The Joy of Goodness

     A few days ago at our house we watched a tape of The Fellowship of the Ring, and for a couple of hours afterwards I racked my brains trying to figure out why, for all that the movie was splendidly produced and (with a few notable exceptions) subtly acted, I had to admit that I did not enjoy it.  I understand that I'm going to call down upon my head the wrath of the film trilogy's fans, including my friend the priest who insists that these are classics that will be watched as long as there are screens and human eyes to gape at them.  But here goes, anyway.

     The trouble is that neither the director nor his fellow screenplay writers understood the joy of goodness.  I don't mean happiness exactly, or the perky buffoonery of Merry and Pippin, but the simple and abiding joy that one feels, almost unconsciously, when one is doing a good thing, like planting out a garden of fine potatoes, or drinking excellent ale with old friends, or following one's master into Mordor, come what may.  It's a kind of spiritual health, a brightness that you don't always notice until it is seared or spoiled.

     The Lord of the Rings trilogy is simply full of this joy, always threatening, like good but boisterous children, to burst out of the iron bonds of a bad world and rough things up again.  I understand that when you write a screenplay you can't and shouldn't include every episode -- so I'm not blaming Jackson and his colleagues for cutting out Tom Bombadill.  I'm blaming them for not understanding why Tolkien included that episode, unnecessary for the plot, in the first place.  For if you cut out the good Tom, a force of nature, you sure had better not cut out Radagast, the simple wizard who spends all his time learning the languages of birds.  Or you had better make sure that Merry and Pippin meet Sam and Frodo by design, since they are happy to accompany them no matter what.  Or you had better be precise about the quiet humor, the eye-twinkling, of Aragorn.  Or you better make Galadriel into something other than a female Boromir who pulls back from temptation at the last moment.  You had better make your elves as beautiful as the trees they love; and you should sometimes shoot scenes that shine with the glories of wood and stream and sunlight.

     The characters seem good in the way that weary, scorched souls may try to be good; they can no longer imagine the innocence they have lost.  Or they stare wide-eyed out into nothing, like Elijah Wood, hoping that that will convey something like innocence -- innocuousness, at least.  Even the wicked characters have no hypocritical traces of glory about them: so Saruman is reduced from the self-deluded, prideful fool who initially thinks he can do good by playing with evil, to a mere raving tool of Sauron; he does not rise to the level of the two-dimensional.

     Something of this same callousness to the joy of goodness can be found in PBS's current production of Dickens' Bleak House.  Dark, dreary, grim sets, with a dreary heroine whose idea of humility is to put up with being a housekeeper but in general to be proud, reserved, prim, and frosty; and almost all the boisterousness and Christian humor written out of a book that fairly explodes with good men and women, some of whom are regular "characters," like the sorely missed Mrs. Bagnet, omitted from the production.

     By way of contrast: John Ford's How Green Was My Valley is, unlike The Fellowship of the Ring, a too-episodic movie based on a wildly episodic and generally incoherent book; in many ways it does not show a tenth of the craftsmanship of the Tolkien movie.  But despite the encompassing evil that destroys the Welsh village, Ford manages to show the joy of goodness, in Gwillim Morgan and his dear wife, in the preacher, in Angharad, and even in the bare-knuckled Dai Bando, who teaches the boy Huw to fight and, years later, goes down into the flooded mine, though he is stone blind, to help search for Morgan.  Ford and his lot were sinners who still somehow heard the peal of church bells, even after they had strayed far away; but if there are church bells in the world of Peter Jackson, I don't hear them.  Don't get me wrong, I think that The Fellowship of the Ring is a great movie, and vastly superior to the poisonous stuff that Hollywood produces.  But it seems a great movie in a bad age; Ford's was a very good movie in better times.

Comments

[AmericanPapist]

I really enjoyed your thoughts. I too have often felt (even as I have watched the trilogy continually with my siblings) that there is something intangible missing throghout the movie - something I miss very much from the book.

The idea that not only Tom Bombadil, but also Rabadash, and so many other instances of "people happy in living for life's own sake" are ommitted from the movie is well-noted. I agree that this absence goes far in explaining how empty is Sam's line that "there's some good left in the world - and it's worth fighting for."

I know there's good in the world, but the movie spends far more time showing me the evil...

[AmericanPapist]

(btw, apologies for any incoherence - it's a bit late for me to be up writing...)

[Kip Watson]

Very true.

I'll tell you what else he got wrong. It's not just the nature of good that is missing but Tolkein's insight into the nature of evil.

In the movie evil is all physical power and destruction, but the book is so much more chilling. Sauron's power is despair and deceipt. The Ringwraith's power is also in the fear and despair they create, like the black breath that steals your will to live.

