by Allan Fish
(New Zealand/USA 2002/2003 234m) DVD1/2
Haka at Helm’s Deep
p Peter Jackson, Barrie M.Osborne, Frances Walsh d Peter Jackson w Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Frances Walsh, Stephen Sinclair novel J.R.R.Tolkien ph Andrew Lesnie ed Michael Horton, Jabez Olssen m Howard Shore art Grant Major cos Richard Taylor, Ngila Dickson
Elijah Wood (Frodo), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn), Ian McKellen (Gandalf), John Rhys Davies (Gimli/Treebeard), Sean Astin (Sam), Billy Boyd (Pippin), Orlando Bloom (Legolas), Dominic Monaghan (Merry), Miranda Otto (Éowyn), Andy Serkis (Gollum), Bernard Hill (Théoden), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Liv Tyler (Arwen), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Brad Dourif (Grima Wormtongue), Bruce Hopkins (Gamling), Craig Parker (Haldir), David Wenham (Faramir), Karl Urban (Éomer), Sean Bean (Boromir), John Noble (Denethor),
The Fellowship of the Ring left our comrades split asunder seemingly for good, with three potential narratives to keep a track on. Add the fact that middle sections of planned trilogies are often weak and there were those who worried that Jackson’s awesome enterprise would fall flat at the second hurdle. It is to his credit that the second film is as rich and achievement as the original, even more so in this special edition.
The original cut of the film was still arguably the best English language film of its year, but it is only when we view the uncut version that we see just what additional nuances and plot details were missing. And we’re not just talking about the central characters, but in terms of the links to not only the preceding film, but the following finale, The Return of the King (none more so than the flashback with Boromir, who was killed in the first film, and Denethor, who appears in the third film). It is this film that is true not only to the spirit of Tolkien, which the whole of the trilogy is rich in, but in the spirit of the wish of Tolkien. By this I mean that when Tolkien wrote of Middle Earth he was in mourning for Britain’s lack of a mythology to rival the Norse, German, Greek and Roman. Fair enough, we had Arthur, but he was born out of Wales via Brittany. He wanted to create something with an equal footing in not only fantasy but in history. In the second film, the fantasy takes a back seat and we enter the world of the Rohan, people from a small country state like those of old Anglo-Saxon England, with Edoras very reminiscent of East Anglia or Kent caught up in the battles and rivalries of the larger kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria. Even the names have their roots in this period and it is here that Tolkien’s own Egbert (the Wessex king who united England in the 9th century), Aragorn, comes into his own and faces his ultimate test.
This test, the siege of Helm’s Deep, is not only the stuff of legend, but it is the stuff of cinematic euphoria (with homages to Zulu and Olivier’s Henry V for those in the know). As the Uruk-hai stand before the fortress chanting like the All Blacks doing the Haka, we know no quarter will be given. Jackson’s control not only of this epic sequence, but of all three narrative threads, is spellbinding. In this full version it seams together beautifully and the performances continue in their power. In addition to those from the first film, all of whom continue their excellent work, one must pay tribute to Miranda Otto’s lovely Éowyn (both with sword in hand and singing the eulogy at her cousin’s funeral, a moment previously excised) and, particularly, Andy Serkis’ amazing Gollum, whose own movements were integral in the creation of the greatest CGI character ever filmed. Even the Treebeard sequences have a majestic Boreham Wood at Dunsinane feel to them, as Lee’s wizard wanders dazed like Toshiro Mifune in Cobweb Castle. Its standards had become so high, we took the excellence of the design, costumes, editing and photography for granted. All this and the best, as we always hoped, was yet to come – cue Gandalf ; “the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin.”
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
The extended edition of Two Towers is a rare case in which, for Peter Jackson, more is actually more. The Faramir flashback Alan mentions really should have made it into the theatrical release.
When the trilogy was freshly finished, I felt that the second film was the weakest — weak being a relative term. I’m not so sure now. The third film still has the greatest sequence in the series (the Pellenor Fields battle) and John Noble’s terrific turn as Denethor, but it does have some trouble wrapping up. I’ll have to look at them all again at some point before I re-rank them. As for Alan’s contention for the year 2002, Towers was definitely better than the Oscar winner.
There are many, many reasons why I don’t like the LOTR films, and this one in particular. However, since we’re likely to see a whole lot of Tolkien’s accursed Middle-Earth in this countdown, I’m going to limit myself in here. Amidst other grievances, one thing I’ve never felt comfortable with in these stories, and esepcially Jackson’s portrayal of it, is the racial dimension of it, in which all of the good guys are white, and all of the bad guys are not. You bring up “Zulu” in comparison to Helm’s Deep, Allan, and if anything I find these films’ treatment of the WASPy humans, elves and trolls various prolonged fights against darkskinned Orcs and turbanned elephant riders to be somehow even harder to stomach than Cy Endfield’s film. At least there, the African warriors were treated with a modicum of respect and honor (though only just) even through the lens of Imperial Colonial sentiment. Here, every living creature that walks on two legs and has a complexion darker than a suntan is portrayed as either a cannibalistic monster or a soulless, Sauron-following war-mongerer.
