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*

[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.

[Saraphim]

This is one of the most engrossing threads I have ever participated in. However, I have some rather unhappy comments to make.

My biggest complaint is with the authoress. As I mentioned before, she uses limited quotes to her advantage, which gives her the angle of haveing to deal with heathenous, bumbling nincompoops, which I also mentioned before. But that second article made me realize something else, as well.

It is not the job of the cast and crew to know the answers to these things. When asked by a reporter about such things, they rely on what they know, and what they know is obviously not what pleases Ms. Bashem.

Of course, the cast has thier own beliefs and sees something different with the book than someone else might. This goes along with what Child of the 7th Age said:

Not surprisingly, they all came up short, since their own backgrounds and interests were wholly different than her own.

When Ms. Besham looks at LotR, she most likely sees a story infused with Christian themes and metaphors. I, for example, do not. As I said before, I recognize the Christain basis for the story, and I feel that the morals portrayed are fundamentaly good, as well as Christian, but I do not see a wholly religious work. To me it is simply a good book, saturated with things everyone can appreciate, and appreciate in thier own way.

Every story, and everything contained therein, means something different to different people. And I think Megan Bashem needs to recognize that or she won't succeed at journalism for very long.

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

Well of course people's reaction to the article will be influenced by their personal standpoint. Just as Ms Basham's reaction to the quotes from the cast and crew is influenced by her personal standpoint. The difference is that I am not criticising her for not sharing my views. I respect her right to her beliefs. Rather, I am criticising her for not according the same respect to the cast and crew and for presuming that they should share her outlook on life.

Every story, and everything contained therein, means something different to different people. And I think Megan Bashem needs to recognize that or she won't succeed at journalism for very long.

I don't know about that, Saraphim. Is it not the very essence of journalism to use what others say to further one's own personal (or corporate) agenda?

[Knight of Gondor]

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.

Well, Lush, what can I say? I didn’t expect any sort of agreement with you. Ha ha, just a mere blank post from you would have been indication enough for me to know what you think. You think it’s distasteful? I suppose if you want to think it is, that’s your prerogative. I’m exceedingly happy that Ms. Basham wrote both these articles, because they’ve given me the insight I desired as far as the character of the characters goes.

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.

You have to understand that Lord of the Rings has remarkable appeal for people of different faiths, whether it be Christianity, or secularism. I’d certainly think the mass populace has the right to know how our favorite actors respond to questions regarding such issues, especially when the author himself was undeniably Christian. (Catholic)

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.

She went to a press screening, and asked questions, and then wrote based on the answers she got. Isn’t that kind of what everyone else does? Ms. Basham is just the first one to do it from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

There wasn't anything overtly Christian in the Lord of the Rings.

Besides an immoral, omniscient Creator creating the world, sending his angels to sustain it, having one powerful angel fall away and despoil creation, and the hearts of his creations. And undeveloped legends tell of a time when Illúvatar would one day enter Arda in mortal form. Besides that...

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.

I will merely quote Ms. Basham, who merely quoted Tolkien. Some time, perhaps you can take the discussion up with him. “Tolkien himself stated, The Lord of the Rings is ‘a thoroughly Christian work.’ ”

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.

I don’t shout cool at the screen, but I must admit that my second viewing, one tear pushed its way over the brink and ran down my cheek during the blowing of the horns. (Perhaps my previous day’s viewing of The Passion left me a little raw?) I’m quite happy that Ms. Basham requested the actors and staff to address the Christian issues. Perhaps you are displeased with the result, but I’m quite sure I’m not alone in being happy she did that.

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.

Hm, I see where you are coming from on that. So thinking on it (and I agree one does need to think before recalling a different sense of evil in LotR), what about Gollum? He cared nothing for power, control, subjugation. He merely wanted his Precious. And even Andy Serkis acknowledges that Gollum represents evil. (But I forgot, evil doesn’t exist, does it?)

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?

None of those characters have the inclination to do evil (at least, great evil, I’m sure neither Bree nor the Shire is a sinless community), it’s just that some of those have more of an inclination to fight evil.

