Tolkien -- Enemy of Rome

[Daniel S Peterson]

Surely no one is favorably comparing the LOTR Abortion with Ben Hur? The mark of a truly great movie is when it wins 11 academy awards that are more than superficial "effects" awards. Ben Hur (although not quite as historically accurate as we would have liked), won several actor categories, including "best", as did Gladiator. LOTR was not even considered in these categories for it was nothing more than an "effects" movie, little more than a 'cartoon', really. Now this isn't to say it wasn't a good "effects" movie. I will shamefully admit to seeing ROTK twice, not because of the pathetic Tolkien story, but because of the great special effects, many of which had nothing to do with the real Tolkien story, and perhaps he is "spinning in his grave" the way Jackson warped his tale. The very dragon-like Fell Beasts were visually stunning, snatching up and hurling men, horses and catapults, but this is no part of the original story. Tolkien's beasts were beaked monster birds, clearly less imposing and capable. The fifty foot tall mastadons were great too, but in Tolkien's story, they were only regular sized elephants. Fantasy as it was, I doubt Tolkien ever imagined the absurdity of Rohan endowed with 9th century technology and Gondor in the 15th century. More Peter Jackson manipulation. Yes, all of his 'additions' probably made it 'better', but what people are lauding is not even the real Tolkien story. Like a little kid with a new toy, Jackson used the millions at his disposal to truly make an 'eyeful' for the ignorant maasses, using every possible effect he could think of and certainly succeeded in overaweing them.<br>
<br>
Now how can any historical, ancient epic compete with this, where their real elephants are quarter scale to LOTR's 'oliphants', and there ares no talking trees, wizard's magic or trebuchet-tossing dragons? They probably cannot. The popularity of this film to the ignorant masses everywhere may mean that fewer and fewer historical epics will be made, in favor of 'eyewash', gratuitous special effects, fantasy nonsense (however momentarily entertaining they might be). I am sure that many of the Roman enthusiasts on RAT, first became interested in ancient Rome through the historical epics of the 50's and 60's. How many children from now, and into the future will become interested in ancient history if all the new films of seemingly ancient and medieval times, take place in fantasy never-never lands? Like those past times when those earlier Germanic Barbarian hordes descended on the civilized world, gleefully burning the repositories of history and knowledge, so too, perhaps this fascination for the "history of nothing" (which is fantasy), will herald a new 'dark ages' of historical ignorance among the great majority of the world's population who are resigned to learn most of what they know of history through the medium of motion pictures.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

Actually, it did win every catagory it was nominated for.<br>
<br>
Dan,<br>
I share your worries about Hollywood's attitude to history, but unlike you perhaps, I have never considered the Lord of the Rings to be history. True, Peter Jackson has taken some liberties with the details, but then Tolkien rarely gave such exact details on appearance as to define exactly how a thing should look (although Sam's "Big as a house, grey as a mouse" poem did define the correct size of an oliphant [or 'Mumak' as it should correctly be known]), and at the end of the day, to rate it as anything less than a magnificent series of films would be unduly harsh and unjust.<br>
<br>
Oh, and I believe it was Mark Antony who began the popular sport of burning down the library at Alexandria.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 3/2/04 2:14 am<br></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

To defuse any unfair comparisons between the other record-winners, here's the score:<br>
<br>
LOTR – 2004 Titanic – 1997 Ben Hur – 1959<br>
(11 out of 11) (11 out of 14): (11 out of 12)<br>
<br>
WON WON WON<br>
- - Actor<br>
Art Direction Art Direction Art Direction<br>
- Cinematography Cinematography<br>
Costume Design Costume Design Costume Design<br>
Directing Directing Directing<br>
Editing Editing Editing<br>
Make Up - -<br>
Motion Picture Motion Picture Motion Picture<br>
- - Music<br>
Original Score Original Score -<br>
Original Song Original Song -<br>
Sound Sound Sound<br>
- Sound effects -<br>
- - Supporting Actor<br>
Visual Effects Visual Effects Visual Effects<br>
Writing - -<br>
<br>
LOST LOST<br>
Actress Writing<br>
Supporting actress <br>
Make Up <br>
<br>
<br>
All in all, these pictures are not that much different in their score. I really doubt if Ben Hur would score the Oscars for acting these days, anyway! Besides that, both Ben Hur as well as Titanic were remakes, while LOTR was a first attempt.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 3/2/04 10:01 am<br></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