Mind you, I’m not accusing Tolkien or Jackson of being racist, here. And I understand how the original story works as a kind of Anglo-Saxan Crusader mythology, pitting the white men of the West with the old “monstrous races of the East” in terms that would fit right in with the grotesque caricatures in works like “The Song of Roland”. But I just can’t stomach it– not in print, and certainly not on the screen. Perhaps it’s partly a cultural thing– growing up in New York, I’m so used to living in racially diverse communities and environments that I just can’t quite sit still if all I see are white people. It just doesn’t look like the world I’ve lived in all my life, and therefore I can’t even begin to identify with it.
But really, there’s just so much cultural accumulation the films bring with them even before my own subjective baggage to the mix that I really am unable to see past the way they present what is essentially a campaign of race-war and ethnic cleansing. Like its feudal longing for monarchist politics, I just can’t watch it with a clean conscience. Tolkien and Jackson are not racist, I have no doubt, but “Lord of the Rings”, whether either of them knew it or not, more or less is.
The Operatic overtones of this film are staggering ( I owe Sam a quarter). From the boys choir backing Gandalfs fall in the recap to the walk through the marsh of the dead, the exestensial parallels alone evoke Ingmar Bergman. To read into the racial srperations that Bob alludes to is nit-picking. This is va supreme example of the Fantasy genre given the A-List treatment. Entertaining, visually arresting and full of deep meanings pertaining to friendship and the greater good. The nay-sayers should just stop bitching and do what they do with every other film they don’t like: leave it alone. For me, this film hit on every level and I find the directors extended version to be even better.
Allan, this is probably my favorite of your essays in a long time… very entertaining and informative. You genuinely seem excited in talking about this one. I have always thought that this was probably my third favorite of the trilogy, but it’s still outstanding. As your rightly note, the Battle Helm’s Deep is spectacular.
I don’t know though, honestly, if I have seen the Extended Version or just the theatrical cut. Either way, I’ll pick up a copy of the extended cut in order to make sure.
I don’t mean to steal any thunder from this entry or Allan’s great essay, but I have a general LOTR question for folks here… are all of the extended versions improvements? The only extended version I have in my collection The Return of the King. I would certainly buy the first two if they really are essential.
Dave,
Having read LOTR on the behest of my Tolkien-addicted husband, I would have to say that the extended sequences in Fellowship are more incidental to the story told. They’re almost like a video love letter to fans. However, I would absolutely recommend the Extended Edition of The Two Towers. What Jackson left out is important for understanding The Return of the King, and why certain characters behave as they do in Towers.
Bob,
I can certainly understand your sentiment; seeing only white people in a film in “good guy” roles only perpetuates pre-colonial and colonial thinking (that there is something subhuman about other races). I found it a little embarrassing in this day and age that the actors and stuntmen playing Uruk-Hai warriors were almost exclusively Maori. Once all those prosthetics and makeup are applied, you can’t really tell who is who under it, but somehow, knowing that fact (and that they did, indeed, perform the Haka before shooting most nights) made me feel unclean as a white viewer.
I’m not sure I share your feelings about the racial inequality in the film proper, though. If it were a post-modern story, written by a post-modern author, I would agree with you, however, I think applying a post-colonial/post-modern judgment to the story is unfair to the source material. If Jackson had used a more critical eye in adapting it, it may have been more satisfying in some ways, and much less so in other aspects to the die-hard Tolkien fan (there are still some who refuse to watch this trilogy, on principle).
Allan, great essay!
The thing is this, though– isn’t Tolkien a “post-modern” author, more or less, and LOTR a post-modern work? Yes, it’s very good at approximating the language and stylization of antiquity, but that doesn’t disguise the fact that it was written in a post-war world, and was largely a response to that war which Tolkien himself had fought in. Though coated in the armor of long-ago mythologies, it was very much a response to modernism and the modern world in general, and as such should be– one might say, deserves to be– read with the same register of scrutiny as all post-modern parables.
I don’t know. Like I said, maybe this kind of homogenization is something that primarily bothers me as a New Yorker, or even as an American, as we’re just a lot more used to racial diversity (not that everybody’s a fan of it, obviously). And as I said before, there’s a WHOLE lot of other reasons I don’t like these movies, so perhaps it’s simply a matter of not being willing to make excuses for it. But I stand by my statements. LOTR represents a backwards, fundamentally ugly way of thinking, really, and I just plain can’t get behind it.
