Good versus evil: Downplayed, or overplayed?

[Lush]

I thought the article was ultimately pretty lame, if only because I find the very idea of talking about the deep undercurrents of religious belief during a press-junket for a film to be distasteful.

If I was up there, I wouldn't have exactly jumped at the chance to discuss the Christian themes in the book either. Faith, whether mine or Tolkien's, is such too intimate of an issue for a setting like that.

Furthermore, I think the author of the article is confusing faith, a private property, with religion. She writes from the point of a person who knows exactly what is going on in these people's minds. This makes her presumptuous and condescending.

There wasn't anything overtly Christian in the Lord of the Rings. I could sense the subtle ways in which religion influenced Tolkien's work, but from everything I've read on the subject, I got the idea that Tolkien himself wasn't exactly keen on people drawing sweeping parallels between the events in the book and Christian thematics.

Yes, the presence is clearly there. And it does show up in the films, if you manage to distract yourself enough from shrieking "cool!" at the action sequences. Whether one chooses to publicly acknowledge it and discuss it is not a matter of how "misguided" or whatever one is.

Actually, I get the sense that the people involved with the film were reticent on the subject of Good vs. Evil due to the fact that so many are eager to usurp this theme into a means of justifying the wars abroad.

Ultimately, I found the article to be well-meaning, but obtuse and limited in its scope. I've read better accounts of interaction between Christianity and pop culture; penned by conservative Orthodox priests. They had a sense of humour, warmth, and an understanding of their own limitations. I saw none of that in this article.

*tsk*

[Lalaith]

own understanding of the good vs evil struggle in the book LotR is that while there is one way of being evil, there are many ways of being good.

I don't read you. There is not one way of doing evil. You can kill an elf, or merely steal his bread. Both are evil.

Ok, to elucidate my point further, I think that in LotR, the essence of evil is the lust for power, the wish to subjugate or dominate others. This is what unites Sauron and Saruman - they are in essence quite similar. Good is a more variable concept - Barliman Butterbur, Elrond and Gimli are all on the side of 'good', but what else do they have in common?

I don't believe in Good vs Evil either. I mean, in a literary world, I do, but not in the real world today

Good point. I think that Middle Earth's politics have a refreshing simplicity....

[Lord of Angmar]

I'm not quite sure what the argument here is, Knight. You started off by saying that the Lord of the Rings "shines with a steady Good versus Evil message," but that does not seem to be the full scope of what the above article is really addressing.

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. 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 (this is all, of course, if anyone wishes to 'interpret' the conflict in the Lord of the Rings as anything more than an exciting and well-written war).

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.

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

Also, two major points that I second Lush on: 1) A press junket is not the right place to launch into an impromptu discussion of the ideology behind a film (and I will add that actors such as Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen should not necessarily feel responsible for understanding and being able to coherently and accurately convey any such ideology), and 2) The women who wrote the article did so in a manner that made her seem somewhat condescending and supercilious.

[The Saucepan Man]

I have little to add to what others before me have expressed so eloquently, Lyta, Lush and Lord of Angmar in particular. Although I would reiterate a few points.

I suspect that many, if not all of the quotes given, were understandable responses to attempts to elicit from those being questioned some kind of agreement to the proposition that LotR reflects Chrisitian belief or, worse, that the conflict depicted in the films mirrors current world events. The films are certainly not, and should not be, allegorical of Christianity. And neither are the books. 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, 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.

Also, while I believe that Jackson, and possibly some of the others, will have read around the subject, it is unrealistic to expect them (particularly the cast) to be familiar with every theme and idea developed by Tolkien in his various writings.

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.

Irrespective of the beliefs of the author, there is no "set way" of interpreting LotR and people will, and are entitled to, draw from it whatever values and conclusions seem important and appropriate to them. Those responsible for producing the films are no different from us in this respect, save that they were charged with the task of making the films as appealing as possible to as wide a section as possible of the film-going public.

[Bêthberry]

There is such eloquence here. Lush, Lord of Angmar, Lyta, SaucepanMan, you have all in various ways given voice to my own feelings that this article is a horrible perversion of Tolkien's trust in free will and the intimacy of faith and moral understanding. I will repeat here Tolkien's rejection of allegory as residing in "the purposed domination of the author" and in favour of applicability, "the freedom of the reader."

Rather than reiterate the points which these Downers have made I would like to provide some observations about the article itself. It's rhetoric is, to me, specious, manipulative, untrustworthy. The author seems to be preaching to those already converted to her own form of faith and understanding.


As Lush pointed out, 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.