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

So....good and evil only works in theory? I don’t want to get involved in a good or evil discussion, because we need to keep it on topic, it’s just an interesting (strange) idea. PM me if you’re interested in discussing it further, please.

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 might have gotten the points slightly confused there, so I shall clarify. The main point of this discussion is about whether or not LotR contained the theme of good and evil too powerfully (ie, unrealistically, which it does if you don’t believe in good or evil) or if it was underplayed. Since this is in the movies forum, obviously the discussion pertains to the movies, because those who created it, while doing an admirable job, had no appreciation for the deeper themes whatsoever. Peter Jackson has no interest whatsoever in addressing those themes. Seems like a diss to Tolkien, being that LotR was a “fundamentally religious” work.

I have to divide this into two posts, nuts.

[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!

[The Saucepan Man]

As probably one of the least religious members here, I sometimes wonder why I always seem to get involved in debates (no, Knight, certainly not arguments ) on the religious themes in Tolkien's works.

But I do feel it necessary to address a few of the points that you have made, Knight, and perhaps seek to clarify some of the issues that I and others have raised.

I'd certainly think the mass populace has the right to know how our favorite actors respond to questions regarding such issues

Why? Why should their religious views (or any other personally held ideas and opinions) have any bearing on their work? Of course, Ms Basham is free to raise such questions. But those questioned are equally free to refrain from answering them, if they wish, or to express their own thoughts and opinions, and they should not be castigated for doing so. My gripe with Ms Basham is that she pours scorn on their views simply because they do not accord with her own.

I will merely quote Ms. Basham, who merely quoted Tolkien. Some time, perhaps you can take the discussion up with him. "Tolkien himself stated, The Lord of the Rings is 'a thoroughly Christian work.' "

The precise quote, from a Letter from Tolkien to Robert Murray, SJ (Letter 142) is:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut, out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For, as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should be chiefly grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and I owe that to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships and poverty resulting from it.

By this, I take Tolkien to be acknowledging that LotR is (inevitably) coloured by his own religious beliefs and values. But he is also at pains to make clear that it is not intended as a religious allegory. In a Letter to his American publishers, the Houghton Mifflin Co, containing some biographical and explanatory material (Letter 165), he stated:

It [LotR] is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political.

In many of his Letters, Tolkien explains the difference between allegory and applicability. LotR is not an allegory of Christianity, so the reader (or interpreter) is not obliged to recognise it as such, or indeed any of the themes presented as implicitly Christian. But it does have applicability. So, a Christian may (and no doubt will, given the faith of the author) find the themes expressed within the book applicable to his or her own beliefs. Just as readers of other denominations, or those of a non-religious persuasion, may find themes within it (often, in all likelihood, the very same themes) which are applicable to their own values, be they moral, political, socialogical, envoronmental etc. As I said earlier, there is no "set way" of reading this book. Readers are free to take from it whatever values seem most important to them.

Besides an immoral, omniscient Creator creating the world, sending his angels to sustain it, having one powerful angel fall away and despoil creation, and the hearts of his creations. And undeveloped legends tell of a time when Illúvatar would one day enter Arda in mortal form. Besides that...

Nevertheless, Eru is not God (Christian or other). He is a character in a series of stories (and, indeed, his existence is only implicit in LotR). As Tolkien said, again in Letter 165:

I am in any case myself a Christian; but the 'Third Age' was not a Christian world.

Precisely why it is a bit of a letdown to hear the staff deny any existence of good or evil

I don't see anything in the quotes given that has the cast and crew denying the existence of good and evil, in the sense of abstract concepts. Indeed, one of the quotes talks of the "enduring goodness of men". What I do see is some of those questioned (understandably, in my view) shying away from the suggestion that the films should be taken as representing good and evil as found within any particular belief system. Ms Basham interprets what they say as representing a complete rejection of the concepts of good and evil, but that is a mischaracterisation of what they actually say.

