, to someone with your rather robust imagination, I'm sure that wouldn't be hard.

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.

What a cartoonish synopsis of current geopolitical dynamics. Please do detail exactly how these two have aligned and exactly how they're pose a 'danger' to the US.

You're safe for now. After all, your German Univeristy experience was so cosmopolitain.

I'm safe now because, unlike you, I don't have voices in my head and I actually know what I'm talking about.

Keep tilting at windmills if you'd like.

[Mamzelle]

re: My wife's wise policy is to know as little about these folks' personal lives and views as she can. She has found that, when they're not saying and doing what others write for them, they're pretty disappointing. There are exceptions, of course -- but a lot of NOT! )))

I like movies--like a good story. I love LOTR--love a GREAT story.

I have tried to avoid reading celebrity interviews of actors--actors are 95% low-IQ, gullible, easily led by pompous activism, have no education to speak of. What they can do is "let's pretend" effectively. Your pleasure with stories will be spoiled if you read celeb interviews--

Wish I'd never seen that ridiculous "No Blood For Oil"--because Aragorn's lines with Theoden in TTT were so at odds with Viggo's silly, shallow Old Euro public politics. Now I've started to wonder if Sean Bean might have made a better Aragorn--

[BibChr]

I agree. I've often wondered: does acting ATTRACT (generalizing, here) messed-up, immoral, clueless people, or does it CREATE messed-up, immoral, clueless people?

The lazy answer may be the correct one, that it is a both-and situation.

It is nice when exceptions like JRD and Sean Astin and (on many things) Tom Selleck and Mel Gibson and Charlton Hestin come along.

But they're definitely the exceptions, not the rule.

Dan

[Mamzelle]

re: I agree. I've often wondered: does acting ATTRACT (generalizing, here) messed-up, immoral, clueless people, or does it CREATE messed-up, immoral, clueless people? )))

Probably some of both.

Having watched a fourth-string celebrity at close range for a number of years, there's also another psychology at work that decays the character of the artist.

You get so much attn, so much money, so many people telling you that you're wonderful that all those basic needs are satisfied. Pretty soon you need to have your "Great Wisdom" validated by spouting off shallow political postures, generally rec'd from a fellow artist at some party whose favor you're currying. Naturally, if you're such a success, so important, your *attitudes* must be Important, too.

Truthfully, I often break my own rule and end up paying attn to what they say, despite myself. Now, why do I do that? Maybe I buy into this celebrity nonsense, just like the celebrities do.

Happen to listen in on a Kate Hudson interview where the reporter tried to trap her into saying something stupid. She, little 23-yr-old daughter of Goldie Hawn, said, "Now why would anyone care what I think about politics? I'm just an actress, and can only speak from a show-business world"--something like that. Now, I was impressed. This girl is much smarter than she looks...

[BibChr]

Yep. "Man's got to know his limitations."

Dang! Just quoted Dirty Harry! Stop me before I quote again!

Dan
(c;

[Deb]

No. I just think John is exceptional. Most people we come in contact with think America is the big threat to peace in the world. We got into a huge fight in South Africa at dinner one night a couple of months ago during a shoot. Everyone (Brits, Americans, South Africans), at the table was screaming at us. But I can't blame them since the international press is completely anti-US. I can't name a single pro-American movie to come out of the foreign film community...ever.

The worst thing about having to travel so much is learning that the World really has a uniformly negative image of us. Of course, it's gotten worse since GW was elected because the international left-wing, which controls all media, is hysterical with hatred.

I was surprised how biased Sky News is against Bush, since it's owned by Murdock. I don't understand it. And if you think CNN is slanted, you won't believe how bad CNN International is.

We have run into only one group of Republicans, or conservatives in the film business, and that was the American film crew shooting in Bulgaria last year. Producers, director and just about everyone in the production company was a good guy.

No, JRD is exceptional. And having been a history professor, he can win every argument.