 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
By accident I read some of the bio from Tolkien lifes yesterday. When I saw the films I always felt uncomfortable about some sous-adjacent ( under- lying? ) racism, and wrote so in my comment of LOTR III.
Now I know why!
The author was a great admirer of Generalissimo Franco, and love and admire the Hun race...
Of course now treated a la Mc Donald there are only but a few traces left of it.
Follow Ups:
nt
.
Well, he could have made the Elves black I suppose. Regards,J.R.
...as I have read his biography, and a couple of compilations of academic comments about his works, and never found a word on that matter!If you were so kind to give me a link, or send me a xerocopy of those pages, Iīd be most grateful.
Best regards
Bernardo
It was in an interview of director Jackson in the latest " Paris Match " But as I write on this forum I have just ordered his biography, and will try to make my own view on this theme.
I just look at the copy of this mag and my wife just told me that she throw the whole bunch away ( we read actually as much as 10 mags a week ) But I will check if this article can be found on line...
But I wonder what is your impression on this films or books, am I completly out of tune for finding traces of racisms in his oeuvres?
You know that your opinion really count in my mind.
I have Tolkienīs work in high esteem, for several reasons: as you know, I am deeply interested in linguistics and ethimology, and this man has amply shown a very high level of competence and inventiveness in these fields..., and I am very interested in anything related to the structure and ways of our minds, especially in the approach Jung and people related to him have done on this matter, too; and Tolkienīs monumental work on the creation of that whole world, both utopic and ucronic, was deeply rooted in the depths of human mind and, if properly read, have the power to stirr the readerīs mind.His books must be read in a way somewhat different from the way youīd read good novels, or essays: Iīd dare say that they must be read in the same state of mind youīd do with old fairy tales, which carried inside themselves fine portraits of human mind and soul, and which were able to exert a deep influence on the readerīs (or listenerīs) mind. And to that effect itīs better to use that technique psychoanalists describe as "floating attention", where you are always trying to keep the whole picture in front of you, not paying special attention to details, but always ready to bring them to focus in order to make sense of whatīs happening, and to get a richer picture.
That stated, Iīll say now that, even when being ucronic, the Zeitgeist of Tolkienīs times is always present in them, and manifest to those who can read them with an open mind: these books are an epic about Power, and about the dangers power brings on those who are not prepared to cope with it, about how it can corrupt those who are lured by it, and who forget that, while it can be a good servant, it is always a harsh, dangerous master.
In Tolkienīs days, Europe was quite different from how it is today: remember that English crown was of Germanic ascent, their name changing to Windsor after the war..., and that it was pretty common for educated English people to spend some time visiting Germany (do you remember the conversation Gabriel had when dancing with that young lady, in Hustonīs "The Dead", when she invited him to come with a group of friends to Germany, while she was reproaching him for writing in an English paper?: thatīll give you an idea of what I mean...). German culture was deeply engrained in English minds, more than they would now accept, and it was just natural that when Tolkien, after having written "The Hobbit", started a more ambitious work, one which faced the creation of a whole mythological background to an epic in English language comparable in scope to what the Greeks had in Homerīs "Ilyad" and "Odissey" (remember that Joyceīs "Ulysses" was given to print in 1922), or to what Babylonians achieved in "Gilgamesh" resourced to Germanic mythology, and to its very roots in Nordic mythology (he learned Finnish, just to be able to understand the Kalevala, that epic poem Sibelius put to music), with their dark overtones, with Gods struggling for power while consciousness was arising in mankind, with dwarves hiding deep into mountains to obtain gold, and treasures...(remember how someone, whose name I canīt recall now, talked about Swiss bankers as "those gnomes in Zurich"), with dragons and powerful swords -the sword being a symbol for what Greeks called "logos", especially when it came to the hands of the hero...
More about the Zeitgeist: Karl Gjellerup, who finished "The Pellegrin Camanita", a work about Buddhism, in 1906, had earlier published his poem "Brynhild", inspired in Wagnerīs "Ring", and "Die Weltwandered", again on a Buddhism, in 1910; Hermann Hesse published "Siddharta", another seminal book, in 1922, and "Narziss und Goldmund" in 1930; Richard Wilhelm translated "The Secret of the Golden Flower", an essential book on Chinese philosophy in 1923..., and C.G. Jungīs works on Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious were shaping our knowledge about our mind...: as you can see, spirituality, and a deep interest on the roots of our behaviour, were gaining adepts among Europeīs intellectuals all around.
