Well, the purpose of my posts was to show that, despite the deficiencies of the first article, and to a lesser extent the second, there is a valid discussion to be had about how films can at the very least reflect (or run counter to) contemporary ways of seeing. I think this unarguable.
My last post widened that by positing that Tolkien's historical grounding, along with perhaps his personal experience - regardless of his views on the matter - make his evocation of mass warfare effective as narrative, encompassing as it does both the strategic aspects and the chaotic reality of the front. Yet the essence of the conflict is surely romantic, if not romanticised. There are banners, there is the doomed yet noble king, there is the desperate courage against overwhelming odds, and so on.
In moral terms, the wars were unavoidable - for those with good conscience - but wars they were, and as such, you could extrapolate that Tolkien offers a legitimising of such conflict in moral or spiritual terms. This is an interpretation, of course ... but it is the case that within such conflict the bravery and perhaps even the goodness of individuals can be measured.
However, this is indeed a common aspect of heroic literature, and very much so in film - the argument that the LotR films is any more pernicious, or somehow directly related to a sinister justification of foreign policy, is over-stretching the point. You could equally say the same for Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. My only caveat is that the films (or books) are not anti-war in the liberal sense in which we may understand that notion today.
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin
|