All valid points. The Tolkien movie did feel lacking in a lot of ways. To me, its biggest sin was how it completely glossed over The Silmarillion. It was so intent on foreshadowing Lord of the Rings and showing how everything was building up to that moment, it ignored Tolkien's earlier mythology - the very stories he was writing in the time period the movie depicted. It had an on-screen coda that mentioned the names Beren and Luthien being on Tolkien and Edith's graves. But it didn't give a general audience any context for who those characters were or why they were so significant. There were vague mentions of Tolkien writing stories in the military hospital but this wasn't explored and there was no mention of his attempt to create "a mythology for England." An audience member could come away from that film assuming he never wrote anything significant in those early years or never finished a story until The Hobbit.
My thoughts exactly! I was really hoping for more on the Silmarillion (and the Kalevala), and instead got almost nothing. The film made it look like the entire Legendarium began with the scrawl on that student's examination book. You may be familiar with the book Tolkien and the Great War? It's quite good.
something i did not realize until watching this video was that the effect of the extended family abandoning Tolkien's mother for becoming Catholic- This might have been what made him resent those who are overly controlling or possessive. All the major villian's main characteristic is either being overly possessive of an item (Feanor and Gollum) or overly controlling (Sauron, Sauruman and Morgoth)
One thing that bothers me about movies/shows that claim to be biographical is that it’s sometimes hard to tell what’s factual and what was made up and most people don’t go back and research it that deeply to double check. It can lead to misconceptions about famous or historical people that then become commonly accepted, which isn’t fair to who the person really was (and can be a dangerous slope to slide down…).
one of the things oppenheimer did really well was having oppenheimer’s security clearence getting renewed as a framing device along with lewis strauss congressional hearing biopics tend to ignore the fact that historical figures don’t end their time with a significant achievement like the a bomb or in tolkien’s case Lord of the Rings
Music biopics end in a freeze-frame of a comeback in their career. Always. And other biopics, usually some other high-note sh*t. Not a lot of biopics end with the protagonist envisioning the end of the world.
I'm going to share this with a friend of mine whom I saw "Tolkien" with in the theatre back in the day. We both thought it was pretty good, but the bar is pretty low for movies even back in 2019, and now it's worse. It left both of us, or at least me, wanting more as if there was more to want. And now with your warm passionate video I understand what that "more" was. Also I love your thematic costuming for your video subjects. Glad to see you seem to be doing successfully.
"Back in the day." As in, four whole years ago? Hahaha j/k it just shows how the pandemic has warped our sense of time both during, before and after it. 2019 does seem like a 'different time' in the weirdest way.
I think a Biopic of Tolkien would be much better in a series format. Tolkien's life isn't easy to show and I think you would need just more time for that to do it accurately.
The biopic to me seemed like they took a standard Hollywood period love story-money issues and overbearing guardian keeping them apart, deciding he loves her on the day WWI breaks out, etc.-and pasted in names from Tolkien’s life.
@jessoftheshire yesssss It was my greatest frustration with the movie as well, that they basically eliminated any mention of his Catholic faith. It is so central to his writings. Idk if you are Catholic yourself, but as a Catholic, this omission left me wanting, a lot, with this film. Thank you for this honest analysis! And I totally agree about Oppenheimer! Best thing Hollywood has done is many years
It is a fundamental flaw of the movie. The destructive influence of religion even within families - that one would cut off even a destitute, widowed, young mother - because of sectarian differences. Also: convert or we shall not pass into matrimony. Also: the subtext of woman not being an equal human - only there to make babies, keep house & manage social affairs - regardless of her talents, years of effort, & ambitions - the stripping of a womans very self-agency and joy.
@yeahnaaa292 zero of what you said is true of the Catholic religion, of course. My question is, why do u think it's okay to come on here and attack my religion out of the blue like a year later? Just uncalled for. I'm a real human being. Again, simply wrong and rude and cruel. Particularly since it's all made up nonsense and lies, that have literally NOTHING of truth about the Catholic faith. Wow.
@@worrier2warrior851 The poster did not say that was true of Catholicism. But it was true of JRRT. He had very little contact with women between his mother's death and when he met Edith. He did demand she convert, and he did object to her having any role outside the home. Like many many of his generation, his views changed over his life, but this took time. In the 1940s, he wrote in a letter to Christopher that women were intellectually inferior to men. By the 1960s and his extensive correspondence with his female fanbase, he no longer believed that. Tolkien was as complex and flawed as any of us, and putting him on a pedestal does both him and us a disservice.
Great analysis. I wasn’t even aware of a Tolkien biopic, but the omissions you point out would be fatal to any in-depth consideration of what made the man who he was. I agree that Oppenheimer was an amazing character study and a film that didn’t shy away from what made the man who he was. It will stay with me a long time.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, oppenheimer is first & foremost, a character study presented through the medium of film, while Tolkein 2019 (I also haven't seen it) appears very much to be a movie about how the books came to be first, and an exploration of JrrT second (by what appears to be quite some way) where the point of the story is LotR, wherein Tolkein is almost little more than a vehicle for the plot; while in Oppenheimer, Oppenheimer is the point of the story, wherein he creates the bomb, amongst many other very interesting and important things he does with his life
Great comparison and critique. Indeed, Tolkien's biopic was more focused on his creation rather than the person, in contrast with the more balanced Oppenheimer movie.
I've never seen Tolkien.... now I don't have to, thank you lol Also, Oppenheimer was incredible. The idea that a 3 hour prestige historical drama biopic, thats mostly dudes talking in rooms, could be that INTENSE just makes me appreciate the art of movie making even more. What an experience in the theatres. I found the comparison to Prometheus to be particularly fascinating... what an idea! Ultimately, like most historical titans, Oppenheimer was a complex, and at times confusing, man.... I like that the movie reflects that accurately. Murphy, Blunt, and RDJ were standouts for me. All Oscar nomination worthy performances in my opinion. The subtle differences in Murphy's performances between the colour and B&W scenes was incredible.
@@axelNodvon2047 yep, I feel like the musical score and the editing style really helped keep the pace of the movie high. You truly felt the urgent race to build the bomb before the Nazi's could. Without them, it might've dragged a bit.... it is 3 hours of just people talking lol yet it feels like a thriller because of Nolan's choices.
I will always be impressed that Spotlight managed to make rulers on a page compelling! The Insider with Russell Crowe is another very good movie that is all dialogue, so I figure I'm going to enjoy Oppenheimer when I get around to seeing it
This is a phenomenal investigation as to what makes a good biopic or biography for that matter. Every person is complex and has an incomprehensible inner life. Oppenheimer was absolutely brilliant. I bought the book it was based on.
I didn’t watch it at the time because I heard it glossed over his catholicism (which I thought would annoy me). I have watched it since I think it’s a good film, but they do leave out quite a few bits from his early life.
I just saw the movie on Tubi. I thought it was good, even though you have to take any biopic with a grain of salt, which after listening to this video, I see there was a lot more was going on than what was shown in the movie.
I agree. I was fairly surprised that they didn't include more of Tolkien's faith in the movie given how much Tolkien talks of his faith in his Letters. I liked how they handled the T.C.B.S., but wish they had included his later friendship with the rest of the Inklings. Diana Glyer's "The Company They Keep" and "Bandersnatch" show just how much the Inklings helped Tolkien form and shape The Lord of the Rings. One favorite moment of mine is Charles Williams bringing up that the original wording for one of Treebeard's lines sounded too much like a pirate, and instead recommended "Root and twig". Tolkien agreed, and made the change. By contrast Hugo Dyson hated Tolkien's readings of the Lord of the Rings. It would have been great to see the contrast between Williams and Dyson on screen, one Inkling hating it and the other paying so close attention as to make what most of call a "small" suggestion. I also would like to have seen C.S. Lewis telling Dyson off, saying, "Oh, shut up, Hugo. Go on, Tollers."
Yes but the movie ended after World war one (the official End was like a epilog) the inkings-time (and his friendship with cs lewis ) would be intresting for a second movie.
I'm yet to see Oppenheimer, but it's interesting that you praise it for what has been a bit of a long running critique of Nolan, that his work tends to be bigger on ideas that it is on emotions. Even going as far back as the brilliant Memento, his characters have tended to be reserved, so you don't necessarily get these emotional arcs of development. Biopics have tended to be a somewhat lacklustre genre, and there is the definite cliche about how they will use one thing the person has done as the core story of their life and try to show how their life lead them to it. One of the more egregious ones was The Imitation Game which makes Alan Turing out to behave in a very particular way, which conflicts with just about every contemporary biography of him. Not to mention that like almost every film or program about enigma it underplays the massive Polish contribution. I'll be honest, the ones I have tended to enjoy have been things like American Splendor and Man On The Moon where they play around with the form, and even those I don't tend to go back to. I watched Tolkien tonight in response to this video being posted, so that is two hours of my life you owe me Jess... ;-) I'm kidding, I thought it was actually well filmed, but yeah, I did feel like religion was handled in the most cursory fashion, and I ended up wondering often how true some of the scenes were, and feeling elements were short-changed. If it's a film about how his life lead to writing LotR, where were the Inklings? Is there some evidence that Smith was gay, and if not, what was the point of that scene that plays out almost as a declaration of love? What was Tolkien's real relationship with Professor Wright like? In terms of the story it felt huge that he found someone who was as passionate about language as he was, but it felt like it was done in a few scenes. It's frustrating as I found some parts really charming, like the scene where Ronald and Edith talk about "Cellar Door", but ultimately the film felt like a loosely collected group of scenes without a compelling flow or great need to revisit.
Interesting and informative as usual. Still, I understand the desire to avoid controversy in a Tolkien biopic being less of a concern in an Oppenheimer biopic. I could see someone complaining about Tolkien ruined their enjoyment of Lord of the Rings. I can't see someone complaining about Oppenheimer ruined their enjoyment of nuclear bombs...
After I watched that movie, I immediately went to the directors commentary and watched it again to see how the director defended his choices. I was only somewhat comforted. You make a lot of good points which I totally agree with, but I see this movie for the theatrical production it is. You have a good critique overall
I would love a movie that focused on the relationship, and continuos discussion between Tolkien and Lewis. I wonder about how a meeting of Edith/Luthien/Arwen and Joy Gresham/"Helen"/Aravis/(Eowyn?), would be portrayed. But Edith's more Anglican faith and that Lewis did not become a Catholic , all this gives new perspectives, somewhere Lewis wrote that Edith's input was a part of their correspondence.
Was Tolkien based on a book though? Oppenheimer was. And of course Oppenheimer had a much larger budget. I honestly still haven't seen Tolkien, and I've definitely heard mixed things so it's interesting to hear your take! I've also heard that they downgraded Tolkien's faith. Sadly, a common thing these days. Great video, Jess! As for the marriage, I do feel like the better ME corollary to their relationship was probably not Beren and Luthien but the Ents and Entwives. Hope you are well!