Tolkienīs trilogy (better, a tetralogy -like Wagnerīs was, this one with an appendix, "The Silmarillion"), which started in a way pretty similar to that a fairy tale does, when, in "The Hobbit", he first describes Bilboīs whereabouts: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit", is as powerful as fairy tales have been before they were corrupted by Walt Disneyīs manichean approach. And it is so because both are rooted in archetypes, which come from the depths of our collective unconscious, and which, not being rational, have a strong influence on our minds: thereīs the Innocent, there are Wizards, thereīs the Sage,..., and thereīs the eternal fight between Good and Evil, here seen as two sides of a same coin, instead of from the purely manichean approach those idiots now in power do.
It is true that Tolkienīs characters are not described in the same detailed way they are in most novels, and thatīs what is to be expected in this type of work, in which the characters themselves are carriers, vectors if you like, over which archetypal forms are projected: he never was as interested in depicting them with so much detail, for what really mattered in this epic was not how they looked, but how they behaved, what happened to them, and how they were transformed along their journey: about Ulysses himself, we only know that he was not especially beautiful, but that he was not tall, that his legs were not quite straight, that he had a big scar in his thigh, and that he was witty beyond measure...
These books are, as I have repeatedly say, about Power. And they were written at a time when the black tide of unbridled Power was rising high all around in Europe, and then in the whole world. And Tolkien used, as I have said in this same forum, images taken from Shakespeareīs "Macbeth", which is another masterwork on the dangers of power.
About Tolkien being a racist, I donīt think so. Certainly, what we now call Political Correctness was not something people paid much attention to in those days, and a certain feeling about the white race being somehow superior to the black races in Africa is something we must accept as part of the whole European cultural background of those days. But I have never found anytraces of clear racism in any of his writings, or in anything he ever was reported to have done.
And now, to the films. In few words, I was disappointed by the two I have seen, "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King": I think Mr. Jackson was not at the height of that difficult task, and the power of Tolkienīs writings to move the reader, and to stirr his soul, has been lost in translation, as he has paid more attention to show than to suggest (ah, the now lost power of ellipsis...!). And his selection of characters has been poor, too: Smeagol/Gollum is by a wide margin the best, with Sam being good, too..., while Aragorn, Gandalf, the Elves..., pffftt! Well, some images in the siege of Minas Thirit were not bad, they were even powerful..., but in the whole, the films were disappointing, and easily forgettable. And he was especially incompetent at handling the double situation near the end of the film, and the whole journey through the Dark country, and the climbing of Mount Doom were simply boring. And yes, I hate that stupid, cowish "tortured" look of Elijah Wood: he reminded me of Harrison Ford, in his idiotic inexpressiveness!
Bored enough?
Best regards
Bernardo
You are not around to discuss that matter around a good cup of hot tea.
Above all, I am glad. Glad because this discussion did not go anywhere and was just something I could not get ride of too quickly.
Then did your long awaited post..and I am glad Idid go throught that.
From " Remaining of the Days " to my cherished " The Dead " to the English high society " fiancé " of A. Hitler who shot herself.. / She is still alive, I think )to Jung ( who was antisemit ) and part, as you knows ( we are not the only one reading at each other..or are we? ) early from Sigmund Freud to Hermann Hesse who resist the calling of the brown siren..and stay in " La Suisse " and if I remember well I already did tell you my great admiration for his " Schöpfung "...specialement for his poems and reading that I still have...
What you did wrote just confirm what I was thinking..BUT, yes there is a but, and that was what I was feeling coming.
My understanding from the " Zeitgeist " differs from yours. My criteria are ( due to my background and to my own sensibility and undertsanding ) are much narrower than yours.
I expect from an intelligent and responsible personn, a sense of responsability and particulary in the time in where he/ she live.
That make ALL the difference between a good " raconteur " and a genius ( as we call them..)
There are enough name of people who did NOT have been in anyway part of the " brown nazy subculture"
Now If Tolkien was NOT a Racist ( you have said you do not think so witch is in a way implicic that HE may have been..)
I am glad, who would like to have some one who does empoisonned the brains of the people?
I found the LOTR II the best one ( save a very boring part in the middle ) but all of them more of " peine au cul " than something I would have to think twice...Merci,
Kamarad Bernardo ( the Russian way )
Patrick
nt
A race superior to another.
"Tolkien survived the 1916 Battle of the Somme, where the British suffered 600,000 casualties in four months, but a bad louse got him soon thereafter, and he spent the remainder of the war convalescing."Stolen from the Net
I just typ in Google... Tolkien and racism...I was not the only one having the IDEA!!!
