h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If bad guys were more realistic, they'd win a heck of a lot more often.

<>
Definitely! Many NZers don't really realise this, but it is true... there was a reference to this in our local paper, from a NZ woman living in the USA who pointed out (to the disgruntlement of many NZers) that LotR is defined as an American film over there!
Dustin Hoffman - no!!!!!

Who the heck would Dustin Hoffman play anyway.

At best a hobbit, possibly Bilbo, but that accent and voice would destroy it.

Hoffman and Cruise could have played Bilbo and Frodo respectively...and without the need of digital effects to shrink them down.

I hear Cruise is 3'4" (with a following wind)

When Cruise was in NZ making 'Last Samurai' (I've heard it's complete pants BTW) he had all sorts of rules, people were not allowed to look at him without having been specifically told they were in the favoured category, etc. (Or so our local paper reported..)

The villain shouldn't know he's a villain -- that's absolutely true.

That's what makes "The Turn of the Screw" so devastating. The woman who scares the child to death is the mild-mannered governess who sees ghosts, and thinks the children see them too; but they don't. They just pick up on her terror. Which Britten *totally* misread in his opera version

Shakespeare's villains follow on the tradition of the Mystery Plays, where the villain is Satan. It is impossible to make such a villain credible, so there is a purely theatrical tradition of "stage villains" who revel in their own badness , and it continues to this day. And now Tony Blair and G Shrub try to cast their enemies in the same role -- and, yes, some people still buy it.

Well a well written or well cast villan is a person at the end of the day. A person when they are doing something what somewell else would call evil they don't see it like that. They may see it as the job they have to do or have a skewed moral approach and see what they are doing as right and good for the common people (almost like blair and bush in iraq *lmao*)

A "stage villan" is not a person. At best they are a caricature, exceggerating certain traits to make people understand better that this person is bad. (Usually to make it seem the good guy, the "hero" who is doing a lot of killing and nasty things in our usual hollywood film is not the nasty blood thirsty guy he is.)

Also why I do like Lord of the Rings. Frodo actully tries to end things in the shire peacefully with as little death and destruction as possible. (Though even he understands there may well be some but he would rather minimize it (violence seems to be a natural internal resouce for people as well I think).)

Re Dustin Hoffman

I think he could possibly have played almost any role, particularly as on screen sise doesn't matter that much anyway. His accent wouldn't be an issue for me at least, in hook his wonderful two dimensional Villan Captain Hook utterly convinced me. (I saw it on video from about 10 minutes in by accident with some children I was working with. It took me about an hour to realise who was playing the part.) And after Little Big Man and Rainman, I am fairly convinced he could play anything he sets his mind to.

Tom Cruise isn't my idea of an actor.

I think Shakespears Villans don't think of themselves as the Villans at all, they may describe themselves as bad men ect, but in the stage versions I have seen they work best as characters when such comments are spat with resentment at their enemies rather than said with pride about themselves. Iago is the easiest example I can think of, He is quite clearly a devious poisonous little toad, probably one of te characters which informed Tolkiens development of Grima Wormtongue, but like Grima he doesnt see himself this way he sees himself as unfairly treated and in a more junior position than he deserves, and resents Othello for being promoted above him not to mention him being a moor and even worse a foreigner. I know some accademics think he is a motiveless villan but I don't think they have read the play properly.

He is without doubt a villan but from his point of view he is revenging the wrongs done him. This is true for Richard the the third as well even though some of the wrongs are by the hand of fate, hunchback ect.

Saruman works becaus he believes that Sauron cannot be opposed by traditional means, only through allying with this dark power does Saruman believe he can win the war of the ring, presumably he hopes to one day turn on Sauron when he has amassed enough Power. He believes he has taken the right path and regards Gandalf as foolish misguided and inept. For me at least Saruman represents the foolishness of believing that the means justify the ends.