I believe it's loosely based off of the Humphrey Carpenter bio, as that's the primary source on Tolkien's life. I haven't read American Prometheus, so I can't attest to how that book differs from the Carpenter bio, it's possible that American Prometheus has a more cohesive narrative and that helps the film, but I couldn't say. I'm glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks so much for watching.
I agree about the ents. I've always thought that this quote was a dig at Edith: "They desired peace and order, by which they meant that things should stay where they had put them." Also this one, from Farmer Giles of Ham: "There was no getting around Queen Agatha. At least it was a long walk."
@@KarenSDR A dig at Edith? I highly doubt it. Tolkien never denigrated peace and order. No one is really at fault in the story of the Ents and Entwives. They are just too different, in the end. But the song that Treebeard sings has such a beautiful, hopeful ending: 'Together we will take the road that leads into the West, And far away will find a land where both our hearts may rest.'
I was also impressed by "Oppenheimer." The frequent jumps backward and forward in time evoked a more intense emotional reaction in me than a straight chronological depiction would have. I found it interesting that Oppenheimer waved aside other scientists' moral qualms about dropping the bombs on Japan, but then began to share them after the deed was done. He wasn't so worried about what happened to the Japanese as he was about the risk of the US itself being targeted in some future war.
The Tolkien movie was entirely okay. It was visually beautiful but I barely remember it. Meanwhile, I almost had a panic attack in the 10 minutes leading up to the Trinity test. Nolan did such a great job of creating a sense of dread and heaviness. Your analysis was right on.
Never saw the biopic so can't comment on that. One thing I do find interesting though is that in his letters quite a few of them from before the LotR was published do actually talk about him struggling with money and being grateful to Allen & Unwin for any cheques he received, and regretting often to Stanley Unwin on being unable to write the "Hobbit sequel" because he had to work so hard to make ends meet that he had no time to write. So it seems money troubles were quite a pressing matter for him through much of his life. I assume the film also doesn't really talk about The Silmarillion, which seems pretty clear was for Tolkien his main work, the thing he was trying throughout his career to get published. And in many ways LotR became for him an outlet to sort of sneak in much of his Silmarillion writings into publication, in that moment when it stops being a "Hobbit sequel" and becomes a part of his wider mythology.
You did another wonderful job. Thanks. Tolkien's biopic also seemed to misunderstand Tolkien's professional conflict (getting it backward, in fact). The study of linguistics, philology and the writing of the OED struggled with gaining the credibility it needed to move forward and be funded - being distracted by his 'play language' was a threat to his serious skillset and the seriousness of his profession, so that he referred to it as his 'secret vice'. He was clear to assert that he never neglected his professional duties for his language or his books. Touting his language as the reason he saved his position at University is not likely. It is more likely that he was embarrassed by his creative writing and was somewhat amazed that it had a following. That could have been another twist in a better movie, in addition to the one you discussed...
As a story that took place close to living memory (less than 100 years ago) or least within our grandparent's, i should hope they get the COSTUMES right.
Oppenheimer was a great movie, in spite of being somewhat spoiled by the staccato editing, time jumping and even flipping from color to B&W. Tolkien was a disappointment to me as it left me feeling something was missing, like a homemade stew that turns out flat and unappetizing, missing some ingredient to make it exciting. Jess, you nailed it! I can imagine what a powerful movie it would have been if it dealt with his fervent Catholicism and his struggles with it and the Anglicanism of Edith.
Honestly I appreciated the editing, its frantic pace made the race to develop the bomb seem more real, and it upped the intensity of the movie overall... its a movie thats basically 3 hours of people talking, In my opinion it needed that intensity to keep viewers engaged. While I understand some people might be confused by the non linear storytelling, if you can follow it, its really quite interesting. I loved how the 3 time periods were essentially revealed by being a story within a story within a story. Also the non linear timeline allows for the ending scene to be the poignant comment it is. The black and white is also a stylistic choice made by Nolan. B&W scenes are objective, exactly what historically happened. Colour scenes are subjective, based on Oppenheimer's view.... this allows him to get away with minor historical fiction when needed to smooth the story telling, and allows him to provide a different viewpoint on the characters and events in the 2 sets of scenes.
I recommend watching the video 'Don't Watch OPPENHEIMER (Genoc*dal Sadz) | FOCAL' by Eezham Demon as well as looking into how those experiments in the desert harmed the POC residents.
I'd definitely be interested in watching Jess' version of the Tolkien biopic! Interestingly your description reminds me of another biopic, The Damned United. Its supposedly based on a novel of the same name, a fictionalisation of a legendary English football manager, Brian Clough, during the biggest failure of his career. The novel is a fascinating portrayal of his drive and demons when things go wrong, but the film is a more straightforward crowd pleaser and, to me, worse for it.
Good video with some good points. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I'm loving your outfit. I appreciate the more rustic, hobbit like style you usually rock, but this elegant Neo-Victorian look is so great. Keep up the good work and keep showing us your great style choices.
Dear Jess, thank you for making such interesting, thought provoking videos. I wanted to let you know that a friend of mine just watched the Tolkien movie, and they came away inspired by and interested in his life, so that is quite a positive from that, even with the drawbacks you pointed out about it.
Oppenheimer was really something else. I think it was the first film since Dune that was so good that it left me thinking about it for a while. (John Wick 4 was also good, but you know what I mean :) I watched it with my brother, Marvel fan etc., who didn't like it because it wasn't about the bomb, he would have liked more action. I however really liked it. Barbie however was shit lmao.
Haha yeah, John Wick 4 is about turning your brain off and just having fun lol I love movies like this though, that stick with you and make you think. Movies like this I tend to have the immediate reaction of "I want to watch that again". A lot of Nolan's movies elicit that reaction from me honestly.
It has to be better than Patch Adams, where the writer gender-switched a colleague of Adams so he could shoe-horn in a romance plot. Edit: Would you say that the Tolkien movie's vision of Tolkien is like "butter, scraped over too much bread"?
Great video, and thank you for pronouncing Oppenheimer's name correctly. Over the past few weeks I've heard so many people say _Open_ heimer that I've wanted to hit something. I read _J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography_ years ago, late '90s, around the same time I got my copy of the old green hardback _Silmarillion_ with the wonderful foldout maps (my highschool library was selling old books and I managed to pick up some great stuff for almost nothing.)
Excellent and brilliantly done video. You have a wonderful voice for speaking, I thoroughly enjoyed it. What I think is interesting is that men such as Tolkien and Oppenheimer, they became well known for those singular works to everyone. Only a few got to see more of who these men were. I think that it is important to show those more intimate things about anyone who has become so famous. That is basically because the rest of us could live our entire lives not knowing any of those details. Now I need to sew both of these movies.
What marvelous clothing styles, Jess! You have such subtle, dry humor that I sometimes have to go back and say, "What?" because your comment went by so fast. Thank you for an astute analysis of the Tolkien biopic. I've seen quite a few biopics (on Elton John, Freddie Mercury, King George VI, Alan Turing, and others), and they have an inherent challenge, viz., whether to present the person they're lionizing as an exemplar or as a real person, warts and all. That Oppenheimer chose the latter route is a main reason, I think, that it's much better than the common run of biopic. I agree with you that it was an excellent movie. I learned a great many things about Oppenheimer I didn't know. (I have an issue with the way Christopher Nolan lets sound override dialogue, but that's another matter.) If a biopic shuffles uncomfortable details under the rug, it does, as you said truly, a disservice to the audience. I've struggled with the dilemma of valuing an artist's work when the artist does something horrible or of eschewing the work entirely. Bill Cosby is a case in point. He was a very funny comedian who has been revealed as a monster. I don't say his name aloud anymore, but I still love his comedic routines. Ford was a virulent anti-Semite but a brilliant innovator whose company helped the U.S. win WWII. Scott Adams perfectly skewered the corporate workplace in Dilbert before he went nutso (or revealed he was always a crackpot). I'm a big fan of tennis champion Novak Djokovik, but he was dead wrong trying to wriggle around a COVID vaccination to compete. Those are just a few examples. Someone, I forget who, said that we are none of us one thing. Thus, I paean the good and reject the bad, separating work from person as well as I can. That Tolkien held a Victorian view about women and their place makes me sorrow, but it does not diminish the importance of his writings. Sigh. Unfortunately, most narratives are shades of grey. Thus it goes.
i enjoyed the Tolkien film but i definitely agree with your points about it. i havent had a chance to see Oppenheimer yet but i am looking forward to it. i would guess a key element is that its a Christopher Nolan film. hes certainly one of the big names of our day for a reason, and if you havent seen his other films i would recommend just about all of them. particularly i would point to The Prestige, Interstellar, and Tennet, but you can hardly go wrong with any of them
The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) metaphorically exploded in my teenage mind in 1965. Almost immediately after reading and rereading LOTR came an often disappointing search for more of the same. The ‘Sword and Sorcery’ pastiche works were of the sixties were notably lacking. Even Professor Tolkien’s shorter works, good as they were, fell a bit short of the impossible psyche-filling standard set by Professor Tolkien’s Masterpiece. There is a wide range among the multitude of works that analyze and explain the LOTR, and relate Professor Tolkien’s biography to his great work. Dr. Tom Shippey’s books should, in my view, be at the highest rung. Miss Jess’s work in numerous videos is well done, and has provided some new and agreeable insight to a Tolkien fan of more than fifty years. Miss Jess’s take on the 2019 Tolkien Bio-Pic seemed accurate. The very pretty actress Lily Collins certainly provided a believable muse, a woman about whom an imaginative man in love could weave visions of Luthien Tinuviel and Arwen Undomiel
It occurred to me later there was something else I thought I should say. I remember you saying you wanted to "branch out" (my words) from just Middle Earth themes, and I thought what good movie reviews you gave here. They're different from the rest in being more personal and heartfelt as opposed to technical cinematic critiques but were still very spot-on. So this might be something to explore. Just maybe give a little more detail concerning why something specifically in the movie or a particular scene made you feel the way you did.
I may do some movie reviews, but I usually find myself far too complimentary and non critical to do a fair job. I just enjoy most things I watch lol, so I prefer to analyze rather than criticize
I did feel that the connections they made to the stories, while understandable, felt a bit insecure, perhaps, like they wanted to make sure the people who liked the LOTR films had something to hold onto. I'm not sure the Silmarillion etc were mentioned at all, I forget, but I guess I expected some sort of sign that this heavy use of fantasy would be more interwoven somehow even if it predated even the Hobbit. In this phatasmagorical space it could start as green fields corrupted at the edges by literal and figurative machines, perhaps supersaturated and idyllic at the start. His relationship with his wife was also something that stuck out to me as adjusted too much, there are human stories that don't have to fold into the standard biopic frame and still be interesting. There's a sense that a lot of biographic films tend to be hagiographies, that creators feel they need to be, but it distances us from these human beings, it's why I've always had trouble with the form and relish any attempt to make individual human beings who happened to become well known feel more human. Another thing I was expecting was that Swiss mountain trip that informed his descriptions of foot travel, that was an adventure in itself. The thing that stands out most to me about what I know about his life, though, was the devotion and alienation that his son Christopher seemed to have. He'd spent a good portion of his life diving into his father's notes, and I detected this strong attempt to get to know his own father through his writing after he was gone. I came away from the film vaguely positive but I resented the missed opportunities and emphases, I guess.
