Posted on 11/30/2001 9:03:51 AM PST by Petronski
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:45:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I agree wholeheartedly. Popular art isn't necessarily always "least-common-denominator" like a lot of people say it is.
But it IS very difficult (and I think misguided) to compare the validity of popular art with "the cultured arts" (sorry, I know it sounds pompous but that is how academics refer to it). They really are apples and oranges. I saw a performance by MOMIX Dance Theatre not too long ago with a bunch of dance critics. They all characterized the troupe's performance as "shallow." I though this was really a shame, because I thought the works were quite imaginative and engaging...and you should've seen the crowd's reaction to the performance!
Well, it's obvious that the Bombadil episode is not seen (by the screenwriters, at least) as being essential to the story. I just wonder, if Tolkien were alive, how much he'd protest the elimination of this portion of the story if he had a say in the matter. I'm just as willing to sit still for a 3 hour and 20 minute movie as I am a 3 hour one, if it's done right. Maybe Tolkien would have seen the elimination of this character as destroying the integrity of the story somehow.
I admit to being a little mystified by the inclusion of Bombadil in the book, myself. He's obviously there for a reason, but I'm not quite sure what that reason is.
Once after Lewis had read through The Two Towers, but before Tolkien had finish The Return of the King, Lewis asked him, "How does it end?" Tolkien responded, "I don't know, I haven't got to the end of the story myself."
Same here. But I remember that he saves Frodo in the barrow downs? Gandalf does mention him at the end of TROTK.
I read the series aloud to my daughter when she was very small, but she loved it and couldn't wait each evening to hear more of the story. Point: don't give up, it's great read aloud. The language is wonderful . . . She's 10 now and I'm sure she'll read it herself in time.
She also loved Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn! And the Little House series and etc. etc. . . .
I read all three volumes to each of our three children, beginning to end. It's a big family thing. We have debated the merits of Tom Bombadil's poetry, how we would have dealt with Saruman, etc. etc. So we're really into it.
I went with our 15-yr old boy, the last one left at home. We were ambivalent, because we feared it wouldn't be true to the books, which we love. And we agreed that if it wasn't really good, we'd leave. We stayed for the full, three-hour show, loved it all, would happily have stayed to see it again, we'll certainly go again when it hits the theaters.
The characters are exactly the way we imagined them, the places are just perfect, and I knew everything was going to be fine the first time I saw the Shire, because it's really the Shire, and Bag End is really Bag End. Even Bree is really Bree, not some Hollywood version, if you see what I mean, it's the real place.
And so it goes, a perfect rendering of Tolkein's universe, and it's not a showoffy film, you don't ever say to yourself, "wow, what a great special effect!" You just enjoy the story, which is one of the best legends ever, and you accept the reality of what you see on screen.
At least we did. I don't know how this film will strike people who don't know the story, I hope they love it. And there are certainly plenty of scary moments, because the monsters are fearsome and some of the creatures, like the Dark Riders, are likely to visit children at night, just like the evil witches in Snow White or The Wizard of Oz. But there is no gratuitous violence, no--zero--foul language (quite the contrary; the use of language is gorgeous, and it's great for children on that score), although people do die, and there are big battles.
Hope that helps.
As for my daughter, my main concern would be gore. I knew (or at least think I know)that language/nudity would not be a problem and we are very careful with that, I just didn't know how vividly the portrayal of the battles with the Orcs would be, primarily toward the end when the fellowship breaks up.
Thanks again for your review. I'll try to see it myself before I take my daughter though, just in case.
My eldest (homeschooled) six-year-old used to have trouble falling asleep at bed time until I began reading "The Fellowship of the Ring." Now she's asleep within seconds ;o)
I'm sure. But that's what makes him so weirdly wonderful:
Moreover, if the reader is at all attuned to the real magic of Tolkien’s work, his imagination will be less preoccupied with such things as the wizardry of Gandalf than with, for example, the elusive grace and poetry of the Elves; the earthy austerity and hardiness of the Dwarves; the ineffable stateliness, the sheer antiquity of the Ents; the battle-hardened majesty of Aragorn; the playful, fathomless mystery of Tom Bombadil; and, perhaps most of all, the Hobbits themselves, with their quiet and humble ways, their unassuming, humorous, gregarious, homebody, pipe-smoking, meal-loving, comfort-seeking, Shire-dwelling hearts, and, hidden just beneath the surface, their unguessed depths and disreputable capacity for heroism. Here is the true center of gravity in Tolkien’s Middle-earth: not the world of magic, but the magic of the world. -Steven Greydanus
I shouldn't have to point out that Potter is written for 8-12 year olds and LOTR appeals to a much older crowd.