I agree that agression is something of a 'natural' aspect of human nature. A resource in the sense of responding to the fight/flight instinct, but I would distinguish agression from violence, (not that dont believe all humans have a capacity for violence) it is managing agressive feelings which gives rise to energy, determination, committment ect, but when it turns to violence that is not self defence it becomes oppression.

I agree Hoffman is truly versatile and could do a convincing accent if needed -- the dialect coaching is extraordinary nowadays. For "Dancing at Lughnasa" Meryl Streep acquired not just a Donegal accent, but a Donegal accent of the 1930s. And Dustin can act! But so can Tom Cruise, whether you like him or not. When Hoffman got the Oscar for "Rainman" he had the very good grace to say that Cruise really deserved it because he carried the credibility for both characters.

Some people like Bruce Dern got typecast as nutters and villains. Hoffman has the edginess to do a villain very well, he comes across as a person you can easily dislike. A fascinating insight into his character was when he confessed he was disappointed they couldn't make him more attractive as a woman in "Tootsie".

Though maybe all actors except Paul Newman are easy to dislike.

Richard III:
"And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other"

Richard KNOWS he's a bad guy.

Don John, from 'Much Ado About Nothing':
"it better fits my blood to be
disdained of all than to fashion a carriage to rob
love from any: in this, though I cannot be said to
be a flattering honest man, it must not be denied
but I am a plain-dealing villain. "

Don John knows too.

There is a case to be made for the defence of McBeth but theatre really does need a clearcut bad guy.

So does LoTR. Sauron knows he's evil because he makes a choice to become so. Saruman doesn't. He still thinks he's doing the right thing, and says as much.

In the first three lines of your first example,

"And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain"

= I'm hard done by but I'll get my revenge seems to be a self justification to me. Quite apart from the difference in meaning that might be attributed to Shakespearian English, where "I am determined to prove a villain" would be more akin to saying 'I will be as the common men are.' The change of meanining of the word Villain has been attributed to shakespears characters use of the word in the way that they do, and has in addition been used to support the assertion that the man who Wrote the plays was a nobleman rather than Shakespear himself who some regard as merely the producer/director.

In this context

'it must not be denied
but I am a plain-dealing villain'

Can be translated as:

'I can't pretend I am anything but an ordinary man.'

As a nobleman to be seen as a common man might have been a disgrace, or it might have been a release from the niceities of court, a liberation if you will.

The soliloquies of characters to the audience do not necesarilly define their view of themselves, and could be characterised as 'see me as the bad guy if you will, but I'm going to do it anyway and damn the lot of you.' It is also worth remembering in interactive theatre, that the relationship with the audience might change the meaning each time a play was performed

To a certain extent how you look at Shakespear can change your view of him, and I think it is important to remember the changes in the way language since he was writing (Whoever he was) e.g. As I understand it 'Wherefore art thou' was never intended to mean where are you, but how are you, Juliet is wondering if he is OK, not where he is.

Even so I think that even on the stage a villan plays better if he is not convinced of his own badness, because if he was he would probably just come accross as depressed, and a depressed character is almost as difficult to dislike as he is to like. (Marvin the Paranoid android being one notable exception - I never liked Eyore though)

Hi everyone


I thought that I'd drop in and ask (if no-one else already has, sorry but I'm not slogging through all of the blog to this thread! ) if anyone else thought that Patrick Stewart would have made a better Deneathor in the films? He seems to have the required majesty, and they could have stuck a wig on him...
I can just imagine Patrick Stweart with his wonderful voice delivering the speech to the Riders of Rohan on the battle field before Minas Tirith, and being truly rousing and awe inspiring.

"The change of meanining of the word Villain has been attributed to shakespears characters use of the word in the way that they do"

Villain having the original meaning "villager", yes I'm aware of that...but this was a medieval usage, wasn't it? The language changes substantially between the last of the Plantagenets and the last of the Tudors.

It helps to remember that Don John is meant to be an out and out bad guy and nothing to do with the common man, since he's the bad guy in a comedy, and that Richard III is a propoganda piece ensuring that Richard is seen as a tyrant and evil man.

