Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
We need to get some perspective here.
|
Yes, a little perspective would be nice....
*The Dark Elf eyes the remainder of davem's post suspiciously*
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas.
|
Hmmm....so much for perspective. I think perhaps even Tolkien would consider your statement to be presumptuous, if not a bit flippant. I am not as certain as you are in casting LotR in such august company, particularly since educators, editors and publishers (who, of course, write the textbooks and literary compilations) do not necessarily share your extreme position. One of my favorite texts is
'The Land and Literature of England (A Historical Account)' by Robert M. Adams, a witty and often profound literary commentator. Adams offers a one line mention of Tolkien in the book (in the same sentence as C.S. Lewis, coincidently):
Quote:
|
Meanwhile, C.S. Lewis, long a belligerent conversationalist for Christianity, enjoyed fresh accesses of popularity for the witty apologetics of The Screwtape Letters (1942); and J.R.R. Tolkien, slowly meditating an entire new world out of his Anglo-Saxon studies, produced in The Lord of the Rings tetralogy a cosmos exotic in its coloring but deeply Christian in its structure.
|
It is an excellent summation for the tail-end of a compound sentence, don't you think? Meanwhile, Malory receives several pages of commentary, and I believe that's about it for Tolkien in the literary world...a footnote. When discussing British writers of the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell and James Joyce get far more critical comment. That's the reality of the literary situation the good professor is up against. I think LotR is categorized by many critics in the same manner as
Watership Down, or
The Once and Future King, which David Garnett, the formidable publisher, writer and member of the Bloomsbury Group, described as "one the curious classics of English literature". 'Curious' is used as almost a pejorative adjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.
These movies are pleasant enough entertainment if you want to spend a thought free few hours, but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien. Tolkien's work is for the ages. PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.
|
Oh come now, you are being a little too hard on the movies, aren't you? First of all, I can't believe I am pressed into defending Peter Jackson (ah, the irony!), but for all the innumerable scripting/plot flaws (which I think everyone can agree are at the heart of vehement opposition), visually the films are astounding, and the cinematography and design work alone merits the critical acclaim the movies received (particularly the work of Alan Lee and John Howe). The films make the Star Wars debacles sophomoric (I would put up the Gollum characterization against Jar-Jar Binks any day). Technically speaking, Jackson trumps Lucas in nearly every aspect of filmmaking (not that it's hard, but critics always seem to use Star Wars as a comparative basis for films of the genre).
Speaking of Gollum, I believe his portrayal was superb, and there are numerous moments throughout the films that literally mirror Middle-earth in splendor and awe (I always crank the DTS 6.1 when the balrog squares off against Gandalf). The Shire and Bag-end are just as I pictured it (and the repartee between Sir Ian Mckellan and Sir Ian Holm is a pleasure).
Is it the best film ever made, or in my top 50? No, not by a long shot, but I could place it at the rear of my top 100 somewhere, and that's saying something (for me anyway). But like so many others I bemoan the fact that if Jackson had not been so heavyhanded with his script changes (as I stated elsewhere, most of which were utterly unnecessary), then the LotR films would be much higher in my esteem. Had Jackson maintained the (somewhat) lore appropriate nature of FotR for the balance of the last two movies, the effect would have been much greater. Such scope and sheer will! It was a monumental and exhausting undertaking for Jackson, I am sure; unfortunately, it seems his ego grew with each successive film.