JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Epic films (minor spoilers)
'The Two Towers', released on 18th December 2002, is the second part of the movie series costing $270 million, by Peter Jackson, based on the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy by J R R Tolkien, starring Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins, Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn. In the first five days of its release, 'The Two Towers' took over $61 million (UK £38 million) - 35% more than 'The Fellowship of the Ring', and outselling the combined total of the next eight films.
The end of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' sees the fellowship in ruins: Gandalf and Boromir are dead; Frodo and Sam have left the company to journey into the dread land of Mordor to try to destroy the Ring; Merry and Pippin are prisoners of the orcs, while Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli pursue them into the land of Rohan.
In 'The Two Towers' Merry and Pippin escape from the orcs into the sinister forest of Fangorn; Saruman's army of orcs attack the tiny forces Theoden, king of Rohan, and the great battle is joined at Helm's Deep...
Meanwhile, Frodo and the ever-faithful Sam cross the mountains and marshes on their journey to Mordor, pursued and accompanied by the creature Gollum. Mount Doom awaits...
The second film in the series introduces new characters and settings (Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Faramir, Rohan, Helm's Deep). It has more energy than 'Fellowship of the Ring', and more fierce and dramatic action, building on the scene-setting of the first film. At three hours long, it deserves to be called an epic. However, 'The Two Towers' film departs from the book significantly more than 'Fellowship of the Ring' does, and in our opinion it is weaker as a result.
Huge appeal
In the UK, when Waterstones bookstores and Channel 4 TV asked readers to vote for the greatest book of the 20th Century, Tolkien's fantasy came first. This seems an unlikely achievement for a book about elves and dwarves, written by a reclusive Oxford academic. So what is it that sends millions - adults as well as children - queueing to see the films and read the books?
One part of the appeal is that the stories are full of plot development and narrative action - it would have been difficult (- some might say impossible -) to do justice 'The Two Towers' in a film of less than three hours.
Another part of the appeal is that Tolkien created a vast mythical world filled with real people, real places, and a real history. But more than that, it's a world where right and wrong are not just matters of individual opinion or personal preference, but of world-shaking importance. It is a world where courage and integrity count for something - a world that, for all its dangers, we would like to live in. We suspect it has more going for it than our own drab lives. Brunner and Ware hint at this in 'Finding God in Lord of the Rings':
Followers of Christ and 'The Lord of the Rings'
How should followers of Christ react to 'The Lord of the Rings'? These films and books take us into a world of wizards, sorcery, and unseen powers. Is it OK for followers of Christ to enjoy watching these films and reading these books? Or is the world into which they take us dangerous? And if they are OK, what is the difference between 'The Lord of the Rings' and the Harry Potter series, or Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy?
It's well known that J R R Tolkien was a follower of Christ. He was a member of 'The Inklings' - a circle of writers that included C S Lewis, the author of the Narnia stories. (In fact, Tolkien was influential in Lewis's conversion to Christianity.) Tolkien once said:
Worldview matters
But just because a movie or book has an author who is a follower of Christ, this does not necessarily mean it's a 'good' movie or book (using 'good' in a moral sense, rather than an artistic sense.) We need to ask what it is communicating about reality. In other words, what worldview is it presenting? (See also the review on this site of 'Hollywood Worldviews' by Brian Godawa.)
One approach taken by some readers and viewers is to look for specifically Biblical analogies and allegories in 'Lord of the Rings'. This is the approach of Bruner and Ware in 'Finding God in Lord of the Rings'. However, Tolkien explicitly said that he did not intend Lord of the Rings to be an allegory of anything, Biblical or otherwise.
I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the readers I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author
(From Tolkien's Foreword to 'Lord of the Rings'.) So can the approach of looking for Biblical parallels or applications be justified? Well, perhaps:
In Middle-Earth, Tolkien created a completely new fantasy world, a mythical world in its own right. Yet this mythical world is in many ways rooted in the worldview of the Bible. It's a world of genuine good and evil, where our personal decisions do matter. Deep down, we know that this is how our world really is. In one of his most widely quoted comments, Tolkien said that
So we can see 'Lord of the Rings' not as an allegory, but as a myth built on a Biblical worldview. C S Lewis once said:
The essence of a myth [is] that it should have no taint of allegory to the maker and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader.
('The Lays of Beleriand', p. 151, quoted in 'The Inklings Handbook' by Colin Duriez and David Porter.) If this is so, Lord of the Rings is mythic, without being allegorical. Because it is mythic, it touches our lives, our experience. And because it was written from a Biblical worldview, the way it touches our lives expresses Biblical truth. For example:
1. Power plays
In an article published on this site in 2001 (to coincide with the release of 'Fellowship of the Ring'. Ray Ciervo argued that 'Lord of the Rings' is primarily a story about the exercise of power - and he compared what it says about power with other contemporary blockbusters such as the Star Wars and Harry Potter series.
Ciervo argued that both Harry Potter and Star Wars center on the grasp of power to control, to harness, and to use for oneself. By contrast, 'Lord of the Rings' presents the power of the Ring as something to be refused. It is not a power for any mortal to have. It must be destroyed, or it will destroy the one who wields it.
2. Decisions matter
The fate of the World will soon be decided,' Cate Blanchett intones at the start of the trailer for 'The Two Towers.' And the World's fate rests in the hands of the unlikeliest of people - the hobbit Frodo Baggins.
You could say that 'Lord of the Rings' is all about the decisions people make. This comes out more clearly in 'The Two Towers', where good and evil are more clearly distinguished than in 'The Fellowship of the Ring.'
We see Gollum wrestling with himself - becoming almost two distinct personalities. (This is one aspect that we think the film handles particularly well). We also see Frodo being increasingly weighed down, but also corrupted by the influence of the Ring, so that at times he is on the edge of giving in to its power. The force of the temptation is all the greater because we know what has already happened to Isildur, and to Gollum.
Frodo is a small and insignificant person, but the future of the World hangs on his decisions. Our decisions, too, have lasting outcomes. The only difference is that in the world of the film, we have to see the outcomes straight away, whereas in the 'real' world they may take a lifetime to become obvious.
It is this emphasis on right and wrong, on the need to refuse the seduction of evil power, and on the importance of our decisions - this God-centered, moral, and essentially Biblical worldview of J R R Tolkien - that lifts 'Lord of the Rings' above the run of fantasy tales, and gives it its epic greatness. In 'Finding God in The Lord of the Rings' Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware write:
Questions for discussion
- In your opinion, why does 'Lord of the Rings' have such huge appeal to so many people?
- Is there any difference, for the follower of Christ, between watching 'Lord of the Rings' and, say, Star Wars, or Harry Potter?
- Does the worldview of the author of a book or film matter?
- Should the wizardry and sorcery in 'Lord of the Rings' be a problem? If so, why? If not, why not?
- Do you agree with Ray Ciervo's analysis of the place of power in 'Lord of the Rings' and other major film series? If so, why? If not, why not?
Web sites
Why
'The Lord of the Rings' is Dangerous - discussion between two Christian
authors in 'Christianity Today'. This is an interesting article, but
the headline is misleading, in that this is not what the article is
about. See also 'Soul
Wars, Episode Two: the second Lord of the Rings film raises the
spiritual stakes'
http://entropyhouse.com/baillie/candme/index.html
The official Lord of The Rings
site
Books
 |
'Finding God in the Lord of the Rings'by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware |
 |
'Tolkien's Ordinary Virtues'by Mark Eddy Smith |
 |
'The Inklings Handbook'by Colin Duriez and David Porter |