NoFap

  1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

marxist idea in lord of the rings

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by matt2k12, Oct 7, 2020.

  1. Oct 7, 2020 #1
    matt2k12

    matt2k12 Fapstronaut

    356
    596
    93
    My Journal
    ive been watching lord of the rings part one yesterday and i found that the director has implemented a marxist idea. im pretty sure he has done that not on purpose, but that shows you how marxist thinking has sled beyond consciousness into the unconscious throughout the western world.

    there is a profound difference in the character of aragorn in the book of catholic tolkien and peter jacksons movie:
    in the book, aragorn does not shy away from the idea of taking his purpose and responsibility as king of gondor. he lived in the north for long, living the life of a ranger, in uncivilised manner; but he yearned to go south and take up the throne which was rightfully his. tolkien easily describes it in the book: whenever an opportunity presents itself, where aragorn can rise above the occasion, he prooves to rise beyond his character of the ranger, and show kinglike manner and behavior: his followers and friends observe the change in posture and marvel.

    now in the movie, first part, there is a scene where aragorn is confronted with his kingly heritage and power in his bloodline: and to this, in the movie, aragorn says: i dont want that power, i never wanted it.

    it is as subtle as a breeze in the morning, however, since i read the first book some weeks ago, i immediately saw the difference. it made me think. really, there is nothing noble, virtuous, or even humble in that statement. to take up responsibility is where virtue lies, and courage. to rise beyond himself: to be a leader for men, to accept ones god given powers and talents, is what is behaviour according to the truth. this however, is anti catholic. it is marxist. that it is good to want to be level with everyone, egalitarian, is what was shown in the movie.
     
    matt2k12, Oct 7, 2020
    matt2k12, Oct 7, 2020
    #1
  2. Oct 7, 2020 #2
    ShadyPerson

    ShadyPerson Fapstronaut

    329
    881
    93
    Oh god what is it with you people seeing the spectre of communism everywhere xd

    The reason why Aragorn started out as being hesitant to take the throne in the movies is because they wanted to give him a compelling character arc with character development and stuff. And as much as I love the books over films, I gotta say that they made the right call. It's way more interesting to watch a man go from fearing his heritage to embracing it, than to watch a man go from embracing his heritage to embarcing it even more. Also the reason why Aragorn didn't want to become the king at the beginning in the movies had nothing to do with egalitarianism. (Which btw isn't a strictly marxist ideology in the first place.) He didn't want to become the king, because he feared he would be consumed by greed and lust for power, just like Isildur did. I hope this clarified at least something.
     
    ShadyPerson, Oct 7, 2020
    ShadyPerson, Oct 7, 2020
    #2
    James Duncan Halpert and Anakin66 like this.
  3. Oct 7, 2020 #3
    matt2k12

    matt2k12 Fapstronaut

    356
    596
    93
    My Journal
    This is how you saw it, it wasn't that clear in the movie. But let's assume it is true, and Aragorn didn't want to be become king for that reason (although I'd like to note that it is intrinsically untrue, on the isildur part , as the latter got seduced by the ring, not gone astray by a frail in his character due to his position of power): this is exactly what I'm talking about.

    Ask yourself this: why would he fear that by assuming his role, his higher calling so to speak, his purpose, why would he fear that he would be consumed by lust for power and greed? Is it because being king goes hand in hand with such temptations? But that is the message. If you believe that, you believe in Marxist ideology. Gee, the anti monarchists and revolutionists of 1917 spread the very same lies all over europe.
     
    matt2k12, Oct 7, 2020
    matt2k12, Oct 7, 2020
    #3
  4. Oct 7, 2020 #4
    Anakin66

    Anakin66 Fapstronaut

    422
    1,104
    123
    These ideas predate Marxism by thousands of years. Look deeper in early Israelite monarchy and Judaism and you'll see the foundations for a belief that only God is the true king and others are often reluctant to take up the throne. This also sets precedent for Christ as the King of kings, which is the model saviour character is Christian and Catholic based books such as LOTR.

    You are giving a lot of credence to Marxism, which is simplistic and very flawed economics theory.
     
    Anakin66, Oct 7, 2020
    Anakin66, Oct 7, 2020
    #4
  5. Oct 7, 2020 #5
    AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    3,245
    7,092
    143
    My Journal
    The majority of changes from the LOTR books to the movies occurred to have the movies be more accessible and exciting for a mainstream audience. The Tom Bombadil stuff isnt in the movies at all because it would slow down the pace massively, and wouldnt work as well in a movie as it does in a book. Faramir is now tempted by the ring when in the book he wasn't, because the movie needed more drama and action for Frodo and Sam at that part of the movie. The relationship between Arwen and Aragorn is directly shown throughout the trilogy as opposed to being something you need to read the appendices to understand, and so on.

    There is no ulterior motive here beyond "How can we make this movie as good as possible without losing too much of the books message, while also streamlining things for the average movie goer?" Now do I think Peter Jackson missed the point of Aragorns character a little bit with this change? I mean sure, in the same way he completely missed the point of the scene with Galadriel being tempted by the ring and resisting it, making it so over the top makes it goofy as hell as opposed to deadly serious like in the book. But still, I dont think marxism played any role in this.
     
    AtomicTango, Oct 7, 2020
    AtomicTango, Oct 7, 2020
    #5
    James Duncan Halpert likes this.

Share This Page