 
|
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 |
And why the books too were so unsatisfactory. None of them bear comparison the to the One True Ring, viz., Wagner's. Here's a brilliant dissertation, only excerpted here. Well worth reading for the Oscar Wilde remark alone!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RING AND THE RINGS
by ALEX ROSS (The New Yorker)
Wagner vs. Tolkien
...Tolkien refused to admit that his ring had anything to do with Wagner’s. “Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceased,” he said. But he certainly knew his Wagner, and made an informal study of “Die Walküre” not long before writing the novels. The idea of the omnipotent ring must have come directly from Wagner; nothing quite like it appears in the old sagas. True, the Volsunga Saga features a ring from a cursed hoard, but it possesses no executive powers. In the “Nibelungenlied” saga, there is a magic rod that could be used to rule all, but it just sits around. Wagner combined these two objects into the awful amulet that is forged by Alberich from the gold of the Rhine. When Wotan steals the ring for his own godly purposes, Alberich places a curse upon it, and in so doing he speaks of “the lord of the ring as the slave of the ring.” Such details make it hard to believe Tolkien’s disavowals. Admit it, J.R.R., you used to run around brandishing a walking stick and singing “Nothung! Nothung!” like every other besotted Oxford lad.
It is surely no accident that the notion of a Ring of Power surfaced in the late nineteenth century, when technologies of mass destruction were appearing on the horizon. Pre-modern storytellers had no frame of reference for such things. Power, for them, was not a baton that could be passed from one person to another; those with power were born with power, and those without, without. By Wagner’s time, it was clear that a marginal individual would soon be able to unleash terror with the flick of a wrist. Oscar Wilde issued a memorable prediction of the war of the future: “A chemist on each side will approach the frontier with a bottle.” Nor did the ring have to be understood only in terms of military science. Mass media now allowed for the worldwide destruction of an idea, a reputation, a belief system, a culture. In a hundred ways, men were forging things over which they had no control, and which ended up controlling them...
I hope that at least a small fraction of the huge worldwide audiences for these films will one day be tempted into Wagner’s world, which offers something else again. For Tolkien, myth is a window on an ideal world, both brighter and blacker than our own. For Wagner, it is a magnifying mirror for the average, desperate modern soul...
When Tolkien stole Wagner’s ring, he discarded its most significant property—that it can be forged only by one who has forsworn love. (Presumably, Sauron gave up carnal pleasures when he became an all-seeing eye at the top of a tower, but it’s hard to say for certain. Maybe he gets a kick out of the all-seeing bit.)... The ring is a never-ending nightmare to which people are drawn for no obvious reason. It generates lust and yet gives no satisfaction...
The apparatus of myth itself—the belief in higher and lower powers, hierarchies, orders—crumbles with the walls of Valhalla. Perhaps what angered Tolkien most was that Wagner wrote a sixteen-hour mythic opera and then, at the end, blew up the foundations of myth.
Follow Ups:
and it turns out Mr. Shore likes these movies quite a lot:"The books tell a fantastic story in a familiar style, but the movies transcend the apparent limitations of their medium in the same way that Wagner transcended the limitations of opera. They revive the art of Romantic wonder; they manufacture the sublime."
Edited out to make it look like he panned the movie. He did not. He just likes Wagner more.
Tolkien created a world that we can all marvel at. Wherever the ring influence came from, I doubt Tolkien "stole it" from anyone or anywhere. He is pure authoritic genius the likes of which we will probably not be seeing again anytime soon. If the movies bore you then why are you writing about them? There are billions of people who have read Lord Of The Rings who love Tolkien, I doubt they will be persuaded that he took the ring idea from anywhere but the annals of time and history.
nt
are in black & white and/or sub-titled.
nt
kids, as is Star Wars and Harry Potter.
The problem with LOTR, of course, is the need to create all that fantastic (literally) excess when this world has much more interesting stuff within IT.
Good science fiction is NOT in the same class, btw. The well done material in that genre is believable (which is why 2001 far surpasses Star Wars and its cuddly, smarmy characters).
Auden praised LOTR in print (reviews atill at NYT website) and loved the books.It should be obvious that SW, which was aimed at the younger set, ain't in the same league as LOTR, although Lucas certainly borrowed from it freely. The HP books, written for children, are delightful in their way, but the movies suffer from having Chris Columbus at the helm.
Fantastic excess?? Does this criterium then disqualify Wagner's Ring as an adult work as well? It to is a work of "fantasy". Tolkien and Wagner drew from many of the same sources to create their modern myths. (I suggest you read Tolkien's own sessay "On Fairytales", although I know you won't.)
The themes Tolkien treated in LOTR - self sacrifice, ), the futility of despair, the struggle to do what must be done when all hope is lost, the redemptive power of mercy, how power corrupts (and its corollary, how absolute power corrupts absolutely) - these are very much from the "real" world, including JRRT's experiences in WW1.
However, I know your mind is closed on the subject. So let me just add that some people are blind to magic and deaf to enchantment.
So it goes.
nt
Latin counterpart with...Tolkien?
Greek and Roman mythology with...LOTR?
Tolkien's prose with the poetry of Homey and Vergy? C'mon, duuuuuuuuude...
What next will you hold forth on... the artistic merits of "Dragons and Dungeons?"
