Good versus evil: Downplayed, or overplayed?

[Knight of Gondor]

I found an interesting article on the net regarding the spiritual themes of the movies as they relate to Tolkien's works. Most of us would probably agree that LotR shines with a steady Good versus Evil message. But how about the people that put the movie together? Do you think they recognized it?

Be aware, this is an article written by a fellow Christian, and there is bound to be some religious discussion on this thread. Just so you're warned.

-----
by Megan Basham




Perhaps the most surprising thing about Hollywood is not how debauched, depraved and decadent its stories are — considering how untouched this area of American culture is from Christian influence, we could hardly expect different. No, what is most surprising is how many films still manage to capture brief flickering lights of truth in an industry that feeds almost solely upon darkness — a darkness that disguises itself as “tolerance” (when it is in fact a refusal to acknowledge any moral law) and “self-empowerment” (that is in reality little more than self worship).
True, our silver screen icons celebrate fornication, adultery, and blasphemy at nearly every turn, but the truth that God has written in their hearts remains, so that, in spite of themselves, they also occasionally celebrate mercy, justice, fidelity, and faith. As a result, you can have an abortion activist like Ed Harris (a man who recently stated that it would be a “catastrophe” if Roe v. Wade were overturned) appearing in a film like Radio that unabashedly argues for the value of every human life.

One of the most striking examples of this disparity in recent years has got to be that between J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings and the filmmakers who adapted his story. All art in one way or another takes on the worldview of its creator, and so it did in the case of this Christian writer. Tolkien acknowledged as much when he called his trilogy a “fundamentally religious work,” and said he resented criticism that his stories “contain no religion.” But if the people behind the films are aware of these sentiments, they are, for the most part, unwilling (or unable) to consider them.

The Author v. The Filmmakers
At the recent press junket I attended for The Return of the King, some of the actors, the screenwriters, and director Peter Jackson begrudgingly paid lip service to Tolkien’s well-documented Christian worldview. However, deeper questioning revealed that they had little understanding of how that worldview manifested itself in Tolkien’s work. Something close to desperation drifted palpably on the air as the interviewees grasped at any trendy “ism” — from multiculturalism to environmentalism — trying to recast the Christian subtext of Tolkien’s edifying myth.

Asked specifically about the religious elements in the trilogy, actor Orlando Bloom (Legolas) made a vague reference to an awareness of the “spirit” and “energy” that defined Tolkien’s writing. Further pressed to define that “spirit,” he seemed to strain for words, speaking once again about the film and his own experience rather than the book in question: “It’s very positive. … It’s about a group of strangers, of mixed races, putting aside all of their … differences to come together to make a difference. … And New Zealand, which is a classless society in many respects … that we were all treated with equality there had an effect on us when making this film. … ”

Similarly questioned about the religious themes in the trilogy, director Peter Jackson appealed to Tolkien’s well-known love of nature: “He [Tolkien] hated the way the English country side had been destroyed by the industrial revolution in the 1880s. The Shire represents what happened to the England that he loved. There was pollution, forests being cut down. … ”

While Jackson wasn’t wrong on his point that Tolkien disliked industrial progress, when he proceeded to magnify this element in favor of much weightier and well conceived themes, he demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the trilogy’s defining struggle: “The ring is obviously a metaphor for the machines, the factories, that enslave you, that take away your free will.”

Though many elements in the trilogy might represent harmful industry, it is fairly obvious to Christian readers that the ring is not one of them. To a redeemed reader, the “One Ring” could be symbolic of several things — temptation, lust for power, idolatry — but all of them point to one reality: sin. Small and innocuous as it is, in its hold over those who wear it, the ring is very much like a lion seeking whomever it can devour. In fact, one might say that all the various “owners” of the ring eventually end up becoming slaves to it.

