Jonah Goldberg needs to learn to use the "blockquote" tag -- or simple quote marks. Otherwise he is spot on in his observations on the idiocies of commentators who have been running around shrieking "racist!" about the portrayal of Orcs, which are -- here, take my hand, I know this is going to be difficult -- IMAGINARY CREATURES. Christ on a stick people are stupid sometimes... Oh -- and I missed what looks to be a deliciously stupid review of The Two Towers by NYT reviewer Karen "Agh! War Scary!" Durbin. (To get it off their website now would cost me US$2.95. It's called "'Lord of the Rings': Serious Issues." Forget it.) Oh poor me, I feel so deprived.
All that being said, Goldberg should have taken a little more time over this column. It's a little confusing the way he goes into a side bit about the awful Starship Troopers movie (when will filmmakers quit doing "hommage" to Leni Riefenstahl's sure hand with a bunch of saluting Nazi soldiers? When devils are selling snowcones in hell is my guess), and then he sort of ponderously segues into a discursion on metaphor, where he misses the fact that Tolkien intended Sauron not to be evil incarnate from the beginning, but a fallen creature just like -- well, like everyone. But that isn't explicit in the main three books nor in the movie, so I'll let it slide. His column is at the least a welcome addition to the voices of reason regarding what, after all, is only a movie.
Update: here is the link to the Karen Durbin article, kindly provided by Angie Schultz. I don't know why I could only find the for-pay link using the NYT's search engine. Then again, maybe I do... Anyway, the article was barely a review. Durbin starts with a recap of Viggo Mortenson's diatribe on Charlie Rose, then a couple of paragraphs on Tolkien's attitude towards Nazis and Hitler (he was not a fan), and then acknowledges that the movie was a "grand adventure tale," then goes off into a brief froth of anxiety about it being "war propaganda" and some babble about "dehumanizing the other guy." See what I mean? Do they not teach about metaphor in journalism school anymore?
Posted by Andrea Harris at January 6, 2003 02:23 AMJust gotta say, that's a great title you came up with.
Posted by: Spoons at January 6, 2003 at 10:02 AMONLY A MOVIE??
oh my god. oh my god. NOW someone tells me!
cries
Posted by: chris at January 6, 2003 at 10:33 AMYes, I know, I know. (Pats hand.)
((That's what I'm telling the rubes, anyway. WE know the Truth.))
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 6, 2003 at 11:26 AMAndrea, is this Durbin piece NOT the one that Jonah mentions? Because I got that easily off the NYT site.
In the process, I found a few other extremely stupid reviews of FOTR. One of them, in Salon, complained that there weren't enough quips, that the characters took everything too seriously! Star Wars was a much better movie, see.
Posted by: Angie Schultz at January 6, 2003 at 01:22 PMWe were watching the credits, and the standard disclaimer came up about it being fictional yadda yadda. Nin cried out, "No! It's not, it's not!" Those left in the theater laughed, and several of us reassured her that they just have to say that, but we know.
Posted by: Ith at January 6, 2003 at 02:33 PMWell, all I pulled up from NYT was a link to a for-pay archived page. Linky-dink? I'd love (in masochistic sort of way) to read it.
Oh, Salon. They hate everything.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 6, 2003 at 02:41 PMWell the link I have is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/movies/15RUSH.html
You have to register, of course. If you don't have registration, use enoch6/enoch . That's not mine, it's a free-floating cypherpunk registration.
Posted by: Angie Schultz at January 6, 2003 at 02:53 PMI'm registered, but if I forget I know a couple of other cyberpunk codes to get in that I found floating here and there. Now I know another one! Thanks!
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 6, 2003 at 09:32 PM