|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
May 29 2015, 10:24am
Post #76 of 95
(1047 views)
Shortcut
|
Social Engineering is a phrase with a specific meaning,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and it doesn't cover stories that are written just to be enjoyable or interesting. Nor theatre plays, fictional characters or even films. There have been people who have used these media to try to socially engineer, but there is generally a heavy cost when an author tries to do this - certainly a cost to the quality of the work as entertainment. Tolkien wrote stories - they reflected his own interests and passions and his ideas about what would make a good story. So, yes; there is something wrong with your assertion: it's not actually true. It is true that fiction will reflect the interests (but not necessarily the morality) of the author, but it is wrong to collate this with social engineering - or propaganda as it's more commonly known. Tolkien's main concern when he wrote was what would make a good story - what should happen next? His way of writing was to introduce a character and then work out who or what they were (Strider/Trotter for example), according to the requirements of good storytelling. That's the opposite of how a propagandist would go about it. When I see a character like Tauriel inserted into an adaptation, it reminds me of this quote: "The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas." That covers a lot of Hollywood thinking, and the entire British TV soap industry. I think it's safe to use it without invoking Godwin - after all, if we're talking about propaganda, it's appropriate to quote one of the most effective propagandists in history.
Otherwise, the Tolkien-canon movie would carry only an un-named Elven King, and a drunken one supposedly keeping the barrels. Fine ! Take a shoot on that basis and then try to convince the movie industry as it is now, to jump on such a ride. Movie industry is some kind of social engineery. As are Theater plays As are fictional characters As are Fan Websites. And so on. Anything wrong with that ? "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 10:51am
Post #77 of 95
(1040 views)
Shortcut
|
Propaganda is more specific than social engineering
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Propaganda carries a deliberate political purpose. You seem to consider that entertainment is something else than propaganda, but it would be forgetting that propaganda often tries to travel through 'entertainment'. That's why I wrote that many media vehicles belong to social engineering, even if they're not obvious propaganda. That said, we can question if Tauriel carries a specific politic agenda that differs than what Tolkien had in mind. But you could do the same about tobacco. Nowadays smoking is somewhat prohibited, so you won't find in The Hobbit many scenes celebrating pipes as much as Tolkien did. You probably would say that tobacco prohibition on screen simply comes from the values of our times, and has little to do with some political agenda. I think the same can be said about Tauriel. As well as smoking is by now uninvited, absence of girls in a movie is also by now somewhat uninvited. Does Tauriel carries a specific message. Maybe, surely, but which one ? Do you see one that troubles you specifically? One that wouldn't be found elsewhere in Tolkien's writings ?
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
May 29 2015, 12:05pm
Post #78 of 95
(1035 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, and in this context both are applicable - which is why I used both terms.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I didn't forget that propaganda often tries to travel through entertainment; I gave specific examples - UK/Brit soaps which have a strong propaganda/social engineering ethos, to the extent that they give public announcements at the end of them, so you can find a professional to discuss the issues raised in the episode. But the fact that entertainment is often used in this way does not mean that entertainment, per se, is propaganda/social engineering. That would be, I think, a category error. I explained the difference between Tolkien's approach and that of a propagandist (or social engineer). To claim that all art is propaganda/social engineering is to stretch the meaning of those terms well beyond their purpose, to the extent they become meaningless - after all, you could say the same about all communication or all social interaction. People will claim, for example that 'all human behaviour is manipulative, because it's purpose is to cause change'. It's post-modernist gibberish, and it relies on ignoring the way language actually functions. Media vehicles do not 'belong' to social engineering, just as aeroplanes don't belong to the illegal drugs trade, just because some people use them for drug smuggling. A good story is a good story, and even though storytelling most definitely has a social function, that function has developed over the ages, and is not the same for each story. As far as Tauriel is concerned, the character was created for political reasons with a social engineering agenda (according to the writers). It's at odds with Tolkien's world as well as his storytelling style. It's also a very weak bit of stereotyping, as propaganda often is - it relies on the perceived stupidity of the masses - in this case the stupidity of girls, who, it's claimed, can't enjoy the book's story as it is. I've never met a girl that dim - perhaps I've been lucky. If you want well written female characters, Tolkien does a much better job. The world he wrote about had rather rigid gender roles - as it was based on a past where such roles were normal. In Tolkien, women interact with - and react against - their assigned roles, both gender and social class (Eowyn and Erendis, for example). They are just as strong, flawed, complex and human as the male characters. Tauriel, on the other hand, exists in a different world - the world of the stereotypical female role model. The girls I've known have had brains - they don't need role models because they can actually think, rather than just doing what they're told is acceptable for them. They don't look to films to tell them how to live. And I wish there was more smoking in the films - people are less stupid than Hollywood assumes and will not start puffing en masse just because Bilbo likes his pipe. (Just as violent computer games do not lead to violent behaviour according to the actual research that has been done.)