The movie is all bang crash biff, but in the book the physical power of evil was in some ways an illusion.

Here's hoping whoever tackles the Silmarillion get's it right!

[David]

Dr. Esolen's observation is the logical corollary of another I've extracted from more than one review: Gollum is the only major character that Jackson and gang really understood. In Gollum's misery, his moral ambiguity, his spiritual slavery occasionally mitigated by charity -- not only Jackson, but the audiences themselves seem quickly to understand and sympathize with Gollum. The same phenomenon is already occurring in the stage productions in Toronto.

On the other hand, the LotR movies missed so much that was fundamental to other characters' identities -- identities that could have been visually expressed without adding to the films' lengths. Yes, lost is the simple joy of being a hobbit, without concern for affairs of kings and wizards. Lost is the drama of the scourging of the Shire, and the sanctified heroism of Sam, Merry, and Pippin. Also lost is the sense that Gandalf's, Saruman's, Denethor's power is deeply rooted in their worldy wisdom and scholarship. Lost is the partial incorporeality of the elves, not to mention the pain of their divided love for Middle Earth and at the same time for the lost West. Lost is the dwarves' delight in the earth, and lost is the noble struggle of Faramir's honor and humility against his desire to please his father.

I, too, liked the movies, but I mourn the self-imposed blindness of a culture that can't or won't see these virtues.

[James Altena]

I agree with Prof. Esolen and the foregoing comments. (I did enjoy the movies, but thought the third and last film noticeably weaker than the first two). I think there is another serious flaw, however, and that is the failure to understand the essential rationality of the good. In Tolkein's trilogy, the great conference that leads to the formation off the Fellowship of the Ring, and the conclave of the Ents, are both characterized by grave, sober, reflective discussion. In the movie versions the first is turned into a shouting match verging on a food fight, ended only by having Frodo impulsively volunteer to be the Ring-bearer. The treatment of the second is even worse; contrary to Tolkein, the movie Ents originally reject action against Sauron, only to reverse that in a hysterical fit of rage upon seeing the environmental devastation wrought to their fellow trees by Saruman. Other examples could be cited, but the point is that goodness is protrayed as grounded in intutive, emotional, non-rational impulses and feelings, rather than in man's rational nature as made in the image of God.

[Doug]

I am thrilled! This is the first time that I have ever disagreed with Dr. Esolen. That is good news! I thought I had in some mysterious way consumed "Esolen Koolaid." I do, actually, agree on some level with many of the comments posted above; however, I think it would have been virtually impossible to do the book justice. Time demanded that characters and events be cut. Some choices in this regard were better than others and I would certainly have done it a bit differently here and there. Nevertheless, I thought the movie was very well done and I enjoy the films very much.

[MarcV]

Is it fair to compare the movie to the book, or would it be more apropos to compare LotR to other film epics, such as "Star Wars" or "The Matrix"? Perhaps the better question is what movie is as good (if not better) than the original book? The Godfather? As we read we pick up themes and details which are peculiar to us, and then use our experiences to fill in the gaps of the story.

In a movie it's all filled in for you - WYSIWYG. Everyone who has read The Lord of The Rings and subsequently watched the movies will find fault for either what's missing or an overemphasis on a seemingly minor issue. Jackson decided to lean on the dark at the expense of the joy.

As far as the Scourging of the Shire, that would have taken another movie just to explain the hobbits returning to destruction, rather than "happy to be back home let's get on with our lives" wrap-up that the movie was given. The scourging and the rebuilding of the Shire would have particular relevance with what is going on in the world now, but I don't know if it would make for good cinema.

While you do have a good point on asking "Where's the joy?!", in the end it is a director's artistic decision that has to be approved by the producer.

[Barry D]

I agree, although I did enjoy the films. The lack of "singing" in the movies, which is a key part of the Tolkien books, was puzzling as well but I guess Jackson didn't want a musical.

All in all, however, I think that Jackson did a good job with what was an incredibly daunting task. Looking back on it the criticisms I have of the the films are minor compared to what I expected them to be when I heard the movies were being made.

[John Mark]

Is it possible that Peter Jackson missed out on the better elements of the books because he has no personal faith, or real understanding of joy? I know very little about him, and don't want to lable him unfairly.
Still, it seems, seems that if he had some basic understanding of, or real sympathy toward Tolkien or Christianity in general it might have made a difference in the tone of the movies.

[luthien]

"...Rabadash,..."
While working from memory on a monday morning is probably a bad idea...isn't Rabadash the tarkaan who becomes a donkey in The Horse and His Boy?? His appearance in the LOTR movies would have, to say the least, been surprising :)
I must confess to having very much enjoyed the LOTR movies, with the exception of the casting of Elijah Wood as Frodo, and that's merely a question of personal taste.

