← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 3560 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2002-11-17
2002-11-17 03:51 | User Profile
Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" (1978)
Reviewed by Hagen Tronjer
November 15, 2002
The animated version of the "Lord of the Rings" was released in 1978. The film had cost 10 million to produce and had earned 70 million at the box office. Due to a number of reasons, foremost politics within the movie studio, the second part was never finished.
The film was based on JRR Tolkien's books The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers of the Lord of the Rings book trilogy. Tolkien was born in 1892 in South Africa. Both of his parents were English, though his father's side of the family is supposed to have migrated from Saxony in the 18th century. The name Tolkien is of German origin, coming from the words Toll Kuehn - foolishly brave. The family was fully Anglicised, and Tolkien did not view himself as anything but an Englishman. His father died in 1900, his mother in 1904. Sometime after his father's death his mother had the entire family converted to Catholicism, which Tolkien remained devoted to for the rest of his life. Tolkien was extremely linguistically gifted, learning Gothic, Greek, Finnish, Latin, Old English and Welsh. Strangely, considering early 20th century England, Tolkien did not immediately enlist into the armed forces with the outbreak of World War I. He finally was sent to the Somme during the 1916 Offensive, were after 4 months he was sent back to England, hospitalized with a typhus like infection. In 1925 Tolkien became a Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University. In 1954-1955 the Lord of the Rings was published. Tolkien has consistently stated that his books have no modern allegorical allusions, but were written for the intention of giving England a worthy mythological past. He did make one Jew reference, wherein he refers to the Dwarves as representing the Jews, but for all sakes and purposes, he does not appear to have been particularly interested in politics.
The film was very much a jewish feature. The director, Ralph Bakshi, is a jew, as is most certainly the producer Saul Zaentz and one of the screenplay writers, Peter S. Beagle. Bakshi was born in Haifa, Palestine (now Israel), in 1938, but grew up in New York City. Bakshi became well known in the film world during the '70s for his coarse, degenerate, racially charged and sometimes X-rated animated films, such as "Fritz the Cat," "Coonskin" and "Wizards." "Fritz" proved a runaway success, earning over 90 million worldwide. Bakshi is most certainly a very conscious Jew. He describes his cult favorite film "Wizards" as, "...being about the creation of the state of Israel and the Holocaust, about Jews looking for a homeland...". Due to various disappointments later in his career, particularly in the '90s (with such disasters as the movie "Cool World" and the HBO series Spice City), he quit the animated field altogether and is now a full-time painter. From his recent interviews a certain sense of bitterness is present, which would be understandable after descending from animation god to nonentity. As a side note he describes his Hollywood coworkers (i.e., Jews) as "disgusting people". Sour grapes of being jewed yourself, Ralph?
Saul Zaentz was born in 1921 in New Jersey. He supposedly wanted to run a chicken farm until he actually worked in one for a short period of time. However, he did manage to become an important producer in Hollywood, working with some of the most famous jew directors of recent time. He worked on "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975) (an absurdly stupid film only capable of being made by a group of Jews), "Amadeus" (1984), "Unbearable Lightness of Being" (1988), and "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" (1991) -- a huge financial disaster, losing 20 million dollars. Zaentz also helped produce "Fritz the Cat," which made a fortune for him. It is unlikely any love is lost between them, since Bakshi had 0% involvement in the new "Lord of the Rings" movies, which, incidently, Zaentz is helping produce.
Incredibly, this assortment of Jews has, against all odds, produced a film truly worthy of Tolkien. Though often harshly criticised and despised by Tolkien fans, nevertheless this movie has never failed to fascinate and entertain me. No understatement intended, this is one of the few movies which I would not hesitate to call a masterpiece of cinema.
