Blogcritics: Comments on Lord of the Rings, An Opposing Opinion

Comment by Eric Berlin

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:18:59 EST

I thought the third film really showcased Sam as the hero. That said, I don't think anyone cared who was the hero after the ring was destroyed -- they had accomplished their mission. And, really, all the principles were equally heroic (even Boromir, who is kind of resurrected and bolstered in flashback scenes throughout TTT and RoTK).

Comment by Ayu

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:30:12 EST

Just wanted to add, despite my criticism toward the movie, I'm a big fan of LOTR and I think so far it (represents both movie and novel)is a work in which I felt a constant reluctance upon reaching the end.

Comment by Ayu

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:15:48 EST

I agree with you, and I wouldn't surprise if it'd be every movie goer's impression upon Sam on the movie, but what I meant is on the way he was treated. In the end, others seemed only to glorify Frodo's valor for succeeding the quest and forgetting that Sam had been there all the time to help him..that was as far as I could catch, since I watched the movie which was dubbed in Hungarian (a foreign language to me). Sadly it's difficult to get English movies here where I live.

Comment by Big Time Patriot

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:58:22 EST

I don't know about Sam being unsung in the movie. I think he comes off as much braver and with much deeper convictions and emotional strength than Frodo does. I really thought that Sean Astin should have gotten an Oscar, really a great acting job.

Comment by Ayu

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:50:56 EST

Sam was quite an unsung hero on the movie, but in the book it was well told that indeed in the Shire he (along with Pippn and Mery) was more famous than Mr. Frodo though he knew nothing about it. And in the end Frodo left Bag-end for Sam, which made him no longer servant; but Sam felt he was torn to two: a half of him wanted to come with Frodo, and the rest wanted to stay with his family...and he made the right choice, as he always did. Faithful as he had been, there's always time to meet and there's always time to part for everyone.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:47:59 EST

You bring up a good point, Tom, in that Sam was aiding the ring bearer, so in a sense all the "good guys" were Frodo's servants. And really, all were a slave to the ring, which plays in kind of nicely.

Comment by Tom Donelson

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:52:15 EST

Your take on Sam and Frodo is entirely wrong. Is a Sam a mere servant or good friend? Frodo is given the task of essentially saving mankind or should I say human kind by delievering the ring. Sam volunteers to go with Frodo on his quest. As for rising, if you read the back of the book, you will find that Sam does indeed go beyond just being a servant. As for the homosexual angle, can't any man just be a friend to another without some sexual context put in?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:43:38 EST

almost all New Zealanders are bilingual that way

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:24:54 EST

Well, Asimov predicted everyone will live underground in the future, and our descendants will all develop a severe phobia of the open sky. Except the ones who leave Earth, of course. As for Jackson speaking sheep, that rumor may be even more controversial than the one about Frodo and Sam being gay.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:16:53 EST

that's cool - I love that house. Speaking of underground homes - right near where we live there is a cult, I mean "religious community" whose main building is built into the side of a hill - supposedly very energy efficient. Fucking Utne Reader readers

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:12:42 EST

I was amused to learn that Jackson owns Bilbo/Frodo's hobbit home (round door and all) and is planning on living in it in New Zealand one day. Kind of cool, kind of oddball, just like Jackson.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:07:28 EST

I don't know about French, but rumor has it that Jackson does indeed speak sheep

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:20:13 EST

Does Peter Jackson speak French? I can't imagine they'd let him be their president if he doesn't. Then again, he could learn it easily enough. He seems to be a quick learner. Unlike certain other presidents we could name. So let's see, that's two of the five permanent members of the Security Council that might be able to benefit from a Peter Jackson presidency. The UK has no president, so they're out. The US could use his help, but not without a constitutional amendment first. And China has a president, but not an elected one, and I'm not sure how much real power they give to that office anyway. Many observers seem to think the head of the Communist Party is still the de facto leader of the People's Republic, last time I checked. But hey, France and Russia, that's a start. Peter Jackson for President!

