Good versus evil: Downplayed, or overplayed? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalaith · 04-11-2004, 08:13 AM

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.

04-11-2004, 08:13 AM	#3
Lalaith Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,779	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.