Ah, the perfect video Jess to sit down with a Cup of tea from the Dales of Yorkshire, and a lovely Chocolate biscuit. P.S. I always love to see someone so filled with energy, and utterly comfortable without the need of makeup on camera during your little ad, which I may sign up for; and your style is utterly smashing old chap!
Oh my goodness I had SUCH an opposite reaction to Oppenheimer, but if something makes you feel and think, there's no arguing with that. I also have to say, the friend I saw it with was on the edge of her seat. Love your videos.
I loved Oppenheimer, it felt like the culmination of everything Christopher Nolan had been working towards through his film career to this point. An Exile On Main Street of greatest hits of new songs, if that makes sense. I think what has stayed with me the longest is the view that Oppenheimer justified what he did with the atomic bomb as a greater good, or a lesser evil, all the while doubting whether he himself was even a good man. A perfect juxtaposition of the people we are, and the things we do. But by the end of the film he's even doubting what he did was good. He's a man broken by everyone who counted on him and the country that made him, but his truly perplexed face at the end betrays a problem even he cannot solve. An unknowable conundrum the smartest man in the world spent his whole life dedicated to unravelling, even as it unravelled himself. Was he good? Was he bad? Did he do good or bad? He'll never know for sure, and neither can we.
I’ve a lot of thoughts on this topic, and perhaps I’ll dive more deeply into them sometime. But while you are right, I think my enjoyment of Tolkien comes from what it was trying to do. I’ve said many times that when I consume a story, I tend to enjoy it for what it is. Not for what it could have been. And that ties heavily into my opinions on the movie. Great video, and discussion though. I’ll need to think more about it. And yeah, Oppenheimer was fantastic. -T
I recommend watching the video 'Don't Watch OPPENHEIMER (Genoc*dal Sadz) | FOCAL' by Eezham Demon as well as looking into how those experiments in the desert harmed the POC residents.
I would like to read the biography about JRR Tolkien. I usually find that a movie about a famous person can be very shallow compared to a written biography. However, your talking about Oppenheimer has gotten me to want to see it. I don't know if it's I'm theaters anymore, but I will gladly watch it when it comes out on different platforms. I will probably checkout the Tolkien biopic just to be able to compare the biopic and the written biography.
Thank you for saying everything I thought myself at the time of seeing the film. I went to see it in the cinema after school with two friends. I was in year 12. I had read the Silmarillion in year 7, and I was obsessed with Tolkien and everything his since that point onwards - I'd say I considered him my role-model in life. I left the cinema feeling extremely disappointed with the film, especially for how it treated the romance between him and Edith, and how it entirely removed his Catholicism, which was the principal motivating factor for his near-every action (certainly any important enough to have even been considered to be portrayed on film). So thank you for putting my thoughts into a nice video.
I was bored stiff during "Tolkien," and I think you hit the nail on the head as to why - when you rob the events of a person's life of their context they just get too watered down to be interesting.
the tolkien film wasn’t what i expected out of a biopic. i think, because i was quite struck at the emphasis on the men in his life. i knew as a life-long don, he was a man of fraternity but the most pivotal and moving parts for me involved his relationships with other men; his brother, father francis, his four friends, his professors, the “tommy” that served under him in battle and his sons. the TCBS especially. the element of ‘found family’ displayed in the film felt like a nod to the idea of fellowship between unlikely individuals all motivated by a common goal, and becoming lifelong friends along the way, never to be the same once they arrive back home, if they do arrive back home……. wonder why they did that? lol 🙃 …. it felt like it held the hand of the viewer a lot, and gave a lot of “oh so that’s where he got the inspiration from in lotr!”. i do agree with you, you didn’t see inside tolkien beyond what we already know/would be expected from someone who’s in grief or war etc. he felt so far away, and distant, unpersonal. tolkien in tolkien felt very very lonely, even with his loved ones. i don’t know if it was the intention but they really alienated the audience away from its titular character. almost like, even without going to war, he was still like frodo with the injury from the morgul blade-some wounds never heal. and i don’t think that’s completely accurate the human condition nor tolkien himself. i enjoyed it nevertheless, though i do wonder; was it a tolkien biopic with elements of his career and works added in or was it a legendarium themed tolkien biopic?
Thanks for this video, as intelligent and insightful as ever. It set my mind off on a tangent regarding Catholic Fantasy and Science Fiction authors, specifically Gene Wolfe. Tolkien and Wolfe are certainly very different, but with many interesting similarities: deeply Catholic worldviews underlying their masterpieces (the Lord of the Rings and the Book of the New Sun respectively, both meditations on the nature of evil and salvation), Catholic conversion due to marriage (in Wolfe’s case, he converted to his wife’s faith, and became a fervent believer), amazing skills at building worlds connected to our own but at a fantastic remove, and apparent difficulty in writing three-dimensional women characters based on the (even more than now) male-dominated cultures they grew up in. Not necessarily on-topic for your channel, I know, but thank you for making me think more deeply about two of my favorite authors.
@@alanpennie8013 I would agree that Tolkien did not directly influence Wolfe’s stories. But Wolfe has written about his love for Tolkien in his essay “The Best Introduction to Mountains”. The first paragraph summarizes his take on the greatness of LoTR: There is one very real sense in which the Dark Ages were the brightest of times, and it is this: that they were times of defined and definite duties and freedoms. The king might rule badly, but everyone agreed as to what good rule was. Not only every earl and baron but every carl and churl knew what an ideal king would say and do. The peasant might behave badly; but the peasant did not expect praise for it, even his own praise. These assertions can be quibbled over endlessly, of course; there are always exceptional persons and exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless they represent a broad truth about Christianized barbarian society as a whole, and arguments that focus on exceptions provide a picture that is fundamentally false, even when the instances on which they are based are real and honestly presented. At a time when few others knew this, and very few others understood its implications, J. R. R. Tolkien both knew and understood, and was able to express that understanding in art, and in time in great art.
Well done! I thought you treated the movie very fairly, and with your usual diligence. It might have been interesting to delve into the influence the Tolkien estate might have had on the story the movie chose to tell, and why it turned out the way it did.
I think the Tolkien Estate is a great topic and something I don’t know much about. How much did JRRT dictate the approach they would take, and how much was it influenced by high paid IP lawyers and their thinking? In terms of “safeguarding” the Tolkien legacy (however they internally define this), what accounts for their IMO mixed success in the much admired but monster/horror laden LOTR movies, the bloated and silly Hobbit movie trilogy (!), and the off-the-rails and crazily expensive Rings of Power series?
@@凯思 The Tolkien Estate deserves its own video - or rather, Christopher Tolkien does, since he turned it into the 'monster' it is today, speaking of monsters. He was *insanely* protective of everything JRRT. He loathed the films. He refused to meet with Peter Jackson and once trashed the films before admitting he hadn't even seen them yet. He had a falling out with his own son over the movies (wtf?), and they were estranged for years. Many years later, a few years before his passing but still of quite sound mind, he bashed the films again. I wouldn't be surprised if he never saw them. We're lucky we have the LOTR films, because Tolkien himself sold the rights to them and the Hobbit in 1969 for $1.7 million USD in today's dollars. It seems ridiculous now, but who could have known? And it was a large chunk of cash for someone who didn't need the money, Tolkien was already rich from book sales. Tolkien also retained a 7.5% interest in royalties from future productions of his work, which has made the Tolkien Estate $600 million and himself one of the consistently top-earning dead celebrities of the 21st Century. Christopher died in 2020, before negotiations on the Rings of Power began. The TE behaved very cynically during the whole negotiation process, tearing off bits and pieces of Middle Earth for Amazon to use in exchange for $500 million. A few months after the show came out, it released "The Downfall of Numenor", a book that the showrunners would have _probably_ liked to have the material from. Why would you think horror is a negative in the films? Tolkien loved horror - clearly. Ungoliant, the Watcher in the Water, the Dark Nameless Things, the Nazgul and the Balrogs have strong undertones of cosmic horror to them, a distinctively 20th Century kind of horror, and there's plenty more traditional horror in Tolkien.
I don't recall where I read it, Jess, I believe it was Christopher who observed that his father always lived as if he was impoverished. Granting that he was anti industrial and no fan of modern-day lifestyles, when he had more than enough money to purchase a car he did not. His only concession to the financial stability he gained through basically the Lord of the Rings was to start taking taxis everywhere. Yes. He gave up his beloved bike. Even at the end of his life he got housing from one of the universities he worked for. It's been a long time so I may be wrong, my impression is Carpenter thought Tolkien was poor, even in spite of the success of the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Although, on that point I may misremember And, I completely agree with you, the whole question of his religious existence was thrown out prior to the script being written. Or so it would seem
Ah! So Tolkien was the first dork, who preferred his dork friends, talking about fantasy worlds and the games they played / designed. The best time of his life .. ? maybe ? Life gets in the way ! :D The movie - oppi was incredible, 10 / 10, I loved it especially compared to the other trash movies about at the moment.
as someone who went out and purchased american prometheus after watching oppenheimer, i can attest that it is indeed the most accurate biopic i have ever seen. i never did any additional research on turing after the imitation game, but i’d be willing to bet that one was also quite accurate. i think artists tend to get a bit more fancy inserted into their biopics because their fans are expecting a cohesive story where things seem to make sense instead of an unadulterated true account, which is what most followers of scientism prefer
The first half and a bit of the WW1 stuff were good, but all in all it was very lackluster. The cellar door bit makes me roll my eyes, which is super unfortunate because I love cellar door..0
I discovered this movie whilst channel hopping and I have to say, I absolutely loved it. For me, the goal of this movie was his creation of his world and languages of those that inhabit it through his experiences of both the beauty of the rolling fields surrounding Birmingham and the horrors of the trenches in world war one. Had the focus been on the detail of religion and conflict between relations and his wife, I think the finer points of the movie might have been lost. And yeah, maybe religion played a role in shaping some of his ideas, but ultimately I really feel that that the focus of the movie was about bringing us a better understanding of how Middle Earth was formed in the mind of the author. And also, similar to another great bio pic, that of Brian Wilson, called Love and Mercy (2014), we get to inhabit his world at two specific periods of his life. We don't really need to see everything else before or after.
