Here in the UK, I can only make a judgement about national opinion based on radio phone-ins, Question Time (the leading political debate programme on TV), opinion polls in national newspapers (of all political complexions), public comments by Members of Parliament etc. etc.
On that basis I think that UK national opinion runs pretty strongly against any war in Iraq that is not, at the very least, clearly sanctioned by the UN. I would guess there is a significant division of public opinion everywhere, but of course cannot speak definitively about the US.
Perhaps unlike the US, residents of the UK have many years direct experience of 'terrorism' (perhaps old-school terrorism by today's standards), on a small and large scale, related to the political situation in Northern Ireland. For that reason and others, a facile comparison between the moral protagonists in the LotR movies and the current situation is even more tenuous. We cannot really avoid the reality that "the enemy" are not easily identifiable monsters with bad teeth, like Orcs, or all necessarily led by inhuman beings intent on world domination, like Sauron.
This would be my interpretation of current public opinion in the UK, and I would think the likelihood of the movies acting as insidious propaganda is minimal.
The concept of a 'just war', sanctioned by Church and State, has been a reality for many hundreds of years. Whether what were called Just Wars actually qualified as such on moral grounds is certainly questionable in many cases, from the Crusades onwards. So it is certainly the case that wars can be justified through 'the media' of the day. But in historical terms, territorial wars, or conflicts of acquisition or succession, did not necessarily need to be 'popular' with a then disenfranchised public in order to take place. WWI might arguably be one of the few, and last, examples where a nation was initially swept along in an almost romantic enthusiasm for battle, and I would suggest it left deep and lasting scars on the national consciousness across Europe - no doubt Bill and Sharon can elucidate from a more informed perspective [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
The awareness, and perhaps the descriptive language, at least, of mass warfare was certainly within the reach of Tolkien. At the same time, one does not have to look for allegory or specific references - from Hastings to Agincourt, from Waterloo to Balaclava, British (or specifically English) martial history would have been deeply embedded in his psyche.
However, the suggestion that mass conflict on moral grounds can be legitimate is not exactly contradicted by the books (or films). The wars are acts of defence, and play a decisive part in the eventual triumph of Good over Evil. The key point is that the horror of war is not glossed over, and the contrast between desperate acts of heroism and defiance and the proud ruthlessness of conquest and dominion is apparent, as is the inevitable tragedy and loss of life. The argument that LotR is "anti-war" along the lines of Kent State is not supported by the narrative ... one probably only has to search among the interminable 'What If ... ?' posts to find the question asked - what if Gondor had not opposed Mordor, what if Rohan had formed an alliance with Isengard? etc. etc.
Conflict may have been forced upon the nations and reluctant heroes in LotR, but the challenge was met.
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin
[ January 13, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]
|