I've recently been reading a bunch of hysterical critiques of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings and the Rankin/Bass Return of the King. I loved the reviews because they pointed out all the idiosyncratic and idiotic elements of the movies, that my sister and I have been laughing at for the past ten years. I do have a soft spot in my heart for them, however. Farmor showed them to us when I was 8, and I was so enthralled that I tracked down the trilogy (hiding in Daddy's garage) and read it in a week (and then read it again). So, I had to think of something good about them, and here it is:
The Rankin/Bass Return of the King is filled with sappy songs that can be quite annoying. One that comes up more than once is "It's so easy not to try / let the world go drifting by. / If you never say hello, / you won't have to say goodbye." Silly. Sappy. Sorry.
HOWEVER
I think that this song alone gets closer to the heart of Tolkien's trilogy than anything Jackson made. Peter Jackson got so excited about the special effects and action, that he lost the beautiful wistfulness of the books. Tolkien is always talking about beauty passing away and being lost. Elf women give up their immortality, and Frodo Baggins give up the Shire that he suffered to protect. Yet Tolkien shows that it is better to have these beautiful things and lose them, than it is to just protect yourself.
This reminds me of a quote by C.S. Lewis: "Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable."
Lewis states eloquently what Tolkien showed in his book: To love is to be vulnerable, but obviously worth it. Rankin/Bass's song may not have been very eloquent. The movie may have missed plot details and hopelessly confused what it added. But it made the same point, through the song, and the bits of the Sam/Frodo story that they portrayed (admittedly, they did not preserve the point in the other half of the story as well, but then Sam and Frodo get the most screen time in this movie).
Doesn't that make the movie seem so much nicer!
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Die Walkure
I learned last year that I liked Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg. I borrowed a DVD of it purely because Sir Thomas Allen was singing Beckmesser, and I love his voice. Well, I didn't just suffer through to hear him sing, instead I discovered a wonderful, dramatic, and even humorous opera. When I had to listen to Tristan und Isolde in Opera class, I decided that Meistersinger was a fluke. But I got the whole Ring trilogy out from the library, and I love it! Firstly, the music is beautiful. I don't think I'll be singing along to it, but it is very emotional and dramatic. Secondly, the story is interesting. No, it isn't LotR, and never for a minute with I believe that Tolkien copied from Wagner. But the story is interesting. I really REALLY need to get to reading more Norse mythology (and find out what Wagner did to it). And finally, it's just amazing to watch men and women singing Wagner!
In Die Walkure, Wotan's farewell to Brunnhilde is so very beautiful and moving!
But I have to read more about these operas. I think I may become a fan of BOTH ring cycles!
In Die Walkure, Wotan's farewell to Brunnhilde is so very beautiful and moving!
But I have to read more about these operas. I think I may become a fan of BOTH ring cycles!
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Inaugural Post
So, I decided to randomly start a blog. I think I'll just put the stuff I'm thinking about on it.
Right now I'm reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time in several years. The thing that I'm noticing the most this time through is its wistful quality and its bittersweetness. So much of the book revolves around the idea that there must always be suffering to gain something worthwhile. Much is made of preserving innocence. For example, Aragorn says (speaking of the hobbits), "If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so." Aragorn fights for them to stay simple, but I think that Tolkien leads the reader to the conclusion that it is better to have care and fear if that is the only way one can see the beauties of the world. More on this later, though, because I think the development of the four hobbits, and especially of Sam, is important here. I want to reread the whole book before I begin blathering.
This theme is also found in Paradise Lost. There is bittersweetness at the end of Paradies Lost, for even if Adam and Eve are leaving the Eden, they are walking hand in hand into the greatest story of all: the story of Redemption. (Tolkien would call it the ultimate, and most beautiful myth--the true myth.) Anyway, Milton says he wants to justify the ways of God to man. How does he do this? My most recent thought on the matter is that Milton's justification is Paradise Lost itself--he can write this poem only because of the fall.
When I was a little girl, I worried about Heaven. Did I really want to go there if there could be no books? I love books and reading, but there is always sin in them, for without evil there can be no real conflict or satisfying resolution. I worried about this for so long. But the answer was always right there if I could only have seen it. A song we used to sing in Sunday School was "I love to tell the story," the refrain of which runs, "I love to tell the story, 'twill be my theme in glory: to tell the old, old story of Jesus and his love." Of course there will be stories in Heaven, for we all will have our personal stories of Jesus' love and then the "old, old story" of his death on the cross. And of course there will be sin in them, for it is the sin itself that makes the story possible.
And that is how Milton uses his poem as a justification: without the fall, there would be no Paradise Lost, and no redemption.
It seems as if this is the most simple answer to the question of evil. Evil is obviously a tool for God's glory, for it is an opportunity for God to manifest his love and mercy. Yet it is such a simplistic answer, that I must be missing something.
Did I just go from LotR to the problem of evil? I wonder if Tolkien had that in mind? I see it there, though...among many other things. The other things will have to wait because I want to read more!
Right now I'm reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time in several years. The thing that I'm noticing the most this time through is its wistful quality and its bittersweetness. So much of the book revolves around the idea that there must always be suffering to gain something worthwhile. Much is made of preserving innocence. For example, Aragorn says (speaking of the hobbits), "If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so." Aragorn fights for them to stay simple, but I think that Tolkien leads the reader to the conclusion that it is better to have care and fear if that is the only way one can see the beauties of the world. More on this later, though, because I think the development of the four hobbits, and especially of Sam, is important here. I want to reread the whole book before I begin blathering.
This theme is also found in Paradise Lost. There is bittersweetness at the end of Paradies Lost, for even if Adam and Eve are leaving the Eden, they are walking hand in hand into the greatest story of all: the story of Redemption. (Tolkien would call it the ultimate, and most beautiful myth--the true myth.) Anyway, Milton says he wants to justify the ways of God to man. How does he do this? My most recent thought on the matter is that Milton's justification is Paradise Lost itself--he can write this poem only because of the fall.
When I was a little girl, I worried about Heaven. Did I really want to go there if there could be no books? I love books and reading, but there is always sin in them, for without evil there can be no real conflict or satisfying resolution. I worried about this for so long. But the answer was always right there if I could only have seen it. A song we used to sing in Sunday School was "I love to tell the story," the refrain of which runs, "I love to tell the story, 'twill be my theme in glory: to tell the old, old story of Jesus and his love." Of course there will be stories in Heaven, for we all will have our personal stories of Jesus' love and then the "old, old story" of his death on the cross. And of course there will be sin in them, for it is the sin itself that makes the story possible.
And that is how Milton uses his poem as a justification: without the fall, there would be no Paradise Lost, and no redemption.
It seems as if this is the most simple answer to the question of evil. Evil is obviously a tool for God's glory, for it is an opportunity for God to manifest his love and mercy. Yet it is such a simplistic answer, that I must be missing something.
Did I just go from LotR to the problem of evil? I wonder if Tolkien had that in mind? I see it there, though...among many other things. The other things will have to wait because I want to read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)