Heavy ROTK analysis

[sherriftruman]

"Though he spent much of his post-war life railing against allegorical interpretations of his 1,000-page tome, it is impossible to separate Tolkien's battlefield from his bible of fantasy literature." MORE

Morhizm usually has pretty serious articles on film. This one is the finest on Jackson's film I've checked out so far. What does everyone think?

peace,

Sherrif

[Thorin II]

Great article! I think it's pretty much dead-on.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Hmm. I like the parallels drawn between WWI and Lord of the Rings that are made in the movie--perhaps even the implication that Jackson did this on purpose? Tolkien may have denied any allegorical or otherwise connection to the War, but it remains nonetheless, whatever Tolkien may say. In my view, at least. Anyway, that was interesting. Good article. THanks for the link.

[Thorin II]

The allegory point has been debated a lot. Tolkien always denied any delibrate ties to WWI, but there's no doubt they were connected on some level. Certainly LOTR is applicable to many other time periods, but I'm convinced Tolkien's experience in WWI shaped Middle-Earth more than he let on.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Hmm. I like the parallels drawn between WWI and Lord of the Rings that are made in the movie--perhaps even the implication that Jackson did this on purpose? Tolkien may have denied any allegorical or otherwise connection to the War, but it remains nonetheless, whatever Tolkien may say. In my view, at least.

Yeah, Tolkien really didn't know what he was talking about there.

In my opinion, if Tolkien says he didn't write allegory, then he didn't. I think his life and writing were deeply influenced by his experiences in WWI. Elements of the war consequently appear subtly in Lord of the Rings, but that does not make the story an allegory.

I think the author put a lot of careful thought into the article, which is well-written. However I think he's reading into Jackson's movie too much. Jackson's RotK is not that subtle, and I did not feel that he captured the sense of loss described in the acticle.

His ideas about Denethor's disgusting eating reflecting sending Faramir on a suicide mission are interesting. When I saw the wine dripping down his chin, I also thought of blood.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Hmm. . .I did not mean to imply Tolkien did write allegory--he says he didn't write it, and so he didn't. However, I think it influenced him on a level that shows in his writing, whatever his intentions may have been.

[Nurvingiel]

I misunderstood, but I see what you mean now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
However I think he's reading into Jackson's movie too much. Jackson's RotK is not that subtle, and I did not feel that he captured the sense of loss described in the acticle.

I also think that the author is giving jackson way too much credit. It's an action movie - of course the war scenes will look like war scenes, you can just as easily say that it was like Civil War as any other war.

His ideas about Denethor's disgusting eating reflecting sending Faramir on a suicide mission are interesting. When I saw the wine dripping down his chin, I also thought of blood.

I did think that was blood - but I think jackson had no particular thing in mind - other than to disgust the audience with his eating habits.

As for Gollum - he had to some how explain that Gollum was good in the beginning. Which actually he was never REALLY good. Even before the Ring he wasn't very well liked.

As for Tolkien and allegory - I don't really believe what Tolkien said - there is allegory. I just think, as I have posted many times before - he just didn't want to explain what he meant by everything and wanted people to take away from it what they wanted. if he said it was an allegory - everyone would be asking him "what does this mean - what does that mean?"

Take the scouring of the shire and it's destruction. Tolkien was very much against indutrialization and the bulldozing of the environment - you mean to tell me there isn't a statement in there about that?

Everyone - no matter what peopel write about - take things from their personal experience. Ideas don't just appear out of no where - there is always an underlying thought or experience that helps give fruit to the idea. Try writing something that is void of any personal experience, emotion and where characters are not based on anyone you have met or known. I think it's pretty impossible.

BTW - I don't know whether he purposely wrote an allegory or not. Lord of the Rings may not be a full allegory - but it is obvious that at least subconsciously some parts are allegorical, whether he intended it or not.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I did think that was blood - but I think jackson had no particular thing in mind - other than to disgust the audience with his eating habits.

I didn't think it was blood, I was reminded of blood.

As for Tolkien and allegory - I don't really believe what Tolkien said - there is allegory. I just think, as I have posted many times before - he just didn't want to explain what he meant by everything and wanted people to take away from it what they wanted. if he said it was an allegory - everyone would be asking him "what does this mean - what does that mean?"

Take the scouring of the shire and it's destruction. Tolkien was very much against indutrialization and the bulldozing of the environment - you mean to tell me there isn't a statement in there about that?

There's a fine line between writing from personal experience and having a message, and writing an allegory.

According to my dictionary, an allegory is: Narrative description of a subject under quise of another sugestively similar; emblem.

I do think Tolkien had a message, and that he drew on his own experiences and people he knew, but not that he wrote an allegory.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I didn't think it was blood, I was reminded of blood.

Well at first I had thought he had bit his lip or tongue - but then I realized it was grape juice.

There's a fine line between writing from personal experience and having a message, and writing an allegory.

Sorry - I didn't make that clear. I was actually responding to the comment about Tolkien taking stuff from his experience in WWI. It goes to reason that he would. Just like he took experiences from growing up to make the shire.

According to my dictionary, an allegory is: Narrative description of a subject under quise of another sugestively similar; emblem.

Allegory

1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances. The real subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the intentions of the writer or speaker by the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject.

2. Anything which represents by suggestive resemblance; an emblem.

Maybe it is less of a allegory though than a parable...

A comparison; a similitude; specifically, a short fictitious narrative of something which might really occur in life or nature, by means of which a moral is drawn;

I do think Tolkien had a message, and that he drew on his own experiences and people he knew, but not that he wrote an allegory.

This example of an allegory makes me think that maybe you are right..

``An allegory differs both from fable and parable, in that the properties of persons are fictitiously represented as attached to things, to which they are as it were transferred. . . . A figure of Peace and Victory crowning some historical personage is an allegory. ``I am the Vine, ye are the branches'' [--John xv. 1-6] is a spoken allegory.

I don't think Galadriel herself represents anything, but the One Ring may. So it's still hard to say. Does Treebeard represent anything? I never thought so and I don't think he does.

I guess this is slightly off topic.