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. The author spends no time proving the truths of Hollywood's wickedness--she merely asserts it--and then she simply proceeds to condemn Jackson et al with guilt by association.

There are as well many places where the author resorts to phrases and words which unfairly colour interpretation. What do I mean here? Expressions such as "begrudgingly paid lip service to" about Peter Jackson. Or her manner of using "apparently" and "unknowingly" to modify verbs. Or this bit,

Something close to desperation drifted palpably on the air as the interviewees grasped at any trendy 'ism'

For me, it is not only the presumptuous way the author would impose her beliefs on mine; it is also the suspect and unfair way she presents her argument. One wishes she had taken this line of hers a little closer to heart:

Bringing this belief to bear on his work, he [ie, Tolkien] infused his novels with the biblical principle that no one is righteous

How ironic that the author is named Megan Bashem.

Edited to revise Mary to Megan in author's name.

[Knight of Gondor]

I must take some time to respond to each of these posts more carefully. I think each of you that disagree (and you have the right to do so, make no mistake) should consider your own personal opinions, and how they affect the way you read the article.

Does anyone else have thoughts about this?

As well, I found this article that I'd saved off the internet somewhere, but hadn't located it. Most of it pertains to this, but not all. Once again, apologies to Mrs. (Ms.?) Basham -- all credit to her, and please don't sue.

--------
Inside Middle Earth

By Megan Basham
Guest Reviewer

Many people believe J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was filled with allegorical references to the author's Christian faith. But what about the recent box-office hits based on Tolkien's work? Reviewer Megan Basham set out to discover if cast members of The Lord of the Rings triology found a worldview similar to Tolkien's in the popular films.
CBN.com – All art in one way or another takes on the worldview of its creator. No matter how an author, painter, or director tries to deny the imposition of any overarching philosophy, the personal convictions of the creator will eventually find their way into the created. It's unavoidable. One cannot fully appreciate Star Wars, for example, without in some way acknowledging the mysticism embraced by George Lucas.

It was with this in mind that I entered the Beverly Hills Four Seasons hotel for one of the most sought-after press events in recent history--the preview and junket for the final film of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: The Return of the King.

If you've never participated in a press junket, let me set the surreal scene: At the studio's expense you are flown to L.A. or New York for two to three days; put up in the kind of hotel you haven't stayed in since your honeymoon; allotted a ridiculously large amount of money to feed yourself. All before watching a privately-screened movie, attending parties, and then interviewing the cast and crew about the film.

If you're like me, to all this you simply affect a casual air of indifference while inwardly screaming, "I can't believe I'm sitting across the table from Liv Tyler ... and I can't believe I just spent 50 dollars on a sandwich!"

So even though I have been known on occasion to condemn our culture of celebrity worship, I have to admit the glamour got to me. I was more than a little nervous to conduct face to face interviews with the famous names behind what could arguably be called the greatest film trilogy in movie history. And, like many ladies would in my position, I was feeling a bit weak-in-the-knees at the prospect of meeting the rugged, sword-wielding Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen for you Tolkien neophytes) in the flesh.

I needn't have worried. If I went there expecting special insight into how the players in the film realized J.R.R. Tolkien's worldview on screen, I was destined to be, for the most part, disappointed. Almost everyone involved in these films (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is either ignorant of or has an aversion to the underlying values intentionally woven into the popular stories.

J.R.R. Tolkien, as any cursory research could show, was unequivocal in his Christian faith and the fact that this faith was transmitted through his writing. He believed that by divorcing his stories from religious terminology, he could present religious truth in a way that would appeal to cynical modern audiences. It seems he was right.

Tolkien himself stated, The Lord of the Rings is "a thoroughly Christian work." So explicit was he on this point, he once said that the only criticism of the books that bothered him "were that they contained no religion."

Yet, "that they contain no religion" was exactly what most of the people involved in The Lord of the Rings films tried to tell me. Something close to desperation drifted palpably on the air as they clung to whatever trendy ideology they could to redirect Tolkien's unmistakable subtext.

Some claimed he intended to write a cautionary tale about the dangers of technological progress. Others demeaned his literary achievement by saying that it was simply an environmental manifesto, and still others that it was an anti-war statement. The screenwriter (and fans who've read even one of the books should find this one most laughable) even claimed that Tolkien was a "humanist" who was "passionately arguing for the goodness that resides in men."

But all astonished chuckling aside, what was most surprising was not the lengths the actors or director were willing to go in order to avoid acknowledging the transcendent truth contained in their story. What was most surprising was how the "Christian" press conspired to allow this, seemingly embarrassed to challenge Hollywood royalty on any statements, no matter how demonstrably incorrect they might be.