<br>
Not only I share the Dan's worries too, I also totally agree with his opinion about the return of the dark ages... It's exactly what it's happening. The "classic" culture is not so slowly disappearing, replaced by ignorance or "high-tech" culture just devoted to the bussiness game. A "fake" history is always more diffused among the new generations, and about it, Hollywood is one of the worst responsible. The opposition to this sad trend is weak and so it will be a problem in the future of our fragile society.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Titus,<br>
<br>
Now that sounds very interesting. Would you define 'Classic Culture' for me? What exactly is disappearing today, and what is being replaced?<br>
<br>
My stance on 'modern' culture is that there much more culture about and much more ignorance at the same time. One is free to chosse which one to adopt. The masses are unculturized (yes, I'm a snob), and they always have been, in any age. The main difference between today and way back when 'classic culture' ruled, is that less mobs roam the streets in search of people to stone or burn to death. They allow their governments to do that.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

<br>
<br>
Valerius,<br>
<br>
enormous duty indeed!!! Well, I'll become an actual target, and I don’t know if it will be considered by Jenny as “politicâ€Â

[Robert Vermaat]

Titus,<br>
<br>
As a historian I had to learn a lot about many theories, being sociological, philosophical or otherwise attempting to explain the ‘why’s’ and the ‘how’s’. Each of these disciplines looks at history and the current times in their own way, judging both. Unsurprisingly, they theories seem in conflict. While there is a common feeling that ‘the old days were so much better’, we are also taught that current society is the best we have had yet, this being the product of modern western superiority-thinking.<br>
<br>
Your view on ‘classical’ culture as anything up to the 18th century is refreshing yet unusual. If I would look at this period quickly, it includes the Iron Age, the Roman period, but also the Medieval period. This seems rather contradictory, as the latter can surely not be counted as better than the Roman period before and the Renaissance after?<br>
However, if you would qualify ‘all up to the 18th century’ as the pre-Industrial Age, I see where you are going.<br>
<br>
Of course, I don’t quite agree with your evaluation. For example, there were many non-urbanised regions in 19th-century Europe which could very well be compared to 16th-century society, or even earlier. Apparently, ‘classical’ culture continued there after the 18th century for a long time.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that ‘culture’ is elitist, though. Education is (or should be) a right, but until quite recently it was the prerogative of the elite.<br>
Otherwise, you can still say that ‘culture’ is elitist, in the sense that those who study the Arts (literature, poetry, painting, etc.) close themselves off from the ‘common’ masses.<br>
<br>
Turning to this group, this is where I disagree that culture is ‘humanistic’. Yes, in the sense that it bring the enlightenment which supports and pronounces the ‘humanistic’ values, I would also stress that ‘culture’ is the product of all the ideas of all individuals in any society.<br>
Obviously, you are disappointed by modern ‘culture’. So am I, and I could agree with looking at the modern age as less preferable, seeing the ‘modern’ age bring decreasing values, a drive to an extreme individualism (or is it nihilism), produced by a dehumanised form of international capitalism.<br>
<br>
The concept of trade as a threat to society is indeed a novel one. Or so it seems.<br>
<br>
You see, while we can agree that our own days seem less preferable to ancient times and ‘ancient culture’, what we should realise it that those days had their darker sides as well. Capitalism is not new, and ancient capitalism could ruin whole populations. For example, it was greed that drove many a Roman to conquer new lands, where the unfortunate surviving population was depossessed at best, or sold into slavery at worst. These practises continued, from ancient times right up to the end of your ‘classical’ period, by which time we called it ‘Colonialism’. The American Indian and the inhabitants of many an African region can vouch for it.<br>
<br>
And that is why I do not agree with your conclusion about ‘classical’ culture. You see, much is different and much is the same, but today there is also a realisation that we can’t do such things anymore. Unlike the individual in your ‘classical’ period, the modern individual has the novel concept of disagreeing with the ‘powers that be’, and in some cases doing something about it.<br>
<br>
That concept IS a novel one!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Robert,<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>As a historian I had to learn a lot about many theories, being sociological, philosophical or otherwise attempting to explain the ‘why’s’ and the ‘how’s’. Each of these disciplines looks at history and the current times in their own way, judging both. Unsurprisingly, they theories seem in conflict. While there is a common feeling that ‘the old days were so much better’, we are also taught that current society is the best we have had yet, this being the product of modern western superiority-thinking. Your view on ‘classical’ culture as anything up to the 18th century is refreshing yet unusual. If I would look at this period quickly, it includes the Iron Age, the Roman period, but also the Medieval period. This seems rather contradictory, as the latter can surely not be counted as better than the Roman period before and the Renaissance after?<br>
However, if you would qualify ‘all up to the 18th century’ as the pre-Industrial Age, I see where you are going.<br>
<br>
Of course, I don’t quite agree with your evaluation. For example, there were many non-urbanised regions in 19th-century Europe which could very well be compared to 16th-century society, or even earlier. Apparently, ‘classical’ culture continued there after the 18th century for a long time.<hr><br>
<br>
<br>
Sure, but I guess that generally those regions were not within the fulcrum of the cultural life and streams. The splitting of ages I told about is, obviously, not my “creationâ€Â