Propaganda carries a deliberate political purpose. You seem to consider that entertainment is something else than propaganda, but it would be forgetting that propaganda often tries to travel through 'entertainment'. That's why I wrote that many media vehicles belong to social engineering, even if they're not obvious propaganda. That said, we can question if Tauriel carries a specific politic agenda that differs than what Tolkien had in mind. But you could do the same about tobacco. Nowadays smoking is somewhat prohibited, so you won't find in The Hobbit many scenes celebrating pipes as much as Tolkien did. You probably would say that tobacco prohibition on screen simply comes from the values of our times, and has little to do with some political agenda. I think the same can be said about Tauriel. As well as smoking is by now uninvited, absence of girls in a movie is also by now somewhat uninvited. Does Tauriel carries a specific message. Maybe, surely, but which one ? Do you see one that troubles you specifically? One that wouldn't be found elsewhere in Tolkien's writings ? "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
May 29 2015, 12:11pm
Post #79 of 95
(1033 views)
Shortcut
|
The authors' stated reasons...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...are aesthetic, not political. Political reasons would things like "to advocate for the legal and social equality of the sexes". The reasons given, as I recall, are that Tauriel would appeal to girls in the audience and provide "feminine energy" to the story.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 1:20pm
Post #80 of 95
(1011 views)
Shortcut
|
- Tolkien is all about art - Jackson is all about propaganda I would find it very, very stretchy. First, because I consider that any form of art has it share of carrying values. Second, because many call some values propaganda just because they don't share them. Propaganda has become a pejorative word since german invented and used it at a time when UK and US where at war with Germany US at that time were all about 'freedom' and they did attach that freedom to valuing strongly entertainment against endoctrination. But was this attachment to entertainment free from any kind of endoctrination ? It may have been so if US and UK hadn't been at war with Germany. But the simple fact that US and UK needed fighters and bombers involved some kind of propaganda from their own side, even if they would swear to never use that word. That polarization still stands, apparently. IMO I surely don't see how you could put P Jackson on the propaganda side only and not on any kind of artistic side. Because of history, we can see that entertainment has been some kind of weapon against endoctrination at a specific period of time when an ideologic conflict spearheaded all over the planet, but I don't see how any of them both could be declared free from 'social engineering'. Because of the income of that war, we all inherited social engineeries valuing entertainment against indoctrination, but is, per se, entertainment superior to indoctrination ? I won't say so : there are forms of entertainment inducing violence and some forms of indoctination resisting violence, as well as the reverse. If you value non-violence against violence, which ones would you call the best for people ?
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
May 29 2015, 2:05pm
Post #81 of 95
(1001 views)
Shortcut
|
Great post title, Bomby!! That made me laugh !