DAVE-ABSOLUTELY! The extended directors cut version of ALL THREE add to the fabric of the story. FELLOWSHIP, in particularN benefits from added scenes cut from the theatrical release (most notably the presentation to the Fellowship, by Galadrielle, of gifts that will come into play with Sam, Frodo etc. in this film essayed above). Add to that, the battle. Sequences are all longer, adding a richness and realism to the fantasy. On a whole, I recommend the EXTENDED versions as the only real beway to see this epic unfold. Although Jackson, Boyens and Walsh DID snip some of the text of the books to make the films more workable, the extended versions are as close to presenting the books intact as we’ll probably ever see.
I think I’m in the minority among LotR aficionados, in that I find Fellowship the strongest of the three films.
Still, there are moments in Towers that never fail to fill me with awe, and they usually revolve involve a perfect mingling of Jackson’s fine aesthetic command, a defiantly unironic tone, and Shore’s career-defining score (which I think is strongest in this film). I’m thinking especially of Arwen’s vision of her future grief, the last-minute appearance of the Rohirim at Helm’s Deep, and Theodon’s moment of liberation from Saruman’s control. (Seriously, how exquisitely Shakespearean is Bernard Hill utterance of, “Dark have been my dreams of late.” Probably one of the best line readings in the whole trilogy.)
ANDREW-YOU ARE NOT ALONE… I, myself, feel that FELLOWSHIP, particularly in the EXTENDED version is the strongest of all three films. Without a meticulous set-up the rest of what follows falls. In short, if FELLOWSHIP doesn’t overwhelm the the other three have no shot. AS FOR TWO TOWERS… The opening moments between Gandalf define the operatic/tragic overtones that will pervade the rest of the film and opens the procedings with an eye opening jolt that truly catches the audience off gaurd. However, it is my feelings that thge more personal/quieter moments that speak the loudest. Frodo and Sam’s journey with Gollum through the marsh of the dead has an eery grace and beauty (for some reason it teminds me of Bergman) and Arwens visions of lonliness through eternal life moved me to know end in its visual brilliance and the tones of Shore heartfelt, emotional score (it reminded me of the ghost sequence in Hamlet).
What does the use of Maori’s as the Uru-Khai have to do with the final product? As a film-goer, I couldn’t give a good Goddamn how the picture is made as long as it takes me away. Does the fact that Jennifer Aniston being married to Brad Pitt mean anything in liew of a great performance by Angelina Jolie? Does the unfortunate realities about Roman Polanski make movies like CHINATOWN or ROSEMARY’S BABY any less brilliantv I find most people more interested in the back-lot stories than they are in the art. Von Karajan joined the Nazi Party in the 30’s. Does that make his supreme reading of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony any less brilliant? Nope. I’m so fed to the teeth with those who let their “high moral superiority” dictate the reception of art. Art is, plain and simple.
The difference is those are all peripheral matters surrounding the art– Polanski’s rape, Pitt & Jolie’s adultery, Von Karajan’s Naziism, are all just side-matters to their various works and contributions. The matter of race, however, is implicitly a part of Tolkien’s work in LOTR, and explicitly a part of Jackson’s adaptation of it. It’s impossible to ignore that all the good guys are played by Caucasian actors, and all the bad guys (save for Christopher Lee & Brad Dourif) are either played by Maori performers or white players in what amounts to a kind of blackface (the darkened complexions, turbaned wear, tattoo’d faces of the “Men of the East”). It isn’t something that can be ignored so easily, and frankly I can’t abide it when people scramble to make excuses to cover up the unsightlier aspects of things they’re fans of. LOTR is a racially segregated story, a white-men only film, which risks perpetuating all the old colonial archetypes.
I think our landmark LOTR thread here at WitD covered it all, but I’ll check in to say that all three of these films are masterworks. I’m truly sorry for those who don’t connect with this towering, operatic and rapturous epic.
No naysayer here or anywhere else will even dampen my awe for this enrapturing three part spectacle, and the Battle at Helm’s Deep is cinematically electrifying.
Dave, Andrew Wyatt, Jeopardy Girl, Samuel Wilson, Dennis and Bob, I greatly enjoy and was enriched by your great comments here!
BOB-You are talking about books written at a time when that kind of racism was still consifered the norm and somewhat “accepted”. Using Maori’s and then covering them in prosthetics isd hardly a racisy decision as anyone who wears the make-up is untecognizable. However, is anything said about the oppurtunity these Maori actors and stuntmen received for being asked to contribute their time to the film? Does anyone acknowledge that these men were paid for their services rendered? Nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them. Considering there really isn’t a whole lotta call for Maori actors and their being an abundance of them in NEW ZEALAND it only makes sense to cast them. These films are beloved and praised by millions. I’m sure, of those millions, there are plenty of NON WHITE people who embrace them as much as us racist HONKY’S!!!!! God, lighten up. You hate the films. Just say it!