I think that those questioned were also recognising that the issue of good versus evil is not as clear cut in real life as it is portrayed in the books and the films. If anything, good and evil is more starkly delineated in the films because characters such as Denethor (and even Saruman) are more one-dimensional than they are in the books. However, the film does retain the concept of good vying with temptation/evil within a single character (Boromir and Gollum/Smeagol, for example). At the same time, characters such as Aragorn and Theoden are less obviously "pure" in the film, because doubt (Aragorn) and bitterness (Theoden) are introduced into their characters (something which I think probably makes them more believable to a modern film-going audience).

So you acknowledge that those values and themes exist. This is more than Ms. Basham could persuade the cast and crew to admit

I don't get the sense that those questioned were denying that themes such as the struggle between good and evil are to be found within the books and the films. How could Jackson, Boyens and Walsh deny the existence of these themes when they managed to transpose them successfully from the book to the screen? I don't believe that to be mere coincidence. What they were doing was expressing those themes which resonate particularly with them (applicability again).

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.

Of course she can. But she shouldn’t presume to insist that others should accept those views.

So there we have it. I believe that the concept of the struggle of good versus evil and other themes found within (although not exclusive to) Christianity were successfully transposed from the books to the films (although good and evil were perhaps downplayed in some characters and overplayed in others). And I believe that this was conscious on the part of the film-makers, meaning that they clearly must have recognised the existence of these themes. That is not to say, however, that they should accept that the concept of good and evil as portrayed in the books and the films accurately reflects real life. And nor is it to say that they are not entitled to express those themes and values which they see in the books and the films which resonate most with them. Ms Basham should not criticise them for expressing their own views, and she should not castigate them for not sharing hers.

[Lush]

Well, Lush, what can I say? I didn’t expect any sort of agreement with you. Ha ha, just a mere blank post from you would have been indication enough for me to know what you think.

Oh, let's not make this about me. Despite the fact that you know me so well and everything.

You have to understand that Lord of the Rings has remarkable appeal for people of different faiths, whether it be Christianity, or secularism. I’d certainly think the mass populace has the right to know how our favorite actors respond to questions regarding such issues, especially when the author himself was undeniably Christian. (Catholic)

Um, not really. Just because we are, say, fans of Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of Aragorn shouldn't make us privy to his spiritual life. This sort of ideology would leads us straight down the primrose path and into the Parisian tunnel where Diana lay bleeding as photographers clicked away. Simply put, there are aspects of people's lives that should remain private property.

She went to a press screening, and asked questions, and then wrote based on the answers she got. Isn’t that kind of what everyone else does? Ms. Basham is just the first one to do it from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

And she could have done much better.

Besides an immoral, omniscient Creator creating the world, sending his angels to sustain it, having one powerful angel fall away and despoil creation, and the hearts of his creations. And undeveloped legends tell of a time when Illúvatar would one day enter Arda in mortal form. Besides that...

I assume you meant immortal? Plus, have I entirely missed the part where the Valar were referred to as "angels"? And the Norse Mythologies were what, exactly? An accidental footnote in Tolkien's creative process?

I'm not disagreeing with you that Christianity is a big part of Tolkien's influence; what I am saying is that the articles you provided seem to present that influence in a way that obsucres all others. And does so in a snippety, clumsy manner; entirely unworthy, in my opinion, of the complex beauty of Christian theology and its influence on Tolkien's work.

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.

Knight, since you obviously seem to know me better than I know myself: what is this "viewpoint" of mine you are referring? And where did the implication of "babbling kook" pop up in my responses? I certainly said she's low-brow and whiny; well-meaning, yes, but not a good writer nonetheless. Perhaps all bad journalism is written in earnest?

[Lord of Angmar]

Knight, thanks for providing Ms. Basham's other article, it was quite helpful in understanding where she was coming from.

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.(Knight of Gondor)

Just a quick note: I think perhaps a more appropriate time would be an more intimate one-on-one interview between a journalist and one or two of the cast members from the movie, in which the discussion of religious and spiritual ideology is a subject of debate/questioning consented to by all parties involved.