And it is ever so ponderous in Latin. You no doubt read Virgil in Latin, being blackrobe spawn. Please don't try to convince me how wonderful the Aeneid is. Now Homer, he knew how to weave a tale of ironic tragedy. I'll take LOTR over Roman pulp fiction any day. Hell, Virgil himself wanted to burn the infernal thing.
nt
I guess we really are living in a spiritually impoverished time!
nope
It's that these movies act like they have philosophical depth because of their somber and serious nature when, as already said, the stories are predictable and lightweight childrens fare.These movies are ponderous and pretentious self-important tripe. They will date badly.
Variations on classic mythic themes are generally fairly predictable(at least after you have read several of them), but there are some novel elements in Tolkien's trilogy. It is rather unlike the Greek and Roman mythic stories that the humblest character is the only one capable of the act that would defeat evil. And it was not entirely predictable that even Frodo would turn out to be incapable of willingly parting with the Ring. And Gollum is a rather unique character. And while it was stated repeatedly that he would have a crucial role in facilitating the defeat of evil, it would have been impossible to predict the precise role that he would play, beyond the obvious role of guiding Frodo to the Mountain of Doom. The Hobbit characters and the roles they play, the dynamics of the relationship between Samwise and Frodo, and the way that the humble gardiner helps keep Frodo focused are unlike anything I know of in Homer, Virgil, or Wagner (I have taught Homer and Virgil in college courses annually for the last 15 years). Tolkien's treatment of Frodo's ultimate failure to willingly resist the power of the Ring is more profound than Wagner's treatment of Parsifal's ultimate resistence to Kundry. And speaking of Parsifal, I think Tolkiens' view that it is the lust for power that is the ultimate obstacle to the defeat of evil is more true than Wagner's view in Parsifal that is is sexual lust that threatens to prevent Parsifal from performing his redemptive role. And I was stunned to see that Alex Ross apparently failed to understand the appeal of the Ring. It is not merely a hyperbolically facinating trinket! Incidentally, I am much more of fan of Wagner's Ring than Tolkien's. But this has not made me incapable of seeing the great superiority of the Lord of the Ring to Harry Potter or Star Wars.
s
nt
These films will hardly be dated one whit in my estimation! They are accessible to anyone, regardless of age, with an imagination and love of the fantasy genre. Furthermore, these films have greater philosophical depth than 90% of the so-called adult fare coming out of Hollywood today, but that's a rather foolish argument anyway since large scale productions are intended as broadly accessible entertainment first and foremost. I'm sorry that you never acquired a taste for sombre and serious fantasy films, but I don't recall Tolkien's Ring trilogy EVER being slated as a Monty Python project! ;^)BTW, nearly every epic story of heroism is predictable to a greater or lesser extent, and especially those which are based on myths and legends. You may find Tolkien's Ring Trilogy ponderous, but one man's ponderous is another's masterpiece; I'm sure that there are films you like that I would find tedious in the extreme, but such differences may be merely a matter of tastes or preferences, are they not? If I called films that you considered great artistic achievements "children's fare" I'm pretty sure that you would take umbrage to my demagoguery of your tastes on some level, so how about lightening up about the LoTR trilogy before someone decides to get medieval on your Orcish arse, metaphorically speaking, of course.
AuPh
but I don't recall Tolkien's Ring trilogy EVER being slated as a Monty Python project!Yeah, they had their hands full with the King Arthur and Jesus thing. Had these movies come out before MP was in existence, I'm not so sure that they would have left it alone . . . it's exactly the kind of overbearing portentious junk that so many take so seriously that they make fun of.
The FX and general look will be as dated in 30 years as the 10 Commandments are today. Except that instead of a story that millions take to be true that can carry it to new generations, the hobbit stories are just silly and predictable childrens fiction.
And yes, one mans meat is another mans pudding, obviously. BBs are designed for people to put forth their opinons, whether you agree or not. My opinion that it's nothing more than a comic-book story is just that, my opinion. Some agree, some don't. Don't take it so personally.
nt
Your's, obviously are not; that is my informed opinion.> > > "Don't take it so personally." < < <
Why not? You're insulting the personal tastes of others. If you don't like the films, that's fine! However, those of us who appreciate this series are not interested in your blathering on about how childish you consider films based on Tolkien's works to be. Your comments are short on substance, but long on ridicule, although I do peceive an agenda as alluded to in these comments:
> > > "The FX and general look will be dated in 30 years as the 10 Commandments are today. EXCEPT THAT INSTEAD OF A STORY THAT MILLIONS TAKE TO BE TRUE THAT CAN CARRY IT TO NEW GENERATIONS, THE HOBBIT STORIES ARE JUST SILLY AND PREDICTABLE CHILDRENS FICTION." < < <
So, apparently what we have here is someone proselytizing for his own belief system. Disengenuous criticism of Tolkien's works, it would seem, based on evangelical salesmanship rather than merit.
Still not clear on what I'm getting at? Allow me to be more blunt:
I'm sure that many folks here are aware of the fact that certain protestant denominations abhor LoTR and other fantasies; they preach the spreading filth about the series to their brainwashed congregations, urging them to shun the series and condemn it at every opportunity. They do this because they consider such fantasies as anti-christian and consider them threats to good moral virtue.
Now Troy, I wouldn't accuse you of being one of THOSE theological lemmings, but your posts on this subject certainly convey that distinctive aroma.
In conclusion, one is left to wonder how you would feel about someone expressing the opinion that, Charlton Heston's wooden film performance notwithstanding, the 10 Commandments were dated long before being committed to film? ;^)
Regards,
AuPh
Boy howdy, do you have ME pegged incorrectly!No bible thumper here, bro. I am if anything, the exact opposite. How can anyone believe in any religeon? All religeons say basically the same things, including that they are the only way. Well, if they all say this, then they must all be wrong, right? It's only logical. Nope, no sky-pilot here, my man.