I know, in my mind, that I should have my head examined for even getting into it with Bob on a film like this.
Dennis, I think that I already have said that I hate the films– I’m just spelling out some of the reasons why.
Does LOTR hail from an era in which racism, conscious or otherwise, was still more or less accepted as a cultural institution? To an extent, yes, and as such we can excuse Tolkien for not really knowing any better in the same way that some critics like to look the other way with the implicit bigotry of Ford’s westerns or Ian Fleming’s colonial-imperialist spy tales (I believe both are more interesting if you embrace a larger view, but whatever). However, Jackson’s fidelity to the gentrification of the source material’s mono-ethnic mythology is damn near reprehensible, especially in the way it takes what I’ll charitably call Tolkien’s “racialist” constructs (to borrow the Jack London terminology) out of their cultural era and effectively places them outside of the reach of their original context. Ford’s westerns and some of the uglier James Bond stories can at least be digested as objects of their times– stuff like “The Searchers” not only represents the American West of the 1800’s but also the American social-conscience of the first half of the 20th century, and Ian Flemming’s novels represent an absolute post-WWII Iron Curtain mentality (one of the many reasons why the EON film series struggled at first to find a footing in a post-Cold War world).
Tolkien’s LOTR series is trickier, though– they most certainly represent a way of thinking that’s indigenous to Britain of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, but that’s not where the story is located. Set in the hazy mythological dark-ages of Middle Earth, it’s easy to lose sight of the damaging social and cultural artifacts in the alegorical landscape of its legendary tale-spin. It’s something that becomes even more pronounced in Jackson’s film adaptation, as ideas which were merely outdated, antiquated and anachronistic in Tolkien’s period become absolutely backwards in the modern age. It’s a post-modern yearning for medievalist dogma, something which becomes increasingly unpalatable in an age that has scene the rise of civil rights and the fall of apartheid. Like it or not, but Tolkien’s worldview is one which embraces a sense of racial segregation, of a bipolar “us vs. them” construct based solely on physical differences. Monstrously inhuman presentations of race can be condoned (if they must) in unevolved time of the middle-ages, but not in the 20th century, and especially not in the 21st.
Again, why do you waste your breath. Obviously you are in the minority here. Say what you want but these films are embraced and beloved and the racial problems you cite are not a problem with 99% of the viewing audience who don’t, regardless to what you think, even see a racial irresposibilty. Again, you don’t like the films, fine. Why ya gotta come and ruin the party for everyone else?
Dennis,
I also loathe these films, for reason’s completely different from Bob’s (though I do find his arguments true and I believe I’ve subconsciously felt the same way) but for you to argue that the rascism in these films ‘was a product of the time’ (the books were written, by the way, roughly from 1935-55 hardly a time when racism wasn’t challenged or ‘mainstream’) is merely giving cover for absurd notions. Think about that era in world history, how did looking the other way on racism work out for several areas of the globe?
Racism is only ‘OK’ or ‘mainstream’ or ‘a product of the times’ to a racist. To all other progressive people it is–and never was–OK. I know this is not how you feel, hence why I thought your defense of the film and argument against Bob so confusing, and poor. You can like the subject matter for other reasons and find the weird racism offensive at the same time (I immediately think of my appreciation for ‘The Searchers’ as one example). Total defense of the film amounts to little more then rabid fanboy-ism.
_ _ _ _
Oh and Bob, I watched ‘Stereo’ last night. Quite impressive, I’m thinking about really turning this into a ‘Bob Clark appointed film weekend’ as I have ‘Crimes of the Future’ and ‘How Tasty Was My Little Frenchmen’ in my grasp to be watched at any moment. Though the Cavs game holds the most urgent need this evening.
