Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... I m not asking you to. I m hoping for a recognition of the problems. ... You suggested that before too. But there are two problems: 1) If it s a felix
    Message 1 of 108 , Sep 2, 2007
      At 08:40 AM 9/2/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

      >if in years past I sprinkled a little
      >kerosene on the blaze, I don't intend to again, thanks all the same.

      I'm not asking you to. I'm hoping for a recognition of the problems.

      >One way to look at the Jackson films, it being Sunday morning and all,
      >is as -felix peccatum-, rather like Eve biting the apple, the felicitous
      >sin that led to the Redemption.

      You suggested that before too. But there are two problems:

      1) If it's a felix peccatum, on the grounds that it brought new readers to
      the book, then virtually _any_ Tolkien-related or Tolkien-inspired work, no
      matter how crappy, also qualifies as a felix peccatum, because those too
      have brought readers to the book.

      2) In the classic felix peccatum, the sin itself leads to the good result.
      But not here. Because it wasn't necessary for Jackson's film to have been
      so bad to have attracted people who'd become readers. A more aesthetically
      and morally faithful film would have been quite within Jackson's technical
      and creative capacities, it could have been just as successful at the box
      office, and probably more so, and would have attracted readers even more
    • aveeris523@aol.com
      ... appropriate. ************************************** Check out AOL s list of 2007 s hottest products.
      Message 108 of 108 , Dec 7, 2007
        In a message dated 12/7/07 9:41:39 AM, dbratman@... writes:

        > Very much the opposite opinion here. I don't recall anything harmful being
        > done to the text, but the image was definitely a problem. Tolkien says she was
        > "beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful." The only word in this
        > that Jackson seems to have followed was "terrible" - and he seems to be using
        > it in the sense of "scary and terrifying," rather than "eliciting awe" which
        > is what Tolkien presumably meant.
        > Good point David! Beautiful and Terrible like an angel would have been more

        Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.