LOTR movie resonates (with an aside to sad denial)

[lunalovegoodrules]

Terry LJ:
> However, the first Lord of the Rings movie, "The Fellowship of the 
Ring", 
> did so.  I had previously read the books, and had trouble staying 
awake over 
> them.  I've read them since, and enjoyed them much more, and I love 
> them--but something about that first movie was a defining moment in 
my life.
> 
> Maybe it was the timing, coming so close after 9/11; maybe it spoke 
to the 
> basic urge of humanity--usually stifled in adulthood--to have 
heroes, 
> somehow to even be the hero; I don't know.  I do know that I 
returned to the 
> theater many times (obsessively--will not say how many)  to 
recapture the 
> feeling I walked out with every time: that I could stand up against 
evil, 
> that I could do what was necessary, that I could stand by my 
friends 
> regardless of what happened; that in some way, I was Frodo, and 
Sam, and 
> Aragorn (but not Arwen; hate Arwen; with zillions of axe-wielding 
orcs in 
> that movie, not one could manage to slice off her head?)
> 
> 
> The second movie was wonderful, but not quite on that level, as it 
was just 
> (to me) an interlude between the beginning and the end, and on its 
own did 
> not accomplish much.  I expect the third one to have pretty much 
the same 
> effect as the first.
> 
> I get all kinds of spiritual messages and content and uplifting 
things out 
> of it, but some Tolkien fans get very snarkish about this, so we'll 
leave 
> that alone.
> 
> Is this completely pathetic, to have such a strong response to a 
movie?  Oh 
> well.

Well, this seems reasonable to me - I love, mind you, Tolkien, for 
his story and his vision, though I find his style aggravating, 
especially that quasi-KJV stuff in RoTK, and Le Guin, for her 
thinking and for her style, but Rowling partakes of the same spring, 
I say, and I feel that, in some ways, critics allow certain 
prejudices based on biographical details to colour their reading of 
Rowling. On the main list, the "defend OOP" challenge completely 
baffles me. It takes a word to respond to, and a thesis.

Jackson has done a wonderful job so far, but you are right in marking 
FoTR as almost sublime - partly, I think, because the apparent 
naivete of The Shire could be contrasted with the malice of Sauron, 
and, by extension, with the unnaturalness of the Uruk Hai (in 5/4 
time), and the unnaturalness of the dark craving for eternal life or 
power that was the undoing of the ancient world, and is, at the core, 
the vulnerablility of "men" (in the film only the Nazgul are left to 
represent that). (Not so different from Voldemort, and probably S. 
Slytherin.) Jackson conveys the spirit of LoTR, and that was his 
goal. By TT, there's little naivete left, so the film cannot be quite 
as sublime. I don't see how the RoTK film, however, can be anything 
but sublime, in the end. And very sad.

I'm hoping Cauron can at least capture some of the transcendent 
moments in PoA.

I saw FoTR 7 times at the theatre, and TT only 4, btw. Also, I too 
speak too often in parentheses.

On another subject, however, there is a big difference, though, 
between us. And that is regarding your ship, alluded to in another 
post. Now, I for one think the yellow flag is still floating quite 
near your vessel, magically staying at it's side. (I just snipped 
about 200 words of a monty python sketch about a bird.) At any rate, 
I believe you are what I'd refer to as a "hardcore shipper"

dan (in a funny mood)