Off the main subject at hand, the main revelation of this video I find interesting is how the reasons for Tolkien's loyalty to Catholicism were fundamentally Sentimental rather then Doctrinal. A lot about the lore of Arda is something a Catholic is the last kind of Christian I would expect to write, like how Organized Religion never comes off looking good. The fact is how Tolkien felt any kind of Society should be run seems far more Congregationalist. Not to mention how Varda is basically given a title that to Catholics belongs to Mary, Queen of Heaven.
I still can't see the point to making a biopic about Tolkien. Other than the war, there isn't anything about his life that's dramatic other than in an internal way. After the war, he became a scholar, taught classes, got married, had a couple of kids, and wrote some books. He didn't travel, he didn't do great deeds (other than write), he didn't get caught up in his growing fame. He was, in a word, boring, not at all a good subject for a motion picture (writing being a notoriously difficult art to make film about). Some writers' works speak for themselves; the writers are not nearly as interesting as what they create. ETA: My basic theory about biopics is that the best ones encompass the theme of the subject's life. Thus _Dragon,_ the biopic of Bruce Lee, is a kung fu movie; _De-Lovely,_ the biopic of Cole Porter, is a musical, etc. So I think a proper biopic of Tolkien would be created in the form of a fantasy story. (I do look forward to the psychological horror of Stephen King's biopic.)
Now Jess I love your channel.....like you I am a lifelong Middle-Earther. I devoured all things Tolkien and learned much of his background and history. On this topic I respectfully don't agree. I found his biopic to be excellent and it showed the history and passion he had for languages and academia. It told the story of his friends and his lifelong love of his wife and, most importantly, it showed how the war was his inspiration. In fact the dragon was not something (I am betting) that he imagined there in the trenches but it was well-known that those battles with the Nazis were his inspiration for the evil in LOTR. SO showing the dragon was a quick way to suggest to the viewer that this war scene was a future inspiration for Tolkien and he could have imagined a dragon during the battle. I agree his Catholicism was more important and should not have been down-played. I did not love Oppenheimer. I thought it was powerful and possibly even true to the characters but there were no "heroes" or even relatable characters in Oppenheimer - I walked away despising almost everyone in the film. I think Einstein was the only not deplorable character IMO. I didn't think that was a good biopic - it didn't connect (with me) emotionally - it felt more like an emotionless court reading of events.
The war that defined Tolkien was WW1 not WW2... the absolute waste of life for little to no reason, the loss of his dearest friends and the driving need to continue for their sakes, to tell the stories they were no longer able to tell...it was the Battle of the Somme with the dead encased in mud and water like flies in amber that gave him (& us) the Dead Marches. It was the need to create a mythology for England, as Tolkien became the foremost expert on Beowulf and found that most everything else in the ancient past of the island was lost. And because he couldn't find anything good to read, he figured he had to write the books himself.
Why does a film need to have a hero? Most of life is shades of grey man, not black and white. I'd argue a lot of the biopics that have "heroes" are severely whitewashing the true story. Oppenheimer took a complex man, who made one of the largest impacts on humanity in history, and told his story in an engaging and thought provoking way. I didn't walk out of the movie excited or happy.... I walked out feeling existential dread lol.... but that was the point. Good movies are meant to make you feel some type of emotion. It can be any emotion, not just happiness. If it achieves it, then its a good movie. Personally I loved it, and I found that the excellent performances of the characters allowed me to connect with the emotions just fine. Murphy, Blunt, and RDJ in particular.
The Catholic faith crap is garbage Tolien did not know the truth there as he was spiritually motivated imo not religiously motivated @ Archetypal view channel The Red book and The Red Book Jung Tolkien and The Divergence of Image video.
Very good video, as always. Very well researched, easy to follow, everything fine. Besides - i know, it is secondary, but i simply want to adress that you look really beautiful here:)
So we’re going there. Very well. But I still have good memories of this film in cinemas and at home. Oppenheimer is superior, no doubt about that; and this film had many missed opportunities not least of which was Professor Tolkien’s Catholicism. But 2019 was a bad year for me, so I will cling on to whatever gave me comfort back then.
I watched Tolkien tonight (after I saw Jess had posted this video in all honesty). I knew her title so I was aware she'd be criticising more than praising it, but there were parts of the movie I thought were really charming... but also insufficient. The whole subplot of the lost scholarship and finding a new mentor in Professor Wright, that felt like it may have been a huge thing for Tolkien, it seems unlikely he would have ever met someone as passionate about languages as he was for example. It's entirely fine to enjoy the film, the direction I thought was very good, at the same time, I feel it's just as fine for people to not care for the choices made by the writers
I agree totally with Jess about Tolkien's biopic, a little less about Oppenheimer. The latter had a strong and impactful beginning, and certainly dramatized the man and his life BUT... Some things seemed to ring a little false. In particularly the relationships with the women in his life. Maybe they were somewhat weird, but they did appear hard to relate to, and more a way to up the sexy. Also when his wife comes out swinging for him, I was kind of surprised, because there just didn't seem that close relationship between them previously. Like he didn't earn her passionate support. And the last bit of the film was dead space for me, and just made it unnecessarily long. I couldn't honestly care less about Oppy,'s struggles over his security clearance. Sure this might've been a big issue to him, but in the general context of the huge themes the film explores, it came across as petty and sad. I think though that Tolkien's Catholic faith could have been fitted into his biopic in a way that was relatable, realistic and elevating. Bios have a responsibility to themselves too, and to show us why we should care about their subjects.
Hey, just a question for you Jess. Where did you get your necklace/choker? My wife's birthday is coming up and I haven't been able to find any good quality ones. Just trying to do something sweet for her, and didn't know if you had any suggestions. -A husband in need
I loved Oppenheimer as well and I haven't seen the Tolkien movie nor do I plan to. I think what makes Oppenheimer great is the fact that it is a Nolan movie before a biopic. Nolan is one of the best filmmakers of our generation where as Tolkien was a very generic studio produced biopic about a guy who is famous. These vary in quality but are more miss than hit. Not really sure the point I'm making, I guess I just think the two are not really comparable. This may be Nolans best film, whereas Tolkien is just another film for the people that made it. Grandiose attention to detail vs studio filmmaking.
I have seen neither...interesting. I don't know if I missed the Tolkien one due to the "plague" or what. Hope to see the Oppenheimer one when I can. Thanks for your video!
I don't think Oppenheimer got it right. I don't buy his regret on the bombs, and I say that from interviews he gave in the 60s. His pride in the destruction he wrought has fascinated me for many years. The movie Tolkien really missed the mark though. It is so hard to do a good bio pic - too short and so much context gets left out.
Interesting. Im not sure I agreed with you on oppenheimer. I liked it a lot but felt as you described with tolkein something was missing. In oppenheimer it was the physics. There was physics in the film but the filmmakers made no attempt to really explain what it was and what he did. I am reading ray monks life of oppenheimer right now and the distinction in terms of the priority in oppenheimers life for physics versus what we see on screen is interesting. I felt a bit like with tolkeins catholicism they collapsed it to images as they thought the viewer couldnt understand or even glimpse it. But to me its say as important for oppenheimer as his relationship with his wife or maybe his communism. I love the channel and really enjoyed this video tho!
Biopics can be very interesting if the life that goes with them had something extraordinary about it, and with Tolkien the most extraordinary thing is that he wrote two classics and designed the whole world that goes with them, but that is not necessarily the material that great cinema dramas are made of. Tolkien the movie realises this very quickly, because the real drama is whether or not he will get the love of his life.
I know I watched the 2019 Tolkien movie but I have no memory of it past the CGI dragons during WWI and a painfully awkward to watch scene where he takes Edith to a restaurant. Your video explains why it didn't left me any impression: it lacks any true characterisation of who Tolkien was.
You realize if you keep this quality content going you're going to get to do some cool interviews with the LOTR actors someday, Peter Jackson, or some similar notable Tolkien figure. Maybe that's not crossed your mind, but is there anyone you'd like to interview?
Oh, I would love that very much but I'm not sure I'm quite there yet haha. I'd love to talk to any of them tbh, I find the minds of these creative people fascinating.
I think I went into Oppenheimer expecting something like Tolkien but would love top see it again when Im feeling more analytical. Still really liked it I was just a little thrown off so it made it a little hard to sort out my initial thoughts
I liked it. As a digestible war movie for people who don’t like them like me. I knew Tolkien wasn’t realistic long before the dragon in the trenches lol but it was pretty and okay for people who aren’t very invested in authors and literature.
I think there's a subtle but very important difference between the "man behind the creation" story and the "story of a man who created X" and Tolkein 2019 & Oppenheimer respectively are examples of this difference
I have trouble with watching Oppenheimer for one reason - Peaky Blinders. It's one of the best TV series I've watched. However, that's on me not the film. The Tolkien film is a simple afternoon period drama with a great soundtrack, that touches on the author's life. It's not a masterpiece, but i prefer it of the two for now.
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
All valid points. The Tolkien movie did feel lacking in a lot of ways. To me, its biggest sin was how it completely glossed over The Silmarillion. It was so intent on foreshadowing Lord of the Rings and showing how everything was building up to that moment, it ignored Tolkien's earlier mythology - the very stories he was writing in the time period the movie depicted. It had an on-screen coda that mentioned the names Beren and Luthien being on Tolkien and Edith's graves. But it didn't give a general audience any context for who those characters were or why they were so significant.
There were vague mentions of Tolkien writing stories in the military hospital but this wasn't explored and there was no mention of his attempt to create "a mythology for England." An audience member could come away from that film assuming he never wrote anything significant in those early years or never finished a story until The Hobbit.
My thoughts exactly! I was really hoping for more on the Silmarillion (and the Kalevala), and instead got almost nothing. The film made it look like the entire Legendarium began with the scrawl on that student's examination book.
You may be familiar with the book Tolkien and the Great War? It's quite good.
something i did not realize until watching this video was that the effect of the extended family abandoning Tolkien's mother for becoming Catholic- This might have been what made him resent those who are overly controlling or possessive. All the major villian's main characteristic is either being overly possessive of an item (Feanor and Gollum) or overly controlling (Sauron, Sauruman and Morgoth)
One thing that bothers me about movies/shows that claim to be biographical is that it’s sometimes hard to tell what’s factual and what was made up and most people don’t go back and research it that deeply to double check. It can lead to misconceptions about famous or historical people that then become commonly accepted, which isn’t fair to who the person really was (and can be a dangerous slope to slide down…).
one of the things oppenheimer did really well was having oppenheimer’s security clearence getting renewed as a framing device along with lewis strauss congressional hearing
biopics tend to ignore the fact that historical figures don’t end their time with a significant achievement like the a bomb or in tolkien’s case Lord of the Rings
Music biopics end in a freeze-frame of a comeback in their career. Always. And other biopics, usually some other high-note sh*t.