Just because we are, say, fans of Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of Aragorn shouldn't make us privy to his spiritual life.(Lush)

I agree wholeheartedly. I am an outspoken critic of the intrusion of paparazzi into the lives of celebrities. As I said earlier, I also find it unreasonable for a journalist to expect actors (lest we forget, they are paid professionals merely doing their jobs) to be able to provide coherent analysis of the ideas and beliefs behind the movie they are starring in. That is not their job. Their job is to act dramatically or comically as the situation requires, and to do the best job of it possible with the material and the direction that is given them.

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. (Knight of Gondor)

Underlying themes and applicability are not allegory. Allegory is a consciously symbolic representation of a theme, person or event. Of course I agree that there are underlying themes and ideas, most of which are only generically Christian and could easily be 'applicable' to a number of other religions.

The whole concept of good and evil is clearly and inherently present in the Lord of the Rings (though what Tolkien's ideas about a real struggle between good and evil are open to anyone's interpretation if they so wish). LotR has inarguably been imbued to an extent with Christian undertones. That the actors do not have a responsibility to be able to communicate these ideas at a press junket (or, for that matter, anywhere) seems to still be up for debate in this thread, though I feel like I have made my own opinions clear on the subject (which a little help from Lush, Saucepan Man and others). What else is there?

[Knight of Gondor]

Once again, I saved this site offline and completed a response to several posts, and then found new ones when I signed on. Check back tomorrow.

While what you say is a little too long to quote, Child of the 7th Age , your basic point is that Tolkien’s works can be approached from various different views, and to ambush the cast and crew with questions regarding those themes isn’t something you respect. And I must reiterate, neither I nor, I believe, Ms. Basham is expecting evangelical responses. Shoot, although it would be somewhat comical, even an “there’s Christian themes in Lord of the Rings?” would have been acceptable! No one expects these actors to be keenly aware of those underlying concepts. (For that matter, the OVERlying concepts) However, to deny that they exist (in the actors’ cases) or to shun the mere idea of fleshing out any of those concepts (as in Jackson’s case) or even to deny one of the very fundamental concepts, both of life and in LotR (Walsh/Boyens’ claims of no such thing as good and evil), this is where the problem lies.

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.

Quite true. But one must admit first of all that it needn’t be a highly refined point of interest for cast/crew (or at least crew, the people who adapted the works) for them to understand that, hey, you know what? There’s Christian themes in this book. Tolkien’s works can indeed be approached by many different angles. But I think one would have to admit that philosophical and religious angles are certainly one of the largest “magnifying glasses” to look at Lord of the Rings through. Tolkien was a man of faith, and a scholar to boot. He didn’t write his books so people can gasp about what hotties the elves are. (That was just a side benefit)

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.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Ms. Basham does not have the right to disparage the film makers? If she does not, then neither do the dozens of people who are critical of each and every book-to-movie detail, such as have been set forth in the “My List of Everything Wrong with the movies (not EE)” thread.

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

Once again, the worst problem (that some of us have) is not that PJ didn’t develop certain underlying Judeo-Christian themes, but that he personally expressed no interest in fleshing them out.

This is one of the most engrossing threads I have ever participated in

Why thank you, Saraphim! I’m happy we’re able to keep this thread civil, because a couple of comparable threads that discuss Christianity in Lord of the Rings have been closed down.

My biggest complaint is with the authoress. As I mentioned before, she uses limited quotes to her advantage, which gives her the angle of haveing to deal with heathenous, bumbling nincompoops, which I also mentioned before.

I have access to her business e-mail address, if you wish to request copies of the quotes in their entirety. But I’m still confused as to what context can change the meanings of those quotes? “No interest whatsoever” in fleshing out Christian themes” “Ban[ning] all religions”?

It is not the job of the cast and crew to know the answers to these things. When asked by a reporter about such things, they rely on what they know, and what they know is obviously not what pleases Ms. Bashem.

