What Christian imagery was in the LOTR movies?

emel28 said:

I just thought of something. Gandalf's "You shall not pass", sounds much more biblical (The 10 Commandments, thou shalt not...) than the book version "You cannot pass".

Click to expand...

Just remember on this, one (shall not) is a phrase of 'permission'... as contained in the movie.

the other (cannot) is a term of 'ability'.

In the movie, Gandalf is not giving him permission to proceed beyond the point Gandalf has chosen to make his stand.

In the book, the Balrog does not have the ABILITY to proceed beyond a servant of the White Light. PJ missed this entirely.

Though the movie 'sounds' more biblical, it is not... not in the least.
Darkness does not have 'ability' to co-exist with the light... a point much of Christianity has lost sight of in these days.

Ent said:

Just remember on this, one (shall not) is a phrase of 'permission'... as contained in the movie.

the other (cannot) is a term of 'ability'.

In the movie, Gandalf is not giving him permission to proceed beyond the point Gandalf has chosen to make his stand.

In the book, the Balrog does not have the ABILITY to proceed beyond a servant of the White Light. PJ missed this entirely.

Though the movie 'sounds' more biblical, it is not... not in the least.

Click to expand...

I never would've thought of it in this way.

The movies are less biblical, that's why I'm having such a hard time finding anything Christian in them that is not in the books.

emel28 said:

I never would've thought of it in this way.

Click to expand...

These terms are entirely separate in English.
In the original Hebrew and Greek, their separation is even deeper.
Much discussion could be had on this... but this isn't the appropriate place.

emel28 said:

The movies are less biblical,

Click to expand...

by design.

There's another, but unfortunately it's not made at all clear in the Movies either unless Ent's memory fails..
just to be sure it's considered...

The little sword used to separate the Witch King's spirit from his sinews is a representation of the "Word" in the Bible to Tolkien. "able to pierce to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit." The "Word" is also called the "Sword of the Spirit,". And the Book indicates 'no blade' (even Eowyn's) 'could have been more deadly...' or however exactly it puts it.

PJ includes the event but Ent doesn't think with realization of its connection. Ent knows this doesn't help you being so obscure...unless there's something about the scene Ent isn't recalling.

It was deadly to him because of the spells woven into it by its forger in Cardolan.

emel28 said:

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

If you're going there, I'd say Frodo embodies the "suffering servant" role. As far as "priest", it's Sam who most qualifies; remember: Frodo plays almost no role in the Scouring of the Shire, other than trying to avoid needless deaths. Afterwards, he's basically withdrawn from activity, until his departure. It's Sam whose hard work renews the Shire, as we return to the Low Mimetic world, though lifted by Galadriel's gift, and Sam whose experience in the wider world makes him, in my opinion, the "priest" of what we could call Middle-earth values in the Shire.

Click to expand...

I think I did read some interpretations with Sam in that role. Thanks, I think I'm going to include that.

Click to expand...

This would be a case where what was written in the book was dropped entirely from the film, the entire "Scouring of The Shire" chapter..
Your original post included this statement:
"I would hugely appreciate it if anyone could tell me about elements or symbols of Christianity spotted in the films that aren't in the books."
So this aspect of Sam mentioned by S-eS would be the opposite of what you're looking for?

Olorgando said:

This would be a case where what was written in the book was dropped entirely from the film, the entire "Scouring of The Shire" chapter..
Your original post included this statement:
"I would hugely appreciate it if anyone could tell me about elements or symbols of Christianity spotted in the films that aren't in the books."
So this aspect of Sam mentioned by S-eS would be the opposite of what you're looking for?

Click to expand...

I'm writing about the books and the films. I'm kinda spoiled for material as far as the books are concerned, but can't find anything in the films. This was a serendipitous discovery.

Well @emel28 Ent has pondered long, and just cannot come up with any item for you representing a 'Christian' element in the movies, not first in the book.
The 'intents' of the two are just significantly different.

Perhaps the better paper to write is why the differences exist and what that suggests... (there are several evident reasons, and a few speculative ones as well).

In any event, Ent tried. Apologies.

Ent said:

Well @emel28 Ent has pondered long, and just cannot come up with any item for you representing a 'Christian' element in the movies, not first in the book.
The 'intents' of the two are just significantly different.

Perhaps the better paper to write is why the differences exist and what that suggests... (there are several evident reasons, and a few speculative ones as well).

In any event, Ent tried. Apologies.

Click to expand...

First and foremost, a big thank you for the help! I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I'm having a lot of difficulty as well.

What would the evident reasons be, if you don't mind my asking?

My imagination is very limited when reading descriptions - do you think that Minas Tirith looks like Mont Saint Michel based on the description in the book?

emel28 said:

What would the evident reasons be, if you don't mind my asking?

Click to expand...

