# Culture-Movies/Literature/Entertainment



## Robin (Dec 7, 2004)

Anybody familiar with the book: \"Lord of the Rings?\" - hence the astonishing movies (extended versions) of it? Tolkien led CS Lewis to the Lord. And though Tolkien was a Roman Catholic - his ideas were actually quite Protestant/Reformed, as revealed in many of his letters and other writings. He was one of the scholars who translated the Jerusalem Bible - and as a linguist/historian, understood the Redemptive-Historic design of Scripture.

\"Lord of the Rings\" is NOT a Christian allegory at all. However, if one pays careful attention, traits of Christian categories are everywhere - spanning an epic history.

But aside from that....as a piece of current culture, it is amazing that such a story - bearing so much beauty - unpolitical correct themes like death, self-sacrifice, racial dignity, loss and goodness - should appear in this \"present evil age.\" 

As the \"Return of the King\" extended version, is set to be released December 14th --- an authentic treasure will be added to the arts. It\'s extraordinary to see a movie director not tempted by power and money - to compromise the portrayal of the most published book in the 20th Century - (second only to the Bible.)

Knowing how Tolkien used his worldview as an apologetic to Lewis - makes me wonder if the same tactic is ripe for use in our time as knowledge of the movie/book spreads? (Tolkien explained that his myth of middle Earth was based upon the \"One True Myth.\") This usage and concept relates to that \"pre-evangelism\" idea Francis Schaeffer teaches. The more I re-read LOTR, the more I\'m convinced that it goes so much further than CS Lewis Chronicles ever will. But to share in this discovery, one must brave the 1,200+ odd pages - numerous characters, plot-lines, languages and historical eras. (Whew! Sorta like the Bible, eh?)

The Reformers considered enjoyment of art like this, a blessing of \"Common Grace.\" Thank God Tolkien wrote the story for his own enjoyment - it is so beautiful!


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 7, 2004)

I love LOTR, but I would disagree with your assessment of Jackson. With each movie, he compromised the vision, themes and spirit of Tolkien's vision. I think if Tolkien had lived to see TT or ROTK, he would have punched Jackson in the nose.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2004)

Ditto to Fred
I agree with most of what you say, Robin. Rereading LOTR and the Silmarrillion was, to use CS Lewis' words, "to grow in mental health." 



> Knowing how Tolkien used his worldview as an apologetic to Lewis - makes me wonder if the same tactic is ripe for use in our time as knowledge of the movie/book spreads? (Tolkien explained that his myth of middle Earth was based upon the \"One True Myth.\")



I have also wondered the same thing. But my thoughts are too scattered at the moment to say anything about it.


----------



## Robin (Dec 9, 2004)

Not to be contentious - but I stress that my evaluation is for the LOTR movies in their extended versions - not theatrical releases. Time constraints prevented PJ from offering his film (the EE version) to theatres. (The EE's are not director cut versions.) 

Yes, there are liberties taken with the text. Again, the EE expounds the reasons for these. (PhD level educational material in the appendices in the EE.) Here's where the fun begins --- many Tolkien scholars think the changes are for the better! In the EE appendices, PJ and crew explain their fervor to maintain the "spirit" of the books - which is the only realistic goal in movie-making for this subject. And to that I say PJ got it right. I base this mostly on Tolkien's explanations in his letters ("The Letters of Tolkien"). There may be a couple of small objections the Professor would have had (as the EE admits) but nothing compared to his praise for the overall recitation of his saga.

Being a musician and a composer - I interpret PJ's piece as his "arrangement" of a classic. I don't think he failed to point the way to the Original in an honorable way. Time will tell how this becomes appreciated - or not.

Meanwhile -- a tidbit/clue....woven within the soundtrack, each time the choir is heard - they are singing in the languages from the book (Quenya,Sindarin etc.) the specific poem portraying that scene's subject. (They're not just ooohing and aaahing.) 