It is not the job of the actors to be aware of the philosophical themes of the book they’re playing out on screen. It IS the job of those who adapted the book, and who disregarded hundreds and thousands who know and appreciate Christian themes. It’s not what they “know”, it’s what they don’t know, and in their ignorance, deny the presence of.

Just as Ms Basham's reaction to the quotes from the cast and crew is influenced by her personal standpoint. The difference is that I am not criticising her for not sharing my views.

Very good of you, Sir Saucepan. I’ve noticed there are a few here who are ... and contradicting themselves by doing so! They are criticizing her for criticizing someone, and saying she really shouldn’t let her own personal emotions allow her to disparage the cast and crew because she disagrees with them. But they’re allowing their own personal emotions to affect their opinion, and they disparage her because they disagree with her.

I respect her right to her beliefs. Rather, I am criticising her for not according the same respect to the cast and crew and for presuming that they should share her outlook on life.

Was there some measure of disrespect that I missed? I’m sure she respects them. She herself admits that she was slightly awed by the whole deal. She merely writes about it from her own perspective.

There is no doubt that things like good and evil are portrayed in the movie. There even are some Christian themes, if one bothers to look at it that way! Perhaps not detailed doctrinal issues, but basic themes. It is merely disappointing to find that those themes made their way into the movie by accident, as the people who adapted the books to the movies do not believe in those concepts at all!

I don't know about that, Saraphim. Is it not the very essence of journalism to use what others say to further one's own personal (or corporate) agenda?

For the most part, I agree. But I don’t see an agenda imbedded in the article. I see commentary, I see observances put forth by Ms. Basham as a result of being lucky enough to attend a press junket.

[Saraphim]

I don't know what goes on in other people's minds, but by my limited knowledge I'd say that:

"I'd ban all religions first of all."

was reffering not to Andy Serkis's aversion to religion, but his aversion to the hatred and pain they often bring when two different ones disagree.

Also, I thought that the point of journalism was to present facts in an unbiased fashion. She doesn't do this.

[The Saucepan Man]

Also, I thought that the point of journalism was to present facts in an unbiased fashion.

I can only conclude that the press in Las Vegas is very different to the UK press.

[Knight of Gondor]

Oh, let's not make this about me. Despite the fact that you know me so well and everything.

Lush, come now, I’m just teasing you a little about how I am certain of disagreeing with you, no matter what you post, just based on the content of what you say. I mean no personal offense.

Um, not really. Just because we are, say, fans of Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of Aragorn shouldn't make us privy to his spiritual life. This sort of ideology would leads us straight down the primrose path and into the Parisian tunnel where Diana lay bleeding as photographers clicked away. Simply put, there are aspects of people's lives that should remain private property.

*Shrugs* I don’t know what Princess Diana has to do with anything, but I’m happy to let the actors remain in a vacuum of ignorance. I’m just agreeing for the most part with Ms. Basham’s assertion that the director and screen writers ignore a large body of material in Tolkien’s work by shunning the idea of fleshing out those Christian themes.

And she could have done much better.

By your standards, perhaps.

I assume you meant immortal?

Yes, ha ha, I looked over that error after I got offline, and meant to change it. At least I know you’re reading what I write!

Plus, have I entirely missed the part where the Valar were referred to as "angels"? And the Norse Mythologies were what, exactly? An accidental footnote in Tolkien's creative process?

To have one solid, omniscient being that rules over the rest is Deist at the worst, and Christian at best. I’m not familiar with many of the mythological tales wherein one supreme being rules over the other “gods” as they were. I think we can safely assume that this wouldn’t be an element if Tolkien were secularist. Instead, his religion influenced his works so that he creates a God-like character.

I'm not disagreeing with you that Christianity is a big part of Tolkien's influence;

Thank you. The part where we come down to it is where PJ does.

what I am saying is that the articles you provided seem to present that influence in a way that obsucres all others. And does so in a snippety, clumsy manner; entirely unworthy, in my opinion, of the complex beauty of Christian theology and its influence on Tolkien's work.