One interviewer in particular became noticeably uncomfortable whenever the conversation started to drift in a spiritual direction. She would quickly ask to "switch gears" to topics like who they'd like to work with in the future or how casting decisions were made.

Still fairly new at this game, I was not as aggressive as I should have been in redirecting the discussion. But my prayer is that in the future, those who represent the same God as Tolkien's (and I include myself in this group) will unashamedly address matters of faith in film. After all, if we don't take Christ seriously, how can we expect anyone else to?

Elijah Wood (Frodo) when asked how Tolkien's worldview affected his performance claimed to agree wholeheartedly with Tolkien. But his expansion on this statement showed he wasn't too clear what he was agreeing with:

"I certainly agree with [Tolkien]. I think in playing a hobbit, I was at the very center of his ideology, his perspective on what was good and what was wrong with the world. I believe he wrote hobbits as all that is good and pure in the world, and I sort of agree with his perspective that there are these good and pure things that are being threatened by Mordor. So in my estimation it's the modern world threatening all that is good and pure. ..."

Echoing the popular environmentalist view that man is God's blight on nature (rather than that nature, like man, is also fallen), Wood continued, "This especially felt true because I was working in New Zealand, a country that is so lightly populated and so pure in terms of its ecosystem. There are bits of nature there where there are no people at all. ... It gave us a really good respect of the Earth and the fact that it's being threatened. We had a better understanding on how the world needs to be saved and preserved."

Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) on the universal themes within The Lord of the Rings:

"It's not necessarily promoting one particular ideology, religion, or philosophy, but saying that if you accept that there are differences in the world and are prepared to embrace those differences, to approach the world in a positive, loving way, you may actually be able to change the nature of the human race. This story is an example of a group of people who triumph by following that aim."

John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) explained how the concept of sin plays out in Tolkien's story:

"The older I get the more certain I become in the existence of evil. I was musing the other day on an acquaintance of mine who was urging me to wear a ribbon to raise awareness for AIDS. Which was particularly interesting to me as he openly and publicly advocates a lifestyle which increases the risk of AIDS. And he seemed to have no sense of the irony of that. All I'm saying is that there aren't many diseases where a moral decision could actually end a plague. But we live in an entitlement age where we have no responsibility ... and there's certainly something sinful to me about that."

On Tolkien's themes as related to war:

"I believe Tolkien is saying that there are times when a generation may be challenged and if that generation does not rise to meet that challenge you could lose the entire civilization."

Follow up question: What is this generation's challenge?

"Well, the demographic of Europe is changing so rapidly, you realize that at the end of the century, if present trends continue, Britain will be an Islamic nation. And to me this is a catastrophe. I believe in Judeo, Greek, Christian, Western civilization. It has given us democracy. It has given us the equality of women. It has given us the abolition of slavery. And it has given us the right to true intellectual dissent. And if we lose that, the world is unutterably diminished.

"What will happen in the end, I think, is that we will again be polarized in the old and vicious ways. And I have to tell you that is why I am so behind what the Americans are trying to do in Iraq. It is an extraordinary thing. [Laughing] You're the most optimistic people in the whole (expletive) world. No one believed at the end of the Second World War that Germany or Japan could be democratized. And America did it. And what you're trying to do now in Iraq is say 'Look, we may be able to take a medieval-no, make that pre-medieval-culture and turn it into a thriving, Western democracy with a vested interest in life before death.'

"You can't really let the Orcs and the Uruk-Hai win now can you?"

Sir Ian McKellen (Gandalf) on the idea that Tolkien's story appeals to a Christian worldview:
"There are readers with different purposes, but I wouldn't say there's an appeal in this story to a catalogue of beliefs, or a set of rituals that must be observed in order to achieve what you want. It's not religious in that sense. I would say a sense of humanity is what's being appealed to. ... Gandalf isn't going around saving people's souls, for example. He's a commander on a battlefield."

On what Frodo's character represents:
"Frodo is every boy who's ever been sent off to a battlefield to die. ... Which is what Frodo does--he dies for us all. He's like the young boys fighting now in Iraq; it breaks your heart."

On universal values contained in The Lord of the Rings:
"I can't be the only one of my generation to think that here was some sort of parable of the real world politically and militarily. ... After all, Tolkien served in the First World War and wrote [the trilogy] during the Second. ... I don't think there are any Saurons around today, but in 1939, there was one. Sitting in the middle of Europe. A spider who wanted to control it, and the world joined together in a mighty coalition to defeat him."