The movie follows Tolkien's books as well as could be hoped for in any adaptation that wishes to be well paced, and not bogged down in a morass of detail. Bakshi keeps to the point and stays with all the key elements of the book, quickly chronicling the earlier history of Middle Earth, the origin of the Rings of Power and their eventual discovery by Bilbo the Hobbit. As Gandalf the Wizard realizes that Bilbo does indeed have the One Ring, created by his nemesis, Sauron, the Dark Lord of Mordor, a fellowship of the Ring is created. Its members must travel to Mordor, there to throw the ring into Mount Doom, which would destroy the Ring, and with it, all vestiges of Sauron's power. Bilbo's nephew, Frodo, is given the task of Ringbearer, and Gandalf takes the mantle of leading a group consisting of a dwarf, an elf, hobbits and men towards Mordor.
The most impressive elements of the movie include: its extremely tight editing, with the flow and pacing exemplary. Its brilliant animation, with the use of rotoscoping -- filming with live actors and then drawing the images over them -- gives the film an extremely realistic feel and atmosphere, wherein the movie, even by today's standards, is still visually impressive. Its excellent soundtrack and lastly its cast of the likes of John Hurt (as Aragorn) and William Squire (as Gandalf), whose voices perfectly match their respective characters. The level of English spoken in this movie is, in some respects, brillant -- an outstanding example of the use of spoken English in cinema. However, there are some flaws in the movie. Occasionally animation is weak (moreso in the latter half of the movie, probably because they were running out of money). There are also some issues of Jewish hidden agendas. Most shockingly, in one scene it looks as if Frodo and his helper Samwise are about to kiss (unless pointed out it is quite hard to notice it). Also they try to protray Aragorn, one of the main, most noble of all the characters, as being non-white. Aragorn's appearance is dark, almost Native American, in an obvious attempt to portray the idea that non-whites are also noble, courageous and worthy of the highest respect. However, as Ralph Bakshi is a Jew, this type of jewish psychological warfare can be expected. Bakshi deliberately allowed Aragorn's appearance to be inaccurately portrayed and maliciously inserted a homoerotic scene knowing that impressible youths would be watching.
However, Bakshi does make up for some of these flaws. The Black Riders, stunningly portrayed as the terrible forces of Darkness, moving in and out of the real world and the world of shadow, their chase of Frodo outside of Rivendell, and Gandalf's battle with the Balrog are all well executed. Gandalf consistently shines as the figure of unquestionable authority. One of the strongest elements in the movie is the potrayal of the Riders of Rohan as all-blond Nordic warriors: tall, fair skinned, physically proud, courageous men who hunt Orcs to the Death wherever they appear. When their king comes under the influence of the jewish-rat-faced character Wormtongue, who advises him to let the Orcs have safe passage through Rohan rather than risk war, the Riders of Rohan would rather disobey their King than allow such vile creatures on their Land. The Orcs are portrayed very much like the Negro. Dark, hideous, primitive, a social structure of brute strength, lacking any culture or sophistication, only capable of destroying, not creating, only strong in groups, cowardly as individuals, speaking some terrible bastardized form of English. Between the two an atmosphere of no quarter asked, no quarter given is present; coexistence an impossiblity -- one side must be utterly exterminated. When the Land of Rohan is faced with an Orc horde ready to overrun it completely, Gandalf discovers Rohan's king is under control of the jewish Wormtongue. Wormtongue has caused the king to become old, feeble and indecisive, having him make decisions against the interests of his country, even outlawing his nephew for not allowing the orcs safe passage through Rohan. Gandalf breaks Wormtongue's spell and treats the Jew accordingly, having him slither on his belly. Thereafter Gandalf swiftly unites Rohan for the final battle of annilation: hundreds of Nordic Warriors face off against tens of thousands of Orcs (negroes and the third-world hordes), in a battle that can have many parallels today.
I cannot recommend buying any hollywood movie because proceeds go to Jews and their like, however if other means are available to see it, it comes with high recommendations.