I used the 10 Commandments comparison as an example of just how dated the LOTR movies will be in 30 years as technology and movies change. As good as Gollum looks, in as little as 5 years from now, he's gonna look like The Incredible Mr. Limpet. Yes, Heston is an absolute stiff in 10C, and what, Viggo isn't in LOTR? Well, he's no Mark Hammil!
I read the first Ring book as a teenager. I thought it was a trifle. Pure fantasy with all the good and evil too spelled out and obvious. I saw the first 2 films and thought they took that obviousness and amplified it. The films take themselves too seriously. As pretentious as it gets, these movies pretend to have something important to say about humanity and the nature of good and evil, but it's all so simplistic, like it's written for children. Ultimately, the series is just boring. Is that substance enough?
However, those of us who appreciate this series are not interested in your blathering on about how childish you consider films based on Tolkien's works to be.
How's this: those of us who don't appreciate this series are not interested in your blathering on about how important you consider films based on Tolkien's works to be?
It goes both ways, AuPh.
As is typical of epics, the lines between good and evil are sharply drawn. But with all due respect, if you think the Ring's treatment of how evil is defeated is simplistic, then you have simply failed to understand the story.
. . . my true biblical colors, here's the post I made on this film yesterday:http://www.videoasylum.com/films/messages/19635.html
Glad to see that your agenda isn't religious conversion; that gets you points in my book. Still, your problem with the films & Tolkien in general is vindictive in nature and comes off sounding like a personal insult to those who like the series. I'd recommend a bit more tact instead of outright condescension, that is unless you like pickin' fights you can't win.Regards,
AuPh
I'm not being condescending. You just don't like what I have to say. Perhaps you're being sensitive.There is no winner or loser, merely 2 differing viewpoints.
It does come across as condescending when you insult the informed opinions of others, even if you do it indirectly. Allow me this hypothetical scenario: If Troy says "I like this film series and agree with the general concensus that these are masterpieces for the ages" and then Audiophilander comes along and says "...the stories are predictable and lightweight children's fare" then I've either intentionally or inadvertantly insulted the viewer's tastes.See what I mean?
In other words, it's one thing to be critical based on reasonable criteria which assesses a film's merit based on personal criteria (i.e., pacing, plot, character interpretation, effects, etc.), but entirely another to be judgmental in a way that ridicules those that enjoy the films (i.e., calling the series "...lightweight children's fare").
Have a pleasant holiday; cheers,
AuPh
It does come across as condescending when you insult the informed opinions of others, even if you do it indirectly. Allow me this hypothetical scenario: If Troy says "I like this film series and agree with the general concensus that these are masterpieces for the ages" and then Audiophilander comes along and says "...the stories are predictable and lightweight children's fare" then I've either intentionally or inadvertantly insulted the viewer's tastes.See what I mean?
No, I honestly don't.
Well first of all, the general consensus be damned. The general consensus is that Thomas Kincade (the painter) is a genius. How right is THAT?
Secondly, you're welcome to voice your opinion here just as much as I am. Why do you think my opinion isn't as informed as yours? Isn't that just as condescending? You're welcome to call me a moron for having my opinion. Your words will not hurt me as mine seems to have hurt you.
Take a look around you. If you want to play on BBs and have strong opinions either way, you better grow yourself a thicker skin, or you will get hurt often. You take MY opinion far too personally.
In other words, it's one thing to be critical based on reasonable criteria which assesses a film's merit based on personal criteria (i.e., pacing, plot, character interpretation, effects, etc.), but entirely another to be judgmental in a way that ridicules those that enjoy the films (i.e., calling the series "...lightweight children's fare").
Go back and read all my posts in this thread. I've explained in detail about why I feel this way about these movies. I've been just as judgemental about this movie as you have. I've made plenty of comments on pacing, plot and FX. It seems you can't get past that first blush of "Childrens fare". Your eyes just glaze over in anger and all you see is red.
You can call me a troll for saying "childrens fare", that I did it to goad you, but that's just not the case at all. If I was a troll, I'd have handled my responses differently than I have, goading you even further. I won't apologize for calling these stories childrens fare because that's how I feel about them. But I am sorry that you have over-reacted so strongly.
Relax, bub, relax.
Holiday cheer,
Troy
I never refered to you as a troll, but if that's what is on your mind, then there's probably a reason for it. :o)> > > "Why do you think my opinion isn't as informed as yours?" < < <
Because, on this subject it apparently is nowhere near as informed as mine, at least based upon what you've posted thus far; I don't have enough information about opinons you may have on other subjects to make a blanket statement that your opinions are ALL uninformed.
> > > "Isn't that just as condescending?" < < <
That WOULD be a good point, had you not demonstrated that your opinion on the Ring trilogy lacked substance in the prior post! Furthermore, it's certainly LESS condescending. FYI, my comment was based on evidence which YOU provided; your's was an opinion borne of personal dislike. Intentionally or not, refering to these works as "children's fare" was a dig at everyone who admires JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson's interpretation of the Ring trilogy.
> > > "You're welcome to call me a moron..." < < <
You must be kidding; that was never my intent. Besides, the Asylum boards have rules even if you've chosen not to take them seriously; I respect these boards and try to abide by the rules. However, if you still insist on taking a rhetorical flogging from your's truly, then venture over to the Outside Forum and within that Forum's guidelines I'll gladly take the kid gloves off.
