Good versus evil: Downplayed, or overplayed?

[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.