Making Tolkien Politically Correct?

I thought that this was funny :<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Here are a handful of minor suggestions which, I think, will make the films more accessible and acceptable to all: <P>+ I feel strongly that the films should omit all scenes involving the use of weapons as a means of conflict resolution. This done, all swords, battle-axes and other phallic symbols can be omitted from the films entirely. The characters should instead talk to each other until they understand the cultural and socio-economic differences which cause their trivial misunderstandings. Ultimately everyone must learn that all opinions and lifestyles are equally valid and worthy<BR> of respect - except, of course, for those which contradict THIS viewpoint. <P>+ The character of Sauron must be re-interpreted altogether. He is actually a fine fellow, considering his background. He has endured millennia of psychological abuse by the domineering Morgoth (a typical father-figure) whose will was always law and who gave no thought to the self-esteem of his cowering subordinates. Further, Sauron has been de-sensitized to cruelty by constant exposure to (as well as non-consensual participation in) tens of thousands of barbaric acts. We can only be grateful that he was not exposed to television as well. <P>+ No allowances are made for Sauron's disability (a missing hand) and no mention is made of the psychological trauma resulting from the needless violent act which caused it. I suggest, in the films, that Sauron be depicted as a victim of post-traumatic stress syndrome. <P>+ While Sauron's inhumanity may be excused, his shameless environmental abuses are obviously matters of concern. For these, he must be required to submit to rehabilitation in an eco-sensitivity program, and to plant trees.<P>+ The orcs must be omitted. The notion of an inherently degraded and inferior race of beings is deeply objectionable, reeking of British imperialism. An alternative solution might be to give them little teacups and dialogue like: "Dear me! You look smashing in that chain mail, Reginald!" <P>+ Similarly, the notion of a SUPERIOR race (the Elves) is unfair to those who have not yet experienced self-actualization. The elves must also be omitted! Still, if they were physically challenged (in wheelchairs, perhaps) they might inspire less of the understandable contempt which people feel for the wise and gifted. So throw them out, or make their lives a living hell! It's only fair. <P>+ The suggestion that prominent, politically-incorrect actors be cast as Sauron, Saruman and company is well-intentioned, though misguided. There is a danger that the genuine depravity of these people might reflect upon audience impressions of the "bad" characters, all of whom are merely victims of various injustices. Really sweet people - Julia Roberts, for example - are more appropriate for these roles. <P>+ What's this "Dark Lord" business? Is it a racist suggestion that black is bad, while white is good? Omit this nonsense! <P>+ Much has been made of the comparative insignificance of the female characters. Should their roles be expanded,<BR> then? Certainly not! What are women doing, after all, in this pageant of machismo? Isn't this whole sorry mess the result of the endless quest for dominance that drives these testosterone-crazed fools? Women are above such idiocy. Send them off to Valinor and let them live as the goddesses they are. <P>+ Obviously, there must be no scenes in which characters are allowed to smoke! My suggestion is that the smoking of pipes be replaced by the chewing of a bio-degradable Elven gum. And why do these people drink wine, beer and other poisons in a pre-industrial age when water is tainted only by organic animal waste? <P>+ The obvious homo-erotic relationships between many of the characters (if not, indeed, most of them) must be fully explored. Tolkien, the victim of 19th Century sexual repression and his own religious superstitions, could not address this subject directly; we must go where he dared not, even though he didn't know he wanted to go there. <P>+ Let us be painfully honest: what is there to admire about this dead white man? Racist, ethno-centrist, religious, a user of tobacco - the list goes on and on. I propose that his name be omitted from the film credits. <P>+ Indeed, why should there be film credits at all? In this great global village, we are all equal contributors. Crediting one with this, and another with that, is inherently unfair and incompatible with the spirit of community. <P>+ Prior to release, the films should be screened by a committee of sensitive and enlightened people - chosen by Ted Turner, perhaps. This committee should be allowed to edit any material judged potentially offensive to any group - except, of course, for those groups disliked by the committee. <P>+ Finally, the finished films (if made along the very positive lines I describe) should be presented, as a public service and by governmental mandate, at NO charge! New Line will probably object to the loss of its $180 million, but it is time for the winners of life's lottery to experience the deprivation of those less fortunate, whom they have historically victimized. Let these rich rascals spend some time as migrant workers! <P>Many, many other changes must be made; these will do for a beginning! I believe that my suggestions are entirely reasonable and will be embraced by all. Together, we can turn this failed book into a film testament of tolerance and brotherhood...a gift to our children, a gift to the 21st Century! <P>O brave new world!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To see the rest of this article, <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/sk/sharkens/pc.html" TARGET=_blank>click here.</A>