I apologize for not having a better-written article for you. That’s what I found, that’s what I read, that’s what I liked, and that’s what I thought I’d share for discussion. If you don’t like the style, you don’t have to read it.

Knight, since you obviously seems to know me better than I know myself: what is this "viewpoint" of mine you are referring?

I’m conscious of a need to refrain from personal disputes, because those are the sorts of things that get threads shut down, and I’m really unwilling to allow this one to. I merely mean that everyone has a viewpoint, and it influences how you view things, that’s all. You don’t share Ms. Basham’s faith, therefore you are critical of her for writing according to her beliefs. If you were to write an article praising PJ for refraining from Christian thematic elements, then I would probably be critical if it, if for no other reason than because I believe a certain way, and this influences my thinking.

[Knight of Gondor]

And where did the implication of "babbling kook" pop up in my responses? I certainly said she's low-brow and whiny; well-meaning, yes, but not a good writer nonetheless. Perhaps all bad journalism is written in earnest?

It doesn’t seem to be a large step between whiny and low-brow and babbling kook. Difference of a few letters, but as far as intent goes...

If I mischaracterize your opinion, again, my apologies. To quote Faramir, “that is not my intent.”

Knight, thanks for providing Ms. Basham's other article, it was quite helpful in understanding where she was coming from.

You bet, Lord of Angmar. I knew it was out there somewhere (based mostly on that end sentence, actually, because it stuck in my brain), I just couldn’t find it online. Finally did, though. It is more helpful as far as context goes.

Just a quick note: I think perhaps a more appropriate time would be an more intimate one-on-one interview between a journalist and one or two of the cast members from the movie, in which the discussion of religious and spiritual ideology is a subject of debate/questioning consented to by all parties involved.

I gather from the article that a press junket was surprising enough as it was for Ms. Basham to attend. To hope for one-on-one interviews with one of them (much less the rest of them!) would be a little much.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am an outspoken critic of the intrusion of paparazzi into the lives of celebrities.

Well, the paparazzi don’t hassle me at all, so I’m okay with that.

Once again, two posts. *Sigh*

As I said earlier, I also find it unreasonable for a journalist to expect actors (lest we forget, they are paid professionals merely doing their jobs) to be able to provide coherent analysis of the ideas and beliefs behind the movie they are starring in. That is not their job. Their job is to act dramatically or comically as the situation requires, and to do the best job of it possible with the material and the direction that is given them.

Although I think it is a shame that most of the actors believe the way they do, there are two points I’ve stuck with.

1. The actors have no business denying that which is pretty obviously present in the series. It reflects a bit of a hidden agenda of their own to attempt to push their own ideology on Lord of the Rings.

2. The problem is more with the authors (Boyens, Walsh, Jackson), who are either blatantly ignoring it, or are intentionally ignoring those underlying themes.

Underlying themes and applicability are not allegory. Allegory is a consciously symbolic representation of a theme, person or event.

Which is why I said that applicability and thematic elements were present, not blatant allegory.

course I agree that there are underlying themes and ideas, most of which are only generically Christian

I believe you’re the second person to openly admit this. The problem is when the cast/crew cannot!

The whole concept of good and evil is clearly and inherently present in the Lord of the Rings

But it’s also a bit of a problem for the film makers to assert that those themes are no more real than elves or dragons! (Although according to the “Have you seen __?” thread, some people believe in those too! )

Also, I thought that the point of journalism was to present facts in an unbiased fashion. She doesn't do this.

I don’t believe this was intended as an unbiased article, but more of an editorial. Nonetheless, it’s certainly not uncommon for bias to leak through articles! It’s as I said, there is no one that does not have their own prior bias about a topic.

I can only conclude that the press in Las Vegas is very different to the UK press.

Maybe in Vegas, but I doubt it. Do they get The New York Times in Vegas?

[The Barrow-Wight]

This topic is turning into the battle of the quotes. That generally indicates everyone is starting to repeat themself. Let's try to have less tit for tat and more original points. Barring that, it may be time to move on to a new topic.