Not a lot of biopics end with the protagonist envisioning the end of the world.
I could listen to her for hours!! Beautiful voice, pronunciation, intellect!!! Such great storytelling
I'm going to share this with a friend of mine whom I saw "Tolkien" with in the theatre back in the day. We both thought it was pretty good, but the bar is pretty low for movies even back in 2019, and now it's worse. It left both of us, or at least me, wanting more as if there was more to want. And now with your warm passionate video I understand what that "more" was.
Also I love your thematic costuming for your video subjects. Glad to see you seem to be doing successfully.
"Back in the day." As in, four whole years ago? Hahaha j/k it just shows how the pandemic has warped our sense of time both during, before and after it. 2019 does seem like a 'different time' in the weirdest way.
I think a Biopic of Tolkien would be much better in a series format. Tolkien's life isn't easy to show and I think you would need just more time for that to do it accurately.
The biopic to me seemed like they took a standard Hollywood period love story-money issues and overbearing guardian keeping them apart, deciding he loves her on the day WWI breaks out, etc.-and pasted in names from Tolkien’s life.
Replacing God with money does seem pretty on brand for Hollywood
@jessoftheshire yesssss
It was my greatest frustration with the movie as well, that they basically eliminated any mention of his Catholic faith. It is so central to his writings. Idk if you are Catholic yourself, but as a Catholic, this omission left me wanting, a lot, with this film.
Thank you for this honest analysis!
And I totally agree about Oppenheimer! Best thing Hollywood has done is many years
It is a fundamental flaw of the movie. The destructive influence of religion even within families - that one would cut off even a destitute, widowed, young mother - because of sectarian differences.
Also: convert or we shall not pass into matrimony.
Also: the subtext of woman not being an equal human - only there to make babies, keep house & manage social affairs - regardless of her talents, years of effort, & ambitions - the stripping of a womans very self-agency and joy.
@yeahnaaa292 zero of what you said is true of the Catholic religion, of course. My question is, why do u think it's okay to come on here and attack my religion out of the blue like a year later? Just uncalled for. I'm a real human being. Again, simply wrong and rude and cruel. Particularly since it's all made up nonsense and lies, that have literally NOTHING of truth about the Catholic faith. Wow.
@@yeahnaaa292What in the world are you writing? Need your Meds?
@@worrier2warrior851 The poster did not say that was true of Catholicism. But it was true of JRRT. He had very little contact with women between his mother's death and when he met Edith. He did demand she convert, and he did object to her having any role outside the home.
Like many many of his generation, his views changed over his life, but this took time. In the 1940s, he wrote in a letter to Christopher that women were intellectually inferior to men. By the 1960s and his extensive correspondence with his female fanbase, he no longer believed that.
Tolkien was as complex and flawed as any of us, and putting him on a pedestal does both him and us a disservice.
Great analysis. I wasn’t even aware of a Tolkien biopic, but the omissions you point out would be fatal to any in-depth consideration of what made the man who he was.
I agree that Oppenheimer was an amazing character study and a film that didn’t shy away from what made the man who he was. It will stay with me a long time.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, oppenheimer is first & foremost, a character study presented through the medium of film, while Tolkein 2019 (I also haven't seen it) appears very much to be a movie about how the books came to be first, and an exploration of JrrT second (by what appears to be quite some way) where the point of the story is LotR, wherein Tolkein is almost little more than a vehicle for the plot; while in Oppenheimer, Oppenheimer is the point of the story, wherein he creates the bomb, amongst many other very interesting and important things he does with his life
Great comparison and critique. Indeed, Tolkien's biopic was more focused on his creation rather than the person, in contrast with the more balanced Oppenheimer movie.
I've never seen Tolkien.... now I don't have to, thank you lol
Also, Oppenheimer was incredible. The idea that a 3 hour prestige historical drama biopic, thats mostly dudes talking in rooms, could be that INTENSE just makes me appreciate the art of movie making even more. What an experience in the theatres. I found the comparison to Prometheus to be particularly fascinating... what an idea!
Ultimately, like most historical titans, Oppenheimer was a complex, and at times confusing, man.... I like that the movie reflects that accurately. Murphy, Blunt, and RDJ were standouts for me. All Oscar nomination worthy performances in my opinion. The subtle differences in Murphy's performances between the colour and B&W scenes was incredible.
The soundtrack was incredible in setting the mood
@@axelNodvon2047 yep, I feel like the musical score and the editing style really helped keep the pace of the movie high. You truly felt the urgent race to build the bomb before the Nazi's could. Without them, it might've dragged a bit.... it is 3 hours of just people talking lol yet it feels like a thriller because of Nolan's choices.
I will always be impressed that Spotlight managed to make rulers on a page compelling! The Insider with Russell Crowe is another very good movie that is all dialogue, so I figure I'm going to enjoy Oppenheimer when I get around to seeing it
This is a phenomenal investigation as to what makes a good biopic or biography for that matter. Every person is complex and has an incomprehensible inner life. Oppenheimer was absolutely brilliant. I bought the book it was based on.
There was a Tolkien biopic in 2019? The pandemic has scrambled my sense of time.
😂😂 I only knew about because it came up on my feed one day in 2021
I have seen the movie, and i think it is well worth the watch
I didn’t watch it at the time because I heard it glossed over his catholicism (which I thought would annoy me). I have watched it since I think it’s a good film, but they do leave out quite a few bits from his early life.
I just saw the movie on Tubi. I thought it was good, even though you have to take any biopic with a grain of salt, which after listening to this video, I see there was a lot more was going on than what was shown in the movie.
It was worthless. It barely even brought up LotR at all
“All of the characters have the correct names…” *Aruman intensifies*
I agree. I was fairly surprised that they didn't include more of Tolkien's faith in the movie given how much Tolkien talks of his faith in his Letters. I liked how they handled the T.C.B.S., but wish they had included his later friendship with the rest of the Inklings. Diana Glyer's "The Company They Keep" and "Bandersnatch" show just how much the Inklings helped Tolkien form and shape The Lord of the Rings. One favorite moment of mine is Charles Williams bringing up that the original wording for one of Treebeard's lines sounded too much like a pirate, and instead recommended "Root and twig". Tolkien agreed, and made the change. By contrast Hugo Dyson hated Tolkien's readings of the Lord of the Rings. It would have been great to see the contrast between Williams and Dyson on screen, one Inkling hating it and the other paying so close attention as to make what most of call a "small" suggestion. I also would like to have seen C.S. Lewis telling Dyson off, saying, "Oh, shut up, Hugo. Go on, Tollers."
Yes but the movie ended after World war one (the official End was like a epilog) the inkings-time (and his friendship with cs lewis ) would be intresting for a second movie.
I'm yet to see Oppenheimer, but it's interesting that you praise it for what has been a bit of a long running critique of Nolan, that his work tends to be bigger on ideas that it is on emotions. Even going as far back as the brilliant Memento, his characters have tended to be reserved, so you don't necessarily get these emotional arcs of development.
Biopics have tended to be a somewhat lacklustre genre, and there is the definite cliche about how they will use one thing the person has done as the core story of their life and try to show how their life lead them to it. One of the more egregious ones was The Imitation Game which makes Alan Turing out to behave in a very particular way, which conflicts with just about every contemporary biography of him. Not to mention that like almost every film or program about enigma it underplays the massive Polish contribution. I'll be honest, the ones I have tended to enjoy have been things like American Splendor and Man On The Moon where they play around with the form, and even those I don't tend to go back to.
I watched Tolkien tonight in response to this video being posted, so that is two hours of my life you owe me Jess... ;-) I'm kidding, I thought it was actually well filmed, but yeah, I did feel like religion was handled in the most cursory fashion, and I ended up wondering often how true some of the scenes were, and feeling elements were short-changed. If it's a film about how his life lead to writing LotR, where were the Inklings? Is there some evidence that Smith was gay, and if not, what was the point of that scene that plays out almost as a declaration of love? What was Tolkien's real relationship with Professor Wright like? In terms of the story it felt huge that he found someone who was as passionate about language as he was, but it felt like it was done in a few scenes. It's frustrating as I found some parts really charming, like the scene where Ronald and Edith talk about "Cellar Door", but ultimately the film felt like a loosely collected group of scenes without a compelling flow or great need to revisit.
Interesting and informative as usual.
Still, I understand the desire to avoid controversy in a Tolkien biopic being less of a concern in an Oppenheimer biopic. I could see someone complaining about Tolkien ruined their enjoyment of Lord of the Rings. I can't see someone complaining about Oppenheimer ruined their enjoyment of nuclear bombs...
After I watched that movie, I immediately went to the directors commentary and watched it again to see how the director defended his choices. I was only somewhat comforted. You make a lot of good points which I totally agree with, but I see this movie for the theatrical production it is. You have a good critique overall
Great breakdown of this movie and Tolkien's life. Side note your outfit and astettic are absolutely stunning as part of the padgentry.
Jess, your outfit is SOOOO CUTE in this video!!! Love the hairstyle :)
I appreciate your honesty in your videos. Great job and looking forward to next week.
I would love a movie that focused on the relationship, and continuos discussion between Tolkien and Lewis.
I wonder about how a meeting of Edith/Luthien/Arwen and Joy Gresham/"Helen"/Aravis/(Eowyn?), would be portrayed.
But Edith's more Anglican faith and that Lewis did not become a Catholic , all this gives new perspectives, somewhere Lewis wrote that Edith's input was a part of their correspondence.
Tolkien and Lewis were such fascinating men with a fascinating relationship!
*clicks on video excited for new happity hobbity Tolkien knowledge*
*takes two minutes to get over how adorable she looks with her hair and outfit*
Was Tolkien based on a book though? Oppenheimer was. And of course Oppenheimer had a much larger budget. I honestly still haven't seen Tolkien, and I've definitely heard mixed things so it's interesting to hear your take! I've also heard that they downgraded Tolkien's faith. Sadly, a common thing these days. Great video, Jess! As for the marriage, I do feel like the better ME corollary to their relationship was probably not Beren and Luthien but the Ents and Entwives. Hope you are well!
I believe it's loosely based off of the Humphrey Carpenter bio, as that's the primary source on Tolkien's life. I haven't read American Prometheus, so I can't attest to how that book differs from the Carpenter bio, it's possible that American Prometheus has a more cohesive narrative and that helps the film, but I couldn't say. I'm glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks so much for watching.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Tolkien biopic is based more on the Tolkien and the great war book.
I agree about the ents. I've always thought that this quote was a dig at Edith: "They desired peace and order, by which they meant that things should stay where they had put them." Also this one, from Farmer Giles of Ham: "There was no getting around Queen Agatha. At least it was a long walk."
