This is inspired by thoughts of where LOTR (the films) stand in the popular Pantheon. Are they fantasy? Historical epic? Some weird mixture of both? I have the feeling that 5 yrs on, people still do not know what to make of them, Oscars and all. That PJ produced something as much of a grand, hybrid, unquantifiable, genre-spanning epic as Tolkien did. And that decades hence, they will remain as strange and solitary, in a sense.
Some have suggested that b/c the films are based on a beloved 50+ yr old work of the modern literary canon, they are to be taken as "above", say, great origional works of modern cinema. (I am not reacting to the Star Wars discussion BTW, though I think of it. It actually reminded me of a few articles I have read, about the status of modern film in general.)
There still seems to be a popular perception, among literary critics and some others, that movies (or "cinema" if they are polite) is less of an art form, or of less importance, than literature, perhaps b/c it is "simplistic", in that it "spells out" everything for the viewer, as contrasted to literature, where the reader must work to conjure up the world the author paints on the page. As pop and rock music is to the world of opera and jazz, so film is to older, more "powerful and enduring" forms of storytelling. Like books. Moviegoers, it seems, can never shake the stigma of being "consumers of popular culture." While readers, it is assumed, are participants in something more lofty and enduring. Yet, to me they are one and the same; in a world where books assume less and less importance, because of our fast-paced, globalized world (and perhaps, ironically, the Internet)
The modern American public almost expects these days for good new books to be given the Hollywood treatment. Many times, given the corporate stranglehold on the reins of creativity and sponaneity, it seems a bad thing for a book to be adapted into a film. It is not that there is a dearth of good artists out there; it is that the channels of distribution are slowly being strangled, cutting out any possible re-emergence of anything resembling an American "cinema" (a work of genius, such as Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood", is all the more mournful from merging from a solitary cultural vacuum. It as a film may reflect the current darkness and introspection of the Age; but there is no thriving hothouse of an American cinema "scene;, such as the American Zoetrope community of the 1970-s''or the :new Mexican Cinema" of now. There is no American cinematic "scene" and the film world suffers for this. ) and it might be better in many cases for books to remain unsung and unseen in such an environment, as long as they retain their quality as books. Better to remain unsung these days, , if you remain untarnished. (Let's hope that in rare cases, a miracle may occur, as in a great adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road.")
But in a world where reading is dying, I believe that the traditional "lowbrow/highbrow" distinctions between Literature and Cinema are dying, for in this modern age, one cannot survive without the toher, and in many genres, some may be in danger of passing away...in America that is. If Mozart were alive today, IMO, he'd be composing for film, for that would be where it's at; but would we denigrate him for it, as opposed to someone who composed for the concert hall? It's the quality that counts. Yet, the method of distribution ghettoizes one, and elevates the other. It's hogwash to me.
Some have suggested that b/c the films are based on a beloved 50+ yr old work of the modern literary canon, they are to be taken as "above", say, great origional works of modern cinema. (I am not reacting to the Star Wars discussion BTW, though I think of it. It actually reminded me of a few articles I have read, about the status of modern film in general.)
There still seems to be a popular perception, among literary critics and some others, that movies (or "cinema" if they are polite) is less of an art form, or of less importance, than literature, perhaps b/c it is "simplistic", in that it "spells out" everything for the viewer, as contrasted to literature, where the reader must work to conjure up the world the author paints on the page. As pop and rock music is to the world of opera and jazz, so film is to older, more "powerful and enduring" forms of storytelling. Like books. Moviegoers, it seems, can never shake the stigma of being "consumers of popular culture." While readers, it is assumed, are participants in something more lofty and enduring. Yet, to me they are one and the same; in a world where books assume less and less importance, because of our fast-paced, globalized world (and perhaps, ironically, the Internet)
The modern American public almost expects these days for good new books to be given the Hollywood treatment. Many times, given the corporate stranglehold on the reins of creativity and sponaneity, it seems a bad thing for a book to be adapted into a film. It is not that there is a dearth of good artists out there; it is that the channels of distribution are slowly being strangled, cutting out any possible re-emergence of anything resembling an American "cinema" (a work of genius, such as Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood", is all the more mournful from merging from a solitary cultural vacuum. It as a film may reflect the current darkness and introspection of the Age; but there is no thriving hothouse of an American cinema "scene;, such as the American Zoetrope community of the 1970-s''or the :new Mexican Cinema" of now. There is no American cinematic "scene" and the film world suffers for this. ) and it might be better in many cases for books to remain unsung and unseen in such an environment, as long as they retain their quality as books. Better to remain unsung these days, , if you remain untarnished. (Let's hope that in rare cases, a miracle may occur, as in a great adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road.")
But in a world where reading is dying, I believe that the traditional "lowbrow/highbrow" distinctions between Literature and Cinema are dying, for in this modern age, one cannot survive without the toher, and in many genres, some may be in danger of passing away...in America that is. If Mozart were alive today, IMO, he'd be composing for film, for that would be where it's at; but would we denigrate him for it, as opposed to someone who composed for the concert hall? It's the quality that counts. Yet, the method of distribution ghettoizes one, and elevates the other. It's hogwash to me.
Last edited:
] 