[Lush]

The original question posed in this thread was whether or not the people that put the films together recognized the centrality of the battle between Good and Evil in Lord of the Rings, the book.

Based on the responses Megan Basham provided, no matter how clumsily (yes, perhaps the inferiority of her style is only my "opinion"; but I do study and practice this stuff; I've got my standards, pretentious as they may be), as well as other materials I've read, I would say yes.

Even if the Christian elements of the book escape our wonderful thespians, filmmakers and script-writers, we must remember that Good and Evil are not exclusive to the Christian domain of thought. Tolkien knew that. I doubt he would have taken so much influence from Norse myth if he thought otherwise. Certainly we are not too cool for his views on the matter.

And, as an afterthought:

You don’t share Ms. Basham’s faith, therefore you are critical of her for writing according to her beliefs.

Quoi?...Knight, I'd tell you what the folk-version of Sherlock Holmes says about the word "assume," but I stand warned by the Barrow-Wight to be a nice girl.

[ArathorofBarahir]

I don't think the Theme of Good Versus Evil was Overplayed nor do I think it was Downplayed, it was evident but not to obvious.

[Saraphim]

Ah, yes. I had forgotten Editorials.

Message to Everyone: ignore my last post!

Anyway, I'm a bit confused about your arguement here, Knight. I thought that it was a good thing (especially from your POV) that Peter Jackson wasn't interested in fleshing out the Christian themes?

[Knight of Gondor]

Barrow-Wight, I’m sorry if it’s against the rules to use a lot of quotes. I usually feel the most comfortable responding to each person individually. It wouldn’t surprise me to see this thread get banned sooner or later...most discussions of the religions themes do. :-|

I’m more than happy to discuss the issues with those who disagree, but, heh heh, is there anyone who agrees with Ms. Basham?

[tar-ancalime]

It seems to me that the quotes from Peter Jackson in the second article were very carefully crafted statements. Jackson never says that he buried the moral themes of the story; he only says that he has "not an ounce" of interest in fleshing them out any further. Personally, I take this to mean that the story itself is so thoroughly imbued with the idea of good vs. evil that Jackson felt comfortable refraining from typical Hollywood heavy-handedness (at least for the most part--there are some exceptions to this; I felt a little preached-to when Gandalf made his "death in judgement" speech in Moria instead of Bag End; not sure why this change felt so unsavory to me). In other words, it's still in the story, folks, even if Jackson didn't choose to make it a surface feature.

Also, though the Professor wrote a story saturated with his own worldview (and how could he write it any other way?), by making morality thematic as opposed to a surface detail, he not only put it deeper into the story, but ensured that those billions of people in the world who think of their Creator differently than Tolkien did, could still understand his story and his messages. To insist that the morality of Tolkien's work is only a Christian morality treads very close to (a) claiming ownership over values that many, many people in the world share, and (b) creating a privileged class of audience for this story that excludes most of the people in the world because they call their morality by a different name.

[Lush]

I am posting a link to an article that would undoubtedly intrigue Ms. Basham, as it argues the exact opposite of what she believes to be true about Tolkien's works while at the same time appearing to take root in the same ideology that Ms. Basham subscribes to.

A warning, however: This piece is reactionary, insulting to Catholics, attempts to speak for God Himself, and calls Tolkien's works "carnal" (well gee, if Tolkien is now considered carnal, I might as well kill myself). If you know you're going to be seriously put out, do not read it.

Click.

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

I thought as much. I did a google search on "Crowley and Inklings" and could find nothing to connect them, save that this Inkling Handbook has a reference to Crowley. Oh, and apparently there's some novel which has the heroic Inklings taking on the despicable Crowley.

Crowley is certainly a notorious figure and was most definately an occultist (a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) and a practitioner in mysticism, so (even though I do not believe some of the more ludicrous and extreme claims about him) I would have been surprised if he had ever been on anything approaching talking terms with Tolkien.

[Saraphim]

I'm sorry, but that article Lush provided made me laugh. Particulary when they blamed homosexuality on the Inklings.