Features

KevinTheOmnivore · #26

Yeah, those commercials are sort of silly. Isn't the story itself already a "classic"???

Emu · #27

No, because kids don't read anymore. If it wasn't a movie, it wasn't a classic.

pjalne · #28

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbxMCj

I was told LoTR was a satire on world war II i.e. Tree people americans, the men european, the drawves ruskies, the men of the east the Japs, the orcs germany. There are others but I need to talk to my history teacher to remember any of them.

The reason everybody is cramming allegories into every crack they can find in Lord of the Rings is that the book is meant to follow the mythological structure that's hardwired into our brains. You can make everything fit into this structure as long as you're able to choose a protagonist and an antagonist from a historical incident or from mythological texts. The Lord of the Rings is a big "what if" experiment, Tolkien's take on how a genuine British mythology could take shape.

All races and creatures in mythology are symbolic for human tendencies. Tolkien-Elves are probably supposed to be an isolation of all that is "high" in the human psyche, while the dwarves could represent more base elements. Ents might be humans as historically aware creatures, orcs humans as hunters/animals. Claiming dwarves are Russians is probably a result of how you or your teacher percieve Russians rather than what they actually represent. Try swapping the roles around: how about the Ents are Russians and not American? Contrary to modern Americans, they have a long history, their country is somewhat a fallen giant, they speak of the land itself as their mother... assigning attributes becomes a sorta random process. Though I don't doubt Tolkien's orcs are supposed to be perversions of Arabs or other peoples. Again, this is manufactured mythology, and the different and scary peoples beyond the border have a tendency to become demonized in folklore.

xbxDaniel · #29

That is definitely a good point, but I gathered the representation of the ents being americans because of their choosing not to be a part of the war. At least until their home is attacked by the primary antagonists. It reminded me first of Pearl Harbor, but the way you describe their role it could be interpreted either way. It's just an interpretation anyways, his intent might have been he just wanted to write a cool story. The fact that I didn't know the ents were called ents shows how deep I'm into the show though.

Guitar Woman · #30

Every accusation of LoTR being an allegory for something is complete bullshit. Tolkein even said that he didn't want to make LoTR have a subtext or author's message or any of that gay crap.

pjalne · #31

Still, its function as myth, even as manufactured myth, is to be transferrable to our own situation. When you place the structure of a war over the narrative in LotR, you're giving meaning to what actually has no narrative purpose, and it helps you relate to it. One of the primary purposes of myth, movies, litterature and other cultural items is to depict conflict and resolution universally, so you can use it to make choices in your everyday life. So while Tolkien had no plan to make this an allegory on the war, it still works as a way to relate to what happened, if only subjectively.

Oh my god, I sound like a cunt when I'm discussing this shit. This has got to stop.

Emu · #32

pjalne, let's go back to tryign to find the underlying subtext in Boston and Shaun.

DamnthatDavid · #33

Cutting through all this College level mumbo jumbo, just got back from watching the Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, and it is a great book to movie adaption.

executioneer · #34

all i know is that i saw a collection of all seven books and book #1 was the magicians nephew and i was like "wtf that's book 5 you n*ggers, put them in the right order" so the repopularizing of the chronicles of narnia has already started to piss me off

Protoclown · #35

My roommate's got an old copy of all the books collected together in one volume and they placed that story first in that one too, so I don't think the movie is to blame for that one.

Ninjavenom · #36

Mine goes: Magician's Nephew, lion/witch/wardrobe, horse and his boy, prince caspian, dawn treader, silver chair, last battle.

Jeanette X · #37

I read all the Narnia books as a kid, and I frankly don't care if its got Christian symbolism. Its still enjoyable, and this movie looks like a pretty good adaptation.

I saw an live action adaptation of The Silver Chair when I was a kid. I can't remember if it was any good though.

GADZOOKS · #38

I'm rooting for the lion, but I bet the wardrobe wins.

Slinky Ferret · #39

In regards to Lord of The Rings, I don't think Tolkien was relating it to WWII, he was relating it to the changes of the world. He was existing in a time where machines were taking over, where countryside was being destroyed.

Anyway, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were professors at university together at one of the best universities in England. I think they both lectured in English mainly but both had a love for mythology. LOTR was written by Tolkien because he'd invented a language and decided to have a story to fit around it.

C.S. Lewis wrote the Narnia series for children. At first glance, when you are a child, its a fasinating story of good and evil, of betrayal, sacrifice, family and friends. All of the books cover topics that can be difficult to explain at times, yet I love reading the books, they may not be the academic challenge of LOTR, but they make me happy. If you read the stories again, when a little older, they are still those fasinating stories that you read when you were younger, but you begin to see the hidden depths. I recommend The Last Battle in particular or The Silver Chair.

The fact remains, C.S. Lewis was a christian and he has written some excellent books such as The Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce, which are good to get you thinking. However, I feel that the story of TLTWATW gives an interesting perspective on the very basic elements of christianity without all the politics and hangups that are present today and in regards to that I think Lewis has combined an excellent story with an underlying theme that relates to christianity but you can choose to see it that way or not.

Immortal Goat · #40

Exceptional movie. Aslan was awesome, the animals looked great, even when they talked. The acting was great, the effects were awesome, and even with the Christian overtones, I didn't care. It didn't matter at all that Aslan was obviously a Christ figure. Hell, Artie, the Strongest Man in the World could be viewed as a Christ figure.

So, yeah, GO SEE THIS FUCKING MOVIE!

P.S. I like it better than Harry Potter, and that is saying something.

Emu · #41

It got better towards the end, but the beginning drew on for a fucking hour.

Protoclown · #42

I enjoyed it, and the talking animals weren't really as silly as I feared they would be. I've never read the books.

mburbank · #43

I thought it rocked, and Tilda was AWESOME!

I also was very impressed that the allegory aspect was peddled no harder nor softer than the book. It was treated with respect. C.S. Lewis is a very readable and impressive theologian and it's not as if the New Testament isn't as good a story to reference as Shakespeare or Norse mythology or any other damn thing an author likes.

I do wonder what the reborn audience for "The Passion" is going to make of all the half naked Fauns and Buff Centaurs. If they think Harry Potter is a manual for Stanism, what must they make of all that pagan shit?

Guitar Woman · #44

I saw it yesterday and thought it was great.

I didn't like the Witch's frozen dreadlocks though

Royal Tenenbaum · #45

This ended up being a great movie! I was really surprised. The only problem was some wooden acting, but beyond that it was quite entertaining. The action was deftly handled, and Tilda Swinton was brillaint. They left a bit out from the book, but they covered it all quite well. I guess we will get a couple sequels now...