> > > "Take a look around you. If you want to play on BBs and have strong opinions either way, you better grow yourself a thicker skin, or you will get hurt often." < < <
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously Troy, you may THINK that I have "thin skin" but that's just another example of an uninformed opinion clouding your judgment. Folks who know me, know better. ;^D
> > > "Go back and read all my posts in this thread." < < <
So what? I've read them all; once was enough to know where you're coming from and why you're getting nowhere.
> > > "I've explained in detail about why I feel this way about these movies. I've been just as judgmental about this movie as you have." < < <
Apples and oranges. Being judgmental says noting about whether one's views are condescending toward the opinions of others or not; that's a nice change-up, but it's still easy to hit your pitches out of the park.
> > > "I've made plenty of comments on pacing, plot and FX." < < <
I'm fully aware of this, but that wasn't the issue! You just couldn't leave it there; you had to remark on the film in a derogatory manner that went beyond objective criticism, dismissing the film on grounds that were too subjectively personal in nature.
> > > "It seems that you can't get past that first blush of 'Children's fare'." < < <
That's because this is how you summed up the value of the film! Unfortunately, all the other critical points you offered were merely a means to this end. I could argue that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the pacing, plot and FX or I could quibble about minor Directorial choices, the look of certain shots, editing choices, etc., but what is there to gain by ignoring the grand achievement (i.e., the BIG picture) while focusing on minor flaws? YOU, on the other hand, apparently wanted to build your case on loose accusations rather than evidence.
> > > "Relax, bub, relax." < < <
You do likewise, 'chum', and watch out for the sharks when you're using yourself as the bait! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
I never refered to you as a troll, but if that's what is on your mind, then there's probably a reason for it.It's all implied in the way you're responding to my posts.
Seriously Troy, you may THINK that I have "thin skin" but that's just another example of an uninformed opinion clouding your judgment. Folks who know me, know better.
Then stop acting like my words hurt you. As if calling these stories "Childrens Fare" is like telling you your mother wears army boots (or a more poignant anecdote). Why does calling these stories CF bug you so much? Because it's true?
you had to remark on the film in a derogatory manner that went beyond objective criticism, dismissing the film on grounds that were too subjectively personal in nature.
The whole crux of this silly exchange is that you take umbrage with me dismissing the Tolkien stories as "Childrens Fare". What's the big deal? Why does that continue to rile you so? Why do you insist on taking this in such a derrogatory manner? Why so sensitive about it? Plenty of adults read comic books, Harry Potter and Winnie the Pooh too. Heck, enjoy yourself with the Ring flicks, but don't try and make this juvenile fantasy story into something deeper than it is. They are no more philosophically complex than the Star Wars movies.
-> > > "It seems that you can't get past that first blush of 'Children's fare'." < < <-
That's because this is how you summed up the value of the film! Unfortunately, all the other critical points you offered were merely a means to this end.
Yes, that's true. You asked me to validate why I called it childrens fare and I explained that it's ultimately simplistic and obvious lowest common denominator material, ergo, made for children to understand. That is STILL how I sum up this series of movies.
but what is there to gain by ignoring the grand achievement (i.e., the BIG picture) while focusing on minor flaws? YOU, on the other hand, apparently wanted to build your case on loose accusations rather than evidence.
What loose accusations? Do I have to spell out the corny and obvious nature of every scene in the movie for you? As if that's going to change your mind! Why waste both of our time? You liked, no, loved these stories and it pisses you off to have someone like me come along and say that it's corny, pretentious and terribly obvious in it's depiction of human nature and the nature of good and evil.
-> > > "Relax, bub, relax." < < <-
You do likewise, 'chum', and watch out for the sharks when you're using yourself as the bait!
Cute. But there again, you seem to take this as being competitive in some way. Like you can win with me, as if I'm trying to win, myself. As if there is something TO win. I'm just stating my opinions here, however (incorrectly) unfounded you seem to think they are. Each time I call these stories CF and you take it personally only shows that you have some problem with being told that you like CF when there really is nothing wrong with it. Why are you the only one getting so upset about it?
> > > "It's all implied (i.e., Troy-trolling) in the way you're responding to my posts." < < <No, that's just the way you interpret it.
> > > "...stop acting like my words hurt you." < < <
Not ONCE have your words distressed me (i.e., personally) in the slightest; I have no fear of words, your's or anybody else's. Sorry, but if that is your belief then you have an overly elevated image of yourself.
> > > "The whole crux of this silly exchange is that you take umbrage with me dismissing the Tolkien stories as *Children's Fare*." < < <
True enough, because in your zeal to paint both books and films with the drab sophomoric brush of children's fare, you've demeaned literature that is considered by many adults to be on a par with the greatest works of Cervantes, Longfellow, Conrad, et al. I take umbrage, not because it hurts me, but rather because you've chosen to insult all those who, having read Tolkien's books and/or seen Peter Jackson's films, come away enriched by the experience.
You could have avoided this exchange by not having been so unequivocal in your biases. You still persist in lamely lumping Tolkien's works in with Harry Potter, Winnie the Pooh, etc., and then suggesting that it's all juvenile fantasy, but it isn't! You are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but that doesn't make your opinion correct, much less informed.