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
May 29 2015, 5:43pm
Post #82 of 95
(982 views)
Shortcut
|
I donīt understand in what way weīre forgetting a teen or preteen audience. Iīm sure many teens have voiced their view and Iīm pretty sure lots of teens liked the films just like there are plenty of middle-aged people who do the same (and vice versa). The views of the teens and preteens are neither more or less important than that of an middle-aged audience. There are plenty of both beautiful and creative costumes in the films, so it would be surprising if no-one were inspired to use them for costume parties.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
May 29 2015, 6:08pm
Post #83 of 95
(969 views)
Shortcut
|
Arenīt we talking about Tauriel?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I donīt understand why you would interpret BumblingIdiots posts as "Tolkien is all about art. Jackson is all about propaganda". Weīre talking about a specific character and this characterīs function in the story, or what her inclusion in the films says about the film makers view on storytelling versus that of the writer of the book. Including Tauriel for the specific purpose of being an inspiration to feminists or young girls, though, is not related to general ideas of how to make good stories, what is the basis of a good story, which is what Tolkien is mostly concerned with in his book(s). Including characters only for the sake of their gender, race etc is related to a view on stories which is concerned with social or political commentary or topicality. Topicality is fairly common in both films and books, but itīs a different view from a more classical view on storytelling and the aestethics of a story. I definitely wouldīt say that Jackson is all about "topicality" or "social commentary", but his adaptation of the Hobbit contains sections and characters which are overtly susceptible to a topical interpretation and used in a way which is far removed from Tolkienīs general views on the basis of a good story. The Master and Alfridīs roles in DoS are obvious examples. For me Tauriel isnīt neccessarily an example of social commentary/engineering in the films - it depends on how you interpret her role - but including her specifically for the sake of inspiring feminists or young girls is social commentary/engineering. I think they found a very good actress for the role, but her role was rather inconsistently used and written.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 6:50pm
Post #84 of 95
(959 views)
Shortcut
|
Why do pretend that Tauriel is there only for engineering and not for storytelling ?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For instance, Tauriel gives a reason for Legolas to quit Mirkwood. Has it got to do with anything else than feeding the specific arc of Lone Legolas ? is it pointless ? What connexion is to be made there with a social engineering ? As well, Tauriel is shown as a female character elf since without her there would have none except another 'invented one' : is it pointless ? She's shown as a agile fighter : is it pointless ? Would audiences need only male agile elves ? She's shown as an elf involved into Wooden Elves' relations with exterior world : pointless again ? She's shown as a media to draw a bridge to some Elvish perceptions about 'light' and 'memory': pointless ? She's shown as a dynamic character into Laketown, helping youngsters to properly flee a city attacked by a flying nightmare : pointless ? etc. etc. Most often, critics founded on Tauriel's 'inexistence' in Tolkien's book just jump on the dogmatic bandwagon, for nothing more than always the same : rejection without reflexion. They don't seem to have a single look at the very movie they have on screen About acting : you can see Evangeline Lilly's of course (is she bad in the role ?), but also any of her interactions with other ones : Lee Pace/Thranduil, Orlando Bloom/Legolas, Aidan Turner/Kili, even John Callen/Oin or Mike Nesbitt/Bofur : Tauriel's character helps to flesh other characters. What else do classical characters do in theaters or in movies ? Does Tauriel has to be seen in the history of movie making nothing as nothing else than a social engineering creature ? And even so, if somebody shows that she's effectively alone in that singular role in whole the cinema industry, being so, she would have pioneered it. Isn't it enough to be interesting ? Has it only got to do with inanity ?