My God.....
Make a try.
hehe...
for God's sake Patrick.
I will read ( when I got time ) his biography.
I will post.
I Just said what I read I did NOT explore more! but it was in a French mag " Paris Match " I think...
And my own feeling after seing the films.
But now, I want to know. I will explore more.
And post my finding.
his writings were NOT allegorical in any way according to his own words. LOTR is JUST FANTASY, what is so hard to understand about that? Next you will be telling me that Sir Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was gay because you read that it was so on the internet. Elves are not Nazis, but orcs....maybe.
so i just bought his Biography from Carpenter, who had access to all his legacy and I will post.
One more thing I did feel was the mostly manly ( read homosexual ) between some of the characters..not that it matter, of course, but just wondering if I did feel that as I feel this kind of " uncleaness about his political views.
We will see.
I got that disturbing impression from a couple of YOUR posts over on the Outside board (i.e., prior to your "True colors" digression), but that just goes to show how wrong someone can be when misreading messages. :o)BTW, most movies where great battles & wars are fought involve close allegences between men and some level of compassionate comradery; one should not assume that such intimacy is of the "don't ask; don't tell" variety! ;^)
AuPh
And mine must be very different.
You just pick up something you though you could fight on.
In the end the very core of the discussion is fading away.
This films are very bad, and I would not call them films at all.
And I respect the work of the director for trying to film this almost impossible story.
If he would have suceed I would have been the first to say " bravo ".
He had the power but not the brain.
He should try again in twenty years from now.
> > > "You just pick up something you though you could fight on." < < <Not at all! You started this thread by trying to find an excuse to trash the movies, which you apparently despise, through the author's works, which you've never read, and some wannabe critic's lame article you found in the Paris (Hilton) Match!
These films are fabulous and are decidedly NOT the failures which you continue to make them out. IMHO, Peter Jackson's interpretations of Tolkien's epic will stand for many years on their own merits and eventually take on the cache of other much loved film classics like The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.!
> > > "This films are very bad, and I would not call them films at all." < < <
Like them or not, Patrick, I believe that you're in the vast minority here. The Lord of The Rings trilogy is both epic adventure and now a highly regarded cinematic treasure. You are certainly entitled to dislike these films if you so choose, either on their merit or, AFTER having read the books, as erring in their interpretion of Tolkien's vision.
> > > "And I respect the work of the director for trying to film this almost impossible story..." < < <
He not only tried, but succeeded, your debatable opinions notwithstanding. However, your "respect" is faint praise judging by the next condescending utterence:
> > > "He had the power but not the brain." < < <
Hmmm, and how is that? If the ONE ring were to come back as a key, it would probably open Peter Jackson's bank vault. I would say that he knew his subject, his audience and his own mind quite well. Care to try again? ;^)
AuPh
I do not like this movie. ( point )
I prefer to be in the minority then two wrong doesnīt make one right.
Case closed. As there is nothing more to say.
nt
The last film I saw with him in it..I must have been 12 years old.
What a strange idea and fixation on all French loving him...
Anyway it is your problem...
He look constipated all the way down.
...the unfoundeed accusations and anal retentive remarks about JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson in this thread, if you know what I mean. Now it's down to making inane comments about actor's performances; why not give it a rest guys, okay?AuPh
Anal retentive? Have you phobia against homosexuality?
But you are right..enough is enough.
;^)
What is my private behavior first? AND that is none of your buisness second!
Yes we are on a public place and everyone is here to share his mind about films.
If you do not like my critics why do you read then?
I respect you views so should you do for mine too.
Now letīs move to another film..What did you like lately..Hehe...
> > > "What is my private behavior first?" < < <You asked if I was homophobic after describing imagined homoerotic interaction between certain characters in LoTR. This suggests that you have issues with homosexuality; of course I could be mistaken. What those issues are if present, I have no idea, but I'm not asking and you aren't required to tell. I was simply trying to demonstrate sensitivity; whatever your private behavior, I won't think less of you for it since you're apparently seeking my approval.
> > > "AND that is none of your business second!" < < <
Right you are! Let's move on then.
> > > "If you do not like my critics why do you read them?" < < <
Because it's an open forum for discussing film and opinions can occasionally be swayed. Also, since both informed and uninformed opinions are present, I share knowledge based on the former to improve the latter in the hope of enriching the film experience of those who either haven't seen the films or haven't made up their minds.