Your new comment
All children are alike? All children are the same audience? All children have the same interests, the same temperament? Or is it just the anointed children, the worthy? You can't imagine how much you sound like an arrogant, eastern liberal elbow-patched-sweater, pipe smoking Bostonian.
And you can't imagine how much you sound like more than half of the educators in this nation with the attitude of 'it's too hard for them!!! they won't understand it. It's aimed at an older crowd that has a larger vocabulary'. And that's the exact problem in this nation. Instead of actually challenging and educating young children in this nation, teachers are coddling little Johnny and little Susie so they don't get their feelings hurt. And you know what you get? 12 year old brats that can stand in a front of a camera and say 'Just look at ME. PHONIKS WERKS!!'
I don't remember anyone in my class getting coddled. Did we have those that were slower to pick up than others? Sure. Know what happened to them? Summer School!! Know what happened if they didn't make the grade sooner or later? Well, there were jobs out there for kids with or without high school diplomas. A lot of them. Sound harsh? Are we back to every kid IS OWED an education? Could you point that out to me in the Constitution please?
Look I'm not trying to sound like a cold heartless b@stard, but there are teachers out there that are passing children left and right just to keep their jobs because the childrens' parents, who have the I'm the parent of a terrific kid' smacked on the back of their minivan will sue the county or try to get the teacher fired if he or she even recommends a child might need to stay back or go to summer school. And then you have teachers that are there just for the paycheck(not here in NC no one in their right mind unless they just love teaching) and could care less about the children. They pass them from 1st to 2nd and on up to 6th grade without teaching a thing. Things like words, facts, and mathematical equations get in the way of having (and I'm not kicking on all teachers here, there are good ones, we all know that) to babysit and cuddle the little vermin without, God forbid, telling them it might take some extra effort because Lord knows we don't want to get sued.
I'm only 32 but I remember in public school that you either sat down, shut up, and listened or else you went to the principal's office and at least got threatened with a whipping. Now? Hell, they're too busy passing out bumper stickers to lift the little kiddies egos to actually teach them anything!! So what suprise is it, when less than 50 years after the writing of one of the greatest pieces of literature in the twentieth century, children today are reduced to reading what would be a lame excuse for a Dick and Jane book back then in the 6th grade now.
You are the one who doesn't give kids enough credit. Sit them in a room for a little while and you'd be suprised what they'd read. Oh, but oh no, we've got soccer practice, video games to play, TVs to sit in front of to watch the newest Power Ranger movie(remember Ultra Man? that had more acting talent in it than the Power Rangers and I don't know ANYBODY who watched it seriously past the age of 7!!) Children are intelligent and whe pushed to their point of excellence WILL excel. But no we're too busy not hurting their feelings for them to learn
Elbow patched sweater? Don't think so. Bostonian? I wouldn't allow you to carry my dead body further north than the borders of Virginia.
But regardless, Potter will undoubtedly end up fluffier than Frodo...although I believe I read somewhere that Rowlings never intended the series to be a children's series...she intended it to span generations, I think.
Also -- someone mentioned the C.S. Lewis Narnia series -- I've read those (except The Last Battle) to my 6-year old son, and he loves them. We've read several of them a number of times. He doesn't really get all of the moral implications in them yet -- but I'm amazed at how much he does grasp. They are a wonderful series for reinforcing solid moral values in children...and the adventure stories are exciting. Talk about a series that spans generations!
A truly ridiculous notion. Wagner mined the mother lode of Teutonic mythology and so did Tolkien. Wagner did not invent Nordic myths.
Tolkien was certainly a far more profound scholar than Wagner.
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.