And his favorite of the three films?
"Well, I'm more partial to Gandalf the Grey than Gandalf the White. So I'd have to say The Fellowship of the Ring. [Smiling] It's slightly more leisurely than the other two films."

Sean Astin (Samwise "Sam" Gamgee) responded to the question of a Christian worldview within The Lord of the Rings:
"Well, if you want a strong Christian reading, I'm sure it's there to be had. But I don't think that has to happen. I think that in a secular time, these movies can allow people of different faiths to experience the story without the imposition of that worldview. ...
"But somehow I don't have a commitment to any particular worldview that's strong enough to give me any clarity on that kind of analysis. It's interesting because as an actor that's part of pop-culture; I do have some unique relationship to the material, but there's so many people that have a clarity on this particular piece of literature that's way beyond mine. It's almost like I've had to abdicate my sense of ownership over the ideas [in the story] in order to be able to survive the process of playing it."

On the scene that affected him the most:

"The moment I cried at was when Aragorn kneels before the Hobbits. [Laughing] I mean there might as well have been a sign across the bottom of the screen, 'The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth.' To some degree it is the triumph of the meek. The simple, and the elegant."

On the brotherly love displayed between Frodo and Sam:

"We tend to be kind of afraid of it today, but there can be a very powerful love-friendship bond between males. Like when Sam says to Frodo, 'I can't carry [the burden] for you, but I can carry you.'"

Orlando Bloom (Legolas) on the universal themes he sees within the story:

"One of the great things about this story is that it's about a fellowship of strangers and mixed races coming together and putting aside all their differences. And there's the fact that they can be compassionate enough and have enough courage to overcome the fear that drives most people.
Its really just about having courage and wisdom and integrity."

Andy Serkis (Gollum) on playing Gollum:

"Gollum is the dark side of humanity. But I tried to look at him in a non-judgmental way, not as a sniveling, evil wretch. ... We can choose to demonize anyone with uncontrollable obsessions, but if we don't seek to understand them, we can never hope to grow as human beings."
Fran Walsh (Co-screenwriter) spoke about the fight of good versus evil in Tolkien's story:

"The fight [in The Lord of the Rings] is not about the type of feelings that drive blind patriotism or jingoism; it's not about a national, agenda-driven sense of right or wrong, rather it's about Tolkien's humanism. His story has become a part of the political jargon, and that's unfortunate. Because you don't trust these things when you're a humanist--this tub-thumping notion of what's good and what's evil."

Peter Jackson (Director) explained what he feels "the One Ring" symbolizes:

"Well it symbolizes the machine. It symbolizes the loss of free will really because Tolkien hated the way that the English countryside had been taken over by the Industrial Age in the mid-1800s. The Shire represents England before the Industrial Age. Tolkien despised the way that the machine started enslaving people. The ring robs you of free will; it's guiding and steering you, and I think that the Industrial Age really brought that upon society. Because it also offers people power."

Asked how much interest he had in fleshing out the Christian themes in the story, Jackson replied

"Not an ounce."
When pressed further to identify what the theme of the work was for him, Jackson gave the standard speech about not wanting to send a message. He then shrugged and commented, "I guess if it is about anything for me, it would be about environmentalism."

Philippa Boyens (Co-Screenwriter) on how Tolkien's myth relates to the modern world:
"One of the things Tolkien understood, because he was a [Christian] humanist," Boyens noted, "is that we all fail, and we have the ability within us to fail. Faith requires us to believe in a higher power. Gandalf, very early on in the book says, 'The Ring came to Bilbo and in that moment something else was at work.' Not the [Ring's] designer, the maker, this evil power, but some other power was at work. So it's whether you believe in that or not, whether you choose to believe in that or not."

Describing a climactic point in Tolkien's story and in the film, Boyens went on, "Frodo dragged himself to that point, and failed. And another power intervened." Then, referring to the end of Frodo's life in Middle-earth, she added, "And he ultimately surrenders to that power at the end of this movie, which is one of the most beautiful moments in [the film]."

Finally, a message Tolkien would be proud of.
-----------

[Lush]

I think each of you that disagree (and you have the right to do so, make no mistake) should consider your own personal opinions, and how they affect the way you read the article.

I am curious as to what specific "personal opinion" of mine would make me annoyed at whiny, presumptuous, low-brow journalism.

For example: Did Ms. "Me gon' Bash 'em" not read the memo on how averse Tolkien was to allegorical interpretations of his own work? Was there no way of incorporating that fact into the rest of the article; giving her personal reaction to it; maybe juxtaposing it with what we know and don't know of Tolkien's spiritual beliefs?