> > > "I respect you views so should you do for mine to." < < <
Fine, but when you post conjecture and seek support for your opinions while casting aspersions of racism that are unfounded, correction is definitely in order.
> > > "Now let's move on to another film." < < <
Gladly!
> > > "What did you like lately ..Hehe..." < < <
Haven't seen any films since viewing LoTR/RoTK, except Cold Mountain and I didn't care for Cold Mountain, with the exception of Rene Zellwigger's performance. I also like the concert video Rush in Rio (DVD of South American concert), but I didn't catch that at the local cinema, even though there was a limited theatrical release.
AuPh
I never ask you such a thing!!! I can speak about everything, with or without affinities!
I am viewing " Venderdi Soir ".
I will comment later on.
The casting of this series was absolutely brilliant, IMO, and all three movies played better than most films I've seen in recent years. I absolutely got lost in the characters and the richness of the story and visuals. This series has become one of my all time favorites. BTW, it should be viewed separately from the books because the cinematic flow of such an epic journey requires some compromise from the broadly detailed, complex literary vision of it's original author in order to reach an audience unfamiliar with the works. Peter Jackson accomplished this and Elijah Wood's portrayal of Frodo conveyed the perfect mental image of a young man or, in this case, young Hobbit caught up in an adventure beyond his comprehension.I know that you like Tolkien's books, but perhaps you and Patrick would feel more comfortable at a Jerry Lewis revival (phlem phestival?). ;^)
AuPh
Poor actors + poor direction, + lots of money can easily make garbage gaining the appreciation of the masses.McShit and Coke can be classified as the two best known "food" to the majority of US citizens, most of which consider them as essentially American as apple pie..., but they still rank very low (sub-zero) in my personal ranking for palatial pleasures, and very close to that for their nutritional values.
These films are the filmic equivalent of a MegaBurger soaked in lukewarm Coke.
Regards
BF
You are much more descriptive than I am....But I must really laugh---The real tragedy is even we are trying hard they wonīt undertsand..must be different worlds...
Just because a film or film series makes money (i.e., has mass appeal) doesn't mean that it's the cinamatic equivalent of fast food; you're certainly entitled to dislike these films, but one would hope those contemptuous of the series wouldn't find it necessary to ridicule the taste of all who appreciate Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's epic tale. FTR, I will reiterate that I consider the acting and direction of these films both deserving of high praise.The art houses are frequently full of pretensious foreign "message" films, containing faux sophistication and meandering symbolism that I'm sure some here would find nutritionally satisfying. However, I'm of the opinion that not every acquired taste is worth acquiring, whether domestic or not. By way of example, Beluga caviar may hold a mystique for some that makes other's ralph at the thought of it! Does that mean that those who've acquired a taste for expensive imported caviar have superior taste or merely that they'ld make good Fear Factor contestants?
I make no judgments either way, but if something "tastes good" I'd personally be more inclined to find it tasteful than tasteless and not concern myself with the popularity of it; Peter Jackson's LoTR trilogy falls into this category for me.
Regards,
AuPh
When I say that these films are poorly directed, I am saying that Mr. Jackson has made them by piling scene over scene, losing any sense of continuity, and then his sense of rhythm shines just because itīs absent, and his tempo changes suddenly, from too fast to practically stopping, making these films look like the poor collage they are.As an example, just consider how boringly slow, and lacking any minimal tension, is the hobbitīs ascent to Mount Doom: itīs repetitive, and it lacks any sense of progress, with them being now here, an eternity later there, and finally there they are, in what look like the banks of a river of molten lava (which should burn anything at distances much further than where they are, while they donīt even show a single drop of sweat in their faces...). That scene, if properly directed, would have been carrying the viewer towards a climax, in the same way a good conductor would when playing a symphony..., but he doesnīt.
Telling a story well is not so easy, and requires much more than just a lot of technical equipment, which he had in spades..., but no talent to squeeze the juice that fruity story has.
If you want to have a clear idea of what Iīm saying, just find a copy of Minnelliīs "The Bad and the Beautiful", and look at what happens when Kirk Douglas asks that director to make things happen at a different pace in the film they are doing at that time, and the director tells him that "he needs to hold the pace now, so he can grow better on the final climax"...: then, Douglas fires him, takes the rheins, makes the film, and finally drops it away, because he undrstands that he has made just a piece of shit. Minnelliīs is a very good film, deserving being seen once again, if you already know it.