@@KingHador Haven't read it yet but it's John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War [Harper Collins in the UK].
@@KarenSDR A dig at Edith? I highly doubt it. Tolkien never denigrated peace and order.
No one is really at fault in the story of the Ents and Entwives. They are just too different, in the end. But the song that Treebeard sings has such a beautiful, hopeful ending: 'Together we will take the road that leads into the West,
And far away will find a land where both our hearts may rest.'
I was also impressed by "Oppenheimer." The frequent jumps backward and forward in time evoked a more intense emotional reaction in me than a straight chronological depiction would have. I found it interesting that Oppenheimer waved aside other scientists' moral qualms about dropping the bombs on Japan, but then began to share them after the deed was done. He wasn't so worried about what happened to the Japanese as he was about the risk of the US itself being targeted in some future war.
The Tolkien movie was entirely okay. It was visually beautiful but I barely remember it.
Meanwhile, I almost had a panic attack in the 10 minutes leading up to the Trinity test. Nolan did such a great job of creating a sense of dread and heaviness.
Your analysis was right on.
I learned a lot from this video. I’m going to have to read the Humphrey biography now.
Never saw the biopic so can't comment on that. One thing I do find interesting though is that in his letters quite a few of them from before the LotR was published do actually talk about him struggling with money and being grateful to Allen & Unwin for any cheques he received, and regretting often to Stanley Unwin on being unable to write the "Hobbit sequel" because he had to work so hard to make ends meet that he had no time to write. So it seems money troubles were quite a pressing matter for him through much of his life.
I assume the film also doesn't really talk about The Silmarillion, which seems pretty clear was for Tolkien his main work, the thing he was trying throughout his career to get published. And in many ways LotR became for him an outlet to sort of sneak in much of his Silmarillion writings into publication, in that moment when it stops being a "Hobbit sequel" and becomes a part of his wider mythology.
You did another wonderful job. Thanks. Tolkien's biopic also seemed to misunderstand Tolkien's professional conflict (getting it backward, in fact). The study of linguistics, philology and the writing of the OED struggled with gaining the credibility it needed to move forward and be funded - being distracted by his 'play language' was a threat to his serious skillset and the seriousness of his profession, so that he referred to it as his 'secret vice'. He was clear to assert that he never neglected his professional duties for his language or his books. Touting his language as the reason he saved his position at University is not likely. It is more likely that he was embarrassed by his creative writing and was somewhat amazed that it had a following. That could have been another twist in a better movie, in addition to the one you discussed...
As a story that took place close to living memory (less than 100 years ago) or least within our grandparent's, i should hope they get the COSTUMES right.
Well done! Nailed it! I was an Usher in a Cinema when this came out. I had to do the Tolkien shift about a billion times.
Oppenheimer was a great movie, in spite of being somewhat spoiled by the staccato editing, time jumping and even flipping from color to B&W. Tolkien was a disappointment to me as it left me feeling something was missing, like a homemade stew that turns out flat and unappetizing, missing some ingredient to make it exciting. Jess, you nailed it! I can imagine what a powerful movie it would have been if it dealt with his fervent Catholicism and his struggles with it and the Anglicanism of Edith.
Honestly I appreciated the editing, its frantic pace made the race to develop the bomb seem more real, and it upped the intensity of the movie overall... its a movie thats basically 3 hours of people talking, In my opinion it needed that intensity to keep viewers engaged.
While I understand some people might be confused by the non linear storytelling, if you can follow it, its really quite interesting. I loved how the 3 time periods were essentially revealed by being a story within a story within a story. Also the non linear timeline allows for the ending scene to be the poignant comment it is.
The black and white is also a stylistic choice made by Nolan. B&W scenes are objective, exactly what historically happened. Colour scenes are subjective, based on Oppenheimer's view.... this allows him to get away with minor historical fiction when needed to smooth the story telling, and allows him to provide a different viewpoint on the characters and events in the 2 sets of scenes.
I recommend watching the video 'Don't Watch OPPENHEIMER (Genoc*dal Sadz) | FOCAL' by Eezham Demon as well as looking into how those experiments in the desert harmed the POC residents.
I'd definitely be interested in watching Jess' version of the Tolkien biopic! Interestingly your description reminds me of another biopic, The Damned United. Its supposedly based on a novel of the same name, a fictionalisation of a legendary English football manager, Brian Clough, during the biggest failure of his career. The novel is a fascinating portrayal of his drive and demons when things go wrong, but the film is a more straightforward crowd pleaser and, to me, worse for it.
Good video with some good points. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I'm loving your outfit. I appreciate the more rustic, hobbit like style you usually rock, but this elegant Neo-Victorian look is so great. Keep up the good work and keep showing us your great style choices.
Dear Jess, thank you for making such interesting, thought provoking videos. I wanted to let you know that a friend of mine just watched the Tolkien movie, and they came away inspired by and interested in his life, so that is quite a positive from that, even with the drawbacks you pointed out about it.
Oppenheimer was really something else. I think it was the first film since Dune that was so good that it left me thinking about it for a while. (John Wick 4 was also good, but you know what I mean :) I watched it with my brother, Marvel fan etc., who didn't like it because it wasn't about the bomb, he would have liked more action. I however really liked it. Barbie however was shit lmao.
Haha yeah, John Wick 4 is about turning your brain off and just having fun lol
I love movies like this though, that stick with you and make you think. Movies like this I tend to have the immediate reaction of "I want to watch that again". A lot of Nolan's movies elicit that reaction from me honestly.
It has to be better than Patch Adams, where the writer gender-switched a colleague of Adams so he could shoe-horn in a romance plot.
Edit: Would you say that the Tolkien movie's vision of Tolkien is like "butter, scraped over too much bread"?
I used to say that about The Hobbit films lol
Great video, and thank you for pronouncing Oppenheimer's name correctly. Over the past few weeks I've heard so many people say _Open_ heimer that I've wanted to hit something.
I read _J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography_ years ago, late '90s, around the same time I got my copy of the old green hardback _Silmarillion_ with the wonderful foldout maps (my highschool library was selling old books and I managed to pick up some great stuff for almost nothing.)
Excellent and brilliantly done video. You have a wonderful voice for speaking, I thoroughly enjoyed it. What I think is interesting is that men such as Tolkien and Oppenheimer, they became well known for those singular works to everyone. Only a few got to see more of who these men were. I think that it is important to show those more intimate things about anyone who has become so famous. That is basically because the rest of us could live our entire lives not knowing any of those details. Now I need to sew both of these movies.
What marvelous clothing styles, Jess! You have such subtle, dry humor that I sometimes have to go back and say, "What?" because your comment went by so fast. Thank you for an astute analysis of the Tolkien biopic. I've seen quite a few biopics (on Elton John, Freddie Mercury, King George VI, Alan Turing, and others), and they have an inherent challenge, viz., whether to present the person they're lionizing as an exemplar or as a real person, warts and all. That Oppenheimer chose the latter route is a main reason, I think, that it's much better than the common run of biopic. I agree with you that it was an excellent movie. I learned a great many things about Oppenheimer I didn't know. (I have an issue with the way Christopher Nolan lets sound override dialogue, but that's another matter.) If a biopic shuffles uncomfortable details under the rug, it does, as you said truly, a disservice to the audience. I've struggled with the dilemma of valuing an artist's work when the artist does something horrible or of eschewing the work entirely. Bill Cosby is a case in point. He was a very funny comedian who has been revealed as a monster. I don't say his name aloud anymore, but I still love his comedic routines. Ford was a virulent anti-Semite but a brilliant innovator whose company helped the U.S. win WWII. Scott Adams perfectly skewered the corporate workplace in Dilbert before he went nutso (or revealed he was always a crackpot). I'm a big fan of tennis champion Novak Djokovik, but he was dead wrong trying to wriggle around a COVID vaccination to compete. Those are just a few examples. Someone, I forget who, said that we are none of us one thing. Thus, I paean the good and reject the bad, separating work from person as well as I can. That Tolkien held a Victorian view about women and their place makes me sorrow, but it does not diminish the importance of his writings. Sigh. Unfortunately, most narratives are shades of grey. Thus it goes.
i enjoyed the Tolkien film but i definitely agree with your points about it. i havent had a chance to see Oppenheimer yet but i am looking forward to it. i would guess a key element is that its a Christopher Nolan film. hes certainly one of the big names of our day for a reason, and if you havent seen his other films i would recommend just about all of them. particularly i would point to The Prestige, Interstellar, and Tennet, but you can hardly go wrong with any of them
The Prestige is so underrated. Its a Top 5 Nolan film for me.... and considering his catalogue, thats HIGH praise!
The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) metaphorically exploded in my teenage mind in 1965. Almost immediately after reading and rereading LOTR came an often disappointing search for more of the same. The ‘Sword and Sorcery’ pastiche works were of the sixties were notably lacking. Even Professor Tolkien’s shorter works, good as they were, fell a bit short of the impossible psyche-filling standard set by Professor Tolkien’s Masterpiece.
There is a wide range among the multitude of works that analyze and explain the LOTR, and relate Professor Tolkien’s biography to his great work. Dr. Tom Shippey’s books should, in my view, be at the highest rung. Miss Jess’s work in numerous videos is well done, and has provided some new and agreeable insight to a Tolkien fan of more than fifty years. Miss Jess’s take on the 2019 Tolkien Bio-Pic seemed accurate. The very pretty actress Lily Collins certainly provided a believable muse, a woman about whom an imaginative man in love could weave visions of Luthien Tinuviel and Arwen Undomiel
It occurred to me later there was something else I thought I should say. I remember you saying you wanted to "branch out" (my words) from just Middle Earth themes, and I thought what good movie reviews you gave here. They're different from the rest in being more personal and heartfelt as opposed to technical cinematic critiques but were still very spot-on. So this might be something to explore. Just maybe give a little more detail concerning why something specifically in the movie or a particular scene made you feel the way you did.
I may do some movie reviews, but I usually find myself far too complimentary and non critical to do a fair job. I just enjoy most things I watch lol, so I prefer to analyze rather than criticize
That was a brilliant analysis and a very becoming getup. I will check out Oppenheimer. Thanks.
Oh no, you made me break my rule: never click on a TH-cam thumbnail with an arrow in it. 😊
Now I know what's keeping me from watching Tom Scott... 😂
i Am loving your fashion style Jess!
I did feel that the connections they made to the stories, while understandable, felt a bit insecure, perhaps, like they wanted to make sure the people who liked the LOTR films had something to hold onto. I'm not sure the Silmarillion etc were mentioned at all, I forget, but I guess I expected some sort of sign that this heavy use of fantasy would be more interwoven somehow even if it predated even the Hobbit. In this phatasmagorical space it could start as green fields corrupted at the edges by literal and figurative machines, perhaps supersaturated and idyllic at the start. His relationship with his wife was also something that stuck out to me as adjusted too much, there are human stories that don't have to fold into the standard biopic frame and still be interesting. There's a sense that a lot of biographic films tend to be hagiographies, that creators feel they need to be, but it distances us from these human beings, it's why I've always had trouble with the form and relish any attempt to make individual human beings who happened to become well known feel more human.