> > > "...it pisses you off to have someone like me come along and say that it's corny, pretentious and terribly obvious in it's depiction of human nature and the nature of good and evil." < < <
Someone like you? BWAHAHAHA! C'mon Troy, now THAT'S pretentiousness! FTR, I don't find this series of films corny in the slightest and the good/evil depictions are probably more genuine & reflective of human nature than in most films contemporary to the time when Tolkien wrote his epic novels.
> > > "I'm just stating my opinions here, however (incorrectly) unfounded you seem to think they are." < < <
I think, probably correctly, that the opinions you've expressed here are informed by biases.
> > > "Why are you the only one getting so upset about it?" < < <
I'm not upset, and your very mistaken to assume that I am! I'm just a rhetorical poker player who likes to keep the game honest. Others have probably dropped out because they don't see any percentage in staying in. Don't you think it's about time to cash in your chips on this losing hand thread before the weight of the Ring causes you to annoint yourself emporer and comments start rolling in about your new clothes? ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
Well, Ph, feel free to keep deluding yourself that Tolkien is as deep and enriching as Conrad and Wagner. Like Lucas's Star Wars stories, Tolkien's are nothing more than simplistic rehashes of traditional and time honored themes. The fact that you call Tolkien's books "Literature" when they are merely pulpy pop-culture entertainment speaks volumes.Not sure why you keyed on the "someone like me" statement as being some egotistical remark . . . It could just as easily been the word "someone" by itself.
If my words have not bothered you, why continue harping on them so much for days and days? To what end? And again, I said these things not as an insult to those that enjoyed the Tolkien stories, it's YOU that chose to take them that way.
You can continue with your weak and unfounded complaints about my being "uninformed", but the reality is that you choose to read much more into the Tolkein stories than is actually there.
Again, with the winning and losing analogies (WRT to the poker comment)! You are the only man on the battlefield. Talk about chasing windmills . . . !
I think that you're still Lost in La Mancha! :o)BTW, I could be mistaken, but one possible reason "we just don't see eye to eye" on RoTK is that after Frodo completed his epic sojourn to Mount Doom your's crumbled! ;^D
Just teasin'!
Cheers,
AuPh
"Pretty Woman."
The sociological insights of "Pretty Woman" you missed because they aren't there. I don't think it is just your ear that is tin.
there, hence the film's outrageous popularity. It is the quality of the insights which are lacking. Similarly, the pseudo-philosophical blatherings of LOTR are great pablum, for the masses.
But, hey, maybe I missed them. Could you please share what intellectual strengths you found in this epic? As a fan of Beowulf, the Aeneid, etc. I'd like to know.
After all, one is alloted so much time to enjoy art: one must be selective. What makes LOTR so worthy of one's time?
I briefly touched on a few points in another post in this complex of threads. I don't have time for much more, and I don't think you are really open enough to the possility of the Ring having some literary merit to make anything I might say plausible to you. LOTR has been said to be the most detailed depiction of a fantasy world in all of literature. It deals with the universal theme of the conflict between good and evil, and between love and the lust for power in the context of an imaginaary world described in incredible detail, complete with the characterization of another language. The metaphysical and ethical underpinnings are essentially Christian, rather than pagen, which yields some novel and interesting variations on the classic mythical themes. If you don't get off on it, hey thats ok with me. But there really is a great deal of literary and philosophical substance that you are missing. I hate to whip out any unverifiable credentials, but I say this as a professor of philosophy who has some capacity to recognize literature that is rich in philosophical content.
terse effort, Le Mort d'Artur, is superior (and I won't go into "The Song of Roland...").
himself borrow from Icelandic and Norse myth and legend to construct the "Ring"?
there is a comparison between Wagner and...Tolkien.
but I did not find in the article an explanation of why you are bored by LOTR--either the film or the books. Yes, its similar in some ways to Wagner's, but also different. Stories about rings with magical powers go back to Plato and pre-Babylonian cultures. So what? The article is mostly about Shore's music, which like Tolkien's book, owes something to Wagner. How does that explain why you are bored and unsatisfied? What am I missing?
s
How does "Tolkien ripped-off [or borrowed from] Wagner" explain why the films/books bored you? I don't see the argument.I could care less about whether Tolkien was in any way indebted to Wagner. What about his uses of (i.e., references to) Beowulf, the Aeneid, the Odyssey, etc.? Why do the latter make the Lord of the Rings literate while the former has to be denied in his defense?
I'm pretty well over Tolkien, personally. I find his historical Middle Earth to be a greater work of fiction than I find his novels to be anything like great literature. That said, I really disliked the films, and while I'm by no means a Tolkien purest, let alone one believes that films should honor the purity of their source-material as a general principle, the films so botched basic issues of narrative strategy as to make Tolkien look like a story-telling genius. Worse, they violated the realism by which Tolkien made his world palpable to his readers. Unfortunately, this violation seems to be exactly what most viewers and some reviewers loved about them. From David Edelstein (at Slate):
There's a sequence an hour into Peter Jackson's The Return of the King (New Line), the final film of his The Lord of the Rings trilogy, that renders any narrative confusions, any objections to the lack of fidelity to J.R.R. Tolkien's original, any lingering doubts about the scale of this accomplishment, magnificently irrelevant. The armies of Sauron—hundreds of thousands of Orcs—are heading for the seven-tiered "city of kings" called Minas Tirith, where the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and hobbit Pippin (Billy Boyd) are attempting to convince a dangerously depressed and unhinged ruler, Denethor (John Noble), to call in reinforcements. Pippin is dispatched to climb a tower, slip past the guards, and set fire to a huge beacon as a signal to Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the future king, across the plains at Edoras, the Rohan capital. What happens when Pippin fulfills his mission is breathtaking: Jackson's camera soars, godlike, to the next Olympian peak, where watchers light their own beacon, and then to the next and the next and the next, until, in Edoras, Mortensen's Aragon turns his blue eyes to the light on yonder mount and asks the men of Rohan to ride into battle.