A few comments on Jackson's 2001 version:
Given the fanfare and the positive reviews this received I had some hopes for this movie -- but I saw pictures of the cast members, they certainly did not fit my conception of Tolkien's characters. The question was -- could millions of people like a such a poorly done movie? Unfortnately, though not surprisingly, the answer was yes. Not only does Jackson unnecessarily, totally selfishly, change parts of Tolkien's story, I have to sit through a basic nonstop barrage of pretentiousness. McKellen simply does not work as Gandalf -- there is no seriousness, no having the responsibility of the entire world on your shoulders, no "I am one of the most wisest and most powerful beings on the planet" arrogance. There is zero chemistry between any of the characters in the fellowship -- Mortensen's Aragorn is not even a shadow of John Hurt's characterization. This is supposed to be someone who becomes a ruler over men, someone Gandalf would seek advice from? The fight scenes had no suspense or realism to them at all -- they reminded me of some Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game with Jackson as storyteller, wherein Jackson has one character fight against one monster after another for his entertainment, rather than for the players in the game. And the Orcs looked liked something from Dario Argento's Demons, rather than from Tolkien's books. In short, this movie really is only good for the trashbin. If you are dead set on buying it, strongly consider getting Bakshi's version instead.
HAGEN TRONJER
other threads:
Lord Of The Rings [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=814&hl=rings]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...&t=814&hl=rings[/url]
Tolkien's Politics [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=2749&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...f=10&t=2749&hl=[/url]
2002-11-17 04:52 | User Profile
Current93,
I liked both Films. I do not know much about the information in this article. I will say did love the new film, but this article most likely did make some good points. I did like the animated version of the "Lord of the Rings" from 1978 too.
2002-11-17 19:11 | User Profile
I have to disagree with Hagen's review. I own both versions of the film and though I do enjoy the animated version, I must say that the live action is the better of the two.
The film was very much a jewish feature....Bakshi became well known in the film world during the '70s for his coarse, degenerate, racially charged and sometimes X-rated animated films, such as "Fritz the Cat," "Coonskin" and "Wizards." "Fritz" proved a runaway success, earning over 90 million worldwide. Bakshi is most certainly a very conscious Jew. He describes his cult favorite film "Wizards" as, "...being about the creation of the state of Israel and the Holocaust, about Jews looking for a homeland...".
Strange that this is the setup for a film Hagen likes, isn't it?
**The movie follows Tolkien's books as well as could be hoped for in any adaptation that wishes to be well paced, and not bogged down in a morass of detail. **
I disagree. In fact, the character of Gandalf is weighed down by the task of solely delivering the exposition that much of his personality is drowned.
There are also some issues of Jewish hidden agendas. Most shockingly, in one scene it looks as if Frodo and his helper Samwise are about to kiss (unless pointed out it is quite hard to notice it). Also they try to protray Aragorn, one of the main, most noble of all the characters, as being non-white. Aragorn's appearance is dark, almost Native American, in an obvious attempt to portray the idea that non-whites are also noble, courageous and worthy of the highest respect. However, as Ralph Bakshi is a Jew, this type of jewish psychological warfare can be expected. Bakshi deliberately allowed Aragorn's appearance to be inaccurately portrayed and maliciously inserted a homoerotic scene knowing that impressible youths would be watching.
These are reasons why the animated is not as good as the living actors version.
However, Bakshi does make up for some of these flaws.
He also makes some grating mistakes. For instance, 1) in Bag End, Gandalf asks Frodo if he sees any inscription on the Ring. Finding none, they throw it into the fire. After a moment. Gandalf pulls the Ring back out of the fire. Frodo comments with surprise that it is still quite cool. But they never bother to look for the Ring-inscription, which makes the whole business of throwing the Ring into the fire kind of pointless. 2) Also they decided to rename "Saruman" to "Aruman" for the movie; evidently they were concerned that moviegoers would confuse the name "Saruman" with "Sauron". That's all well and good, I suppose... but they only call him "Aruman" half the time, and the rest of the time they go back to calling him "Saruman". So the guy has two names used interchangeably throughout the movie, which is even more confusing than the original problem. Why bother doing this if you're not even going to be consistent about it? 3)Outside the gates of Moria, Aragorn draws his sword. It is no longer broken. The movie never bothers to explain this change, and so it comes off looking like a continuity error rather than the missing plot-element it actually is.
