In response to Arvedui, I can understand that you might resist the label. I myself don't like to be labelled either. If it is any comfort, I feel the group has a dynamic greater than the individuals, so that noone is compelled to live with the label if it doesn't fit. You seem to show some characteristics of what I have described, but are not entirely typical. In describing the group, it is necessary to look for those features that are distinguishing, which inevitably leads to a range of characteristics not apparent in their entirety in some of the people who might broadly fit.
Secondly, yes I am criticising the purist position, but in the sense of it being a 'critical analysis'; rather than it being an attack. I reject, for example, the notion that purists have been "driven crazy" in any sense. I will look at why these appellations are cast at purists in a later post. The purist position makes sense from their standpoint, and in seeking a cultural explanation of it, I am not seeking to add to the mutual hostilities. In fact, I hope that eventually, some understanding might allow people to diffuse the frustrations a little. I don't expect this will have any great effect though, because the differences are more than merely opinion.
I have, implicitly, been challenged to analyse the so-called ‘FAD’ phenomenon. To my mind, this is less exceptional than the Purism, but if the methods I used in my previous analysis are of any value then they ought to yield insight in the social and cultural roots of those who defend the works of Jackson.
At once it is necessary to distinguish between categories of FAD, in a way that is less necessary than with the purists. The purists are not homogenous, but do present themselves as a category with the usual variation in any group of people, but with important characteristics in common. This is not the case with the FADs – which necessarily makes the term FAD rather a blunt instrument. The key distinction I intend to make is between ‘True Movie Fans’ (TMFs) and another group who I will name the "Centrists".
The TMFs are generally young – predominantly in their teens. This is the key fact of their existence that determines their enjoyment of the movies. Teenage life is a search for an independent identity, in which relationships with friends are often (apparently) more important than family or partners. Family is the past, and partners are the future, but the present is about progressing past a series of barriers to independence, be they exams or parental rules. The barriers to independence are very often an enforcement of those things that make life boring: often excrutiatingly so. However, independence is daunting, causing great anxiety. Accordingly, teenagers value friendship highly. Only friends truly understand the need for excitement and the ambiguous fear of but excitement about the future. As a result close friends are possibly closer at this age than any other, but simultaneously popularity is highly important. But it is impossible to be intimate with every possible friend, so superficial signals serve to convey shared values. This leads both to an extreme interest in appearances, fashion and attitude; but it is in tension with the desire for independent identity and therefore lessens as the teenager reaches maturity. At this age, expressions of independence and individual identity are likely to become more significant than expressions of conformity. At the same time, teenagers often lack a strong stake in society, being uncertain about their future relation to it, and this leads to an often idealised (and even idealistic) view of the world.
So in relation to these behaviours we can see how
the Lord of the Rings movies have a wide appeal. The youthful
hobbits are easy to identify with; and their journey too resonates. They are easy to identify with because their behaviour is a mixture of teenage (
Merry and
Pippin) and immediately post-teen (
Frodo and
Sam) behaviour: the valuing of friendship more than family, the revelry, the goofing around, and independent spirit. Their quest also resonates: it is a journey that renounces home for danger, in an idealistic quest for good against
evil. In doing so, along the way they face their fears, and are helped by older but undoubtedly ‘cool’ figures such as
Aragorn and
Legolas. They are trustworthy, knowledgeable, attractive and very stylish in appearance, speech and actions. The enemy is incontravertably evil: therefore giving moral certainty which has great appeal. Enemies are defined, and then friendship itself becomes a key theme to be explored: the most wonderful friendship forged in the face of shared adversity: just that which teenagers most aspire to.
These values are more or less shared with the book: and hence often TMFs will also enjoy the
books. But the movies convey something else. They are big budget movies, viewed in the movie theatre, with resounding music, flamboyant special effects, the grand scale of the cinematography. As such it is in itself exciting and sensational, which further attracts the bored TMF. But additionally, they convey the values of Hollywood. To the purist these are abhorrent, but the TMF doesn’t recoil. Hollywood represents excitement, style, and above all success: the very things that the TMF aspires to. The more successful the movies are, the more the TMF feels justified in enjoying them, and consequently the more irrational criticism will appear.
The TMF therefore is notable in the movie discussions by uncritical praise for the movies. Their discussion is likely to be posed in a purely subjective assessment of what is cool, which character they liked the most, which scene was best. However, they are liable to react angrily, if the movies are criticised. The movies become close to their hearts, as they identify heavily with the characters who become to them like their friends, and they identify closely with the phenomenon. Thus they are likely to feel that the criticism is personal, and that they are obliged to defend the movies.
Is this a form of "Jackson purism"? It doesn't seem correct to put this label on it. Where as the "Purist" associates the works of the author with their own moral values, and therefore fears corruption, the TMF identifies the movies with their personal aspirations. When the movies are attacked, they do not respond with moral outrage, but with the idea that such criticism is stupid, that those who criticise don't "get it", and this may be personally annoying but not ultimately a serious threat to their world. However, the fact that the serious criticism is only from a minority position makes it far easier to ignore.
The Centrists are a different group entirely. I’ll discuss them in another post. This one is long enough!