Ah, that’s great to hear (read?), Jamie. Usually Cronenberg fans are a little perplexed, even let down by his two earliest features, as they don’t really contain the same kind of visceral thrills (or effects budget) of his later greats. But to me, they’re superb. I guess I feel the same way about Cronenberg that some fans feel about Lucas and the more abstract filmmaking he displayed in “THX 1138”. I do miss the more avant garde sci-fi…
STEREO is weird to me on first viewing because, as you state, it’s unlike anything in the Cronenberg universe (at least as you said viscerally and effects wise) but conceptually it’s a great precursor to further understanding his worldview… I mean it’s such a great primer for SCANNERS. To think he’s been active for 35 years or so and his concerns are still the same intellectually, that’s so impressive (and a kudos to him at 26 for being such a cerebral adult). There was a Jean-Pierre Melville quote I read the other day that would fit here (I believe I must give credit to Donophon for posting this on his blog a few days ago and bringing it to my attention):
“A film-maker should be a man constantly open, constantly traumatizable; his sense of observation must be as highly developed as possible, and his sense of psychology; he must have exceptionally keen visual and auditory perception…and a memory. Because what people often assume to be imagination in my films is really memory, things I have noticed walking down the street or walking with people — transposed, of course, because I have a horror of showing things I have actually experienced. A film-maker must be a witness of his times. If, for instance, all my films were to be shown in some sort of seminar fifty years from now, people must be able to feel that they add up to something, that the first and last film undoubtedly have something in common, that they talk the same language and about the same thing, whether the stories are invented or taken from existing sources, that it’s the same mind behind them, the same man with the same colors on his palette. The tragic thing, for me, is when a creator suddenly makes a radical change in his way of talking about things, because this means that one of his two formulas — maybe the new one, maybe the old — is wrong. So the essential thing is that there must be an intrinsic resemblance between the first film and the last.”
This is something I’ve always adored about Cronenberg, he is able to translate any genre into a Cronenberg film, he’s a true auteur. Even his recent crime films–attacked as to ‘ordinary’–have all his issues (body, existentialism, Freud, transformation, etc) bubbling beneath the surface.
That and I loved just the strange word pun of a film called STEREO with contained so much dead silence and mono narration. Not sure if that was intended, but I loved that.
I plan on watching it again before Monday to grasp it a bit better.
Jamie, I have to correct you. Cronenberg hasn’t been active for 35 years or so. He’s been active for more than 40 years. Yes, last year was “Stereo”‘s big four-decade mark anniversary, and this year marks the same for “Crimes of the Future”, not to mention Lucas’ “THX 1138”. It’s almost unfathomable that movies so stridently modern and more or less undated as these could be so aged, but that’s the way it is, and it makes filmmakers like Cronenberg (and Lucas) that much more incredible. An auteur, yes. One of the purest, especially back then (again, not to disparage his recent work, but MAN I love “Stereo”).
To me, I think the title of “Stereo” is twofold in its meaning– in the layering of psychic minds in this close-knitt commune, and in the layering of audio and visual tracks of information along parallel lines in Cronenberg’s aesthetic. The telepathic experience and the director’s style are both “Stereo”.
Bob what are your thoughts on ‘Pie’ (sorry don’t know how to code the symbol) by Darren Aronofsky? it seems to fit in the more ‘avant garde sci-fi’ you speak of, and works here since it’s from a prominent director’s early career (and visually it’s not that far off either). I like it quite a bit.
“Pi” is a good film, and my favorite of Arronofsky’s work. I’m a little less impressed with some of it ten years later (especially seeing how he pickpocketted Godard’s “coffee shots” from “2 or 3 Things I Know About Her”, albeit with some interesting commentary on the golden ratio), but it’s still a quality film. I’m not 100% sure, however, if I’d classify it as science-fiction, or not. I mean, looking for patterns in the stock market? Not rocket science. Looking for secret messages embedded in the Hebrew Bible based on numerology? Been going strong for quite a while. It certainly gets the ball rolling, but it doesn’t take its conceptual leaps quite far enough to separate it from our range of immediate possibilities, entirely. Then again, I consider “The Hellstrom Chronicle” to be a sci-fi classic, so what do I know?
JAMIE-I am neither a racist or do I defend racism. Fact is the “racism” lobbed on Peter Jackson is ridiculous. These are fantasy films that are, faithfully, adapted from the books almost religiously. Just because the creatures of evil are not white does not mean or allude to a racist structure. Perhaps Tolkiens take WAS subconciously racist back in the day, but I feel Jackson only wanted to adapt faithfully from the text and the illustrations created from the text. Black (the color) is unanimously used to, metaphoricallyN represent evil. Putting TOLKIEN aside, and only concentrating on Jackson, I think its only fair to say that there was no intention to evoke a racist overtone. Bob just hates the films and I wish he’d either take em apart for the filmic flaws he sees or just leave them alone. Again, the masses love these films and people from ever race and walk of life embrace them. Sheer numbers overthrow the argument and say its not a big deal. The films work. Period.
Well the fact that the masses love something is hardly an argument to me worth thinking about.
I think Bob and others have debated the film on it’s ‘filmic’ merits (isn’t books recent accusation a central concept of it’s story?), whether defenders of them what or care to listen is what is in question. I’m sure ANYTHING Bob (or I or any other detractor) could say you’d just trump out the ‘you just don’t like this film so you’re looking for anything’ for the third or fourth time. On ‘filmic’ terms I could cite: excessive CGI, overlong, generic, too reliant on source material, etc, but most defenders aren’t interested. That’s OK, no two opinions are the same, but saying the minority just needs to get with the program more or less is an absurd argument.