The Black Riders, stunningly portrayed as the terrible forces of Darkness, moving in and out of the real world and the world of shadow, their chase of Frodo outside of Rivendell, and Gandalf's battle with the Balrog are all well executed. Gandalf consistently shines as the figure of unquestionable authority.
The new version does a good job of this as well.
When the Land of Rohan is faced with an Orc horde ready to overrun it completely, Gandalf discovers Rohan's king is under control of the jewish Wormtongue.
Of course Wormtongue was not jewish but jew-like. Equating the victory over Wormtongue to a victory over a Jew(s) is only in the reviewer's mind. I'm certain that the Jewish Bakshi did not intend the movie to appear thus. In fact Bakshi had him looking more like a Jawa than a Jew.
**A few comments on Jackson's 2001 version: Given the fanfare and the positive reviews this received I had some hopes for this movie -- but I saw pictures of the cast members, they certainly did not fit my conception of Tolkien's characters. **
With the exception of Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn and Cate Blanchette as Galadriel, I found all the actors to be very well suited to their roles. Far more unbelievable was the animated Sam Gamgee who was nothing but silly comic relief. Its a good thing Bakshi never made the second half of the story as it would be near impossible for the goofy Sam to make the leap to the serious protector of Frodo the book details.
**The question was -- could millions of people like a such a poorly done movie? Unfortnately, though not surprisingly, the answer was yes. **
It might be that millions of people are wrong, then again, it might just be you.
**Not only does Jackson unnecessarily, totally selfishly, change parts of Tolkien's story, I have to sit through a basic nonstop barrage of pretentiousness. McKellen simply does not work as Gandalf -- there is no seriousness, no having the responsibility of the entire world on your shoulders, no "I am one of the most wisest and most powerful beings on the planet" arrogance. **
Did he read the books? Galdalf was borne down by his wisdom, weighed low by it. He was not arrogant.
**There is zero chemistry between any of the characters in the fellowship -- Mortensen's Aragorn is not even a shadow of John Hurt's characterization. This is supposed to be someone who becomes a ruler over men, someone Gandalf would seek advice from? The fight scenes had no suspense or realism to them at all .... **
I do consider these to be valid criticisms. Viggo's good but I would have used an actor a big more physically imposing.
In short, this movie really is only good for the trashbin.
Jackson's version is fantastic. So many have marvelled how such a big picture film could get by without having to kowtow to the Gods of PC (like was done in Bakshi's version). It is remarkable feat. Well acted and moving. There were a number of changes in the film but they exist (with the exception of Arwen's elevation as a major character) as expository devices. Much better than Bakshi's where, if you hadn't read the book, you'd be scratching your head. For instance why are they going to Mount Doom? "We cannot keep it, we cannot destroy it," Elrond says of the Ring. A moment later, he says: "We must send the Ring to the fire where it was made - to Mount Doom." Curiously, he doesn't say why it is necessary to do so. Those of us who have read the book know it's to destroy the Ring; but how is the rest of the audience supposed to know that? After all, he just finished saying that "we cannot destroy" the Ring, didn't he?...
I do, however, have to second Current93's recommendation of the BBC radio version. Fantastic as well.
2002-11-17 19:23 | User Profile
Feric,
Thanks for your outstanding insights. Consider submitting them to the reviewer. Bakshi was always a pornographer in sensibility; that and the '70s druggie undertones both cheapened his cartoon.
I'm glad Jackson shot all three sections of LOTR before releasing the first. He won't feel obliged to add PC elements in reaction to the critics.
