 
|
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: Someone's really good explanation of why LOTR has bored me and so many others. posted by clarkjohnsen on December 21, 2003 at 13:50:15:
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
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