[Gene Godbold]

Prof. Esolen should stop before watching the other movies. They only get worse. (Though, I thought the extended version of the FotR on DVD was better than the cinema version.) The movie Boromir turns out to be the best of his family. Faramir is portrayed as a wuss and his henchmen work Gollum over like Mafia goons. Denethor is depicted as absolutely irrational instead of being noble even in despair. Gandalf's character is debased in having to restrain the insane Steward by bonking him on the head with his staff.

I agree with nearly all the comments above, but I would like to add that Jackson and Co. really have a problem with good and lawful authority and how to portray it. Also note that Aragorn spends most of the movie fleeing from his duty instead of rationally embracing it (and all its risks) as he does in the book. Elrond has to give him a pep talk early in the third movie, urging him to "Become who you were born to be!" Yuck.

And sure, I liked the eye candy as much as the next guy. The bit with the Balrog was really cool. But Jackson hits the little things nicely while losing sight of the big picture.

[dpence]

In Chesterton's essay/book on Dickens, he chastises the modern critic for losing the capacity to imagine the the possibility of eternal joy. Only the man who knows the hope of eternal joy can paint the horror of evil. This latest bit of esolen kool aid ratified by chestertonian sugar is no little deal. It is why we counter the miniturization of atheism wih the grandeur of God, the child killing of feminism with the celebration of motherhood and the lurking shame of the male homosexual with the happy war cry of the band of brothers. ps hymns should be hims in the title of new online issue.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

I understand and agree with Dr. Esolen's comments, but there are large themes within the trilogy that the movie conveyed and spoke to our time, and they were worth speaking.

One is that happiness (at least in the sense of the secular world, peace at home, the warmth of friends and family, time to put chores aside and relax beside a fire and play with the kids and pets or enjoy a book, a pipe, a glass ... all these are things secured at great price by great sacrifice, and that Evil hates them, and wants to destroy them. Perhaps they are only metaphors for the larger war of Evil on the human soul, but they are real enough, nonetheless. And the film, as well as the book, shows the effort and sacrifice that their preservation entails. That is a message our time needs to hear, because we believe that our comfort and security are rights, not hard-won blessings. We believe that they are free, and they come with great costs. They believe that Evil is impersonal, that sin is merely psychological wounding, and that salvation is our natural state. The trilogy is a reminder of how badly flawed -- and tragically mistaken -- such thinking is.

Second, it tells us that if we respond in courage instead of despair, help may come to us from unexpected sources, and victory may be won at the last second if we remain faithful to eternal truths. Saruman in the movie is clearly a victim of despair; he has given in to Sauron because he has lost faith in the triumph of good. That, too, is a lesson for our time.

[Brendan McPhillips]

You mention Dickens' Bleak House, I think Dickens captured the "joy of goodness" perfectly in A Christmas Carol particularly in the Ghost of Christmas Present and, of course, in Scrooge's transformation. I recently wrote about it here, http://brendanmcphillips.com/love-life-like-ebenezer-scrooge/

Also, the most insightful and thorough essay on Joy explaining how it's different from happiness, how it's the mood of the soul and how to integrate it into your live was written by Robert Leichtman and Carl Japikse. It's called "Joy" and you can get it from them through a link at the end of my article.

[Patrick]

This isn't just a reality in movies. This afflicts art in general nowadays. Art now is only seen as art if it is negatively bent. Joy is cheesy. Light is artificial. Goodness is fake.

Movies considered artistic generally explore the abhorrent nature of humanity. Art shows nowadays are filled with decidely depressing perspectives and not a little bit of disgusting thrown in.

Something happened over the last thirty years where art can no longer be understood as expressing a positive. Art is art only if it tears down, dismembers, or corrupts. Where is the goodness of art in general now?
Where is goodness understood as able to be art?

Even Lord of the Rings is above and beyond in its expression of the joy of goodness in comparison to many of our other Oscar winners and nominees of late. It seems we wallow in our understanding of evil and decay, dismissing goodness as something artificial, because for the most part artists in all genres these days simply do not understand goodness for its incredible depths and potential.

In our age of excess our art betrays an utter lack of positive imagination, something which Tolkien excelled in portraying, especially in the midst of evil and suffering.

As a sidenote, and related to other threads, I think it curious that the most vivid sign of evil in Tolkien was ecological destruction. Evil raped the land, and distorted the creation. Goodness honored the land, and restored its beauty. Elves are better than orcs. They are goodness personified, and their goodness was reflected in the harmony they had with nature.

[Mike S.]

"Something happened over the last thirty years where art can no longer be understood as expressing a positive."

I think this problem goes back further than 30 years. At least according to Francis Schaeffer it does.