2002-11-17 19:33 | User Profile
Bakshi was making animated films during a very dead patch in animation...after Hanna Barbara's style of 'limited animation' became [sadly] the industry standard and before computer animation arrived to make better-looking work economically feasible. I say all this because I find ALL of Bakshi's movies to look awful. He'd revived the rotoscoping technique [previously a staple of the Fleischer studio's work in the 30s/40s] but never mastered it, and its sudden appearance in his films is usually jarring and unconvincing. Mostly, Bakshi was a sloppy, uninspired animator who got his rep by making cartoons aimed at college kids getting high in the movie theater: ie, stoners unlikely to know or care that the animation was third-rate.
The social/political subtext of his films are another matter: pure Tikkun-toons. If you can get through WIZARDS, for instance, without rolling your eyes regularly at the puerility of his Nazis-are-bad, Jews-are-benevolent-plus-they-get-the-hot-chicks theme, you probably think of FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE as a breath of fresh air.
I took a pass on both versions of LOTR, not being particularly enamored of the mythology, but I'd learned to avoid Bakshi if possible before his version hit theaters. I did sample his atrocious 'updating' of the Mighty Mouse character for Saturday morning television a decade later, though, and while audiences were spared his usual kosher moralizing they were forced to endure an ugly, "hip" desecration of a once-charming (and beautifully animated) classic cartoon character.
2002-11-17 19:41 | User Profile
Ragno,
Thanks for bringing up Fleischer's cheesy techniques--Bakshi cribbed more than a few frames from "Gullivers' Travels" (1939).
Speaking of 1970's animation, what was your take on "Allegro Non Troppo"?
2002-11-17 20:17 | User Profile
Frankly, Howard, I kind of liked the Fleischer usage of it - eg, their Superman cartoons have some gorgeous rotoscoping (of course, cartoons were simply cartoons then, not an avenue of socializing & indoctrinating children).
I know OF Allegro - it's Bruno Bazzetto's work, correct? - but alas, haven't seen it. (Eurotoons ca the 60s and 70s are fairly tough to see these days, though I've seen and marvelled at Svankmajer & Zeman's stuff). heard some nice things about it, though.
LOVED Mother Night, however!
2002-11-18 22:31 | User Profile
Ragno,
Most things in the world don't work...Aspirin do!! -The Black Fuhrer of Harlem
2002-11-19 03:45 | User Profile
Producer Saul Zaentz is also noteworthy for having wrested control of the ownership of Credence Clearwater Revival's music from John Fogerty. He did this by taking advantage of CCR's legal structure as an equal partnership between the 4 band members. Although John Fogerty was CCR for all intents and purposes -- he wrote the overwhelming majority of CCR's original songs, (all of the best ones), and gave the band its signature sound with his vocals and guitar work -- he was outvoted by his bandmates, including his brother, who sided with Zaentz concerning the issue of control over the CCR catalog. Zaentz actually once sued Fogerty for copyright infringement, alleging that a post-CCR Fogerty song infringed on one of Fogerty's (now Zaentz's) CCR songs.
And that's why you hear CCR's "Fortunate Son" on TV today in those flag waving Lee Jeans commercials, in complete violation of the spirit of the song, against the wishes of its author, but not its owner.
2002-11-19 05:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Skeptic@Nov 19 2002, 03:45 ** And that's why you hear CCR's "Fortunate Son" on TV today in those flag waving Lee Jeans commercials, in complete violation of the spirit of the song, against the wishes of its author, but not its owner.**
Ah yes, now that you mention it I remember seeing Fogerty discussing this on VH1's *Legends*; it was obvious that he could barely contain the bitterness & impotent rage at the slimy jew sheister.
I've seen that commercial, and since I'd forgotten that Fogerty no longer owned the song, I thought "That's totally contrary to the meaning of the tune. Fogerty's a sellout!"
As for Zaentz' "sharp" dealings with Tolkien, he came along when Tolkien was badly in need of cash and paid him a relative pittance - rather like the vulgar jewboys buying up everything of value in the financial devastation of post-W.W.I Germany.
No wonder Christopher Tolkien would have nothing to do with the making of the movies.