From woke to broke

A couple more observations about LOTR that can't possibly add or subtract to your enjoyment of it.

I read the book a few years back and enjoyed it. It's not that Peter Jackson didn't capture the character of the book in his movies. It's that movies can never capture the essence of a book because it's a different medium. That said, a movie can, at times, be better than the book for this reason.

In the Peter Jackson trilogy, this is a serious effort to make something of quality. And he did. It started with a fairly strong cast with a few exceptions.

I pick Sean Astin as far and away the best actor in regards to both his performance and matching the character in the book. Libtard Viggo Mortensen is also excellent, as is Ian McKellen as Gandalf.

The other Hobbits are so-so and often a bit annoying. Sean Bean is fantastic as Boromir and Christopher Lee is beyond comparison as Saruman. And although I suppose the voice of Gimli via John Rhys-Davies was just okay, Gimli was a character that probably was the weakest considering the centrality of his character. He did carry off once or twice a few comic-relief lines. But they seemed forced and off-key most of the time. And just (when in close-up) his general acting was quite weak. I never believed him as a real character.

And Jackson himself is at fault for the way he filmed Gimli. Either you saw him full-face or you had a far-away shot of what looked like a child running across the landscape. Almost every long-shot of Gimli pulled you completely out of the suspension of disbelief.

As for Frodo, it is a challenging role. And we can't know what direction was given to the actors. And Elijah Woods was certainly adequate, but never oustanding.

And too much Gollum. A little of him would have gone a long ways. And I found the elf casting to be sufficiently weak. Orlando Bloom as Legolas if more than fine. But it drops off significantly from there. And Hugo Weaving (The Matrix) as Elrond just never works. However, Cate Blanchett is suitably mysterious as Galadriel.

The best-polished character actor there (aside from Lee) is Brad Dourif as Wormtongue. He and Lee brought a depth and seriousness to the movie that was often lacking elsewhere.

As for the themes, there's isn't much to write home about, at least in the movie. I think Gandalf summed it up best when he said something like: "Do not tempt me with the ring, Frodo. I would think myself doing the greatest good but would end up doing monstrous evil."

Beyond the good-vs.-evil aspect, that is the theme of the movie. The rest is character play, war, and window dressing. Perhaps this is why the book is better because (if memory serves) these themes can be explored a little further. In the movie it's almost a throw-away line, although not the fault of McKellen in the least. It's just a theme that goes relatively unreinforced.

And without that theme as a backdrop, it's just a bunch of moving parts, one set against the other. And that, unfortunately, describes much of The Two Towers and The Return of the King. But in each there are brilliant parts and scenes. It's just that you have to wade through a bunch of relatively boring stuff to get there.

That sounds logical.

The task of taking something like The Lord of the Rings and making it into a movie is logistically on par with planning the Normandy invasion. It's a yuge project. For a director to maintain some kind of artistic vision and coherency when there are a thousand things pulling you this way and that is astounding.

Alas, they finally pulled him asunder in the making of The Hobbit, although I'm going to try to watch that again anyway. They also have that on HBO. I want to get in a few things before my subscription runs out.

But it's pretty much modern garbage with the movie geared toward those with attention deficit disorder. The Lord of the Rings had some quiet moments and some loud moments and moments that make you feel as if there's something real and personal happening.

But The Hobbit is basically just one big noise with little reason to care about any of the cardboard-cutout characters. But there are a few good scenes, such as some with the dragon. But other than that, it shares more with the low-brow Marvel movies than it does with The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I read in the trivia that Christopher Lee would read The Lord of the Rings every year, and did so until his death. I tend to not re-read books I've already read. But maybe one day I'll tackle it again. There and back again, I suppose.

The Richard Harris of Camelot and Macarther's Park certainly would have been well cast. However, as Harris aged her lost some of the charism. So maybe yes, maybe no. LOTR is a complex book with many themes running through it. The most complex is the Christian allegory. It should not surprise anyone reading the book that Tolkin was a Christian. What many people do not know is his best friend was an atheist, at least, he was when they became friends. Over the years he had many academic debates with his friend C.S. Lewis and persuaded him to become a Christian. Gandalf is about as Christ like as any character in literature.  As he transudations from grey to white the allegory becomes fact. Frodo and the hobbits are allegory for the everyman John Q. Englishman, while Gimli and Lagalos are reprehensive of the rest of Europe. Aragorn is the American, from the new world, at one time the strong silent type unwilling to assume the burden of leading the rest of the world. Sauron, is of course, all the evil in the world. and Suermann can be the deceived wise men of the world. The theme running through LOTR is one of loyalty and love. 

This is difficult to get into a movie no matter the director and how much money he has to make the movie. The full impact of the books does require several readings and truly, the same is true of the movies. Peter Jackson did an incredible job with the movies. That the Hobbit trilogy was not as good is, I think attributed to the book not being as good. They are ok, but not nearly the same quality. The crap of the Ring of Power is barely suitable for a moron and should be avoided. 