Comment by Queenie

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:30:52 EST

Nice save, Victor! I was thinking of France. But Russia, there's a thought. He could turn it into one big Weta Workshop. Cool idea. Queenie

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:45:24 EST

Queenie, yes, the USA is not the only place with a democratically elected government. However, in most of the other such places, the presidency has a largely ceremonial role, and the real governance is done from the office of the prime minister. That was why I assumed you meant you wanted Peter Jackson to be president of the United States. Although, now that you mention it, maybe he could do more good as the president of Russia.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:33:38 EST

Victor - Ah, there's money in prequels, I see. I still don't see the direct correlation between the "new" Star Wars trilogy and the greenlight for The Hobbit. The latter is Tolkien's remaining major work (save The Silmarillon or whatever it's called), and off the heels of Jackson's smashing, lights out success with LOTR, I'm pretty sure he's in a position to push through whatever he wants at the moment.... though we'll see if that still holds post-King Kong.

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:25:08 EST

The original Star Wars trilogy weren't prequels, so my thesis above cannot apply to them in any way, shape, or form. Hollywood doesn't care about quality. It cares only about profits. The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, for all their many and varied flaws, showed Hollywood there could be profit in prequels. This, I speculate, may explain why Hollywood is willing to bankroll a prequel to Jackson's LOTR trilogy.

Comment by Queenie

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:21:25 EST

Peter Jackson cannot be President of the USA, but there are a few other countries with functioning democracies in the world. You did know that, right? Ah, I'm only slaggin' ya..... Queenie

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:18:12 EST

Oh: And yeah, I'll be as excited to see Jackson's The Hobbit as anything else I can think of (save Whedon's Serenity, of course). God, I hope they get Ian Holm back for the lead role. I could watch him as Bilbo all day.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:16:18 EST

Victor -- That might be true of the original Star Wars trilogy. Old dogs in summer... nice, Eric.

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:13:58 EST

We can sneer at Star Wars prequels (and I do, often enough) but we might not be hearing any talk of The Hobbit being made into a major feature film if it hadn't been for these recent box office successes for the Lucas moneymaking machine.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:06:18 EST

it's like dessert that Jackson is going to do The Hobbit as well - a prequel to the trilogy. I am certain it will come out better than the Star Wars prequels, which have all the energy of old dogs in the summer

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:05:05 EST

Alas, Peter Jackson can't be President, because he was not born in the United States. He could become governor of California, though.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:01:26 EST

In my recent interview with Robert B. Parker, he talks about implications of homosexuality in fiction, in this case the inter-racial friendship between Spenser and Hawk:

RBP: Did you ever read Leslie Fiedler's Love and Death in the American Novel? EB: No. RBP: He talks about this at length and he says that it is repressed homosexuality, that the companionship is so close and loving that to cut it down it has to be with a different race so that the homosexual implications won't be apparent. I frankly think that's bullshit, but it's a whole hypothesis that starts back with D.H. Lawrence and is studied across American literature. I just think that it is what it is: a friendship among men, despite race or beyond race, who understand the same things.

I agree with Parker, applied to same race relationships between men. The implication of homosexuality between close male friendships only helps to stir up paranoia in men in developing platonic relationships with one another. Moving on, I don't LOTR is an allegory for anything, and if I'm not mistaken, that was Tolkien's feeling as well. I also disagree with the assertion that Bilbo was "fooling around" in The Hobbit. It's more of a children's story (though in the scary, old school tradition of children's story) than LOTR, but Bilbo's life is constantly in danger, and watching him scramble to save himself and his new friends is the fun and drive of the story.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:50:16 EST

for me the series has only grown in stature - all three extended DVDs are vastly better than the theatrical versions, much better at fleshing out the characters and little telling moments. I have come to look at the series as something of a miracle.