It also means he gets the best lines.

There's a nice nod to both types in LoTR.
Saruman uses the 'Doctor Doom' justification: the world would just be better all around if he was allowed to run it.

Neither Don John nor Richard believe this. They cause mischief deliberately, specifically to be malicious, and state their aims ahead of time thus giving us plenty of warning.

Saruman almost does likewise, when he tries to persuade Gandalf to join his cause by saying that surely the wise should run the whole thing and surely the first definition of wisdom is that it's on the winning side. Saruman's evil is simply a form of self serving pragmatism - he knows he can ride out the storm if he allies himself with Mordor, and since he's immortal he feels that he can then change the situation from the inside. He's wrong, of course, since Sauron has shown he's a better corrupter than Saruman will ever be.

I think it's telling that human bad guys (the wildmen, Grima Wormtongue etc) are misled and misguided, victims of a persuasive leader. They also feel that they are lacking something that they really either do not deserve or did not work for.

I thought of Richard III when I posted ealier re film villains , I did not mention him because of the infinite hinterland he opens up , and that's before you consider the Shakespearean dimension . He would have formed part of Tolkiens character constellation though , probably both as the persona in the play , and I would imagine a cultured English arts academic also had an informed opinion of the real Richard III.

Fynn--- Denethor or Theoden?
I liked Bernard Hill as Theoden - he reminded me a lot of Henry V in TTT which was reinforced in ROTK.

But I hated the Denethor guy - Patrick Stewart would have been most excellent.

Wherefore art thou Romeo? = Why are you Romeo? (that is, a Montague, an enemy of Juliet's family).

Villain as an adjective meant not only "boorish, clownish" but "base in character or disposition; given to committing vile or criminal acts" right back in Middle English, a period which goes up to about 1450, more than 100 years before Shakespeare. Strangely, the phrase "the villain of the piece", meaning the theatrical villain, first occurs in the nineteenth century.

Thanks to Shorter Oxford.

<>
There is an unforgettable song by Genesis about a hit man who sees it as "just a job to do."
I often wonder whether Bush'n'Blair believe the sh*te they spout?

Patrick Stewart? A great idea, he certainly has majesty!

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair do not spout sh*te.
It's called 'propoganda'.

Actually it's a lot more complex than that and if you understand what they're really doing you end up admiring them for the near artistry of their performance...but that's a whole other thread.

I have a question for the thread!

What role does weather play in LoTR?

Tolkien pays a whole lot of attention to sunsets, sun rises and the colours of the sky. What's he doing with that?

March 16, 2004

Hello. Mortals. I Am Lord Valkyrie.

Tolkien Alone Knows Of What And Why God Blessed He And His Work And I Find The Debate Typical Mortal Behaviour.

The Lord Of The Rings Is About The War Between Good And Evil. The Lord Of The Rings Is About Kings And Kingdoms.

The Lord Of The Rings Is About How Easy Mortals Are Lead.

The Lord Of The Rings Is About How Easy Mortals Can Die.

The Lord Of The Rings Is About Creation And It Is Power.

The Rings Were Created. The One Ring Of Power Was A Power Of Design Meant To Gain Dominion Over All Life.

I Suggest You Go About Reading The Books In Spanish And Then Why Don't You Mortals Go About Seeing The Very Fine Films In Spanish Without Subtitles And If You Do This I Think You Will Then Open Your Hearts To Others On This Good Earth Who Like Lord Valkyrie Do Speak Languages In Multiple And Find This Topic Sad Even For English Users.

I Refer To The Spanish Language In Honour Of The Dead.

Those Fine Europeans In Spain Need The English Now More Than Ever Do To Recent Terror Events And I Find This So Called Debate About The Lord Of The Rings A Waste Of A Single Man's Creations While We Should Debate Less War.

Forgive Me. Mortals. I Realize This Will Fly Beyond You.

J.R.R. Tolkien Knew God Was With Him And All Mankind. Eh?

Truly,

Lord Valkyrie

www.mennotgods.com