I think the truly remarkable thing would have been if LoTR were made in a way that captures what Dr. Esolen points out is missing. Even in Tolkein's day the society was already on it's way to losing this kind of knowledge and understanding, and during the 1960's the process accelerated. Given Jackson's record prior to LoTR, it's practically miraculous that he made the movies as well as he did - my initial expectations were much lower.

"The characters seem good in the way that weary, scorched souls may try to be good; they can no longer imagine the innocence they have lost. "

Seems like an apt description of the modern age...

[Gene Godbold]

Re: ecological destruction. Actually, I think that someone suggests (in the Silmarillion?) that the worst crime that Morgoth did was to turn elves into orcs.

On a related note, one of my seminary professors noted that the Devil, because he hates creation but can't annihilate it, tries to return it (as close as he can) to the state of chaos (which I think is "tohu bohu" in the Hebrew). The Devil's plans for humans are always so unimaginative. They *always* end in murder and suicide--though they are quite often preceded by other sorts of personal degradation.

[Theophilos]

One fairly recent work of art (if cinema may ever be considered thus) that conveys joy both in content and style is the Danish film "Babette's Feast" (1987). On one level, it contrasts gnostic and sacramental views of living. It is everything that the noisy, blustering, ugly, anti-poetic LOTR films are not.

[Matthias]

I thank Dr. Esolen for one of the best and most succinct summaries of the how the films fall short of perfection that I have yet read.

I still love the first and third films, because I think a great deal of Tolkien's vision came through despite the director's complete lack of understanding (which is quite clear if you watch the bonus material on the DVDs and read some of his numerous interviews). But I found Two Towers unwatchable by the third time through - the mutilation of the characters of Faramir and Treebeard was too painful.

[Clyde]

Not to prolong anyone's pain, but I heard last year that Peter Jackson was going to do The Hobbit. Does anyone know if this is correct?

I for one loved the movies, but I never read the books.

[Ed Hopkins]

Is Dr. Esolen watching the same Bleak House I have enjoyed the past several weeks? I'll admit I haven't read the book, so maybe if I had I would also be disappointed. But I love the movie! Esther as dreary, proud, and frosty? I think she is marvelous and beautifully portrays Christian virtue: patience, kindness, gentleness all the fruits of the spirit fairly burst forth from this woman! When you wrote this, had you seen the last episode, where Esther leads Joe in the Lord's prayer on his death bed? The movie abounds with grace, in my opinion.

[Tony Esolen]

Gosh, Ed, I have seen the last scene! I was waiting for them to mess it up. They didn't -- well, not quite.

In the book, Esther and the rest of the Jarndyce crowd are nowhere to be seen. It's Allan Woodcourt who tries to teach Jo (who keeps repeating "I don't know nothink") to pray the Our Father. That's how we know that Allan is worthy of Esther's hand in marriage.

The change here? Who knows why they did it. But I'd believe it more if I saw, in the production, any clear attempt to convey Esther's faith and graciousness. By the way, she is certainly patient in the movie -- but in the book she is cheerful, busy, responsible for the comfort of others, a tireless but unprepossessing practicer of Christian charity, who does not ever suspect that that is what she is.

So all I can say is that Dickens' heroine is so grand, some of her beauty manages to survive the hard treatment it receives at the director's hands. But where's the heartiness? Where's the deep laughter that so enamored Chesterton? I guess I've been spoiled by the book, which I rate as Dickens' finest -- yes, better than David Copperfield.

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

Beatifully and thoughtfully said. I'll be linking to it, even though I disagree. I think Dr. Esolen's premise -- that Jackson and his collaborators don't understand the joy of goodness -- is correct, but I also think Tolkien's source material was strong enough to triumph over that ignorance, not least because Jackson and company were fond of what they did not completely understand. This cinematic trilogy is, I submit, another (comparatively small, but much appreciated) case of "God writing straight with crooked lines."

And I submit to you that Mel Gibson doesn't completely understand the passion of Christ, either, but he, too, made a cinematic masterpiece based on limited understanding.

[CS]

There are enough moments where Jackson gets it right to dilute Dr. Esolen's dismissal somewhat. Consider (notwithstanding the elision of the Scourging) Jackson's patient unravelling of the end of the tale, centering on the hopeful fecundity of Samwise and Rosie. How about those with "too few winters" girding for battle in Rohan? I have my own few quibbles. The 3rd film would have been distinctly improved if, for example, Denethor had been seen quickly hiding a Palantir at Gandalf's entrance. We have seen how the use of such a device ensnared Saruman; just a glimpse would have connected the dots for the audience in Denethor's case. I do give credit to Jackson for showing Denethor's preference for Boromir over Faramir in sharp, heartbreaking light. As for the Council of Elrond, clearly a centerpiece of the book, I think Jackson was wise to unroll the story and make it more chronological. It would not have been cinematically apt to tell the story of Gandalf's capture in flashback; flashbacks just can't be that long in film. Having so unrolled the story, there was less to do at the Council.

