Giggles

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually Bb, I agree with most of what you say.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

For shame, SpM, even in jest, to employ the term under discussion in the definition. I would have thought better of a loyer, but then I guess that is your humour at work.

OK then. Humour is what people find amusing.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The problem with your suggestion that the only objective view is that determined by majority or mass appeal is that it grants this specious 'objectivity' to the tyranny of numbers. We accept the rule of the majority in democratic votes, but I don't think we assume it necessarily follows that we are often persuaded that the best party won.

Well I am not saying that, just because something is popular, people have to accept it. As I said, I never found Friends funny. But I accept that it must have some quality which eludes me in order for it to have become so popular. As for democracy, well I would rather have to sit through every single episode of Friends than endure another four to five years of a government which I despise. But, alas, it looks like I shall have little choice on that particular issue. At least, as far as comedy is concerned, I have the option to switch off, not read etc.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education.

I agree with you to an extent. To a degree, I think that it is possible to judge something as being of greater quality if it is praised and respected by those who know what they are talking about. Hence I respect the views of professional critics when it comes to films (although I do not necessarily always agree with them). Similarly, I respect the fact that Dickens is generally acknowledged in academic fields to be one of the literary greats, even though I cannot abide the man’s work myself.

But how far do we take this? As you yourself said, Tolkien’s work was not generally regarded as having a great deal of literary worth by academics when it was first published. It was acceptance by a less lofty audience which first won him acclaim.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.

I actually think that it makes him a better author. His work had broad appeal and, in many ways, that means a lot more than a few nods from the ivory towers. But had LotR fallen flat on its face when first published and achieved only minimal sales, then I would say yes, judged by the standards then prevailing, Tolkien would have been a bad author. But tastes and standards do change over time, so a work of art which is judged “bad” by one generation may be judged as “good” by another.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.

Indeed. So, while popularity is relevant in considering artistic merit, popularity combined with longevity is an even better indicator. Indeed, it is perhaps the closest that we can get to a truly objective assessment. LotR has fared well on this analysis (so far). It remains to be seen how Jackson’s films will fare.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But to be told "You're in the wrong because more people agree with me", well, that amounts to plain ole bullying.

As you know, this is an argument that I have never sought to advance. I merely bring popularity up as a consideration, to be weighed along with other relevant considerations. I certainly do not like the films, or appreciate their humour, simply because they are popular. I like them because they appeal to me (despite being frequently told how wrong I am on this forum ).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It seems to me that you take the subjectivity of humour and out of that argue that the most 'objective' approach is to accept that of the majority. I also argue that humour is subjective. Where I differ is that I think it is possible to consider some properties of art which create humour.

I do not disagree. Although, as I said, I think that the most objective approach is to look not simply at popularity at one point in time, but to look at the degree to which something retains its appeal over time. It is not that long ago that the racist and sexist humour that Eomer spoke of was broadly acceptable. In some places it still is. But we have moved on and, as a general proposition, it no longer is acceptable to derive humour from such matters. But other forms of comedy are timeless. Slapstick is one such. And bodily functions have always been a rich source of comedy, even though society’s taboos have, at times, dictated that such comedy was not for general consumption – not publicly at least. Crude and obvious comedy was not Tolkien’s style, but it quite clearly is something that Jackson feels able to use. And, as it is his film, he is within his right to include such humour within it.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thus I think it is valuable to consider the context of Jackson's various bits of comedy. Is he asking us not to take Middle-earth seriously? Or take it just as a bit of a romp? Or is he just wanting to regale us with funny moments for the sheer fun of laughter? Did he simply want to make the most number of people laugh? Okay, I guess. But how does that sit with the other aspects of his movies?

I don’t think he is suggesting that we should not take Middle-earth seriously. But he is including light-hearted moments in order to break the tension and also to provide general amusement, and he is doing so in a manner with which he feels comfortable and which he feels will broadly appeal to his audience.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And since when is the filmaker's intention the final, absolute word?

Well, subject to the demands of the studio and his backers, he does have the final absolute word over what goes into the films. But he of course has no control over the subjective reaction of individual members of his audience. And he would no doubt accept that.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is by the measure of the first SW that I consider Jackson's movies, because his movies bring to my mind so clearly Lucas' finest achievements.

I agree, although my conclusion clearly differs from yours. Having said that, while I do feel that the LotR trilogy will be judged Jackson’s greatest achievement, primarily because of the sheer scale of the project, I somehow doubt that it will represent his greatest directorial achievement. I believe that his best is still yet to come.