Actor Ian McKellan took a different tack on the question of the books’ religion altogether, refusing even to acknowledge that there are any Christian undertones in the them. Flying in the face of Tolkien’s own assessment, McKellan stated, “I wouldn't say there's an appeal in this story to any particular set of beliefs… I note with delight that Hobbiton is a community without a church. … There is no set of beliefs in this story, no credo.”

However, once the cast and crew moved past their initial hesitations about having to answer questions related to spirituality, their responses to the Christian journalists’ questions concerning Tolkien’s faith began to reveal shared worldviews of their own.

Absolute Standards v. Moral Relativity
True to biblical philosophy, Tolkien’s characters believe very much in the concept of absolute evil, that there is a terror in the East that must be defeated. Most of Jackson’s cast and crew very much did not.

Though he played Aragorn, great warrior and defender against monstrous evil on screen, Viggo Mortensen the actor was reluctant to pass value judgments, or even admit that the trilogy does so: “It's [The Lord of the Rings] not necessarily promoting one particular 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.” One wonders how the Fellowship would have fared had they simply “accepted” and “embraced” the Orcs “differences.”

Screenwriter Philippa Boyens also seemed particularly offended by the notion that the battles in the books are predicated upon a fixed sense of good and evil: "The fight [in 'Lord of the Rings'] is not about [an] … agenda-driven sense of right or wrong. Rather it's about Tolkien's humanism … because you don't trust these things when you're a humanist — these tub-thumping notions of what's good and what's evil." Questioned about what constitutes tub-thumping, she answered, slamming her fist into her palm, “You know, those people who go, ‘THIS IS WHAT’S RIGHT AND YOU’RE GOING TO FOLLOW IT.” The notion that the Fellowship was ultimately forcing Sauron to follow their particular version of right evidently did not occur to her.

Later in the day, though, one person was finally able to judge something as wrong. When asked what he would do with the ring of power if he had the opportunity, Andy Serkis (Gollum) stated, "I would banish all religions first of all."

Total Depravity v. Innate Goodness
In a letter to a friend, Tolkien once wrote, “The Power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'.” Bringing this belief to bear on his work, he infused his novels with the biblical principle that no one is righteous: Boromir betrays the Fellowship out of lust for power, Gandalf refuses the ring because he recognizes his own weakness, Gollum illustrates a life completely ravaged by covetousness, and even the pure Hobbit Frodo is eventually no match for the seduction of the evil. Yet, while they did an admirable job portraying this reality on screen, none of those responsible for creating these characters were able to see it.

Elijah Wood said of Frodo’s journey, “I don’t know if [a higher power] necessarily pertains to Frodo’s particular journey. The way that Frodo gets through is ultimately in his own will and his courage and his own inner strength … that’s what gets him through.”

Ian McKellan echoed the idea that salvation in Middle Earth comes from within: “I think what Tolkien’s appealing to in human beings is to look inside yourself. That’s why they join a fellowship, they don’t join a church.”

Screenwriter Fran Walsh took this notion further still, even claiming that Tolkien was "passionately arguing for the goodness that resides in men." She went on to say, “If anything, Tolkien’s faith informs the third book — faith that the enduring goodness of men will prevail. … It’s about the enduring power of goodness that we feel in ourselves and perceive in others. … ”

Christian Truth v. Postmodern Perspective
Tolkien knew, and his books clearly show, that there is an order to the universe and, as such, an Orderer. He once wrote to a friend, “I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains … some samples or glimpses of final victory.” He believed, as he told his friend C. S. Lewis, that if he could create an echo of the one true myth, that of Christ, he could disarm cynical readers and point them toward that victory in spite of themselves. While his myth has had significant success at this over the years, it has yet to work its influence on those who introduced it to a new generation of fans. Being confronted with the faith contained in Tolkien’s fiction only seemed to confound the wisdom of these giants of entertainment.