My jaw dropped when I saw the Argonath in the first film. I felt a swell of gratitude for Jackson's taking Tolkien right at his word. There is more going on in these movies than a misunderstanding of good. Though Jackson was judicious in what he cut and rearranged, I concede that whatever he changed, was changed for the worse.

[Sandra Miesel]

Every time I come upon one of these discussions I feel like asking what film did they watch? what book did they read? (I hate to break the news to Professor Esolen, but Radgast the Brown is not a figure of joy but of desertion. He's neglected his mission to men in favor of studying birds and beasts, for which Tolkien himself condemns him in an essay on the Wizards.)
It's also important to establish which cuts of LOTR are at issue. The extend version of FELLOWSHIP adds a number of quiet scenes: a longer descroption of life in the Shire, Frodo and Sam watching a procession of Elves, Aragorn singing of Luthien and Beren, Arargorn at his mother's grave, an extra dialogue between Aragorn and Boromir, an full gift-giving scene.
Galariel's Temptation on film is played out image for image and nearly word for word out of Tolkien's text. We see more of her graciousness in the extended cut. And if Cate Blanchette isn't beautiful enough to be an Elf, no one is. The same for Orlando Bloom. Elves of the Third Age are not "partly incorporeal" although they will eventually fade away into phantoms as time wears on. FELLOWSHIP attempts to give a sense of Elves illuminated by the Light of Aman in Frodo's first sight of Arwen, unfortunately forgetting that Arwen has never been to Aman. Glorfindel, whom she replaces, is unique among all Elfkind for reasons that lie beyond the text of LOTR. (But of course real admirers of JRRT will be conversant with the SILMARILLION and THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.)
And as for singing, please go count the number of Tolkien's poems recited by Gandalf, Sam, and Theoden or sung by: Gandalf, Bilbo, Merry (2), Pippin (3), Aragorn (2), Eowyn (in Old English), or the soundtrack (which features elaborate vocals by multiple choirs and soprano soloists, not to mention the original songs during the credits). Does anyone actually miss the hobbits' song about hot water?
Those who've watched the extras on the DVDs should have noticed the joyful passion with which the production crew worked to make this impossible dream possible.
Peter Jackson would like to film THE HOBBIT but the rights' issues are so tangled no one may be able to do this.

[Tony Esolen]

Sandra,

I agree that Orlando Bloom had Legolas pegged, and think his was the best performance in the Fellowship film. (I would say that it was easily the best performance, but Ian Holm and Ian McKellen are superb actors, and the drama of Boromir was dead right; in general the acting was excellent, as I said, with the crucial exception of Elijah Wood.) And I don't think I have exactly dismissed the movie, have I? But it was instructive to watch it in the company of my wife, who has not read Tolkien in about 25 years at least. She had no idea why Gimli the dwarf was so overcome by the beauty and goodness of Galadriel, since, as she put it, the lady seemed rather odd and sinister than good.

If you're talking about songs on the soundtrack, rather than songs sung by characters in the Fellowship film, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It's one of the things that I don't like about fantasy movies -- even the Star Wars movies, where it's managed the best -- that constant, often bizarre, emotional "instruction" on what I'm supposed to feel, without giving me any clear reason, through action, facial expression, or speech, why I ought to feel that way. In other words, I'd have appreciated a good deal more silence, if only to make the music the more effective.

Again, I thought -- trying to evaluate it objectively, taking it all in all -- that it was a great movie. I also did not enjoy the movie, for reasons I've tried to figure out and express. That happens sometimes. Ulysses is a great book. I read it a long time ago, and never expect to read it again.

[Gene Godbold]

Sandra M,
I miss the song about the hot water. (I sing it in the shower sometime.) My kids and I really like Pippin's song on track 5 of the RotK CD.

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

If I had an email address for Dr. Esolen, I'd send this to him directly, but for him and anyone else who's interesting, my respectful dissent from his indictment of the movie can be found here. It amplifies my previous comment in this thread.

[BWalter]

I guess I'm coming in late in an already long conversation -- I think the number of replies is a good indication of the strength of feeling surrounding these movies. I own all of the DVDs, both the theatrical releases and the extended releases. And generally, I agree that the extended releases are all improvements on the theatrical versions. There are many delightful scenes that only appear in the extended releases -- the gift giving in Lothlorien, the Ent draughts, Borimir and Farimir supporting each other in the face of a domineering Denethor.