[Robert Vermaat]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>The splitting of ages I told about is, obviously, not my “creationâ€Â

[Goffredo]

I believe that democracy is not a closed system but is best described as work in progress. Other systems are closed: religion is closed by definition (don't believe anyone that tries to say the opposite), communists behave as if it is closed because the theorists claim they know what is good for mankind and indeed will wipe out enormous numbers of human beings if they get in the way (of course they will); and, as we all know, nazism and fascisms are ruthless with no room for discussion or dissent.<br>
<br>
The trouble with non-democratic systems is that they are based on assumptions made into world theories about human beings. The naive democrat might also be assume things about humans (e.g. that men and women truely want freedom, or that they can be saved thru education and sweet-talk), but in reality the democrat doesn't really place all its money on a single theory. The reason people behave the way they do is far from being understood and for this simple reason I think democracy is the best system inspite of all the errors people make under its cultural umbrella. Hurray for democracy.<br>
<br>
p.s. regards world exploitation of the world by western countries I hope less banal statements be said in the future. <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Goffredo,<br>
can you give me a simple description of 'democracy'? Like so many 'systems' or 'idealisms', I really this there is no such this as a single system, but there are many versions. I mean, due to several duffereng sets of laws, many countries, while all rightly claiming to be democratic, have very differing types of democracy. The vote of one individual can be much more influential in one country compared to another.<br>
<br>
For example, where I live you can vote for every party that wants to participate in the elections, and if a candidate gets enough votes he or she will get to the "house of representation" (call it what you will), which controls the new government which is formed from a coalition of the most succesful parties. However, the "Senate" can only be chosen by the representatives of the provincial chambers, not directly by the voters.<br>
<br>
Other nations, calling themselves 'democratic' as well, have other systems. In Germany, a party needs to get 5% of the votes, in Turkey even 10%. In Iran, thousands of candidates can be stricken from the electorate! In the UK, only three parties really matter, in the USA only two, yet both are very free democratic nations. In many other countries, there may be only one party, yet still they claim to be a democracy.<br>
<br>
Or you can be in a country where there is a free vote, but a social system that has you voting for your local 'patron', the man who pays for your children's education, or your hospital bills, or the village pump.<br>
<br>
You see where I'm getting at? There is no such thing as 'democracy'.<br>
<br>
Consequently, I think it can be misleading or even dangerous to speak of 'democracy' as if it was one (good!) system which we all should have.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