To those (unknowingly?) enmeshed in postmodern ideology, not only is truth up for interpretation, so is the work of truth’s champions. Evidence (such as letters and statements written by Tolkien himself) and facts (such as his faithful attendance and involvement in his church) somehow have no influence on their understanding. Like many college students, the cast and crew of The Lord of the Rings apparently believe that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers when it comes to the meaning of a particular text. Everything is subjective, so that meaning (including Tolkien’s) isn’t based on the author’s intentions, but on the experience of the reader. Good and evil are merely creations of the ideology of the beholder.

Yet if evil is a mere creation ideology, then The Lord of the Rings is nothing more than the story of a group that forces it’s ideology on another group. Why, then, did actors, screenwriters, and director alike revel in the round defeat of Mordor? If evil is merely a creation of ideology, then the victory of the Fellowship deserves our celebration no more than, say, colonialism. Why, then, were actors, screenwriters, and director alike stirred by Tolkien’s depiction of faith, fellowship, and victory? Though the power of their own “rings” may yet be “binding them in the darkness,” let us hope that some part of their hearts recognized echoes of the Other story.

Perhaps over the years, as they look back on their stunning cinematic achievement, Jackson and company will one day come to embrace the truth contained in their films. In the meantime, we can follow Tolkien’s example and continue pointing the lost toward Grey Havens.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2004 Megan Basham. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

This article is found at www.boundless.net. All credit goes to Ms. Basham's brilliant article. Hope she won't sue me for sharing it.

What do you all think? Does it shock you that Fran Walsh doesn't believe in good versus evil? PJ? Andy Serkis?

[Saraphim]

That's a very interesting article. I've had alot of thoughts on that subject, so now I've got something to say.

First of all, I recognize the Christian themes that are extremely prevalent throughout Tolkien's works. Moreover, I recognize that there are moral themes prevalent as well, often overlapping the Christian ones.

Most people do not want to see that there is any sort of religious undertone in a story (e.g. the LotR movies), especially when it is so popular with the general public.

If the actors, producers, ect, proclaimed that LotR was fundamentaly a Christian story, bad things would happen. Use your imaginations.

In my opinion, the Christian themes are important in the telling of the story, but one thing I do not agree with the author of this article about:

The notion that the Fellowship was ultimately forcing Sauron to follow their particular version of right evidently did not occur to her.

The Fellowship wasn't forcing Sauron to do anything. In fact, if Sauron had had his way, he would have forced his ideas onto everyone else. The Fellowhip was ultimately attempting to save anything right at all.

While I am not Christian, or affiliated with any religion, I (obviously) greatly respect Tolkien and his works, and have no grudge against anything Christian-based. To a certain degree, I see Philippa Boyens' point. Tolkien never tries to convert anyone to Christianity within LotR. To a certain degree, I agree with her, but the book has Christian themes. It was even stated so by Tolkien himself.

[Lalaith]

My 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. Which is one of the reasons that so many people around the world, with different cultures and creeds, have found the book rewarding and inspiring.

I think the author of this article is being disingenuous when she quotes some of the actors, particularly Mortensen. I don't think Mortensen was talking about embracing the differences of the Orcs in a trendy moral relativist way, but rather that LotR portrays different races (elves, dwarves, hobbits, men) wanting different things out of life, and doesn't cast moral aspersions on these differences.

However, although I suspect I have a rather different viewpoint from this author, both politically and religiously, I do concur that some of the moral certainties of the book were turned into moral questions in the film, changes which I found unnecessary and rather irritating. The two that spring to mind:
1. In the book, Aragorn accepted his destiny and wanted to be king, his only dilemma was how best to achieve his goal. In the film, he was initially avoidant of his rights and responsibilities.
2. In the book, Rohan's nobility as a nation was illustrated by its unquestioning loyalty to Gondor, both historically and at the time of the War. In the film, there was uncertainty and resentment surrounding the alliance, and its historical existence was not really mentioned.