I also agree in general with Dr. Esolen's comments, though for all the force and darkness that Jackson gave the evil things of Middle Earth, he did hit a lot of the small, simple things, too. Frodo and Gandalf hugging and laughing; the hobbits' love of food and drinking; I thought Gandalf's speeches in both Moria and the sacking of Minas Tirith were spot on and given appropriate weight.

But in a similar vein to Dr. Esolen's comments, I felt that Jackson fundamentally did not understand nobility nor resonate with the goodness of Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth. Two examples of this: One comment from the director's commentary was particularly revealing -- Jackson was talking about the difficulty he had filming the Lothlorien sequences. He made a comment along the lines that after the excitement of Moria and before the heroism of the battle of Parth Galen, you have the "dead space" (his words) of Lothlorien. The heart of elvendom on earth, and he calls it "dead space"?! Then, in the extended version of ROTK, he has Aragorn swap off the Mouth of Sauron's head, right in the middle of the negotiation, in direct response to the Mouth of Sauron jeering at Aragorn. I have some sympathy for Jackson wanting to give Aragorn's character a trajectory -- a growth from self-doubt to accepting his role as King -- but I also suspect him of having an allergy to anything truly good or noble.

While those are only two examples, I think they are sufficient to show that Jackson's vision was fundamentally different from Tolkien's. He captured much of the surface look and feel of Tolkien's world, but never entered into the heart and spirit of it, for all that he came close in many small and delightful touches.

[Verbena Burrows]

It's true. there is a tremendous lack of joy in the movies. I find The Two Towers almost unwatchable. The problem in my case is that one of my favorate characters is King Theoden. In the books he is couragous, kindly, and fatherly. He is not only a good king, but also a wonderfull human being. He hits it off emediatly Merry and Pippin. He becomes a father figure to Merry, if only for a short time. He is also a father to his niece, Eowyn, and nephue, Eomer. It is also important to note that his initial lack of courage and lack of willingness to help Gondor is the result of Wormtounge's infuence over him.

The Ents come off unlikeable in the movies. In the books they really think that Saruman is doing something evil and are interested in more than just their one trees, which by-the-way are talking trees, a point which I think they faled to make clear in the movies.

There is also a bad contrast set up between Eowyn and the other women of Rohan, which is not present in the book. Tolkien makes a point of saying several times that the women of Rohan are also valiant. The women inside the fortress should be sad, but they should not be yowling. Infact all of the Rohirim come off wimpy, with the exeptions of Eomer and Eowyn.

The movies don't just have proplems as adaptaions of the book. They also have problems as movies. They don't hang together well, they don't develope the characters much at all, and they are incredably hard to follow if you have never read the books.

There is a very fine movie in theaters right now. It is called "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe". It is not only a fine adaptation of the book, but a fantastic work of art in its own right. It is a beautiful movie.

The Narnia movie is full of joy. Even in the battle it focuses on the good characters who are fighting the evil. This is what Tolkien always does in his books (see the Pelanor Fields battle and Helm's Deep), but all to often the movies are focusing on the Orcs.

It is certain that the makers of the movies had read The Silmarilion, and pick up on a few key ideas from it (like the fact that the orcs are corruptions on Elves), but that does not make up for the lack of joy, character development, and the fact that they butchered Treebeard, King Theoden, Faramir, Galadriel, and most importantly Frodo who comes off mean and twirpy, instead of kind and wise.

I don't mean to say that these are bad movies, but they could certainly be better, both as adaptations of the book and as works of art in their own right.

By-the-way, I also love the Hot Water song, and used to have it on my website.

I would also like to say that I thought that the scenes with Aslan at the Stone Table in the Narnia movie were done beautifully, and if you haven't seen the Narnia movie yet, you should.

[Mike]

(I originally left this comment at Patrick's blog, but perhaps it belongs here, as well.)

I think the movie stands on its own merits and cannot be fairly compared to the book. Watching and thinking through the movie again - after just having re-read the book - it occurred to me that the difference between the two (the movie and the book) could be likened to the difference between Tom Shippey's and Colin Duriez's or Matthew Dickerson's writings on Tolkien. Shippey, who occupies a chair previously belonging to Tolkien, has tremendous insights into the languages, origins, and complexities of the LOTR - but he is, by his own admission, not a believer.

Duriez or Dickerson, in contrast, thoroughly grasp the spiritual realities of the book - e.g., good vs evil, moral choices, the importance of freedom, the power of the ring - and accurately exegete Tolkien's works. Duriez and Dickerson both give evidence of being men of faith.

Jackson, like Shippey, has an outsider's grasp of Tolkien and, being on the outside looking in, is remarkably faithful to what he understands (such as the importance of pity upon Gollum). He did as good as he could with the limited understanding he had, and I think he did a rather remarkable job.