Of all the things to love about The Return of the King, it's those lightning shifts in scale that I find the most thrilling. I don't mean just the sudden impossible hugeness of it—those hundreds of thousands of demonic Orcs led by massive trolls and winged dragons called Fell Beasts and eight-story elephants called Mumakil as they surge toward a seven-tiered city that soars into the sky.
It's exactly those "lightning shifts in scale," those swooping camera shots, those brought-to-you-by-the-New-Zealand-Tourist-Board, airborn, landscape sequences, those let's-shift-the-perspective-to-that-of-an-arrow (are-we-adapting-Tolkien-or-a-postmodernist-here?) moments that bug the hell out of me, because they are typical Hollywood generic conventionalism (sci-fi, fantasy, historical epic), authenticating divices whose effects, I think, are ultimately the opposite of what they're explicitly trying to achieve. Authenticating divices on that scale are always a weirdly defensive and question-begging move, and I'm baffled that this failing keeps going unnoticed: they so want you to believe in the authenticity of the world, that it has real geography that must be traversed, that the armies that march it really number menacingly in the thousands, etc., etc., that they undermine that desire by failing to take the world for granted and in so failing, present us that world from perspectives never afforded the characters living in it. This isn't just the Lord of the Rings. Again, most every Hollywood-style genre film produced does this (on increasingly masurbatory scale as studios and SF wizards seem bent on serving themselves over the demands of the film), and I think the effect is to hold the audience at arm's-length. Certainly it frustrates audience identification with the film's protagonists when, for example, rather than cutting to Frodo waking up in a strange room and letting us share in his fear and uncertainty, the audience is taken on a CGI-rollercoaster ride up the side of the tower and through the window to discover him lying there, where we can no longer feel whatever sense of dislocation he must feel because we've been turned into privilaged viewers who know more about his circumstances than he does.
Certainly people like the films. But some day, when the effects are dated and viewers are no longer dazzled by them, they'll see them for what they are. Or so I hope.
I was familiar with Wagner's ring before I read Tolkien's. While comparisons are odious, I'm sure you agree, I couldn't help noticing that the earlier trilogy (quadrilogy?) was the more effective and moving, besides having come first. But those unfamiliar with the musical giant's work unabashedly defend Tolkien -- witness this thread.I'm not criticising Jackson cinematically, or Tolkien literarily. They just bored me, compared to the real thing -- which in the wrong hands, by the way, can be a terrible bore too!
Hope that helps.
clark
Clark, I'm getting tired bitch-slapping you on this topic, but once again you're just begging for a spanking.Rather than post AN ORGINAL THOUGHT (something you seem incapable of doing) you ask others to explain why YOU don't like the film or books. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. I would assume you were baiting but after reading your previous posts I've concluded that you're much too dim to troll.
Moreover your constant posting of copyrighted reviews doesn't give any strengh to your position, it just proves that you are a weak-minded, clueless dweeb who doesn't have the intelligence to provide any sort of critique or analysis of your own.
Oh and BTW Alex Ross is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG about Tolkien "stealing" from Wagner. You can find absolute proof of this in Humphrey Carpenter's 1975 bio on Prof. Tolkien, as well as learning the motivating factors behind his writing the LOTR and The Silmarillion.
Ever so slightly off-topic, I was just wondering: are you unemployed, lacking in hygene, and living in your parent's basement? Just curious as you seem to fit the profile of the typical alienated, semi-intellectual wanna-be.
but cut the bullshit. Zero respect for the nastiness.
...our anonymous sock-puppet Yo Mama is suffering through pubescence. You gotta respect that. This is who he is; he can be no other way. Take pity (and laugh behind his wretched back).clark
... whose second childhood we're suffering through. ;^)AuPh
nt
a
nt
a
I agree with you; Clark wouldn't know a good flick if it hit him on the head, and, my post was nasty. I guess Santa will be bringing me a lump of coal this year. But since you used up the word "bullshit" let me just say that, as someone who has actively researched Tolkien's LOTR trilogy and The Silmarillion during the past three decades* I have a very low tolerance for the kind of bullshit that many reviewers are slinging around. Most of the BS revolves around conjecture that the trilogy is an allegory about Nazism and WWII but there is also a fair amount of misinformation about Tolkien ripping off Wagner that is absolutely false and without merit.There is a lot of very authoritative material available to substantiate my position, and I would certainly invite you to read the aformentioned material for yourself in order to draw your own conclusions.
BTW, while I think the three films (in their extended edition form) are a remarkable achievment, I have severe reservations about the liberties taken with plot points; and I am not much of a fan of the third part, which has many, many problems (far too many to go into right now).
*I have read the trilogy all the way though aproximately 50 times -- once a year since 1969 plus many readings in college courses and lectures I attended on the subject.
