RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film
- At 08:40 AM 9/2/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:
>if in years past I sprinkled a littleI'm not asking you to. I'm hoping for a recognition of the problems.
>kerosene on the blaze, I don't intend to again, thanks all the same.
>One way to look at the Jackson films, it being Sunday morning and all,You suggested that before too. But there are two problems:
>is as -felix peccatum-, rather like Eve biting the apple, the felicitous
>sin that led to the Redemption.
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
- 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]