 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Shepherd may be the Freud-o Baggins of fantasy critics, but sometimes a basilisk is just a basilisk! posted by Audiophilander on November 29, 2002 at 08:56:04:
... apparently have similar thoughts about it. Why the fixation with tall towers? And just what is that chasm of doom? Apparently in the next installment, the all-male band will have to pass TWO towers to deliver the ring to that chasm of doom. Hmm.I know that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but not this time.
Follow Ups:
...miss the symbolism of the eye of Sauron. To preoccupoed with phallic imagery, eh?
Wasn't paying careful attention after the first few minutes. I think we're talking about the same image, which I have mis-identified. Come to think of it, that did look a little like an eye, didn't it?
Several people believe the eye to look like something else...a particular part of female anatomy...think hard...(giggle, snert.)Me, I don't buy it. If I looked for sexual imagery all the time I'd never get any work done. ;-)
Towers, eyes, it's all in the book anyway.
...because, honestly, I didn't realize that was supposed to be an eye before you mentioned it. Sometimes when I'm viewing what is in essence a children's movie, you look for more entertaining diversions below the surface. Don't get me started on Disney's "Aladdin"...
Best reviews of FOTR are over at salon.com
...is not a children's movie, nor was it a children's book.If you don;t geddit, maybe move on.
I really meant no offense by calling it a children's movie. I was mistaken in calling it that and I apologize if I offended anyone. Maybe the terminology "fantasy movie" would have been a more apt description. There is, of course, some universal appeal to stories of this type. FWIW, I enjoy many movies which are ostensibly "children's movies" and did not mean to imply that I am necessarily "above" viewing them (within reason). I can still enjoy movies like Star Wars, Star Trek, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, etc. although I realize that they were meant to appeal primarily to a young audience.I've never had much interest in the sword and sorcery genre, but it's clear that LOTR is much better than most.
LOTR is the original source for Sword & Sorcery, SW etc. which bear about as much resemblance to LOTR as Demtrius & the Gladiators does to the Bible.
LOtR is a very sophisticated epic that transcends genre and age classification. Tolkein constructed a complex world where courage was defined through self-sacrifice for the greater good and strength of character, in the end, is more important than physical strength; the author meticulously avoided intentional symbolism or contemporary allegorical content that might've dated his work. My play on words (i.e., Freud-o Baggins, refering to both Sigmund Freud's obsession with sexual symbolism and Frodo's relative innocence) was intended as a humorous jab at Clark's favorite critic reading so much sexual innuendo into Harry Potter, not as an openning for extending those critical impressions to LOtR. Since Harry Potter is demographically marketed to children and young adults Mr. Shepherd's critical comments seem especially vitriolic, not to mention way off base.AuPh
Yes.Just saw "HP" yesterday with my 11-year old daughter. I thought its pacing was much better than "Sourcer's Stone," which seemed dramatically "flat." I was not conscious of its length, except for the fact that, before the film, I had imbibed a "grande" Starbucks coffee, with the usual and predictable result -- and didn't want to leave the film before the end.
I'm not sure what expectations people bring to a film like this. Mine are simply to be entertained -- and, on that level, I was satisfied.
I have to say, that I'm not sure I liked this computer-generated elf any better than Jar-Jar Binks. Somehow, it seemed to have been generated by the same program, with the same repertory of expressions, ear movements and so own. At least the ersatz Jamacian patois was omitted!
The CGI elf was a trifle annoying, but the character grows on you because his plight does evoke a modicum of sympathy. OTOH, there was no excuse in that galaxy far far away for a character like Jar-Jar Binks; he was completely obnoxious regardless of which parts were generated by computer imaging. Played for laughs Jar-Jar was so stupid and slapstick that it made any empathetic connection with the character impossible; once sympathy and empathy go out the door disappointment comes innuendo! ;^)AuPh
... instead of watching it while I run on the treadmill. The treadmill is noisy and distracting. I've evidently missed a lot that's worthwhile in the movie.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]