I agree. I have read it five times. The first either in my senior year in high school, or freshman year in college. I have read the full glossary, footnotes or appendices, which are very interesting. In them, one learns that as the last bearer of the ring still in Middle Earth, Samwise Gamgee is drawn to the sea where a ship carrying Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo, I believe Elrond and others who handled the ring are waiting to take him to the lands of immortality.  

One also learns that Aragorn lives to a ripe old age, but eventually dies. Arwen lives on and appears to regret her choice. 
I only saw the first of the three episodes and thought it was much too long. The Hobbit was a nice tale about a stay-home fellow who got pulled into adventure and returned home wealthy. Not close to the depth of The Lord of the Rings, but worth the read. 

You don't have a movie without a charismatic and believable actor playing Aragorn. You'd just have a bunch of fool Hobbits running around. I think Aragorn anchors this film. I hate to praise the libtard, Viggo, but praise him I must. He struck a good balance in this role. He played "reluctant king" as good as anyone ever has.

One of the plot points that is weak (and I don't know if the book filled this in) is why the Elves are going to wherever they are going. They are bugging out. But it seems that they had this planned beforehand and it had nothing to do with the rise of Sauron.

I would be more than happy with a sequel that follows the Elves and we see what they were up to. But, as it is, this major plot point (especially regarding Love-in-an-Elevator Arwen) hangs there unrealized. It seems a lost opportunity to add some depth.

Sam was right. Sam was always right. He should have bashed in Gollum's head with the nearest rock, although one of the best lines in the movie is Gandalf cautioning Frodo about handing out such justice too eagerly. And they do play the Gollum/Frodo "I can save him" angle to some benefit in the early going. But pretty soon it was obvious that Sam should have just brained him and taken their chances on finding their own way there.

Of course, as my brother points out: Why didn't Gandalf simply have one of the eagles fly Frodo to Mt. Doom? It's best not to ask such questions.

As for the Christian angle, if you are a Christian, you will see Tolkien hiding allegories in your soda crackers. But if I take a somewhat objective view, I certainly wouldn't call the movie particularly religious. As you note, this movie is about loyalty and love. And I think one character (Faramir?) ponders if the people he just slaughtered also were fighting for love or loyalty. One of his best moments, if I've gotten that straight.

But the evil in this movie is so overtly evil, it approaches comic book proportions, although I think Jackson's portrayal of the Orcs (and other monsters) is near genius. Rather than looking like caricatures or childish creations, these things seemed damn believable.

But that BIG EVIL aspect meant any true moral aspect is trivialized. You don't need to navel gaze or consider fine philosophy when someone is sending out monsters on giant hyenas to slaughter your women and children.

But, yes, Gandalf certainly comes close to kinda-sorta fulfilling the Christian idea of the resurrection and redemption through sacrifice.

Yep. And that "nice tale" is cast aside and replaced with, frankly, the rubber-stamp "action movie" modern mania type. They didn't need Tolkien to produce what they eventually produced. The Jackson Hobbit trilogy has no heart or soul. You just don't give a damn about any of the characters. Almost all of them are too loud and annoying. It's a cool dragon. But even that can't carry the film.

Tolkin is a believing Christian and while we have to take him at his word that he did not intend Christian allegory in LOTR the fact is, that it is there as big as life. I praise it that he did such a masterful job of interweaving Christian themes into the work. IMHO the book is as Christian as the works of Shalom Aleichem are Jewish. I wonder if the "woke" generation has tripped to the hidden message in LOTR and is secretively interested? Or just clueless?

My background on this, Brother Artler, is from discussions years ago with some Christian friends. I don't deny that the basic Judaeo-Christian morality is infused in The Lord of the Rings, as it is in many classic Western works.

But the discussion I had included people (and no insult intended) who would find Jesus in their Corn Flakes. If Gollum farted, they would see some kind of a Christian message that Tolkien had hidden there.

In the case of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, the Christ-like aspect of Aslan is overt and plain to see, as is the built-into-the-world idea of good needing to battle evil.

We get some very old concepts in The Lord of the Rings, including the Divine Right of Kings, which we Americans find outdated and, really, off-the-mark in regards to good-vs.-evil. They may have been necessary at one time, but to put the power in such a central place is courting disaster. And, I guess, we can't say that Tolkien didn't give us a good dose of that, considering the fate of the Ringwraiths and the corrupted kingdoms of Gondor and Rohan.

One good man (Aragorn) can save us all? Okay, I guess I can find Jesus in them Corn Flakes.

As for today's yutes, it would be impossible (or at least highly unlikely) that The Lord of the Rings could be made today in any authentic form simply because they reject the Good. Look at the ridiculousness of The Rings of Power. The deity of DEI has replaced Jehovah in that one, as it does it most other films these days.