She has a possibility of a great article in both instances you've provided, Knight; this is a matter that has a place is in her heart's very core, is it not? When a subject is personal for a journalist, the pay-off is often tremendous, though usually not an ounce objective (though I can tell that objectivity is not her main aim here anyway; she is writing for CBN, right?).

But due to the reasons already stated by me and others on this thread, her writing ends up being as stimulating as those inspired verses I read on the back of the cereal box as I try to wake up in the morning.

The one thing that particularly irks me, however, is the way that the author appropriates Tolkien's beliefs and makes assumptions as to what he would approve of. I see this sort of thing every day on this board, and I am guilty of doing it too: this whole argument that "Tolkien was Christian, therefore..." Wow, did any of us, like, sit down and have a chat with him about all of this? The truth is, we can read as many letters of his as we like (and I doubt this particular writer has spent as much time poring over his correspondence as, say, Sharkey or Squatter), but we will never get to the bottom of this man's spirituality. Why? Because we don't belong there unless invited.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Knight of Gondor,

Since I don't want to cover exactly the same ground that the other posters have, I'll try to focus on different points. Generally, I found the original article you posted disappointing; it seemed to me that Basham strung together a series of random quotes without putting these in any understandable context or offering us an analysis other than a few unproven generalizations regarding the supposed nature of the contemporary film industry. I had read the second article you just put up a number of months ago. I found this one more interesting in that we at least got a more extended look at what the actors and various folk actually said, but still found it deficient.

Now let's look at this situation from a different vantage point. I think we can probably agree that there are many themes that run through Tolkien's writing. Tolkien's religious background and how that influenced the way he wrote his story is certainly central, but this is not his only important theme or idea. Tolkien's knowledge of ancient myths and legends, his expertise as a philologist who understood the derivation of words, his love of inventing new languages, his committment to the good green earth, his sheer joy in telling a good yarn---all these elements and many others run through the Lord of the Rings.

Basham is obviously a committed Christian, likely a committed evangelical, and this is the angle from which she is approaching the movie and, by implication, all of Tolkien's writing. For the moment, I will assume that she has studied and understood many of the explicitly Christian themes that run through the Legendarium. This was the yardstick she was using to measure the actors, writers, etc. who created the movies. Not surprisingly, they all came up short, since their own backgrounds and interests were wholly different than her own.

Now just imagine a different scenario. Imagine that someone like T. A. Shippey with an understanding and love of the northern myths got up and began to ask the movie crew probing questions regarding how these legends relate to the movie. Or perhaps we could have Patrick Curry raising queries about the ecological themes in the movie, Joseph Pierce addressing the explicitly Catholic elements, or Carl Hostetter on the nature of the Elvish tongues. I am saying this tongue in cheek but you get the idea: everyone approaches things from their own particular angle and requires that others do the same.

My guess is that the movie folk would fall flat on their faces in answering such questions, just as they fell flat when trying to articulate the "spiritual" themes in the movie, since this was not their special area of knowledge or interest. And I would also think that Basham would likewise have serious problems with probing questions outside her own special area of interest if they were ever posed to her. The basic point is this: Tolkien can be approached from many, many different angles.

From what I can see, Basham understands and appreciates one of those angles. What she doesn't seem to appreciate is that there is more than one way to look at Mr. Tolkien's writings, and more than one set of skills that can be brought to the table. For example, I may not always agree with what Peter Jackson has done but I will readily admit that he has more experience than I have in dealing with the problems of adapting LotR to the medium of film. Conversely, my own academic background is in medieval history, so hopefully I have a bit of specialised knowledge that he may not have. That doesn't mean one of us is right and the other wrong in our approach. It does mean that I may flounder at certain questions, and he may flounder at others.

This diversity is the heart of the Tolkien community. All the posters on the Downs have different backgrounds and beliefs. The idea is that we're here to learn from each other, and not simply to insist that everyone else see things from the particular viewpoint that we personally endorse. So that is my quarrel with Basham -- she has the perfect right to wish that the Lord of the Rings movie had been more "spiritual" in its approach, but not to disparage the filmakers in that they don't share her particular personal view.

Knight of Gondor -- Believe me, at heart I am very sympathetic to the view that the movie could have done a better job with certain themes. I agree that PJ did a better job depicting evil than he did depicting goodness, and that more attention should have been paid to communicating themes like Frodo's spiritual growth, or how the people of Gondor carried on the ancient traditions of Numenor. But this is an honest difference of opinion; it doesn't mean I have the right to look down my nose at the people who made this movie because they don't measure up to my personal yardstick. And that's what I feel Basham has done.