How much spiritual insight can we rightly expect from those of limited vision?

[luthien]

"In fact all of the Rohirim come off wimpy, with the exeptions of Eomer and Eowyn"
I beg to differ! Are those little boys, hardly old enough for middle school, let alone real warfare, wimps? And what about the mother who sent her children to warn the rest of Rohan?

[Michael]

Having picked up the book after watching the original movie trilogy, I'd have to say it was a secularized version put forth and thus the hole forms for those whom have a whole heart. But should we have expected any more from a secular world?

I never would've picked up on these issues prior to accepting Christ. It is this very real fact that I see here in the discussion. If without Christ it only is another trilogy of many and the battles are just battles without meaning, without merit, without justification, and the theme is about good and evil, but never defined as to the everlasting message of eternity.

I never heard the hobit's songs during the movies. Count me deaf, but until I just started reading the book did I read the Hot Water Song.

There's something larger here in my humble opinion. As a new born pup it appears to me we have turned over the creativity to those who do not believe and then we complain as if a blind world could ever understand. I myself when not saved could never see it like most of you here see it. So we can be critics, but until we truly get into the battle, that is all we are. The battle is everywhere around us every day. We have let Holy-wood turn to Wormwood right before our very eyes. Or maybe it always was?

It we desire a change, we must seek it ourselves and in the glory of God the Father 'CREATE' a new Force of Good. I like Frodo am reluctant to take that step out the door and am constantly looking back. For we all know it is perilous and we worry, we fret, we regret, we think ourselves not worthy, or weak.

We cannot depend on Mega-Owners and Producers in LA to show us what we want no matter how much we complain. Watch as 'da Vinci' comes out and millions march to see it. No, like Christ it appears to me Gandalf comes and says the responsibility is now 'ours' little Frodo to put the sin back in its place though the journey be bleak ahead and journey long, we have wine, we have bread.

No, we need to rise up as we are called to do. We need to write like Tolkein and Lewis and we need to Produce, Direct, Act and yes - bring the joy of the Lord for others to see by 'Distribution'.

The gatekeepers are now no more. We now have a way to put forth our talents thru DVD and Internet. It must be a 'conscience' desire of both creative efforts and support.

Because it is only those who understand God, feel God, live God that can produce it. The world does not know truth, only the wisdom of this world. Studying the Word brings more power as we grow in it yet how far are we willing to walk in it? A bitter red pill at first sweet are the pages, the sacred text once held in secret by appointed sages. But who amongst us will let it tumble out?
The world is ripe with souls who search in doubt.

Yes, the movie missed some wonderful truths. But having looked in the mirror much lately, I find only myself to blame. If we are made in the image of God, then we are creators ourselves. If we turn over the arts to the wolves, we must not be surprised when they turn to eat us.

Our children, our people look to TV for their thin morsels of worldly wisdom. We set ourselves apart by denominations instead of being a whole body of Christ. We argue amongst ourselves while the wolves pull their prey away one by one.

I heard recently on the news some commentator mention that the Vice Presidents accidental shooting was 'the shot heard round the world'.

Fancy that, it came thru Corpus Christi and was announced through The Corpus Christi Calling Times. The 'Body of Christ' Calling. I was there when a tornado tore through the city. I watched the storms come together from three ways. I knew the storm was gathering, yet I did not understand the signs of Christ before me then.

Signs on heaven and earth, we must search them out always. LOTR, Narnia, Passion, these are signs that Christ lessons can get through and more people awaken, saved, pulled into the Body of Christ. But we must not turn over our lives, our children's and grandchildren's to the wolves anymore. We must break through the gates ourselves.

This takes great effort and like someone mentioned above about LOTR meetings, it takes great consideration and discussion, and it takes everyone coming together in the Body of Christ. It takes a 'conscience effort' to go into the worldly battle and gather friends about us. Nothing God ever did proceeded without first the thought, then the Word spoken.

A table, a round table, like Arthur, or the meeting of Middle Earth, whatever, wherever the meeting, we cannot win the battle apart and we cannot allow ourselves to be pulled down by Worldly efforts in congregations with other false religions and secular partnerships. That time is past us. It serves no purpose but to poison the water of life. As if Christ called us to join together with other religions of the world?

If we are to be true to Christ, then it is only to him we must be true. We will only get so far in LA. Christians need to break out, start their own film studios, producers, directors, and most importantly form Distributors. We need to find our own Angels on earth which can afford to finance such endeavors and break down doors.

