[Knight of Gondor]

I think most clear-headed individuals would agree that there is obviously a high degree of battle between what is depicted as "good" and what is construed as "evil," since hey, how many times does Tolkien describe Sauron and Co. as evil? I think that part is pretty obvious.

Precisely why it is a bit of a letdown to hear the staff deny any existence of good or evil, or spiritual themes of any sort within LotR.

But I don't think the struggle of Good versus Evil is portrayed by Professor Tolkien in a way that would make it open to interpretation solely as an external conflict (i.e. the U.S. vs. Saddam). It could easily also be interpreted as representing one's basic internal conflict between desire and contemporary moral standards.

Oh, quite true, quite true, I agree wholeheartedly. Even the greatest in Middle-earth (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf) did not wish to wield the Ring, knowing full well the peril they faced. (It would appear that these three at least were keenly aware of an existence of evil) Boromir is a case study. Such a noble man! I’ve discovered a newfound appreciation for him, and as such find his character very interesting. High and noble, a great and might warrior, and yet for his unguarded pride he sought to do what the very greatest would not. He paid his penalty, for sure. It was a battle internally for him. Sam fought a slight internal battle of his own on the journey across Gorgoroth.

But anyway, the concept of Good versus Evil is not by any stretch of imagination a purely Christian ideal, but more of a universal concept.

Quite true, yet for lack of divine good and evil standards, we find it open to interpretation by Gollum or Sauron, and nothing distinguishes between their “version” of good and evil and Sauron’s.

The Lord of the Rings is not imbued with any intentional Christian allegory, overt or subtle.

I object, your honor. If it does not occur to you that there are underlying themes based on Tolkien’s faith system, then you miss a great deal from the books. While Tolkien eschewed blatant allegory (such as oversimplifications like ring = nuclear bomb or industrialization), the subtleties of parallelism and applicability are certainly and undeniably present.

If I were involved in the making of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, I would be hesitant to try to describe it from a purely Christian viewpoint, since the best outcome of such a description would at best cause indiscriminant moviegoers to draw parallels between LotR and Christian ideology in a manner in which Tolkien would probably have scorned, and at worst cause non-Christians to feel alienated or reluctant to experience the Lord of the Rings movies or pick up the book.

Agreed, we don’t need PJ out there outlining every little theme similar to Christianity for us, but to deny utterly any themes that exist is folly. The theme themselves are slightly present in the films (“there’s something GOOD in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.”), it’s just disappointing that the cast and crew fail to recognize or acknowledge those themes.

A press junket is not the right place to launch into an impromptu discussion of the ideology behind a film

The public has a right to know, and I see no other time or place wherein someone could ask such questions to the cast, certainly not all of them at once! Why does no one object when people ask about things like ecological and environmental, or anti-industrial themes in LotR, yet they flinch when religion is brought into the topic?

The women who wrote the article did so in a manner that made her seem somewhat condescending and supercilious.

*Shrugs* She addressed it from her own angle, and has her own right to do so.

Although the books clearly do reflect Tolkien's own Christian values, as Tolkien himself acknowledged, those same values (the majority of which were transposed into the films) can be accepted and appreciated by those who do not share his beliefs (and, indeed, do not hold any particular religious belief).

So you acknowledge that those values and themes exist. This is more than Ms. Basham could persuade the cast and crew to admit, with the exception of John Rhys-Davis and Sean Astin, both of whom I thought handled the questions (referring to the second article I posted) very well.

So, like others here, I believe that it would have been wrong for the cast and production team to have aligned the values depicted in the films (and the books), solely with those enshrined within the Christian faith.

Align with, no. Acknowledge, yes. It reflects a large body of ignorance for some to proclaim that LotR agrees with no one specific belief system, such as stated by Viggo Mortenson.

Finally, I agree with Lush and Angmar that it is incredibly presumptious of the author to assume knowledge of these people's beliefs on the basis of these few selected quotes (and some vague notion of the depravity and debauchery of Hollywood), and it is also presumptious of her to suggest that they really ought to share her own views. These people are individuals, with their own views, beliefs and opinions, and (within fairly broad limits) they are entitled to express them as they see fit, or refrain from doing so if they do not believe it appropriate to do so.

It would seem what you say should apply to Ms. Basham as well. She is an individual, entitled to her own beliefs, opinions and views, and can express them as she sees fit.

The author seems to be preaching to those already converted to her own form of faith and understanding.

I’m aware of this. As I recall, I began this post with ample warning that the article was written by someone who professes to be a Christian, and that such themes were likely to be discussed.

a press junket is not a time to engage in extended discussion of philosophical points. I would go further, however, and wonder what precisely were the questions which were posed to the actors, writers and director which elicited these responses. There are questions which bait the receiver, questions which beg the question (no matter which way one answers, one is contemned), questions which unfairly provide scope for only one choice out of two offerred, questions which imply or direct an answer which recipients do not wish to give, questions which make the receiver feel personally threatened (and which result in self-defensive responses). Until I know what questions were posed, I cannot estimate the tenor of the responses.

As I already said, I cannot think of any other time that would be appropriate to discuss those themes. There are some here who want to know the thing that she wrote. And I believe it is the job of a journalist to ask tough questions.

Secondly, if the point of the article is to discuss Lord of the Rings, why open with a general castigation of Hollywood? This is a cheap form of argument, creating a "strawman" which once can then either tear apart or support.

As someone already said, this article was generally aimed at those members of the public who share both her love of Tolkien’s works and her faith. Many, many people agree with the opening assumption.

Well of course people's reaction to the article will be influenced by their personal standpoint.

Try telling that to Lush. She doesn't even seem to agree that her own personal viewpoint influences her opinion that Ms. Basham is a babbling kook.

It’s getting late, so I’ll answer the rest of these posts tomorrow. Let’s make sure not to argue, lest our diligent mods close us down!