And actors are generally bad: Elijah Wood doesnīt fit well as the hobbit who, being full of bonhomie, finds himself entangled in a risky adventure, being shattered to the every marrow of his bones, and then finally transforming himself, through his struggles, into a mature, richer person: thatīs what happens in the books, but Mr. Wood is always like a child, always so far from the much better playing the man doing Samīs role shows every time, so much that he literally wipes him away... Mr. Mortensen is a stiff, wooden Aragorn, showing no greatness at any time; Liv Tyler is one of the worst in her blank inexpressiveness; Gandalfīs eyes show just as much intelligence as Mr. Bushīs reading one of his speechs...
Well, now I have, without entering in too many details, told you why I consider these films not to be at the height of the original work. And I donīt mind if they are acclaimed by tasteless people as the biggest thing since sliced bread (which I despise too: have you ever had a loaf of good bread, baked in the old style..., or a good baguette? there simply is no contest!), as I am dead sure that, in a couple of years, time will put things in their right place, and they will have been forgotten: Mr. Jacksonīs work is at the same height as Rowlingīs "Harry Potter" when compared to the sheer height of Tolkienīs books.
Regards
BF
I differ with almost all of your arguments, but I will admit that the pacing is improved in both of the longer cuts available. The problem you've pointed to has more to do with the weight of the works and trying to accomadate broad storylines that separate and converge in ways that don't lend themselves to cinema. Peter Jackson has performed a remarkable feat and most folks, including many long time fan of Tolkien's original books, are comfortable with the changes and the actor's performances.FYI, I had the opportunity to discuss Jackson's films with a Tolkien scholor within the past year (i.e., he knew Tolkien in his lifetime, and understood the man and his works about as well as a biblical scholor understands scripture). He saw the films and books as essentially different forms, but drew comparisons while critiquing Peter Jackson's interpretations; the consensus: the films are excellent in their own rite, taking into account the complexity of Tolkien's work and the challenge of trying to film such a complex epic in any cohesive manner that an audience would be able to grasp.
So, what is the bottom line? Well, my take and your's are almost diametrically opposed. That said, I would agree with you as far as the films being imperfect. Nevertheless, any way you look at it they're darn good entertainment and probably the best anyone could've hoped for under the circumstances! Are there pacing problems, such as the crosscuting of events during Frodo's slow ascent of Mount Doom? Yes, I'm of the opinion that the ascent isn't as oppressively slow nor as redundent as you've indicated. The "molten lava should burn everything" issue is certainly worth addressing, but it's easy to overlook the close proximity to this super heated environment since we're dealing with a fantasy realm and have gradually grown of just how unique and tough Hobbits can be when they set their minds to something.
My take on the acting: Elijah Wood was perfectly cast as Frodo, IMHO, as were the rest of the characters. How anyone could fault the casting is beyond me!
> > > "And I don't mind if they are acclaimed by tasteless people as the biggest thing since sliced bread..." < < <
That is a very subjective opinion, my friend. One also might correctly conclude that those who are unfairly critical, tactless and insulting of the tastes of others are guilty of pinching their loaves in public.
AuPh
Simply gaze over Fordīs "The Quiet Man", and there you are: each and every one of them fit into their roles as hands in gloves do!And then, thereīs something about filming to be learned, there..., especially about how to dose things, and how to keep a perfect rhythm, and... had you noticed how well that scene when Sean brings Mary Kate to her brother, is a perfect exercise in filmic rhythm, with that tune named something like "Irish launderer", or so, fitting perfectly to it?
Thatīs cinema, man! And no special effects at all, in it!
Regards
BF
is that of Oliver Stone's "Nixon". Every choice is brilliant, and the acting and direction are first rate. Get the longer version if you can. "Nixon" takes Stone's editing technique truly over the top.
And while Anthony Hopkins does not try a Rich Little-type Nixon impersonation, within a couple of minutes you totally accept him, something Hopkins also accomplished in last year's "The Human Stain", where he plays a black man.
No offense, but I was never moved by The Quiet Man; I'm not especially fond of Maureen O'Hara's acting and her faux Irish accent seems somewhat forced here (i.e., my opinion; YMMV). The supporting cast is pretty good, but from my perspective that's all that recommends this old film which, admittedly, some regard as a classic. I'll stand by my earlier post, orejones: The Lord of the Rings trilogy of films are new classics that will stand the test of time! Long after the FX work is dated people will wax poetic about these films because the cast was perfectly suited and the fictional characters are brought to life through their performances.AuPh
You are wrong!