1. Perspective:
Tolkien's perspective: Develop a 'believable' world usable as an English historical lore, and based on (generally) the English historical area.
PJ's perspective: Develop a cinematic production based on Tolkien's work.

2. Intent:
Tolkien's intent: Use people, situations, things, aspects, elements (including religious) common to all throughout history to build the perspective of #1.
PJ's intent: Copy Tolkien's work to the extent necessary to make a spectacle people will enjoy.

3. Target:
Tolkien's target: Develop something most other peoples and cultures had but England was lacking - in the arena and style of precedent 'lore'. Develop it to be as complete and consistent as possible.
PJ's target: Ride on the high popularity Tolkien's work had become, make a 'story' of it that is reminiscent of Tolkien's events, scenes, and scenery, but with enough of his own "invention" infused in the 'comedic' arena to attract that audience as well. Modify as needed where 'interest' may seem increased. Avoid controversy wherever possible. (this last point he failed in, not understanding the largest portion of his audience.... particularly with The Hobbit.)

4. Goal:
Tolkien's goal: Fill a gap, exercise his talents, and provide for the people, hoping for the best.
PJ's goal: Make as much money as possible leveraging what was popularly available through attracting the largest possible audience.

Those are the primary 4 areas to consider in why one finds some of what one finds... like a dearth of added 'religious reference' (very unpopular), Elves skiing down stairs on shields, bunnies pulling a sled filled with a wizard, and Elves skiing off trunks of (significantly) oversized elephants (all popular for certain audiences), and shortened scenes leaving key elements out (like Saruman's potential remaining power, enough background to recognize how Sauron is as much a slave to the ring as he is its master, etc.)


Simplified: Tolkien wanted to achieve a masterful epic. PJ wanted to ride Tolkien's fame while expanding it where he thought 'profitable'.

Perhaps sounds like a harsh critique...
But let us consider why there are those who create whole new realms and arenas... and why there are those who simply copy them...but don't even do that in a way acceptable to copy the WHOLE epic and arena of the original.

Ent thinks it speaks for itself.

Again, the 4 points above are the 'most obvious'.... there are others perhaps, a bit less obvious.

And there are several only 'speculative'... like how much PJ even understood about what Tolkien had done.
Here, End doesn't know enough about PJ's knowledge and understanding of Tolkien's background to make proper judgment.

emel28 said:

My imagination is very limited when reading descriptions - do you think that Minas Tirith looks like Mont Saint Michel based on the description in the book?

Click to expand...

Ent will need to review this a bit to make a recommendation.
Also to ask a question. Which Minis Tirith? The one described in the book, or the one(s) shown in the movie? Ent is guessing 'the movie one' consistent with your 'in the movie but not book' theme.

addendum: doh... you even said "based on the description in the book". Ent had some branches in the way of his eyes.

............................

emel28 said:

What would the evident reasons be, if you don't mind my asking?

Click to expand...

p.s. - all Ent's above is not to say he doesn't think PJ did a good job within the arena he chose to work. The movies are rather enjoyable as they are.

As producers go, PJ did a fine job of creating a spectacle very reminiscent of the original works, while still departing from them substantially at many points and in many ways. That takes a creativity of its own.

Ent just sees the divergence bringing you the 'trouble' you're experiencing in finding things for your targeted objective as stemming from the fundamental differences originating each person's work and the approach to it to begin with.

emel28 said:

My imagination is very limited when reading descriptions - do you think that Minas Tirith looks like Mont Saint Michel based on the description in the book?

Click to expand...

OK, after some brief reading and refreshing, Ent has reached a preliminary conclusion:

Yes, and no. The balance being toward no.

Does Mont Saint Michel have certain 'similarities' to the description? Yes.
Does it 'largely' or 'significantly' resemble what Ent pictures? No.

The question as presented seeks a simple "yes or no" response, Ent stops there.
Elucidation available upon request if desired.

Ent said:

The question as presented seeking a simple "yes or no" response, Ent stops there.
Elucidation available upon request if desired.

Click to expand...

I'd be extremely grateful, but only if it's not a chore for you.

OK @emel28, here are a few.

1. There is no "wide land" with the "out wall" built. We have but water. Should be 10 leagues or more of land.
2. Should be surrounded by "fair and fertile townlands" on long slopes and terraces.
3. Wall should run 4 leagues from the Great Gate north-eastward, alone.
4. Wall should be "high and strong". The wall pictured below does not appear all that high compared to the buildings right next to it.
5. The 'townlands' within the wall should be rich, with tilth and many orchards, and many 'rills rippling through the green'.
6. City should be composed of 7 distinct circles/levels. Each level should have its own wall. Each should be 'delved into the hill'.
7. There should be 'high vales of the mountain border.' We have no mountain.
8. Only the Tower of Echthelion stands 'high within the topmost wall', stone out against the sky... with a 'glimmering pinnacle'.
9. There should be white banners fluttering from the battlements. There are no banners, nor battlements.
10. Can't see the 'iron doors' of the Great Ggate.
11. Each of the 7 walls of the 7 levels should have its own gate.
12. Minis Tirith and especially the Tower should be white.
13. The streets of the 7 levels were rather broad, with "wide pavements".
14. The levels were broad enough to have 'houses, halls', etc. as well as peoples, horses and armies milling about.
15. It was 'vaster than anything Pippin had dreamed of'.