But the larger point becomes this: does a filmmaker (or any craftsman adapting one piece across mediums) not bare ANY responsibility in the original pieces subject matter, context, or cultural relevance? In other words, if I become the filmmaker I aspire to be, could I faithfully adopt something like ‘Mein Kampf’ and then throw my hands in the air as merely an impartial middleman when the accusations of racism inevitably come?
Also it seems to me if you’re going to reduce Jackson’s role to just faithful transcriber he suddenly looses the ‘visionary artist’ tag that so many would love to thrust upon him (probably you included).
One quick point– I haven’t yet tackled the “filmic” flaws of the LOTR films because, quite simply, I don’t want to wind up repeating myself for FOTR and ROTK. Odds are we’re going to have two more occasions to debate these films, so for the time being I might as well constrain my comments to the race card, as it really is one of the big gripes I have with the films, though by no means the only one.
JAMIE-I don’t look at Jackson as a master film-maker. I think hes a fine director and I feel THE LORD OF THE RINGS were his biggest triumph so far. I understand your point and Bob’s as well. However, where I think, and I hope, we politefully disagree is that both of you think of Jackson as some secretive sinister racist and I, along with THE MASSES, just don’t see it. I’m neither a fan of Tolkien or the books (I have read them, I enjoyed them, that’s the extent). I do, however, really like these films, have no problems with them. My friend, dear friend, Carces, is a black man and he LOVES these films. He’s learned, educated and intelligent. When asked, about five minutes ago on the phone, if he saw a racist thread in the films his reply was: LOL, No! Again, I understand and respect both your views, but what I’m saying is, to myself and just about everyone else the racial issue is not an issue to get into a twist over and I don’t think Jackson felt it was a major problem.
“However, where I think, and I hope, we politefully disagree is that both of you think of Jackson as some secretive sinister racist and I, along with THE MASSES, just don’t see it.”
THE MASSES also think Transformers 1 and 2 are good films, I guess we can now close the book on it huh? Come on, lets forget that argument; the masses are asses.
Apparently Dennis missed the points where I said, word for word, that I don’t think that Jackson (or Tolkien for that matter) to be racist. I simply think that LOTR, the work itself, is at the very least a subconsciously racist work, and that its racial qualities (among other things) stand in the way of my enjoyment of it.
Now, I know, JAMIE, you’ll fire back on my last comment and, to further my answer to you, Racism is NEVER right. If Prof. Tolkien did thread a racist agenda through his books then I say bad game. However, how do you explain millions of people of all races a creeds loving and cherishing those books? I mean, you and Bob aren’t the only big brains in this universe to read into things. Are you both saying that millions of readers that passionately love those books are idiots for loving them? I don’t know. Its perplexing that millions of people can go see these films and NOT see underlying racism? Where your argument gets hazy is in the facts that, while the racism may be there, too many intelligent people either don’t see it or don’t feel it drags down what they consider creative, imaginative, entertaining and epic film-making. I like to read inti things too, but sometimes I think a film should just be taken at face value for what the big themes are. In this case: friendship, life and death, following your heart.
“I mean, you and Bob aren’t the only big brains in this universe to read into things. Are you both saying that millions of readers that passionately love those books are idiots for loving them? I don’t know. Its perplexing that millions of people can go see these films and NOT see underlying racism?”
from wiki:
“Debate over race
The question of racist or racialist elements in Tolkien’s views and works has been the matter of some scholarly debate.[97] Christine Chism[98] distinguishes accusations as falling into three categories: intentional racism,[99] unconscious Eurocentric bias, and an evolution from latent racism in Tolkien’s early work to a conscious rejection of racist tendencies in his late work.
Tolkien expressed disgust at what he acknowledged as racism and once wrote of racial segregation in South Africa, “The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain.”[100]”
It’s been a (valid) argument since the books were published. Bob stating it here isn’t the first time it’s been put out there.
Jamie, a very good piece you’ve brought up here. I, for one, am actually willing to give Tolkien the benefit of the doubt for the most part and read the racist qualities of his work as either subconscious elements he couldn’t fully help thanks to the time and place he was raised in, or as byproducts of the inherent Eurocentric bias of his Anglo-Saxan/Nordic mythological inspirations, something rather innocent in and of itself, at least before it comes in conflict with representations of the East. As I’ve said before, LOTR to me is largely a Crusader-mentality story, and for the most part I can understand if Tolkien didn’t fully think out the implications of his subject matter until it was already finished.
Jackson, however, I’m much harder with, because quite frankly, in this day and age, he should’ve known better. Cast nothing but whites for the heroes and non-whites for the monstrous enemies? Not to sound overly PC, but would it have really hurt the integrity of Tolkien’s story if the humans, hobbits or elves had a somewhat more diverse population than nothing but Caucasians?