[Lyta_Underhill]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I think Ms. Basham uses limited quotes and then interprets them according to her own agenda. One quote in particular I'd sure love to know the context of, and that is Andy Serkis' one-liner, but I couldn't find a reference to anything more than a 'sound bite.' I'd sure like to know what he had in mind. As for the others, I think the cast and crew were highlighting the humanism inherent in Tolkien's work, while perhaps casting doubt upon the adherence of organized religion to the basic humanistic values. The author seems to equate the concept of organized religion to basic moral themes as expressed in LOTR. Personally, I think this is more a reflection of the author's personal relationship with her own religion and basic beliefs and may not reflect the macrocosmic perceived 'outer face' of Christianity (and other organized religions for that matter) as understood by those she quotes. Thus, my first statement. It is, however, an interesting article! Thanks for sharing, Knight of Gondor!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Saraphim]

Now that it's not midnight, I have a clearer mind and can mention something else. I don't believe in Good vs Evil either. I mean, in a literary world, I do, but not in the real world today. There are so many shades of grey that it is often impossible to really define anyone as inherently good or evil. People do horrendously bad things, but not for no reason. It might not be reason enough to absolve them of guilt, but it explains why they did something.

Also, (I'm assuming that the web site you got that from is a Christian web site) I agree with Lyta_Underhill that the author was using limited quotes to her advantage.

She portrays the actors and producors as bumbling nincompoops (I don't think I've ever spelled that before.) and I'm pretty sure that they're not. With the exception of Orlando Bloom. I don't mean to insult his intellegence, but he is perhaps the least, um, shall I say, enlightened person in the group, and the author does the whole cast a hinderance when she puts his opinion first.

[Knight of Gondor]

At the risk of entering a pointless debate, obviously I agree with and support the article, and would like to provide a "defense" if you will for the objections raised.

The Fellowship wasn't forcing Sauron to do anything. In fact, if Sauron had had his way, he would have forced his ideas onto everyone else. The Fellowhip was ultimately attempting to save anything right at all.

In a sense, that's true. But at the same time, Sauron had his idea to dominate Middle-Earth. That was "his version" if you will of Right and Wrong. The Fellowship (elves, dwarves, men, hobbits, ents) had another version, the version wherein they stay alive and free. Therefore, they fought for their "version" of right and wrong. And of course, ultimately won...

To a certain degree, I agree with her, but the book has Christian themes. It was even stated so by Tolkien himself.

Glad you see it that way, Saraphim! By the way, I like your signature adaptation.

My 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. You can either help an elf, or give him a loaf of bread. Both are good.

I think the author of this article is being disingenuous when she quotes some of the actors, particularly Mortensen. I don't think Mortensen was talking about embracing the differences of the Orcs in a trendy moral relativist way, but rather that LotR portrays different races (elves, dwarves, hobbits, men) wanting different things out of life, and doesn't cast moral aspersions on these differences.

I think her main point is that this is the ONLY theme that it appears our favorite actors are able to glean -- which is sad.

One quote in particular I'd sure love to know the context of, and that is Andy Serkis' one-liner, but I couldn't find a reference to anything more than a 'sound bite.'

I agree that it would be nice to know the context, but I'm confused as to what sort of context would change the meaning of the quote that he would ban all religions?

The author seems to equate the concept of organized religion to basic moral themes as expressed in LOTR. Personally, I think this is more a reflection of the author's personal relationship with her own religion and basic beliefs and may not reflect the macrocosmic perceived 'outer face' of Christianity (and other organized religions for that matter) as understood by those she quotes.

I tend to agree the article reflects her own personal faith, a faith I share. Yet the idea that Tolkien shared this faith as well is not an unfounded statement, and documented proof suggests that Tolkien intended for many of those religious themes to prevail in his works. For more, I suggest checking out some of the books (such as the one by Ralph Wood...I forget the book's name) that expound on spiritual themes in LotR.

It is, however, an interesting article! Thanks for sharing, Knight of Gondor!

You are welcome!

