The problem with fantasy genres

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Directed by Peter Jackson 
2 hours 58 minutes
released December 18 2002

The second film in the Tolkien trilogy has received very positive reviews and 
it is on its way to surpass the previous chapter in sales. For MIM, "Lord of 
the Rings" is just a contribution to the stability of capitalism.

The first part of the adventure trilogy titled "Lord of the Rings" based on 
J.R. Tolkien's books of the same name brought in $860 million globally with 
$547 million of that coming from outside the U$A.(1) It cost $93 million to 
make and another estimated $50 million in ads.(2) "The Two Towers" surpassed 
its production costs before Christmas and is on course to surpass both Harry 
Potter films also in the above $300 million revenue category.(3)

"Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is full of action, adventure, magic and 
fighting. The film integrates computer-generated animation and live action in 
a way that wasn't possible until very recently. We do not question its 
artistic or technical merits. Rather, we argue that artistic skill cannot 
redeem a work with a fundamentally ugly political premise.

This is not to say that "Lord of the Rings" is the ugliest in fantasy-
fiction. There are several themes in Tolkien's books which MIM likes. Various 
species including elves, hobbits and humyns have to come together to fight 
for their existence in an epic battle between good and evil. Even trees 
become involved in the fight by attacking the evil forces that chop down 
trees to make weapons. In arguments solidifying their alliance, the forces of 
good have to defeat both idealism similar to post-modernism which denies that 
evil is real and defeatism which sees the triumph of evil as inevitable. 
Tolkien praises self-sacrifice, discipline and commitment to the common good.

Still, the principal aspect of the "Lord of the Rings" books is reactionary 
in the sense that Tolkien pines for a return to a feudal "Golden Age" where 
peasants and servants knew their place. There is also a distrust of science 
and technology in "Lord of the Rings" and its predecessor "The Silmarillion." 
It's one thing to decry the destruction of the environment and its 
consequences for humyn health wrought by the capitalist-led industrial 
revolution in 19th century England--but the Christian Tolkien goes beyond 
this and suggests that science is a form of hubris, upsetting the "natural" 
order where humyns are subordinate to god. ("The Silmarillion" is an extended 
version of the Biblical story of the tower of Babel.) 

And despite the fact that a womyn slays the chief evil Ringwraith in "The 
Return of the King," Tolkien clearly thinks that wimmin belong in the 
kitchen, not on the battlefield or in government. The only other substantial 
female character in "Lord of the Ringes," the Elf-Queen Galadriel, is praised 
more for her beauty than her wisdom.

Many critics believe that the "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory for World 
War II or the Cold War, with the ring of power representing the atom bomb, 
etc. Tolkien denied this vehemently and instead argued that the parallels 
sprang from the fact that good fantasy literature is based in and comments on 
reality. Indeed, although we disagree with Tolkien's reactionary point of 
view, there is enough real-world experience condensed in some of the books' 
themes to provoke some interesting and useful thoughts.

Director Peter Jackson plays down the books' relevant themes in his films, 
however, and plays up the sword-and-sorcery adventure. Aside from valuable 
subthemes of environmentalism and inter-species cooperation against evil, 
which are offset by the questionable gore in both chapters of the trilogy so 
far, there is not much of redeeming value to the "Lord of the Rings" movies. 
On the negative side, a large portion of the real-world humyn population 
believes in magic and spells, to such an extent that it escapes real-world 
solutions for real-world problems. For this reason alone, any fantasy-
adventure fiction faces a high hurdle to surmount in the minds of us Maoists 
trying to promote scientific thinking about social life. The spreading of 
social superstition and excuses for why the people do not control their own 
lives leaves the ruling class in control, the same way religion in general 
does.

Tolkien's books reinforce this kind of superstition,(4) and Peter Jackson 
takes the magic in the story even more at face value than Tolkien. For 
example, Peter Jackson makes it seem that King Theoden of Rohan has been 
possessed by the evil wizard Saruman. In the books, Theoden's "enchantment" 
has a more material basis: Saruman is engaged in psychological warfare 
against Rohan, sending spies into Theoden's court, making open peace 
overtures while covertly preparing for war, playing on Theoden's 
provincialism and conciliatory nature, etc.

Any fantasy-adventure films and novels, especially those set in the past, are 
liable to become props of the status quo without serious efforts to 
compensate for the whole genre's flaws by raising progressive themes in 
oblique and fictional manners appropriate for fantasy worlds.(5) In contrast, 
by usually showing humyns what they are capable of in the future, science-
fiction tends to have progressive value in the pure sense of the 
word "progress." In a fantasy-future movie like the "Matrix," it is not one 
or two supreme magicians casting spells that control the world. In 
the "Matrix," the people simply download knowledge through a cartridge in the 
neck. Thus, the "Matrix" puts forward an enlightened view of knowledge, 
history and humyn capability. In contrast, "Lord of the Rings" raises up a 
musty past in a manner that will perpetuate backwardness today.

Notes:
1. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/data/lordoftherings/versus.htm
2. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fellowshipofthering.htm
3. http://www.the-numbers.com/features/2002-Holiday.html
4. The central conceit of the "Lord of the Rings" is that even though the 
forces of good possess the "ring of power" forged by evil, they cannot use it 
against evil lest they themselves become evil. This is just the old idealist 
pabulum that "power corrupts." Elves, men, etc. take up arms against evil, 
but Tolkien portrays this as a doomed rear-guard action--only the "pure-
hearted" sacrifice of the hobbits can magically redeem the world. In 
contrast, MIM upholds Mao's dictum, "To eradicate war it is necessary to make 
war" and believes a study of history shows that it is possible and necessary 
to use "the master's tools" to overthrow the master. Hence we are sympathetic 
to characters such as Boromir or Saruman who argue that the ring should be 
used against evil.
5. Some Tolkien fans have openly embraced "Lord of the Rings" 
as "escapism:" "if the real world is evil and ugly, at least we can forget 
for a while in a fantasy world." Tolkien himself contrasted this "escapism of 
the deserter" to the "escapism of the prisoner," who sees the evil in the 
real world and is looking for way to break out into another possible world. 
In principle, fantasy literature could build radical understanding of the 
world and the possibilities for change. In practice, Tolkien is far too 
backwards-looking to provide any real-world solutions.