Another thing I was expecting was that Swiss mountain trip that informed his descriptions of foot travel, that was an adventure in itself. The thing that stands out most to me about what I know about his life, though, was the devotion and alienation that his son Christopher seemed to have. He'd spent a good portion of his life diving into his father's notes, and I detected this strong attempt to get to know his own father through his writing after he was gone.
I came away from the film vaguely positive but I resented the missed opportunities and emphases, I guess.
Ah, the perfect video Jess to sit down with a Cup of tea from the Dales of Yorkshire, and a lovely Chocolate biscuit.
P.S. I always love to see someone so filled with energy, and utterly comfortable without the need of makeup on camera during your little ad, which I may sign up for; and your style is utterly smashing old chap!
Oh my goodness I had SUCH an opposite reaction to Oppenheimer, but if something makes you feel and think, there's no arguing with that. I also have to say, the friend I saw it with was on the edge of her seat. Love your videos.
"Tolkien’s Lost Chaucer" by John M. Bowers, I listen to the audiobook and it was good. I learned about his interesting life.
I loved Oppenheimer, it felt like the culmination of everything Christopher Nolan had been working towards through his film career to this point. An Exile On Main Street of greatest hits of new songs, if that makes sense. I think what has stayed with me the longest is the view that Oppenheimer justified what he did with the atomic bomb as a greater good, or a lesser evil, all the while doubting whether he himself was even a good man. A perfect juxtaposition of the people we are, and the things we do. But by the end of the film he's even doubting what he did was good. He's a man broken by everyone who counted on him and the country that made him, but his truly perplexed face at the end betrays a problem even he cannot solve. An unknowable conundrum the smartest man in the world spent his whole life dedicated to unravelling, even as it unravelled himself. Was he good? Was he bad? Did he do good or bad? He'll never know for sure, and neither can we.
I’ve a lot of thoughts on this topic, and perhaps I’ll dive more deeply into them sometime. But while you are right, I think my enjoyment of Tolkien comes from what it was trying to do. I’ve said many times that when I consume a story, I tend to enjoy it for what it is. Not for what it could have been. And that ties heavily into my opinions on the movie.
Great video, and discussion though. I’ll need to think more about it. And yeah, Oppenheimer was fantastic.
-T
I recommend watching the video 'Don't Watch OPPENHEIMER (Genoc*dal Sadz) | FOCAL' by Eezham Demon as well as looking into how those experiments in the desert harmed the POC residents.
I would like to read the biography about JRR Tolkien. I usually find that a movie about a famous person can be very shallow compared to a written biography. However, your talking about Oppenheimer has gotten me to want to see it. I don't know if it's I'm theaters anymore, but I will gladly watch it when it comes out on different platforms. I will probably checkout the Tolkien biopic just to be able to compare the biopic and the written biography.
Thank you for saying everything I thought myself at the time of seeing the film. I went to see it in the cinema after school with two friends. I was in year 12. I had read the Silmarillion in year 7, and I was obsessed with Tolkien and everything his since that point onwards - I'd say I considered him my role-model in life.
I left the cinema feeling extremely disappointed with the film, especially for how it treated the romance between him and Edith, and how it entirely removed his Catholicism, which was the principal motivating factor for his near-every action (certainly any important enough to have even been considered to be portrayed on film).
So thank you for putting my thoughts into a nice video.
Great analysis and great video, thank you
I was bored stiff during "Tolkien," and I think you hit the nail on the head as to why - when you rob the events of a person's life of their context they just get too watered down to be interesting.
the tolkien film wasn’t what i expected out of a biopic. i think, because i was quite struck at the emphasis on the men in his life. i knew as a life-long don, he was a man of fraternity but the most pivotal and moving parts for me involved his relationships with other men; his brother, father francis, his four friends, his professors, the “tommy” that served under him in battle and his sons. the TCBS especially.
the element of ‘found family’ displayed in the film felt like a nod to the idea of fellowship between unlikely individuals all motivated by a common goal, and becoming lifelong friends along the way, never to be the same once they arrive back home, if they do arrive back home……. wonder why they did that? lol 🙃 …. it felt like it held the hand of the viewer a lot, and gave a lot of “oh so that’s where he got the inspiration from in lotr!”.
i do agree with you, you didn’t see inside tolkien beyond what we already know/would be expected from someone who’s in grief or war etc. he felt so far away, and distant, unpersonal. tolkien in tolkien felt very very lonely, even with his loved ones. i don’t know if it was the intention but they really alienated the audience away from its titular character. almost like, even without going to war, he was still like frodo with the injury from the morgul blade-some wounds never heal. and i don’t think that’s completely accurate the human condition nor tolkien himself.
i enjoyed it nevertheless, though i do wonder; was it a tolkien biopic with elements of his career and works added in or was it a legendarium themed tolkien biopic?
Thanks for this video, as intelligent and insightful as ever. It set my mind off on a tangent regarding Catholic Fantasy and Science Fiction authors, specifically Gene Wolfe. Tolkien and Wolfe are certainly very different, but with many interesting similarities: deeply Catholic worldviews underlying their masterpieces (the Lord of the Rings and the Book of the New Sun respectively, both meditations on the nature of evil and salvation), Catholic conversion due to marriage (in Wolfe’s case, he converted to his wife’s faith, and became a fervent believer), amazing skills at building worlds connected to our own but at a fantastic remove, and apparent difficulty in writing three-dimensional women characters based on the (even more than now) male-dominated cultures they grew up in. Not necessarily on-topic for your channel, I know, but thank you for making me think more deeply about two of my favorite authors.
It's an interesting comparison since Wolfe's writings show no discernable influence from Tolkien.
Mind you I only know his early writings at all well.
@@alanpennie8013 I would agree that Tolkien did not directly influence Wolfe’s stories. But Wolfe has written about his love for Tolkien in his essay “The Best Introduction to Mountains”. The first paragraph summarizes his take on the greatness of LoTR:
There is one very real sense in which the Dark Ages were the brightest of times, and it is this: that they were times of defined and definite duties and freedoms. The king might rule badly, but everyone agreed as to what good rule was. Not only every earl and baron but every carl and churl knew what an ideal king would say and do. The peasant might behave badly; but the peasant did not expect praise for it, even his own praise. These assertions can be quibbled over endlessly, of course; there are always exceptional persons and exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless they represent a broad truth about Christianized barbarian society as a whole, and arguments that focus on exceptions provide a picture that is fundamentally false, even when the instances on which they are based are real and honestly presented. At a time when few others knew this, and very few others understood its implications, J. R. R. Tolkien both knew and understood, and was able to express that understanding in art, and in time in great art.
Well done! I thought you treated the movie very fairly, and with your usual diligence. It might have been interesting to delve into the influence the Tolkien estate might have had on the story the movie chose to tell, and why it turned out the way it did.
I think the Tolkien Estate is a great topic and something I don’t know much about. How much did JRRT dictate the approach they would take, and how much was it influenced by high paid IP lawyers and their thinking? In terms of “safeguarding” the Tolkien legacy (however they internally define this), what accounts for their IMO mixed success in the much admired but monster/horror laden LOTR movies, the bloated and silly Hobbit movie trilogy (!), and the off-the-rails and crazily expensive Rings of Power series?
@@凯思 The Tolkien Estate deserves its own video - or rather, Christopher Tolkien does, since he turned it into the 'monster' it is today, speaking of monsters. He was *insanely* protective of everything JRRT. He loathed the films. He refused to meet with Peter Jackson and once trashed the films before admitting he hadn't even seen them yet. He had a falling out with his own son over the movies (wtf?), and they were estranged for years. Many years later, a few years before his passing but still of quite sound mind, he bashed the films again. I wouldn't be surprised if he never saw them.
We're lucky we have the LOTR films, because Tolkien himself sold the rights to them and the Hobbit in 1969 for $1.7 million USD in today's dollars. It seems ridiculous now, but who could have known? And it was a large chunk of cash for someone who didn't need the money, Tolkien was already rich from book sales. Tolkien also retained a 7.5% interest in royalties from future productions of his work, which has made the Tolkien Estate $600 million and himself one of the consistently top-earning dead celebrities of the 21st Century.
Christopher died in 2020, before negotiations on the Rings of Power began. The TE behaved very cynically during the whole negotiation process, tearing off bits and pieces of Middle Earth for Amazon to use in exchange for $500 million. A few months after the show came out, it released "The Downfall of Numenor", a book that the showrunners would have _probably_ liked to have the material from.
Why would you think horror is a negative in the films? Tolkien loved horror - clearly. Ungoliant, the Watcher in the Water, the Dark Nameless Things, the Nazgul and the Balrogs have strong undertones of cosmic horror to them, a distinctively 20th Century kind of horror, and there's plenty more traditional horror in Tolkien.
I don't recall where I read it, Jess, I believe it was Christopher who observed that his father always lived as if he was impoverished. Granting that he was anti industrial and no fan of modern-day lifestyles, when he had more than enough money to purchase a car he did not. His only concession to the financial stability he gained through basically the Lord of the Rings was to start taking taxis everywhere. Yes. He gave up his beloved bike. Even at the end of his life he got housing from one of the universities he worked for. It's been a long time so I may be wrong, my impression is Carpenter thought Tolkien was poor, even in spite of the success of the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Although, on that point I may misremember
And, I completely agree with you, the whole question of his religious existence was thrown out prior to the script being written. Or so it would seem
Ah! So Tolkien was the first dork, who preferred his dork friends, talking about fantasy worlds and the games they played / designed. The best time of his life .. ? maybe ? Life gets in the way ! :D
The movie - oppi was incredible, 10 / 10, I loved it especially compared to the other trash movies about at the moment.
as someone who went out and purchased american prometheus after watching oppenheimer, i can attest that it is indeed the most accurate biopic i have ever seen. i never did any additional research on turing after the imitation game, but i’d be willing to bet that one was also quite accurate. i think artists tend to get a bit more fancy inserted into their biopics because their fans are expecting a cohesive story where things seem to make sense instead of an unadulterated true account, which is what most followers of scientism prefer
The first half and a bit of the WW1 stuff were good, but all in all it was very lackluster. The cellar door bit makes me roll my eyes, which is super unfortunate because I love cellar door..0
The biggest insult: Produced by Disney, via Fox Searchlight.....