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
May 29 2015, 11:52pm
Post #85 of 95
(923 views)
Shortcut
|
And the relevance of all these questions are?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Did I write that Tauriel is only and solely there for the sake of social engineering? I did understand why Tauriel was included in the story, you know. Iīm fine with having a female captain of the guard and having her as an agile fighter and a person who wants to take action. I concede that she does provide a useful contrast to Thranduil for the overall purposes of the film and serves to flesh out Legolas. Whether one finds these things worthwhile or interesting depends on how you perceive the effects of their inter-relationship on the overall story and on Thranduilīs character. It also depends on how relevant you think the themes that are raised are to the core story. The angle they took with both her, Thranduil and Legolas often served to weaken the cohesion of the story IMO, it was a very introverted storyline. I wouldīt say that Evangeline Lily helps to flesh out Bofur or Oin, none of the characteristics shown for these characters in their scenes with her add anything new to their personality. Her most interesting scene is the feast of starlight scene, which features themes that are actually relevant to the themes of the original story and not just the invented ones for the films in their attempt to foreshadow or echo later events in LoTR. Her relations with Kilo are unfortunately inconsistently written, veering from genuine interest/curiosity in her attitude, which are the most convincing ones, to grief for a person she clearly must have loved, which wasnīt convincing at all.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 30 2015, 12:29am
Post #86 of 95
(921 views)
Shortcut
|
the grievance was about the fact she may be mainly a cast for social engineering purposes. If we agree that those SEP are not that predominant, then it's fine for me because that's what i tried to demonstrate. But as hard as I could try to demonstrate anything, the set of looks she dispatched to express her feelings pushed the bar far above any expectations I had about the relevance of her casting. And I guess if Tolkien's words could have carried that, he wouldn't have torn his draft.
|
|
|
Arveldis
Rivendell
May 31 2015, 1:06am
Post #87 of 95
(877 views)
Shortcut
|
Nor did PJ sneak in (as so many directors do) a costume that is *inexplicably* low cut for an elf, or someone running around the woods. Nor was there any scene where *inexplicably* Tauriel loses some of her clothes which was refreshing for me re movies. That's one of the things that I have always loved about the Middle-earth films: they're not saturated with non-PG, let's say, themes and scenes. I have to commend PJ for staying true to the "spirit of the books" and leaving the romances clean (with exception to the trousers line) and characters modestly dressed (well, there was that one dress of Arwen's...). It's like a breath of fresh air compared to other movies/TV shows.
(This post was edited by Arveldis on May 31 2015, 1:11am)
|
|
|
squiggle
Rivendell
May 31 2015, 6:04am
Post #88 of 95
(848 views)
Shortcut
|
Tauriel stuff slotted in great, just a tad underdeveloped
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Her most interesting scene is the feast of starlight scene, which features themes that are actually relevant to the themes of the original story and not just the invented ones for the films in their attempt to foreshadow or echo later events in LoTR. Her relations with Kilo are unfortunately inconsistently written, veering from genuine interest/curiosity in her attitude, which are the most convincing ones, to grief for a person she clearly must have loved, which wasnīt convincing at all. I thought the 'feast of starlight' scene with Kili was good at helping establish a bond between Kili & Tauriel beyond their immediate circumstances, which were abit odd - haha, & also in establishing that Tauriel was a semi fanatical Elve in a different way to what Thranduil was, with Legolas sort of stuck in the middle not really understanding either. I would have liked seeing this element expanded on and played out more involving this group of characters. The second point, Tauriel saved Kili that involved drawing on some deep Elvish magic and practise, some thing which played out like as she wasn't too sure about doing and was perhaps her first time actually putting into effect. Her lack of experience in such Elve arts, along with the friendship and sympathy she had for Kili, i think combined somewhat into her wild passion in the latter part of BoTF armies.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jun 1 2015, 5:07pm
Post #89 of 95
(789 views)
Shortcut
|
We have read the books dozens of times and have very strong opinions on the films. Kids are new to this. they have open minds and wide eyes. And you should see Tomorrowland, it addresses just these dynamics. The optimism of youth vs the cynicism and weariness of age. For them, everything is new and exciting. They don't judge the films as harshly... or at least not the same way. They are introduced to a fantastic, exciting world that they will continue to explore as they get older. However imperfect, it draws them in and serves as an antidote to the Twilights and Furious Nineteen-and-a-halfs. I did a mural class the other day, and talked with a couple of teens in the class at length about everything from Doctor Who to anime to Transformers. They know when a story is well told, when characters are believable, and when it is crappola. Especially they know if they have been introduced to the good stuff all along. They are more aware of a lack of diversity in films, diversity of race or gender or gender id or LGBT issues. They readily identify with well done characters. I'm one of those adults, the ridiculous ones. I played characters exactly like Tauriel in D&D and re-enactments, characters that were an outgrowth of my love of Middle Earth. So glad to see it realized onscreen for a new generation.