She portrays the actors and producors as bumbling nincompoops (I don't think I've ever spelled that before.) and I'm pretty sure that they're not. With the exception of Orlando Bloom. I don't mean to insult his intellegence, but he is perhaps the least, um, shall I say, enlightened person in the group, and the author does the whole cast a hinderance when she puts his opinion first.

I would just tend to think that, with the exception of Christopher Lee and John Rhys-Davis, few of the numerous people involved in putting these films together had a true appreciation for the inherent themes in the books -- whether religious, or merely philosophical, intellectual, literary, etc.

[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*

[The Saucepan Man]

Hehe. You mischievous devil you, Lush.

Shades of Alan Yusko.

I wonder how the cast and crew would have reacted to questioning based on these people's agenda? They would probably have ended up defending the Christian themes in Tolkien's works.

It must sometimes be an awful drag to be God and to have such people as your worshippers. If I was Him, I would find them dreadfully dull and tiresome ...

[Lord of Angmar]

That article, Lush, made Ms. Basham look like an Enlightened philosophe.

Without getting into any of the specifics of what the author was saying, I will say that I was not impressed by the writer's use of leading rhetorical questions ("Doesn't God want us to...?") to 'help' the reader along. The author sets up the article as a critique of Tolkien's work. Ha. After openly admitting to "have neither the time nor the stomach to drudge through any of Tolkien’s books," the author proceeds to write an article in which no characters, events or quotes from The Lord of the Rings are used as argument, instead choosing to utilize only two notable sources; The Inklings Handbook and the Bible.

The article attempts to defame C.S. Lewis by questioning "the company he kept," specifically that of Mr. Aleister Crowley, who was supposedly rumoured to sacrifice children "and other ceremonies" ("other ceremonies?!" oh no, anything but that!). What is the author implying with the reference to Mr. Crowley, another "member of this intimate society" known as the Inklings (the Inklings actually had many members, on-and-off, as well as people who frequently sat in on their sessions. My memory may fail me, but I do not remember Mr. Crowley being a prominent member.), about C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien? Is the author implying that Lewis and Tolkien were embroiled in cults which led them to sacrifice infants? That their literary styles and spiritual lives were influenced by this Mr. Crowley? This question, just like all of the questions that she poses to the readers, are never plausibly answered.

Ok, without even touching on Lush's point that the author "attempts to speak for God Himself," which he/she certainly does, I cannot bear to continue writing about this tripe.

I agree Saucepan; shades of Yusko indeed. In the I don't believe this thread you asked the question that was tugging at my mind the entire time I read this and Mr. Yusko's writing:

Why can't these people devote their energies into addressing the tangible wrongs that are happening here and now, rather than making wholly misguided attempts to brand anything that they don't agree with, or which doesn't conveniently fit into their own comfortable little belief system, as evil?

[Lush]

I just thought it was interesting how two such diverging viewpoints can spring out of what appears to be the same source.

The article I link to above is, at least, a good indication that Christians are not a homogenous group and Christian attitudes toward Tolkien and how he should or shouldn't be represented on film can, and will, diverge.

Considering how easy it is for one to assume what and who is or isn't Christian (hee hee), I thought this article might be good to bring up.

[Lord of Angmar]

The article I link to above is, at least, a good indication that Christians are not a homogenous group and Christian attitudes toward Tolkien and how he should or shouldn't be represented on film can, and will, diverge.

The article certainly is a good indicator of that, though I hope non-Christians who read the three articles being discussed in this thread don't think that the only heterogeneousness of Christians lies within the viewpoints displayed in said articles.

[Lalaith]

I cannot bear to continue writing about this tripe

I feel the same way, Lord of Angmar...but just to clarify the Crowley issue, I believe that one of the Inklings (Thomas?) belonged to another organisation that Crowley briefly was involved in. That's as far as the association went.
Which gives a good indication of the veracity of the rest of the article.