Did you know that portions of the Bible are being translated into Quenyan; Tegwar? Again, as Tolkien insisted, his myth was based upon the "One True Myth." But most importantly, Tolkien had a deep passion for languages - the spoken/written word. I think he might have been glad to see his work lead to the Bible.

NamÃ¡riÃ« 

Robin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 9, 2004)

I have spent the last 20+ years reading and re-reading LOTR and I must say that considering what Hollywood usually does to great books when they move to the silver screen, I was greatly impressed with the care that Peter Jackson took to remain faithful to the story as Tolkien told it. I know that liberties were taken -- I would love to see the extended versions and how they play out -- but more so than just about any other book-to-movie retelling, I think LOTR is an amazing accomplishment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2004)

Granted I dont like what movies do to books, but I have to say that the Scene where Theoden leads the Charge against the armies of Mordor was just plain awesome. I was emotionally stirred.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 9, 2004)

I have seen the extended versions as well. There is good material in the movies, and they are visually breathtaking. Jackson also does an excellent job of portraying evil - orcs, Saruman, etc.

But as would be expected from a pagan with no sense of aesthetic, he does a pitiful job of portraying good. Aragorn is a complete shell of the man Tolkien invisions. Elrond is nothing like the man of Tolkien's mythos. And Jackson shoudl be fined an entire film's pay for his portrayal of Faramir. I would punch him in the nose for that. He completely ruined a significant character. He also ruins (in that one small scene, for no real effect or savings of time, simply a butchery of Faramir) the good in Gondor, the familial dynamic with Boromir and Denethor (which goes a LONG way toward explaining Boromir's initial actions in Rivendell) and how noble Aragorn is - remember that Aragorn stands head and shoulder ABOVE Faramir. No problem here - my 7 year old stands head and shoulders above this Faramir.

I understand time limitations. I even understand stupid and ridiculous stuff that Tolkien would have abhorred like making Arwen some kind of Xena warrior princess because you can't pay Liv Tyler that much money to play the ACTUAL Arwen. But to make Aragorn a craven coward (remember that it is Arwen that spurs him on - NOTHINg like in the books), to make Treebeard a selfish oaf who has to be tricked by Hobbits into doing anything, to make Faramir (one of the noblest men of the 3rd age) a scheming Machiavellian, to make Elrond the wise man who has battle darkness for millennia a prejudiced snob, all for no visible or timing benefit -- this is modern man in action. Jackson can't hold a candle to Tolkien's vision. He is a Philistine.

But I can understand why so many love the movies; they, like I, simply find it breathtaking to see anything related to perhaps the best work of fiction in the 20th century on screen.

Think Homer's Illiad and "Troy." 'Nuff said.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2004)

Ouch Fred!
I know what you mean about Faramir: he was one of my favorites in teh book. The initial scene with Faramir inthe bookis awesome...Jackson ruined it. 

Here is one of the reasons that the Faramir of the movie is better than the Aragorn of the movie: he had enough sense to see that Eowyn was a much better catch than Arwen!

_Arise, arise, riders of Theoden.
Shields shall be shaken, spears be splintered.
A sword day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now! Ride, Ride for ruin, and the world's ending!
Death! Death! Death!
Forth Eorlingas!_


----------



## Average Joey (Dec 10, 2004)

In my opinion they did Boromir perfectly.He was one of my favorite characters in the books,and became my favorite in FOTR.Maybe it was the actor who played him(Sean Bean).A great actor.I haven`t seen a movie yet where I didn`t like him.He played Esau in the movie "Jacob" by the way.Very well made movie and very accurate to the Bible.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

I pretty much agree with Fred's comments too, but I still want to shake Peter Jackson's hand rather than punch him in the nose. Modern film special effects helped, but he far outperformed Ralph Bakshi who did a 1978 version of the story. 

Does Tom Bombadil or Goldberry show up in the extended version of FOTR? I missed those characters!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

FOTR is on TNT tonight!


----------