There is an education for every sense we have be it " arts & foods & drinks & or whatever".
Only if you have reach out for, you can then appreciate an Hamburger...to his real value.
On the really top of all senses, where air is thin, very thin, you can set preferences. which may vary from individus to individus*, from taste to taste.* Sorry BUT French
I wrote in was a general feeling! I never said I was certain of that...It was more the North against the south...or this great body for the " good one " The ugly dark hair.
In truth I did not like this films and I wrote down why! The books I never read and I may even like them!
This whole issue is just that some do not agree for my not loving for them.
Not my problem.
Some like them some donīt.
The only thing that now is keeping my interrest is, was Talkien someone like Wagner or not.
In the mean time I try to read a lot on him, on the English net, and it seems that he was not. In fact in one letter to his German editor he stated that he was sorry for not beeing Jewish as it is a great folk...
But I will have his bio and perhaps learn more on him.
How you reached that concept is possibly due to something going on in your own mind...I never saw that. Which scenes and characters specifically are you referring to?
nt
Would you accuse Homer of racism?
I would accuse every one who is .
For me it is one of the more horrible thing on the face of earth.
First of all, have you read the books? If you haven't, and your post hints at this, then labeling Tolkien a racist based on your perceptions about Peter Jackson's films is little more than posthumous libel since he's no longer around to respond in defense of such harsh accusations.> > > "The author was a great admirer of Generalisimo Franco, and love and admire the Hun race." < < <
So what? Charles Lindburg, the much admired American aviator (i.e., in the U.S. & France), was a great supporter of Adolf Hitler early on, as were some members of the royal family in Great Britain; those views tempered when Hitler's goals became more apparent. America was allied with Stalin in WWII, even friendly toward the Russian leader, but became bitter adversaries several years afterwards. Many folks admire Napoleon, and yet he had far reaching ambitions of conquest and was capable of ruthlessness.
As far as "love and admire the Hun race" is concerned, that's classic hate mongering rhetoric. What you could have said was that he was fascinated with the German people and their history, which is probably true. Most of the great European legends and myths have Germanic or Nordic origin; what historian or writer of fantasy wouldn't love the richness of these cultures?
> > > "Of course now treated a la Mc Donald there are only a few traces left in it." < < <
Naturally, you had to get in a dig at Peter Jackson's magnificient take on Tolkien's Ring Trilogy. No offense, but personally I find the inflammatory nature of your posts on this subject more akin to Jack-in-the-Box. Note: Since you live in France you may be unfamiliar with Jack-in-the-Box, but over here the general consensus is that it's a lower grade of "quisine" than McDonald's.
BTW, these are just my opinions; I'm sympathetic to your feeling uncomfortable about certain aspects of Peter Jackson's films, but they should be kept apart from a consideration of Tolkien's works sice they've been adapted to a different medium. The so-called racism you describe isn't at all apparent although occasional insensitivity might be attibuted simply because the story deals with various races and their foibles. To try painting these films with the broad brush of "racism" is both unfair and, since I assume you to be an intelligent fellow, disingenuous.
AuPh
n
"Of all the elf-banes, the most deadly". Perhaps the Russian army
advancing on Berlin? Regards,J.R.
I see no reason to unduly complicate Tolkien's work with PC elements that detracts more from his mythology than adds to it.AuPh
Maybe there is a lot more to his works than perceived. Afterall, Henry Ford, Chuck Lindbergh, and King Eddie . . .
Well, English is a Germanic language. Tolkien was a highly respected
philologist and held the Rawlinsonian chair of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford
until his death. The ancient Germanic languages are very similar: if
you can read Anglo-Saxon, you can get by in Old High German, Old
Saxon, Old Frisian, Old Norse, etc. He used the literature and glosses
of the old Germanic for many proper names in LOTR; for example, the
dwarf names are mostly from the Old Norse poetic Edda; "warg" is Old
Norse for "wolf, "wetwang" is Old Norse for "swamp". This hardly makes
him Wagnerian. He scoffed at the notion that the ring of Sauron was
the same as the Nibelungen ring, except that they were both "round".
The racism slur is preposterous and offensive and tedious worst kind
of PC thinking. Tolkien was a original and creative writer: he was
influenced by many ancient Germanic sources, but not ruled by them.
Regards,J.R.
BTW, the elven names and language are Uralic (Finnish in this case)
in form.
