Tolkien biopic

[dms1972]

I thought this might be interesting to watch, but before I did I looked up a clip of it on youtube, and found a lot of people saying this biopic almost entirely ignores his faith and other aspects such as his friendship with CS Lewis, is wildly inaccurate about the inspiration of the Ring of Lord of the Rings (contradicting what Tolkien had said). If this is the case I don't know if I will bother with the film.

It just makes be wonder why it is so hard for filmakers to depict a historical figure reasonably accurately particularly if they have faith, why are they so reluctant to show what is a defining aspect of their character. This hasn't always been the case. In the 80s a mainstream film was made about Eric Liddle, missionary and olympic athlete, it showed him reading from Isaiah in church and giving a gospel talk to people who had come to watch him at a race and other aspects of his faith - all in all an excellent film - produced by David Putnam.

Yet Tolkien's faith was surely as integral to his life and thought and work and apparently its hardly mentioned. Maybe its more difficult to depict faith in a film about Tolkien (its more implicit than explicit in his LOTR) than it would be with Liddle who was a missionary. That said Tolkien was very important helping Lewis to faith. It might have been interesting if they had including something of their friendship.

Anyone seen it and want to comment.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I thought this might be interesting to watch, but before I did I looked up a clip of it on youtube, and found a lot of people saying this biopic almost entirely ignores his faith and other aspects such as his friendship with CS Lewis, is wildly inaccurate about the inspiration of the Ring of Lord of the Rings (contradicting what Tolkien had said). If this is the case I don't know if I will bother with the film.

If I remember correctly, at the beginning of Tolkien and Lewis' friendship, Lewis was an atheist.

 

[dms1972]

If I remember correctly, at the beginning of Tolkien and Lewis' friendship, Lewis was an atheist.

That is correct, Tolkien was amongst those who helped him in his journey to faith.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Dome Karukoski has talked about the lack of American-style in-your-face religion and Catholism in the movie as a conscious choice to be more faithful, if you will, to Tolkien's way of thinking and more subtle way of seeing the world in keeping with the movie's overall theme and POV:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion", to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

I personally think Karukoski did in fact an excellent job in incorporating Tolkien's real life "inspirations", faith, scenes, languages, emotions, into Tolkien's coming-of-age story in an indirect, organic, natural, intellect, very much Tolkien way. I do realize there exists a cultural gap -- this isn't an American director and the American way of telling stories with bold letters where everything has to be spelled out. Rather than have Tolkien stand and pray in the street corners to be seen by the audience, Karukoski's Tolkien acts and navigates his way through the scenes with strong Christian ethics.

As to the absence of C.S. Lewis, Tolkien depicts Tolkien's early years up to the end of the World War I, "how Tolkien became Tolkien" before his author career. Lewis and Tolkien, meanwhile, first met in 1926, so having Lewis "appear" and have an impact on Tolkien many years before his time and many years before the two got acquainted would have been massively inaccurate not to mention pointless.

 

[dms1972]

Dome Karukoski has talked about the lack of American-style in-your-face religion and Catholism in the movie as a conscious choice to be more faithful, if you will, to Tolkien's way of thinking and more subtle way of seeing the world in keeping with the movie's overall theme and POV:



I personally think Karukoski did in fact an excellent job in incorporating Tolkien's real life "inspirations", faith, scenes, languages, emotions, into Tolkien's coming-of-age story in an indirect, organic, natural, intellect, very much Tolkien way. I do realize there exists a cultural gap -- this isn't an American director and the American way of telling stories with bold letters where everything has to be spelled out. Rather than have Tolkien stand and pray in the street corners to be seen by the audience, Karukoski's Tolkien acts and navigates his way through the scenes with strong Christian ethics.

As to the absence of C.S. Lewis, Tolkien depicts Tolkien's early years up to the end of the World War I, "how Tolkien became Tolkien" before his author career. Lewis and Tolkien, meanwhile, first met in 1926, so having Lewis "appear" and have an impact on Tolkien many years before his time and many years before the two got acquainted would have been massively inaccurate not to mention pointless.

OK that explains things I thought it covered his later life also as the subtitle of the film is "A life, of love, courage and fellowship."



I agree one doesn't want to make his faith figure more overtly more than actually it did in his life, perhaps he was a believer who quietly lived his faith out in charitable acts.

So I suppose the question is what kind of way did his faith be expressed in his personal life?

 

[thecolorsblend]

OK that explains things I thought it covered his later life also as the subtitle of the film is "A life, of love, courage and fellowship."



I agree one doesn't want to make his faith figure more overtly more than actually it did in his life, perhaps he was a believer who quietly lived his faith out in charitable acts.

So I suppose the question is what kind of way did his faith be expressed in his personal life?

When the language of the Mass was updated to vernacular in the 60's, Tolkien continued giving his responses (loudly) in Latin as a protest.

When he got married, he insisted that his wife Edith convert to Catholicism.

 

[thecolorsblend]

As to the movie itself, I think it took a few liberties with Tolkien's inspirations. One might get the idea that virtually everything to do with The Lord Of The Rings came from his experiences in the Battle of the Somme. When it comes to things like Frodo, Sam and Gollum passing through the Dead Marshes, I absolutely believe that battle is where he got the idea.

But other things like the germ of the idea for the Ringwraiths, Sauron and so forth coming from that same battle... idk about that. Not sure I'm buying that.