Tolkien said the only similarity between The One Ring and Wagner's The Ring of the Nibelung was that they were both round. Also, didn't Tolkien openly admit to influences of Norse and other mythology in his writing? So what? Every writer has his influences and when he openly attributes them, then why all the fuss? I read the Silmarillion several times and though I wouldn't say I enjoyed it as much as LOTR, it served as the foundation of understanding for the origination of Middle Earth, and I consider a work of genius. My son pointed out that he believes that Tolkien, as philologist, really wanted some framework to hang all his invented Elvish languages on...and that he didn't really consider himself a great writer. I happen to know that Clark admires CS lewis as a writer, and Lewis truly admired and was friends with Tolkien. I would like to have heard a few of their conversations. Have you read the CS Lewis sci-fi trilogy in which the main hero is patterned after Tolkien?
-----> My son pointed out that he believes that Tolkien, as philologist, really wanted some framework to hang all his invented Elvish languages on...and that he didn't really consider himself a great writer. <-----Your son is absolutely correct -- Prof. Tolkien would come up with an Elvish name for a person, place or thing using real and invented root languages in old Norse or high German and then work out backstory to fit the name. The Silmarillion is almost entirely based on philology. While Tolkien always considered himself an Oxford Don of Philology first and formost and a writer as second, and was rightfully proud of his story-telling ability in the LOTRs, he always regretted the construction and "talking down" that pervades The Hobbit.
-----> I happen to know that Clark admires CS lewis as a writer, and Lewis truly admired and was friends with Tolkien. <-----
Yup, Tolkien and Lewis were lifelong friends although they were quite different personalities -- Lewis was big and loud, Tolkien small and quiet -- and they were members in a group called The Inklings which would meet at a pub once a week to critique each member's literary output.
Of course I've read Lewis's Perelanda, Out of the Silent Planet and That Hideous Strength many times -- I admire the trilogy (especially the first two books) greatly.
If you want to learn more about Tolkien as a writer, I recommend that you read "Tolkien, Author of the Century" by Tom Shippey -- it provides a nicely balanced perspective on Tolkien's writing style vs. his mastery of languages.
nt
I don't know about the dim part, but for all we know, Clark may E-N-J-O-Y being spanked! :o)AuPh
I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland.
--Woody AllenI find the LOTR flicks boring because they are humorless and self important. They play like 50s biblical epics, except that LOTR mythology is even more cultish and ridiculous than Christian mythology.
Myths are based more on the familiar, such as heroic exploits given a real historical basis and time in spite of the symbolic trappings (i.e., a ring, amulet, magic rod, what have you). In a fantasy, the world and those who populate it tend to be based much more upon imagination, with unfamiliar settings and events. Tolkien established a fantasy realm, Middle Earth, which was populated by many imaginative creatures, human beings only being one of many species. It's unfortunate that Tolkien's trilogy has bored you, your's being the greater loss in all liklihood, but regardless of your take on Tolkien's works you should NEVER directly correlate the written word with the filmed interpretation. They're apples and oranges, or Hobbits and Orcs if you prefer. No offense, but prejudging one by the other only makes the judge appear foolish, IMHO.As for Mr. Ross's opinion, I'm inclined toward discounting it completely based on the fact that similarities abound in heroic literature and he failed to also address dissimilar aspects of both works. A praiseworthy critic would ask and answer relevent questions that discount his theories as well; he did none of this. For example: Do cultures and species exist in one author's story that aren't present in the other's? Is the journey taken by the hero or heroes similar or dissimilar? Are the resolutions to crisis similar or different? Are the heroic character(s) successes rewarded with life and happiness or death and sacrifice?
See what I mean? For the Grey Poupon New Yorker's critic to accuse Tolkien of "stealing" Wagner's Ring just doesn't quite *ahem* ring true. If Tolkien weren't already rotating at escape velocity in his grave from such bogus charges he'd probably be amused at his detractors lamenting the fact that the statute of limitations ran out long ago! Short of casting his casket into Mount Doom they'd never be satisfied anyway. :o)
While we're on the subject of Wagner's Ring myth, have you taken the time to view the filmed version (i.e., Fritz Lang's epic two part German film interpretation from 1924, Die Nibelungen)?
AuPh
Alex Ross is the music critic of The New Yorker, not the fantasy critic. He writes for a musically-literate audience, presumably one that's familiar with the Ring operas, not an audience who plays video fantasy games or reads low-brow literature. So for him to consider such questions as, "Do cultures and species exist in one author's story that aren't present in the other's?" would be way off the mark.
clark
If you want to put down folk's tastes in films by quoting a stuffed shirt music critic's opinion, then what value should we attribute to your own? I'm not an especially big fan of the New Yorker's film appraisals anyway, but the fact that this is coming from a music critic provides even less value.> > > "He (Mr. Ross) writes for a musically-literate audience, presumedly one that's familiar with the Ring operas, not an audience who plays video fantasy games or reads low-brow literature." < < <
Allow me this one digression: I would imagine that by your own standards my wife is more musically literate than your critic; perhaps you as well! I say that because she is a classically trained musician and just out of college played clarinet in two regionally renowned symphony orchestras. Her opinion mirrors mine in regard to Peter Jackson's brilliant envisioning of Tolkien's classic Ring trilogy. Additionally, she is an author of mysteries and fantasies, well respected in the writer's community and with growing public prominance, but I'm assuming that you and Mr. Ross would consider her novels low-brow literature so I'll set aside her literary credentials to avoid the condescending remarks.