I’m now done with this conversation. You guys wore me out.
OK, JAMIE, SO YOU AND BOB ARE TOTALLY RIGHT! The films are worthless, racist hunks of shit and you two are the only people in the world whose opinion counts. Sorry I ever voiced my opinion on ever liking something. The themes that run through this film are just for fools bercause more important issues that you and Bob stress are all that matter. Fuck me, fuck these films and fuck this review. Allan should have been shot for including this on his countdown and should consult you both before he dare think out of your mental and tasteful realm. Somebody should get a gas can and matches so I can burn rvery print of these films and ever book published with that despicable fuckin racist Tolkiens name on it. PS-Everybody! You were all wrong! THE LORD OF THE RINGS are BAD films. You don’t know what’s good!!!!!
When I get angry I generally have a cold Bass pint, and sometimes a smoke. A Kool to cool out?
_ _ _ _
Nowhere have I said anything near the absolute you claim here, but hey if stuffing straw into my flannel or Bob’s helps the strawman you’re building, then by all means.
I’m on Wikipedia now looking up REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD HATE THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Oops, there a note on the page… “CONSULT JAMIE AND BOB”…..
SO, viewing BOB’s most recent comment, one would gather that the torture for those who do like these films is far from over? Knowing full well we will be seeing THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE RETURN OF THE KING further up on Allan’s count pretty much means that good ole Bob and Jamie will be chopping away at the high spirits we who like these films might bring to the future threads… Great, someone remind me to go wash my car on those days….
Dennis, if you’re really so confident in your opinion of these films, why is it such torture to hear somebody else disparage them? This is something I’ve never understood, as far back to to vitriol that people spewed upon hearing Stephen raise contrary views as to the greatness of “Citizen Kane”.
Dennis, I’ll post my top 50 in the coming days… I GUARANTEE you there will be several in there that you will dislike or disagree with me on and it’s so biggie. Man, take a cold shower.
It’s probably not a good idea to stroll into the middle of the race debate, but I wonder whether Bob and Jamie’s non-aesthetic objections to the pictures would have been remedied by inclusive casting of the kind that’s increasingly common in mythological and quasi-historical TV shows. Should Jackson have cast non-white hobbits, elves, etc.? Given understandable concerns about the implications of Tolkien’s typology, should Jackson have considered it imperative to take steps to preempt a racialist reading of the films? Or was he, along with his fans and defenders, entitled to assume that an orc is just an orc?
If anything, the race angle that bugs me in Tolkien and “high fantasy” in general is the obsession with elves as a “higher” race whom all humans should regard as our betters. In Tolkien’s case it may be a veiled class angle instead, but that doesn’t explain modern fantasy fans’ fascination with these creatures. In any event, this doesn’t bug me enough to downgrade Jackson’s trilogy. It’s just one of those things I wonder about.
Yeah, race or not, I don’t like these films. No big deal, I don’t like non-realist films, but to it’s admirers more power to ‘ya.
Samuel, not only would a more diverse cast assuage some of my misgivings towards the film, I think it would effectively defuse the fantasy-racial construct you describe above. If there were elves and humans of all different colors, we wouldn’t really see “elf” and “human” along racial boundaries, but instead as different species (or something– I don’t even want to think about the zoological issues surrounding fantasy creatures).
Frankly, I think the fantasy-racial construct deepens and compounds the real-world racial issues throughout the films. I could go on more about how I share your dislike for the Elvan superiority complex in LOTR and other fantasy works, but I’ll save that for the ROTK discussion, where I’ll have more cause to tie it into my loathing of Legolas and the poor drama that arises from his implausible perfection in battle.
And what I’m saying, word for word, BOB, is this: Many people, many of which are high intellectuals DON’T see the race thing as a problem or, for that matter, AT ALL. These are fantasies, nothing is real, nothing should be taken as real and those who have the problems with them probably read too far past the themes that really matter. I’m curious if it is at all possible for you to walk into a film like this and allow yourself to blank your mind before it begins and just surrender to the fantasy? I know I did. I enjoyed every minute of these engrossing, operatic and extremely entertaining films. The themes of love, friendship, determination and finding ones purpose rang loud and clear. That the Uru-Khai where darked skinned didn’t signify to me a racial irresponsibility but a metaphor for darkness as a symbol of evil. Shit, even your beloved Darth Vader is swathed in black. Does that mean there’s a racial statement underneath the guise of STAR WARS? Nope. Give us some credit. We know when racism is a problem.
There’s a key difference, though, with “Star Wars”– it has more than white people in it. Granted, the original had an all-white cast, but that’s something that Lucas recognized as a problem right from the start. His original plan had been for a forthrightly diverse cast– Luke & Leia would be white, Han would be black, and Obi-Wan would be Japanese (preferrably Toshiro Mifune). Obviously this didn’t come to pass, mostly because of the chemistry between the Caucasian actors he assembled, but it’s a problem he corrected for the sequels and prequels.