 

[dms1972]

When the language of the Mass was updated to vernacular in the 60's, Tolkien continued giving his responses (loudly) in Latin as a protest.

When he got married, he insisted that his wife Edith convert to Catholicism.

Yes, I read about that, he was not happy with some of the modernising of the liturgy. It surprises me a little that he prefered it to be kept in latin? How many people going to mass knew latin, or could take part in the liturgy meaningfully ? What is the value of it being in Latin?

 

[dms1972]

As to the movie itself, I think it took a few liberties with Tolkien's inspirations. One might get the idea that virtually everything to do with The Lord Of The Rings came from his experiences in the Battle of the Somme. When it comes to things like Frodo, Sam and Gollum passing through the Dead Marshes, I absolutely believe that battle is where he got the idea.

But other things like the germ of the idea for the Ringwraiths, Sauron and so forth coming from that same battle... idk about that. Not sure I'm buying that.

He was pretty adamant about the inspiration not being the Great War, but as you say it may be that some of his experiences in the war nevertheless figured as inspiration for some episodes in the story without the whole of the Lord of the Rings being an allegory of that War.

 

[dms1972]

Tolkien is supposed to be an inspiration for the character of Elwin Ransom the protagonist in the CS Lewis Cosmic Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Voyage to Venus, That Hideous Strength). Ransom is a philologist like Tolkien, and Elwin means Elf-friend in anglo-saxon, however Ransom was a confirmed bachelor, and Tolkien was married.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yes, I read about that, he was not happy with some of the modernising of the liturgy. It surprises me a little that he prefered it to be kept in latin? How many people going to mass knew latin, or could take part in the liturgy meaningfully ? What is the value of it being in Latin?

A lot of trad Catholics prefer Latin in Mass rather than vernacular. One reason for that is because it's universal. Someone who only speaks one language could attend Latin Mass basically anywhere in the world and understand at least 70 or 80% of what is said because it is in Latin.

By comparison, Mass is mostly offered today in vernacular. So someone who only speaks one language is in a bit of a fix if he ever visits a country where that language is not the predominant language.

But in Tolkien's day, Mass was mostly conducted in Latin so most Catholics knew enough Latin to respond appropriately. It was considered perfectly normal and most Catholics had no problem with it. And it was quite controversial back then for Mass to be conducted in vernacular.

As foreign languages go, Latin is generally not a big challenge for most people in the western world. Learning the Catholic responses in Latin is a lot easier than you might think. Most people can figure it out in about five or ten minutes. It's pretty easy.

 

[dms1972]

A lot of trad Catholics prefer Latin in Mass rather than vernacular. One reason for that is because it's universal. Someone who only speaks one language could attend Latin Mass basically anywhere in the world and understand at least 70 or 80% of what is said because it is in Latin.

By comparison, Mass is mostly offered today in vernacular. So someone who only speaks one language is in a bit of a fix if he ever visits a country where that language is not the predominant language.

But in Tolkien's day, Mass was mostly conducted in Latin so most Catholics knew enough Latin to respond appropriately. It was considered perfectly normal and most Catholics had no problem with it. And it was quite controversial back then for Mass to be conducted in vernacular.

As foreign languages go, Latin is generally not a big challenge for most people in the western world. Learning the Catholic responses in Latin is a lot easier than you might think. Most people can figure it out in about five or ten minutes. It's pretty easy.

Ok I take your point about someone who only knows French, or German not being able to follow a Mass in English. But is knowledge of Latin so universal today? The replies might be easy enough to learn, but what about what the priest is saying, does everyone have enough latin to understand that?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Ok I take your point about someone who only knows French, or German not being able to follow the Mass in English. But is knowledge of Latin so universal today? The replies might be easy enough to learn, but what about what the priest is saying?

It could be. Making it so only requires a change in policy from conducting Mass in vernacular to conducting it in Latin. After that, the faithful will need to learn something like six or seven Latin responses. Again, it only takes a few minutes at the most.

As a language, Latin is elegant, sophisticated and beautiful. I have never heard a compelling argument for wholesale eliminating Latin from the Mass.

 

[dms1972]

FOr myself - my knowledge of Latin is pretty limited, I probably could recognise a few phrases. But my secondary school did not cover it in the curriculum, seems to be only taught in Grammar schools here. I did buy a book a while ago to learn a bit, but haven't really settled down to do that yet.

 

[dms1972]

-

 

[dms1972]

It could be. Making it so only requires a change in policy from conducting Mass in vernacular to conducting it in Latin. After that, the faithful will need to learn something like six or seven Latin responses. Again, it only takes a few minutes at the most.

As a language, Latin is elegant, sophisticated and beautiful. I have never heard a compelling argument for wholesale eliminating Latin from the Mass.

English is the lingua franca across most of the world today. Your argument would seem to be as applicable to English in this age as it was to Latin in the past.

 

[thecolorsblend]

English is the lingua franca across most of the world today. Your argument would seem to be as applicable to English in this age as it was to Latin in the past.

The difference is that Latin is unifying for Catholics in a way that English isn't and can never be. Latin is a foreign language to everybody, pretty much. So, as I said in some other post, someone can attend Mass in a country where his language is not understood and still follow the overwhelming majority of what is said in a Latin Mass.

English, on the other hand, is the first (and, in many cases, only) language for millions of people in the world. It's not foreign for them. By whom I mean me.

There's something else though and this woman does a pretty good job of explaining it.

 

[dms1972]

I came across this clip from another documentary about Tolkien, looks interesting.