Posted on 12/26/2001 8:35:02 AM PST by massadvj
As I lurk about the various topics here on Free Republic I have noticed a paradox that I think I can explain, but I'm not sure. The paradox is this. Currently, there are two mainstream movies out about magic and sorcery: Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. I have noticed that Freepers of the right wing Christian persuasion have lambasted Harry Potter for causing young folks to believe in sorcery and witchcraft; and also possibly causing hair to grow on one's palms. On the other hand, the praise for Lord of the Rings seems to be universal, in spite of the fact that it, too, features sorcery and the like. The question is why.
Personally, I liked both movies. Lord of the Rings was the better flick, in my opinion, because of its fantastic scope and special effects. Also, Lord of the Rings was a better story, which is where the question of the paradox comes in. If you think about it, Lord of the Rings is filled with Christian symbolism. One devil, the ring (original sin), a savior, there is even a resurrection at one point. So the movie appeals to Christian sensibilities at an unconscious level. This is nothing new to movies. Take a look at E.T. the Extra-Terrestial or The Abyss for two more obvious examples of tugging at Christian heartstrings.
Harry Potter, on the other hand, is more "New Agey" and relativistic, which rigid Christians find irreverent. And so, Potter gets slimed while Lord gets lauded.
That's my take, anyway. I'd be interested to hear whether others think this hypothesis of mine has any credibility. So flame away.
It happens -- there are always some people who believe the everything is everyone else's fault but their own.
Get off your high horse....We're not talking economic ideology here, but the intent of authors. Tolkien's books were less a commercial venture than a love of lore and myth to him. Sure, he sold the movie rights to LOTR before his death....The amount he received was something along the lines of $14,000, if memory serves me correctly.
Thanks X, for answering the questions about the 'angelic' nature of the Istari, while I was out provisioning my larder. I think that there are many who see this prototypical novel as being bound by its genre imitators. They say, 'wizards, dwarves, elves, it must be a child's fantasy'.
This is roughly the equivalent of saying that since a sword and sorcery novel like Conan the Barbarian is light entertainment, that the original story of this type, The Odyssey, is light entertainment also. Having closed their eyes to the possibility that LOTR is great literature, they are not able to see what is there.
For the estates sake, I hope they make money. But the suits in Hollywood are notorious for making successful blockbusters look like they actually lose money. The trick is to get a percentage of the box office (gross) profits, not the net. A star from the first Batman movie was pissed because they got an absurdly small payout because supposedly they took a percentage of the net and not the gross.
Extremely clear distinction. As opposed to, say, the ending of LotR. We'll see about the ending to HP though.
:>)
I agree. And, taking it a step further, LOTR stresses the importance of the 'lesser' beings or those not imbued with extraodinary powers, stepping up and going the distance. Relying only on their own courage and heart to get the job done for the greater good, with no thought of reward.
That's where the heroism comes in. Potter has none of it.
Don't get me wrong. I think LotR is much better literature and it is much more spiritually challenging than HP (which is mindless entertainment). However the lines between good (Dumbledore) and evil (Voldemort) are extremely sharp. Voldemort kills many people and for no reason, tortures others (including children). Very sharp distinction.
Just something to chew on. I'm not going to come back & answer anything (or make any new arguments). FWIW, I wouldn't let my child read either HP or LotR until they were in middle school.
Yes, greed tends to destroy itself. It was the good in Bilbo, and later Frodo, that kept them from killing Gollum. That Frodo faltered at the end does not obscure good and evil, IMO.
In chapter nine of the Sorcerer's Stone, Harry breaks the rules by flying a broom immediately after being ordered not to do so. The rule had been set in place moments before Harry chose to break it and was set for the safety of Harry and the other children. Because Harry turned out to be a natural on the broom, a good end, his breaking of the rule, the means, was justified. According to the end of chapter ten and the beginning of chapter eleven, the close friendship between Harry, Ron and Hermione begins in part because Hermione is finally willing to lie and break the rules. As the story develops we see Harry, Ron and Hermione breaking rules, sneaking into forbidden parts of the school, and lying. But, since it all works out in the end, it's OK. Is that the lesson we want our children to learn?
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.