I agree that the abuse of words democracy, vote can confuse the many simpletons of the world. Even Saddan Hussein could boast that the Iraqi people voted for him 100%. Hitler and Mussolini both took power in a parliamentary system where a body of representatives voted. Why the English and U.S. democracies turned out to be more robust in the world of the 20s-30s than the continental european ones is maybe understood looking at their longer political and economical history. Its never simple and simply copying some ones constitution and formal organization is not sufficient. Time is certainly an ingredient. Lets not forget that the U.S. was a non-aristocratic country with a truely revolutionary ecomomy way before continental europe could free itself of nobilities and various caste systems. It is the oldest modern nation of the world. Continental europe is actually young inspite of its millenary history.<br>
<br>
But I admit don't have an answer. If there was a handbook on how to make a true democracy then maybe the world would be a better place, or maybe not as I fear handbooks. Formalisations will always create disasters! But I still have a gut feeling that many cases of supposed democracy, with all the voting mechanisms formally in place, are far from it.<br>
<br>
I cann't tell you what freedom is but I my ideas are a little more clear regards what not is freedom. By the way maybe we should distinguish "freedom to do" from "freedom from" (threats). Where there is no "freedom from" there can be no "freedom to do". And of course "freedom to do" does not mean one can diminish someone elses "freedom from". Of course "freedom from" includes freedom from physical threats, but, unlike what many idealistic/cynical communists think, it does not exhaust the concept.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Ah yes, indeed, what is 'freedom'.. Another, even more vague word! Best not go there...<br>
<br>
An afterword about democracy, I really think (spoken from my free, wealthy and democratic nation of course) that democracy may not be the best system. After all, if you go to far with people voting over every issue, the system may not work too well. Where I live, most folk don't vote for issues but for people - mostly with a total lack of objectivity. I'm not for that - why not introduce a 'voters exam'? You can only vote if you know what the issues are. Good idea?<br>
<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Goffredo, we all are condemned to be banal, banality is my nightmare too! But it's normal, just we have to try to be so the less possible. Anyway, banal or not it's true: Americans and Europeans use the main part of the resources, this is a matter of fact. The big crisis will be when China and India will want to use them too.<br>
<br>
Absolutely good idea Robert! But, as you know, it should cause a real organization chaos, about the enormous costs and about the examiner fairness. That is for example one of the main problems of the democracy: the lack of fairness (and corruption) and too many degrees of interpretations produce problems and confusion (and it's diffused in all the countries now not only in the "south" of Europe...).<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Titus<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

China and India can take of themselves and can exploit weaker peoples even more ruthlessly than we can. Don't worry about them.<br>
<br>
Regards the rest of world lets not forget that we (we should include China) use most resources but we also PRODUCE most too. Of course production includes pollution but then again the sensitivity towards pollution and even PEACE grows and will give promising results only if it becomes a major policy in our "democracies", not because we produce and damage more but because there is some form of control of what governments do.<br>
<br>
Just think of the havoc that the great damn in China will create and think of the damage to the environment that has been done in Russia (my lefty friends in Italy always seem to ignore these facts). People of all races religions and sex do stupid things but precisely for this reason an open "democratic" system is, in my opinion, not only the best but the ONLY way. There simply is no working alternative!<br>
<br>
p.s. The great weakness of the Chinese system that I see is that it is not "democratic" and once the people get economically better off it will be a matter of time that they will also want to think on their own. I am optimistic for China but their political and ecnomic system will go thru a severe crisis soon and what will be interesting to see how it ends up. We went thru deep crises before and not only economic ones. Their country has lived for 50 years in an artificial situation and they have a lot of growing up to do. The people of China will surprise not only you but their leaders too. <p></p><i></i>