..."The Wit & Wisdom of George W. Bush" the autobiographical pamphlet here, are we? No siree! We're talkin' about the highly regarded works of JRR Tolkien, one of the foremost 20th Century literary authors and a man who made a point of not wearing his politics, prejudices or religious views on his sleeve! Tolkien reputedly said as much himself in denying the symbolic nature of his Rings Trilogy and it would be nice if folks would have the decency to respect the late author's word.BTW, Hank Ford, Lindy and would be King Eddie are far from literary giants even though the former two are well respected for their personal successes. The fact that all of them made poor philosophical/political judgments doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on their personal achievements, does it?
AuPh
It does if they are poisonning the air around with faschistoid " Gedankengut "
They didn't have a "Final Solution" to rid the world of anybody but themselves. The Silmarillion might clear this up for you.
No, they did not have a " final solution " but their thinking bring to the road to...
And more bitter, some have not learnt the lesson.
What KZ? What Jews or Gipsys...
You could have miss that one!
But ok.
Chronology:
it was something in the film I did not like ( see back in my first post ) and still do not like. A hint of a superior race. Vague and diffuse, BUT there, in my feeling.
So, I have just read two days ago an article on him that he was a Franco lover and was believing in a superior race.
I do not like Franco and I dispise him as well as the people who thinks they belong to a superior race.
You should have talk about Ford... he delivered steel to Hitler and was strongly anti -semit.
Inflammatory post?
Of course you could find some excuse to Mussolini too.
And in some way it was fashionnable to be anti-Jews in the 20 and 30īs, see Agatha C. or Simenon or...works it is tainted.
Is that good? For a far right extremist certainly but not for me.PS: I live in Germany.
Somewhere along the line I got the distinct impression that you were French; no offense was intended and I sincerely mean that.The fact that you live in Germany may explain, at least in some small part, your sensitivity to issues of anti-semitism; in any case, I respect that. I doubt that any culture, America's included, can ever shed the stigma of mistreating some ethnic group, race and/or minority during the course of it's growth and developement. Respecting and acknowledging history is indeed important, as I've pointed out before while quoting the famous words of Georges Santayana, but so is making a concerted effort NOT to overreact.
Which brings me to your opinions of LoTR. Personally, I think you may be overreacting a bit to Tolkien's works and Jackson's filmed versions, perhaps reading things into them that just aren't present. Tolkien himself stated as much in his own lifetime when armchair philosophers were trying to extract symbolism from the texts of his work. Tolkien stated emphatically that he was simply trying to tell a good story. So, reading things into his works, whether philosophically profound or diabolical, misrepresents the man's legacy, IMHO.
Peter Jackson, I believe, was merely trying to translate a complex and theoretically unfilmable literary work loved by generations of readers into a cinematic vision accessible to a generation which had never read Tolkien while not offending the loyal legion who had read them.
AuPh
I do not care if one is jewish, Catholic, French or American or whatever! What I do care is the quality of an individual.
My father did almost lost his life in fighting the Nazis and ruin his life at doing it. That and a lot more. That would certainly explain my sensivity on this theme.
Have you ever saw the KZ? have you ever visit the Auschwitz and consort? I did! Have you ever look in the eyes of the beast directly in the eyes? Have you ever stand in front of the hairs & shoes & glasses of this poor people? Did you stand in the gaz chambers with your own body? Have you seen the marks left on the walls from theirs finger nails? I did.
So everything that come nears from racism, I fight. And how.
But the point is, you will certainly concord with me on this, was Tolkien a racist, did he believe at the " super race " That is what I am going to try to find out. Until now I have only light suspicions, but I do not want to be injust, and will go seriously after this matter now that it has escalated this way.
Well actually if you want my opinion, I think that YOU did overact! I just said that I did not like this film and that I did feel that they may be some trace on racism in it.
That is all I said, and it was more a question than a definitive view, what still is.
The only thing hat did change now is my iron will to find out. Much noise for nothing maybe but life can be also made of this.
We will see.
Your thinking (i.e., or *questioning* as one does when burrowing into weasel territory) that there is "...some trace on(of) racism in it" refering to Tolkien's books and Jackson's films is a very serious allegation. I'm glad that you've decided to look a little harder; Tolkien's books and now the films are highly revered for their simple heroic message and the comraderie of the mythical races joining together to defeat a great evil. Reading more into the characters and storyline than that risks placing subjective interpretations on the material that is less in keeping with the concept of the author/filmmakers than the imagination of the book's/film's critics.AuPh
Accusation ? I was asking if there were trace of racism. Reread my original post.