So, yeah– SW has a racially diverse cast, and LOTR does not. That’s why the race-argument is much easier to make for the latter, or at least one reason. And even without that, equating Vader as black for the color of his armor is sort of like calling Johnny Cash black. LOTR’s Uruk-Hai are black-SKINNED, and that’s a crucial difference.
I would have applauded Dennis here if he would have made his argument like the racial charged comic book artist in CHASING AMY.
What’s a Nubian?
To answer your question above, BOB, ol’ buddy, ol’ pal… NO, my praise and admiration does NOT waver an iota because someone has spoken out against them. What does bug me is the constant chopping away at all of a good film with one minor point. Like it ot lump it, the race thing hasn’t changed the praise most viewers have for these three films. Like it or lump it, it is you and Jamie who represent a minority whose opinions of these films are in the negative. I’m just pissed that I feel you can’t walk into a film without a preconceived attitude and allow the film to take you. Surrender and escape are what movies are about, that’s their core purpose. The other thing is that I find that most of the films in each count are viewed by you negatively. Its rare I see you on these threads praising a film and not finding some beef with whichever one comes up. Maybe I’M overly optimistic? Whatever. I’d rather be optimistic than hate and nit-pick everything in my path. Or, maybe, YOU just can’t release?
I’ve praised plenty of films here, Dennis. It’s just usually, I’m praising a film that you don’t like (“Attack of the Clones”, “Heaven’s Gate”) and even while I praise them, I always make sure to keep an eye open for whatever faults they have. After all, no film is perfect. Also– didn’t we just agree almost 100% on “Gosford Park”?
This is where we split Dennis, and I think says most about what we are discussing here– I do not think cinema or art in general should ever be an ‘escape’ from reality. Art should ask us to probe reality (even if done symbolicly) to either question out dated modes of thought or contemplate life. Even when art is done chiefly for aesthetics it should still do these things. When we escape reality (or are forced to) we to easily lose sight of what’s really at stake, and what’s really important to use.
Now, enough is enough. I’m done. I’m spent. I’m taking a prozak, a tylenol, and a cup of BLACK tea and going to bed. Let’s see if you can find some racism in that statement! Who knows? Perhaps I’ll dream of a world where Santa Claus is black and Mickey Mouse is white.
LOL-JAMIE!!!! Yea, me standing at a podium dressed in plack leather, all effeminate, and blasting the audience with an automatic pistol as I sum my monolgue up! LOLOL! That’s hysterical when you consider I’m 6 feet 3 inches tall and look like something out of a Mens Warehouse add… LOL! I’ll give ya that one!!!! LOL!
OK, OK. Enough. This was fun. The banter was enlightening and entertaining at the same time. But, Grandpa here must get some shut-eye! If anything come from this its that Sammy will be ecstatic that the thread took on higher numbers than expected. I’m worn out from all of this! Though, with my luck, THE RETURN OF THE KING will place on the count tomorrow anf THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING will place on this count on Monday, effectively reducing my brain into a substance resembling potato salad! LOL! Night, Guys!!!!!!!!
The film is no more ethnocentric than most war (historical / made-up / fantasy / sci-fi) films that I have ever seen.
Indeed, if you are going to follow this argument to its logical conclusion, then more than half of the main roles should have been cast as women, the beautiful and the ugly should have been fighting on either side, 10% of the characters should have been gay, 15% should have been old age pensioners, 6% should have been infants, 14% should have been Hindus, up to 40% of the cast should have had problems with myopia, and there really ought to have been a flashback to explain how Sauron was the product of a broken home, unemployment, and a failure to keep hard drugs out of Middle-Earth sink estates. 🙂
The way i see it, and i think the way most people see it today and saw it in the 60’s, is that it is not white vs black, it is good vs bad, a typical story line which most fantasy stories have, i think that what Tolkien was trying to get at was the main fellowship has many people, poeple of different cultures and races, there is a Dwarf, Elf, Hobbits, a wizard, two men, one of a dunedain decendant, and one of a gondorian decendant, we all know that dwarfs were the enemies of elves, and elves the enemies of the dwarfs, but we read (and see) on, not only to find that these two cultures can get along, but that they can become friends, and work together to overcome a huge evil, they can come together and achieve a task which without the different cultures and people may not have been achieveable. Tolkien was merely saying that when all differnt types of cultures and races come together, they can achieve somthing which will effect all the races in a good way. So the next time you feel like having a moan at Tolkien and Jackson’s masterpiece, think about the true moral of the story, not the ridiculous ‘White vs Black’ side to it.