Na 'Aear, na 'Aear! Mýl 'lain nallol, I sûl ribiel a i falf 'loss reviol... To the sea, to the sea, the white gulls are crying, the wind is blowing and the white foam is flying... JARVIS is my copilot, and it's bigger on the inside...
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jun 3 2015, 2:47pm
Post #90 of 95
(730 views)
Shortcut
|
"My purpose" is to say what I said, not what I didn't say.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's no point arguing against what I didn't say. And there's no point in me defending what I didn't say against someone who says that I said what I didn't say, if you see what I'm saying. I hope that's now clear.
- Tolkien is all about art - Jackson is all about propaganda I would find it very, very stretchy. First, because I consider that any form of art has it share of carrying values. Second, because many call some values propaganda just because they don't share them. Propaganda has become a pejorative word since german invented and used it at a time when UK and US where at war with Germany US at that time were all about 'freedom' and they did attach that freedom to valuing strongly entertainment against endoctrination. But was this attachment to entertainment free from any kind of endoctrination ? It may have been so if US and UK hadn't been at war with Germany. But the simple fact that US and UK needed fighters and bombers involved some kind of propaganda from their own side, even if they would swear to never use that word. That polarization still stands, apparently. IMO I surely don't see how you could put P Jackson on the propaganda side only and not on any kind of artistic side. Because of history, we can see that entertainment has been some kind of weapon against endoctrination at a specific period of time when an ideologic conflict spearheaded all over the planet, but I don't see how any of them both could be declared free from 'social engineering'. Because of the income of that war, we all inherited social engineeries valuing entertainment against indoctrination, but is, per se, entertainment superior to indoctrination ? I won't say so : there are forms of entertainment inducing violence and some forms of indoctination resisting violence, as well as the reverse. If you value non-violence against violence, which ones would you call the best for people ? "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Jun 3 2015, 10:49pm
Post #91 of 95
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
... "it would be" etc.. so, I didn't say you said something that you didn't say Or if you heard it, so didn't intend to. In french, there seems to be two translations to : 'if you said' : 1) Si vous avez dit (~ if you have said") 2) Si vous disiez (~ if you would say) Of course the 2nd one was what I said
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jun 4 2015, 3:47pm
Post #92 of 95
(704 views)
Shortcut
|
And who said you did say that????
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I said was that you were arguing with me about something I didn't say - you were basically arguing with yourself - so why bring me into it? This conversation is becoming bizarre.
... "it would be" etc.. so, I didn't say you said something that you didn't say Or if you heard it, so didn't intend to. In french, there seems to be two translations to : 'if you said' : 1) Si vous avez dit (~ if you have said") 2) Si vous disiez (~ if you would say) Of course the 2nd one was what I said "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Jun 4 2015, 6:58pm
Post #93 of 95
(698 views)
Shortcut
|
If according to you, "there's no point arguing against something you didn't say", and as I just proved you that I did not say that you said something you didn't say, why did you post that argument ?
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jun 8 2015, 9:51pm
Post #94 of 95
(660 views)
Shortcut
|
Good grief! - I've just spotted your reply - you can't even quote yourself accurately, let alone anyone else..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Everything I said was accurate - read the words. You were arguing, with me, about something I didn't say, on the basis that it might have been my "purpose" to say it. If it had been my purpose to say it, I would have said it - because I can speak English.
If according to you, "there's no point arguing against something you didn't say", and as I just proved you that I did not say that you said something you didn't say, why did you post that argument ? "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Jun 9 2015, 6:01pm
Post #95 of 95
(647 views)
Shortcut
|
So you didn't say it implicitly
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You could have stated something like that. The shorter the better.
|
|
|
|
|