Granted, we may be having some minor language misunderstanding, but it's hard to miss your inference about racism being in both films and books. No offense, but the only "asking" you've done is in regard to trying to assess whether there's a consensus to your existing opinion.AuPh
You must have really missunderstand me..I never read his books.
But I would really have the opinion of Berbardo as he seems to have read a lot about it!
Any way and that was the starting point the films did leave me a bitter after taste regarding this problems.
That why I was asking myself loudly...what it really was...
You stated (and I quote): "When I saw the films I always felt uncomfortable about some sous-adjacent (under-lying?) racism and wrote so in my comment of LOTR III. Now I know why! The author was a great admirer of Generalissimo Franco..."There you have it! You've indicated that the films convey an underlying racism and the fault lies with the author's books. How could this be interpreted otherwise?
AuPh
Yes and ? I was just been conforted in my suspicion and was glad to hear that I was not the only one who may think this way: The journalist wrote..He was an Franco admirer and loved the " Herren race "..
So, now that this has turned righly so, to a bigger problem, I will do my best to make me a stronger opinion.
If you may read above the Bernardo letter and my answer to it, you will see that we are seriously pushing the envellope.
But will we ever find out?
nt
n
I am always appalled when so " called liberal " canīt see beyond their own nose.
They is only one race: the human one.
But it is so easy for the simpled minded to say..oh Russian...that explain...oh jew..no wonder....and so on...and they take themself seriously.
No wonder all this hate!
n
Fool me once, shame on me!BTW, since he's so wrong about Tolkien, perhaps Patrick just needs to get in touch with his inner-Franco-Prussian-child before making up his mind! ;^)
AuPh
The Brits have Merlin and King Arthur, the Germanic folks have Thor, Loki, Odin, the Italians have Jupiter, Neptune , Apollo...the Greeks have their Olympians, so what do the French have as far as mythology? Jerry Lewis?
In the Atlantic coast, they had everything Celtic mythology had, basically the same people who built Stonehenge, with a cult to the Great Goddess: look at Gravesīs "The White Goddess", and youīll find much about it.In the North, they shared the same set of beliefs Germanic people had.
In the South, they were sharing Mediterranean mythologies, as that sea was a good medium to bring people in touch with one another, so they first shared what Phenicians, and Greeks, brought with them, and what later became organized under the Roman empire: if you look carefully, youīll easily see that all Mediterranean countries shared pretty much the same gods, albeit their original Greek, Egyptian, and even Babylonian names were changed (Zeus became Jove, Ares became Mars, Isis became split between Hera and Aphrodite, later June and Venus,...) Originally, there was the Great Goddess, which was multifaceted, and who later, when her cult was overthrown by the patriarchal gods, starting in the East when the Acheans brought Zeus to power, and the cult to YHVH threw politheism away in what today is that troubled part of the world, she was split into different goddesses. A very good work on that was done by Marija Gimbutas, who wrote several books like "The Language of the Goddess", "The Civilization of the Goddess", and "Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe".
And, on a lighter, more appropriate to this forum, side of it, you can always look at "Asterix and Obelix"...
Regards
BF
I did not care for an answer as Denn was jocking. I think that even in the film there is one( forget his name ) who belong to the French branch...
nt
I guess he goes down well with wine and cheese. ;^)AuPh
where his character Stanley, the speechless bellhop, mistakes a VW Beetle engine for trunk luggage and carries it, still running, into the guests room
Perhaps clever mime is more appreciated in French culture, no?
Graham
I believe that line comes from either a Clint Eastwood or Bond film and was uttered after a villainous mime recieved his just reward; at any rate, I do appreciate a clever pun now and them, especially when it's a crowd pleaser that places things in proper perspective. ;^)Cheers.
AuPh
Grinagog has not text
nt
"A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them".
-P. J. O'Rourke
n
nt
Tolkien had racism in his brilliant mind when first he wrote..."In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit...." It's fantasy guys, fantasy. Have you read CS Lewis science fiction trilogy Audi? In the third book "That Hideous Strength" he references Tolkiens work.
Has anyone seen the 1043 American film "Mission to Moscow" which is
PRO Stalin? It was made to focter good will between the allied America and England and the U.S.S.R.
I have. It was originally shown as "The North Star" and was Gregory Peck's screen debut! As you pointed out, it was made to help foster goodwill towards the Soviets. When American policy towards the Soviet Union changed, it was re-edited and retitled "Mission to Moscow." Interesting film no matter what version you see. Would enjoy seeing the two versions back to back.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