These are a few of the differences - the more apparent ones. Minis Tirith is a much broader, more widespread and imposing thing.
Mont Saint Michel shown below is an impressive batch of buildings built on a small island, but certainly not built as a fortress to defend a people.
It looks a bit crowded, and though Ent is sure there is more 'space' than first appears, nonetheless also a bit claustrophobic.
One does not get a 'claustrophobic' feeling from Minis Tirith.

Mont Saint Michel



..................

I'll add that the outermost wall -- the "City wall" -- was of the same black material as Orthanc.

The movie Minas Tirith was indeed modeled on Mont Saint Michel, as stated in one of the making-of videos, but the one in the book was inspired by "many-walled" Constantinople; Tolkien, in Letter 131, compares Gondor to "a kind of proud, venerable, but increasingly impotent Byzantium".

@emel28 - see? see? the above from SeS is what happens when we get a scholar involved rather than an ent..!!
Even if it is a scholarly Henchman of Evil..! 😁

I just noticed some more ways that Aragorn is comparable to Christ (from the book I'm afraid):

Aragorn has power over the dead, just as Jesus had power over death.

Gimli follows Aragorn through the Paths Of The Dead out of love, even though he feared death. Just like Christians follow Jesus out of love, no matter how dark the days get.

Gimli says that he thought it odd how Aragorn used something shadowy and dark to destroy the people of Sauron. Just as Jesus turns all devices of the enemy to good.

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

If you're going there, I'd say Frodo embodies the "suffering servant" role. As far as "priest", it's Sam who most qualifies; remember: Frodo plays almost no role in the Scouring of the Shire, other than trying to avoid needless deaths. Afterwards, he's basically withdrawn from activity, until his departure. It's Sam whose hard work renews the Shire, as we return to the Low Mimetic world, though lifted by Galadriel's gift, and Sam whose experience in the wider world makes him, in my opinion, the "priest" of what we could call Middle-earth values in the Shire.

Click to expand...

I came across this while looking for another thread, and thought I'd append another parallel, for whatever it's worth: Sam would have drowned in the Anduin, had not Frodo pulled him out; Peter would have drowned, had not Jesus pulled him from the "Galilean lake".

There are countless elements in the books. Countless. More than Tolkien probably ever realized.

But a key couple I will point out (which are inherently linked):

The crossroads of free will and predestination are encountered all across the narrative (in every Tolkien book). We see this with Frodo and Gandalf's conversation about Bilbo being meant to find the ring, by which Frodo was meant to bear it next. They still had choices to make: Bilbo takes mercy on Gollum and spares him, and by this, the door of salvation for Middle-Earth is left open (of course, another way may have come about, but consequences of how the events of this might change are evident); Frodo, too, takes mercy on Gollum and spares him. Again, this plays a role into the salvation of Middle-Earth.

From the Sil, the sovereignty of Eru is blatantly stated:

"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."​

- JRR Tolkien, Ainulindalë​

Click to expand...

All throughout Tolkien's work, there is evidence of Eru's, or God's, overarching purposes being worked for the good of the children of Eru, for those who love Him and are called according to the Music (very much a theme from Scripture!!).

Movies I have not much to speak for...

Glorfindel Goldtress said:

There are countless elements in the books. Countless. More than Tolkien probably ever realized.

Click to expand...

This thread is particularly difficult for me to speak to, due to my decades of study in the arenas of the will, Providence, and the outworking of plans according to predesination (and what that really means). So with great effort, I refrain from much elabortation here... and try to remain silent.

But here you hit on something I can/will speak to...ever so briefly. (In Paul Harvey's words, once again you've 'hit the nail with your head.' 😁)

I recently reviewed one of our writers' sharings, and commented: "nice play holding back on the revelation of what exactly was killing him until well into the scene."

The writer responded: "tbh it was completely unintentional."

This is often the way it is... and is certainly was with Tolkien.
There is absolutely no doubt he was often clueless about what he had left behind him... though he 'labored over every word."
And there are several reasons he 'labored'... though I've also no doubt even he did not understand what some of those reasons were..!

When one is an instrument of Providence, it is most often true one never realizes it. Or if they do, it is well after the fact...and frankly, is generally pointed out by others.