Well.... I'm carried away and maybe a little to excited, but having taken the red pill, swallowed the bitter pages that I thought tasted of honey, I can't but help awake to the battle all around us and found we are leaders amongst sheep and have almost renounced our gift to allow wolves to take over. For to long we let our shepherds lead only in the Church. We doubt ourselves to much. The Lord called us to be humble, but never weak. The signs are clear. God's message is not only clear and profitable in this world thru such efforts as LOTR. But it can bless us and others. It resonates through the soul as His word when heard. The Good News can be heard and doors opened where we might once have despaired prior to this age, but through God nothing is impossible. The success of God's truth shining through these books turned to films shows us we can create beautiful messages.

Yes, yes the movie missed the point of Christ and the ultimate message of Tolkein.

So, what do we do now to make sure the message gets out in the future? I see so many talented people in the body, reluctant like Frodo, even like myself. Given what we think are lesser gifts not realizing it is God who makes them shine.

When we buy things made of the secular world, what else should we expect? The effort of ours is before us to create(a Word of Good News in Spirit going forth into the Battle), not critique a world of sinners who may not know the battle is ongoing.

If we allow Broadway and Hollywood to be the gatekeepers of art, then we deserve what we get.

This is a good discussion to have.

[Michael]

My apologies for the long post above. But until Mel took the risk, did any of us suspect what might happen? Or did any of us realize the impact The Passion might have? Was it not until the body of Christ joined him in his efforts that it made a real impact?

How many of us allow Harry Potter the same standard in our homes without thinking twice about the message to our children?

If we buy the stuff of the secular world, if we watch it, and it takes over. We then have no right to complain.

But if we make an effort to support Christian artist we can become part of making a real difference. Even if its just to write a letter of thanks and encouragement.

We accept to much to easily I'm afraid. At least I know I did. Just turn on ABC's Family channel and see the results of secular efforts.

[Verbena Burrows]

Hi Luthien!

Well... Perhaps I was a little to hard on how they did the Rohirim. I didn't think that that mother came off wimpy, or her children either. The busness about the boys and the old men in Helms Deep was good. I do think that Theoden came off as a wimp though, and that bothered me. I don't think it bothered anybody else though, and I'm not sure why it bothered me and no one else. But I don't think I'm just imagining it.

[Susanna Smith]

I just finished reading an excellent book by Fleming Rutledge called "The Battle for Middle Earth: Tolkein's Divine Design in the Lord of the Rings" (published by Eerdmans), and now I'm moved to go back and re-read the trilogy. I briefly thought about watching the movies instead, but the books weave such a rich and full tapestry which just cannot be captured on screen, no matter how talented the filmmaker is. So I agree with both sides here...is that possible?? I think the movies are worth watching as movies, but the books are the only way to become immersed in the story itself (and even better if you have a hot cup of cocoa and a cracking fire).

[Gene Godbold]

I agree with Ms. Burrows on Theoden. At least in the second movie, he comes across as something of a wimp. How any man in an iron age culture where death was a fact of the life for the very young and few reached old age could possibly say: "No one should have to bury their children." is incomprehensible to me. The actor in question ad-libbed this bit (as I learned from the some of the bonus material on the disc).

[Verbena Burrows]

Hi!

I am so glad some one finaly agreed with me about King Theoden. Of course he would have been sad about the death of his son, but Theoden in the movies seems to be trying to crawl in a hole and hide. Also, If the orcs were killing people all over the place isn't that all the more reason for him to try to fight them? The fact that he doesn't want to fight makes him appear almost heartless, and all the fatherliness, as well as all the couragousness of the original character is lost.

[Stephanie]

I have never read the books. I have only seen the movies. But I have to say, the movie's deep themes of good versus evil completely engulfed me, mind and soul. I felt true joy in the Shire, the good life there, and "living for living's sake." The shots of Mordor and Isengard, sweeping in and out of the fiery caverns of industry, really did strike me with the sense of evil. I felt moved by the love of the simple life the hobbits had, and deeply destressed by the empty evil of the shadows. I felt the One Ring's pull and I could equate it to my own life. Sam's words, "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for," changed the whole story for me. That is the most powerful line in the trilogy. I don't think anything was lost on film, at least for me. I got a great sense of Thoreau's Walden retreat. It shook my soul.

[Stephanie]

I have never read the books. I have only seen the movies. But I have to say, the movie's deep themes of good versus evil completely engulfed me, mind and soul. I felt true joy in the Shire, the good life there, and "living for living's sake." The shots of Mordor and Isengard, sweeping in and out of the fiery caverns of industry, really did strike me with the sense of evil. I felt moved by the love of the simple life the hobbits had, and deeply destressed by the empty evil of the shadows. I felt the One Ring's pull and I could equate it to my own life. Sam's words, "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for," changed the whole story for me. That is the most powerful line in the trilogy. I don't think anything was lost on film, at least for me. I got a great sense of Thoreau's Walden retreat. It shook my soul.