The bottom line: IMO, for you or your Grey Poupon music critic to make such a sweeping denouncement of this series of films as well as for you to ridicule people's tastes suggests a REAL lack of class rather than demonstration of it. Perhaps the both of you should be strapped into Eame's chairs and forced to watch a pretentious film such as The Royal Tenninbaums on continuous loop for several weeks; if THAT didn't cure the snobbery, at least it would make both his reviews and your posts more amusing to read. ;^)
AuPh
...that remark takes the cake. Next you'll be calling intellectuals "eggheads", if you haven't already."Allow me this one digression:" No. No need.
For some intelligent responses from the *musical* public, go to:
;^)
Besides, I referred them over here -- but you knew that.clark
;^)
nt
Wash your keyboard out with lye soap for posting such evil thoughts! ;^)AuPh
The dragon in Lang's "Seigfried" is a truly amazing piece of early special effects. I used to show that sequence and parts of "Greed"
and "Birth of a Nation" along with "Sherlock, Jr." (Keaton) to show the power of silent film.
It is a difference in what you are used to? Old School v New School, as it were.The obvious aspect of enjoyment of opera is actually liking the music. If a person doesn't, chances are they won't get very involved with a story told in a foreign language.
What films do you enjoy?
Do you like foreign films?Later
D
I like all good films.I am repeatedly on record as saying that my three faves are Orphee Negro, The Wicker Man and Nights of Cabiria. The *section* of film I've viewed the most is The Wall (first half-hour). Those are all "foreign".
However, if Hollywood turns out a good yarn, I'm there too. Smiled throughout Pirates of the Caribbean, for instance.
clark
I just grow weary of a certain critical attitude, which this leans toward. One that pits one art form against another, as well as one type of art to another is quite misinformed and futile, IMO.I also enjoyed POTC, but I would never compare it with 'Wings of Desire', 'Lonestar', 'Brazil' or 'Diva'.
How did you like 'Mysic River', 'Intolerable Cruelty', 'The Secret Lives of Dentists', 'Dirty Pretty Things' [british] and last year's 'Mulholland Drive' ?
I think the LOTR series is entirely enjoyable, entertaining and extremely well done. Perhaps a comparison to the Star Wars series and the three Matrix films is a decent way to look at them, rather than comparison to opera....
Later
D
nt
more than 20 minutes?
A digital ineptie, not worth of the title " film ".
... he's right about Pirates of the Caribbean, IMO. I went into the theater with reservations about this flick, but came out with very positive impressions! Look, to really appreciate Johnny Depp's anti-heroic pirate character you need to listen to any interview of Keith Richards over, let's say, the past twenty or so years. The reading of this character is almost side splitting! IMHO, Pirates is an excellent film, hadsomely produced, paced and plotted, with wonderful tongue 'n cheek moments that never rise or rather lower to the level, of pure comic campiness!AuPh
A terrible film. And don´t tell me to compare Keith" I don´t know who" for judging the quality or not of a film!
I did go quite happily in this film having the fine irony of the Flynn in my back mind...
Depp only face expression is horribly boring in this film, after a few minutes, and the take over of digtal effects is to this film : fatal.
You did only follow your wishes for a good film, missing therefore the triste reality of this poor flick.
I have not viewed this flick.
I did not too.
Maybe I will, as I feel some magnetism in the Crown machism own way...
This is just one style of pirate flick; indeed, there are others. I'm sorry that this one disappointed you so much, not having been "in like Flynn", but perhaps one has to been in the proper mood to appreciate Pirates of the Caribbean as the fantasy-pirate movie it actually is. It's light on history, but fast paced and more of a send-up of pirate genre cliches than rousing seafaring adventure; I won't bother going into the special effects, since CGI stuff isn't everyone's cuppa tea.Aaaaargh, matey, YMMV! ;^)
AuPh
I did not want to have another " Flyinn flick " 50 years or so later, I just did wish that " Pirates " reaches his quality or even surpasses it !
I was in a proper mood for taking myself out of myself, but the film just could not realise it.
My loss if I could not, your win, if you could...
Also from the same New Yorker article: "It is probably heretical to suggest that 'The Lord of the Rings' films surpass the books on which they are based....The books tell a fantastic story in a familiar style, but the movies transcend the apparent limitations of their medium in the same way that Wagner transcended the limitations of opera."I don't agree necessarily with Ross' conlcusions re/the two rings. (Tolkien drew upon some of the same sources, but also different Nordic tales). However, since you find them so wanting, I will gladly take Tolkien's Ring and gladly give you all of Wagner, to whom I am almost entirely immune. (I attended my forst Ring cycle at Lyric Opera, memorable for Birgit Nilsson and not much else. Repeated attempts in the intervening years have not changed muy mind. I acknowledge Wagner's importance/innovation but, in truth, I don't choose to listen to much of his music. )
I'm quite happy with the other Ring cycle.
Understandable. Regrettably, very few performances or recordings since the early fifties even begin to do justice to Wagner. I recall hearing some of the Lyric's on the radio and [yawn...].clark
So you aren't into homoerotic sword and scorcery epics? Neither am I. That's why this will be my only post on the subject.
s
... of every film one hasn't seen? I could do that ad infinitum, but what value would it provide folks here?What are you trying to prove, Clark? Why not W-A-T-C-H the films, then form an opinion?
The carousel one-trick pony you're riding has come around 3 times now. You've never managed to grab the ring, but apparently you're still reaching! ;^)
AuPh
nt
... judging from Clark's tasteless second hand recipe. ;^)
Which makes me want to fart in their general direction. "Oh dear...this and that 'bout how Wagner and I were old chums...what's that smell?"
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 ]