I feel like I need to go out and watch both this bio and Oppenheimer then come back and watch this again
I discovered this movie whilst channel hopping and I have to say, I absolutely loved it. For me, the goal of this movie was his creation of his world and languages of those that inhabit it through his experiences of both the beauty of the rolling fields surrounding Birmingham and the horrors of the trenches in world war one. Had the focus been on the detail of religion and conflict between relations and his wife, I think the finer points of the movie might have been lost. And yeah, maybe religion played a role in shaping some of his ideas, but ultimately I really feel that that the focus of the movie was about bringing us a better understanding of how Middle Earth was formed in the mind of the author.
And also, similar to another great bio pic, that of Brian Wilson, called Love and Mercy (2014), we get to inhabit his world at two specific periods of his life. We don't really need to see everything else before or after.
Off the main subject at hand, the main revelation of this video I find interesting is how the reasons for Tolkien's loyalty to Catholicism were fundamentally Sentimental rather then Doctrinal. A lot about the lore of Arda is something a Catholic is the last kind of Christian I would expect to write, like how Organized Religion never comes off looking good. The fact is how Tolkien felt any kind of Society should be run seems far more Congregationalist.
Not to mention how Varda is basically given a title that to Catholics belongs to Mary, Queen of Heaven.
I still can't see the point to making a biopic about Tolkien. Other than the war, there isn't anything about his life that's dramatic other than in an internal way. After the war, he became a scholar, taught classes, got married, had a couple of kids, and wrote some books. He didn't travel, he didn't do great deeds (other than write), he didn't get caught up in his growing fame. He was, in a word, boring, not at all a good subject for a motion picture (writing being a notoriously difficult art to make film about). Some writers' works speak for themselves; the writers are not nearly as interesting as what they create.
ETA: My basic theory about biopics is that the best ones encompass the theme of the subject's life. Thus _Dragon,_ the biopic of Bruce Lee, is a kung fu movie; _De-Lovely,_ the biopic of Cole Porter, is a musical, etc. So I think a proper biopic of Tolkien would be created in the form of a fantasy story. (I do look forward to the psychological horror of Stephen King's biopic.)
Now Jess I love your channel.....like you I am a lifelong Middle-Earther. I devoured all things Tolkien and learned much of his background and history. On this topic I respectfully don't agree. I found his biopic to be excellent and it showed the history and passion he had for languages and academia. It told the story of his friends and his lifelong love of his wife and, most importantly, it showed how the war was his inspiration. In fact the dragon was not something (I am betting) that he imagined there in the trenches but it was well-known that those battles with the Nazis were his inspiration for the evil in LOTR. SO showing the dragon was a quick way to suggest to the viewer that this war scene was a future inspiration for Tolkien and he could have imagined a dragon during the battle.
I agree his Catholicism was more important and should not have been down-played.
I did not love Oppenheimer. I thought it was powerful and possibly even true to the characters but there were no "heroes" or even relatable characters in Oppenheimer - I walked away despising almost everyone in the film. I think Einstein was the only not deplorable character IMO. I didn't think that was a good biopic - it didn't connect (with me) emotionally - it felt more like an emotionless court reading of events.
The war that defined Tolkien was WW1 not WW2... the absolute waste of life for little to no reason, the loss of his dearest friends and the driving need to continue for their sakes, to tell the stories they were no longer able to tell...it was the Battle of the Somme with the dead encased in mud and water like flies in amber that gave him (& us) the Dead Marches. It was the need to create a mythology for England, as Tolkien became the foremost expert on Beowulf and found that most everything else in the ancient past of the island was lost. And because he couldn't find anything good to read, he figured he had to write the books himself.
Why does a film need to have a hero? Most of life is shades of grey man, not black and white. I'd argue a lot of the biopics that have "heroes" are severely whitewashing the true story.
Oppenheimer took a complex man, who made one of the largest impacts on humanity in history, and told his story in an engaging and thought provoking way. I didn't walk out of the movie excited or happy.... I walked out feeling existential dread lol.... but that was the point. Good movies are meant to make you feel some type of emotion. It can be any emotion, not just happiness. If it achieves it, then its a good movie.
Personally I loved it, and I found that the excellent performances of the characters allowed me to connect with the emotions just fine. Murphy, Blunt, and RDJ in particular.
The Catholic faith crap is garbage Tolien did not know the truth there as he was spiritually motivated imo not religiously motivated @ Archetypal view channel The Red book and The Red Book Jung Tolkien and The Divergence of Image video.
Very good video, as always. Very well researched, easy to follow, everything fine. Besides - i know, it is secondary, but i simply want to adress that you look really beautiful here:)
I literally just tried watching it. My sentiments exactly.
😂
So we’re going there. Very well. But I still have good memories of this film in cinemas and at home. Oppenheimer is superior, no doubt about that; and this film had many missed opportunities not least of which was Professor Tolkien’s Catholicism. But 2019 was a bad year for me, so I will cling on to whatever gave me comfort back then.
I watched Tolkien tonight (after I saw Jess had posted this video in all honesty). I knew her title so I was aware she'd be criticising more than praising it, but there were parts of the movie I thought were really charming... but also insufficient. The whole subplot of the lost scholarship and finding a new mentor in Professor Wright, that felt like it may have been a huge thing for Tolkien, it seems unlikely he would have ever met someone as passionate about languages as he was for example. It's entirely fine to enjoy the film, the direction I thought was very good, at the same time, I feel it's just as fine for people to not care for the choices made by the writers
I agree totally with Jess about Tolkien's biopic, a little less about Oppenheimer. The latter had a strong and impactful beginning, and certainly dramatized the man and his life BUT...
Some things seemed to ring a little false. In particularly the relationships with the women in his life. Maybe they were somewhat weird, but they did appear hard to relate to, and more a way to up the sexy. Also when his wife comes out swinging for him, I was kind of surprised, because there just didn't seem that close relationship between them previously. Like he didn't earn her passionate support.
And the last bit of the film was dead space for me, and just made it unnecessarily long. I couldn't honestly care less about Oppy,'s struggles over his security clearance. Sure this might've been a big issue to him, but in the general context of the huge themes the film explores, it came across as petty and sad.
I think though that Tolkien's Catholic faith could have been
fitted into his biopic in a way that was relatable, realistic and elevating. Bios have a responsibility to themselves too, and to show us why we should care about their subjects.
Hey, just a question for you Jess. Where did you get your necklace/choker? My wife's birthday is coming up and I haven't been able to find any good quality ones. Just trying to do something sweet for her, and didn't know if you had any suggestions. -A husband in need
I loved Oppenheimer as well and I haven't seen the Tolkien movie nor do I plan to. I think what makes Oppenheimer great is the fact that it is a Nolan movie before a biopic. Nolan is one of the best filmmakers of our generation where as Tolkien was a very generic studio produced biopic about a guy who is famous. These vary in quality but are more miss than hit. Not really sure the point I'm making, I guess I just think the two are not really comparable. This may be Nolans best film, whereas Tolkien is just another film for the people that made it. Grandiose attention to detail vs studio filmmaking.
I have seen neither...interesting. I don't know if I missed the Tolkien one due to the "plague" or what. Hope to see the Oppenheimer one when I can. Thanks for your video!
Oh snap, a Skillshare sponsorship?? Love how much the channel has grown and excited for it's future!
Thanks so much! They were a great sponsor to work with
And I love the making of the hobbitiest house possible.
I don't think Oppenheimer got it right. I don't buy his regret on the bombs, and I say that from interviews he gave in the 60s. His pride in the destruction he wrought has fascinated me for many years. The movie Tolkien really missed the mark though. It is so hard to do a good bio pic - too short and so much context gets left out.
... I didn't like it either ... but man I really love hearing you talk ... I now am at the point where I listen to your channel while working ... :)
Interesting. Im not sure I agreed with you on oppenheimer. I liked it a lot but felt as you described with tolkein something was missing. In oppenheimer it was the physics. There was physics in the film but the filmmakers made no attempt to really explain what it was and what he did. I am reading ray monks life of oppenheimer right now and the distinction in terms of the priority in oppenheimers life for physics versus what we see on screen is interesting. I felt a bit like with tolkeins catholicism they collapsed it to images as they thought the viewer couldnt understand or even glimpse it. But to me its say as important for oppenheimer as his relationship with his wife or maybe his communism.
I love the channel and really enjoyed this video tho!
I like the new channel name, and still love the channel
When Jess said the channel was going to change, I didn’t expect an Oppenheimer bio film analysis…
Congratulations on the Skillshare sponsorship. You're really growing as a channel, and it's a delight to see.
Biopics can be very interesting if the life that goes with them had something extraordinary about it, and with Tolkien the most extraordinary thing is that he wrote two classics and designed the whole world that goes with them, but that is not necessarily the material that great cinema dramas are made of. Tolkien the movie realises this very quickly, because the real drama is whether or not he will get the love of his life.
I know I watched the 2019 Tolkien movie but I have no memory of it past the CGI dragons during WWI and a painfully awkward to watch scene where he takes Edith to a restaurant. Your video explains why it didn't left me any impression: it lacks any true characterisation of who Tolkien was.
You realize if you keep this quality content going you're going to get to do some cool interviews with the LOTR actors someday, Peter Jackson, or some similar notable Tolkien figure. Maybe that's not crossed your mind, but is there anyone you'd like to interview?
Oh, I would love that very much but I'm not sure I'm quite there yet haha. I'd love to talk to any of them tbh, I find the minds of these creative people fascinating.
I think I went into Oppenheimer expecting something like Tolkien but would love top see it again when Im feeling more analytical. Still really liked it I was just a little thrown off so it made it a little
hard to sort out my initial thoughts
That fit is awesome
I liked it. As a digestible war movie for people who don’t like them like me. I knew Tolkien wasn’t realistic long before the dragon in the trenches lol but it was pretty and okay for people who aren’t very invested in authors and literature.
Fantastic episode, well thought out and well said.
Channel name change? Or am I going insane? Either way, Jess, I love your vids
I just changed it last week due to trademarking issues! But thank you for watching!
@@Jess_of_the_Shire I understand, and have no issue with it. At all. You're doing good, please continue. You community loves you
If you only knew what Tolkien from the Film, you'd never know the very most important part of his life: He's Catholic.
Very good video. Now I need a Tolkien biopic directed by Christopher Nolan.
I ADORE this look
I completely forgot that this film even existed until you uploaded this.
I think there's a subtle but very important difference between the "man behind the creation" story and the "story of a man who created X" and Tolkein 2019 & Oppenheimer respectively are examples of this difference
Opponhimer was a masterpiece.
I have trouble with watching Oppenheimer for one reason - Peaky Blinders. It's one of the best TV series I've watched. However, that's on me not the film.
The Tolkien film is a simple afternoon period drama with a great soundtrack, that touches on the author's life. It's not a masterpiece, but i prefer it of the two for now.
Lovely video as always, I have loved watching your channel grow and the new channel name is perfect ❤❤