![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/asd\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2019\/05\/tolkien-film-750x417.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The following is adapted from a review appearing on the Amon S\u00fbl podcast as Episode 006<\/a>, integrated with recorded reviews from multiple listeners. And, like the title says, there are definitely spoilers here:<\/i><\/p>\n I<\/span>t really struck me when I started reading review after review of the new “Tolkien” biopic<\/a> coming out of especially religiously conservative websites (I actually haven\u2019t seen any reviews from progressive sites) that utterly panned the film, regarding it as a betrayal. The most common complaint was that Tolkien\u2019s religion was completely cut out of the film, whitewashed, secularized, etc. I\u2019ll have more to say about that in this episode.<\/p>\n A lot of reviews of the film that I read were essentially concerned with how this film figures into the culture wars, especially regarding sexual morality. For instance, I remember reading in February an article on the Imaginative Conservative website<\/a> from respected Tolkien biographer Joseph Pearce which included the following predictions about Tolkien himself, his mother, his friends and his childhood guardian Catholic priest Fr. Francis Morgan:<\/p>\n The heroism and \u201cmartyrdom\u201d of Tolkien\u2019s mother will be airbrushed out of the picture altogether, as will any other positive portrayals of Catholicism. Fr. Francis Morgan will be seen as a repressed homosexual who has a sordid homo-erotic attraction to the young Tolkien and whose opposition to Tolkien\u2019s relationship with Edith is enflamed by feelings of jealousy. As for Tolkien himself, if he is to be portrayed positively, he will no doubt be portrayed as being bisexual. This is necessary because heterosexuality is now seen as the last refuge of the scoundrel. I prophesy that he will have homo-erotic feelings towards his friends and towards the young soldier who inspired the future characterization of Samwise Gamgee, thereby \u201cqueering\u201d The Lord of the Rings as well as its author.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, where does one even begin?! Literally every single one of Pearce\u2019s breathless prophecies turned out to be wrong — every one. What saddened me is that I saw this article shared many times when it came out, accompanied by comments from people saying that they therefore would not be seeing the movie. Pearce did say in his article that he would apologize if he turned out to be wrong. I hope he does. (UPDATE: He has indeed apologized<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Now, to be fair, we should say that it is true that Anthony Boyle, the actor who played Tolkien\u2019s friend GB Smith in the film, in fact did say<\/a> that he interpreted his own role as indicating homosexual feelings for Tolkien, and there are a couple of scenes in the film that could be read that way. I will say that when I saw the film, it did not even occur to me to read the scenes that way. I only learned that this was \u201ca thing\u201d when I read the interview with the actor.<\/p>\n Now, even if it really is the case that certain people involved with making the film had the agenda of trying to \u201csmuggle\u201d normalizing homosexuality into the film, I don\u2019t see why the viewer has to accept that as the only way of interpreting it. The affectionate language toward Tolkien in GB Smith\u2019s writings was simply an expression of intimate male friendship, something that our age has a hard time seeing as existing without sexual content.<\/p>\n In the Orthodox Church, we don\u2019t interpret the Bible as having only a single meaning, seeking for the so-called \u201coriginal intent\u201d of the author and denying everything else. So even if it was the intent of all the filmmakers to suggest something between these two friends that historical record doesn\u2019t, we don\u2019t have to accept that intent as determining our interpretation of their work.<\/p>\n Further, the culture-war style alarm gongs sounding over this film because of these themes seem to me to turn the ancient logos spermatikos<\/i> doctrine of St. Justin Martyr on its head. What do I mean by that? St. Justin said that the Logos — that is, Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God — could be seen in \u201cseed\u201d form even outside of the Church:<\/p>\n And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories. (St. Justin Martyr, <\/a>First Apology<\/a><\/i>, 44<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So Christ was revealed, even if in the midst of what is false. Yet those who are lambasting this film because they see some other kind of \u201cseed\u201d in it — a seed apparently sown by their opponents in the culture war — suggest to me a kind of diabolos spermatikos<\/i>, the devil in seed form. And instead of seeing the many elements of the film that speak of Christ, they pick this one little seed of the diabolical and thereby declare the whole thing ruined.<\/p>\n Even if it is the case that those scenes in the film really can be interpreted in only one way — and I disagree with that idea — why shun the whole thing, even in the many themes that are edifying and humane?<\/p>\n But what about the question of how accurate this film is regarding Tolkien’s life, especially his religion and love of ancient things?<\/p>\n We have to remember what a biopic actually is. It is not a biographical documentary. It is a work of fiction that is based on a historical person. But especially with a person whose life has been written about so much, it is only natural that we go into a biopic expecting to find biography. I also think this is reasonable.<\/p>\n I do wish that Tolkien\u2019s service at the altar as an acolyte during his time at the King Edward\u2019s School would have been highlighted. I also wish that the theme of ancient things had been brought out more in that, tested by time and integrated into culture, they are healing when held in proper relationship to the human person.<\/p>\n That lack in the film is probably due to how it tried to do, well, maybe too much all at once. There are three major themes in the film that I could discern that were shown to be an influence on Tolkien: Friendship, Love and Language.<\/p>\n If the Language theme were explored more singularly, I think that the theme of the ancient would have been treated with a lot more thoroughness and care. But would a film that dealt mainly with that and largely left out Edith<\/a> and the TCBS<\/a> have even worked? I don\u2019t think so. So I understand why the film didn\u2019t end up pursuing that avenue as well as one might have hoped.<\/p>\n That said, the film did indeed do a beautiful job of underlining Tolkien’s love of language and culture, expressed most especially in his friendship in the TCBS. And this, I believe, is one of the key things that makes this a film that communicates Christianity, even if it is not (per se) a Christian film. But the insistence on the integrality of art and language to culture is a blow to the gnostic sensibility that much of our culture now embraces.<\/p>\n The incarnated solidity of art and language as material things that offer a window into transcendence is central to historic Christianity. Christianity created civilization and was in its expressions influenced by civilization, and the sub-creative aspect of the making of culture reveals the Incarnation again — that God became man and dwelt among us with His own human body and soul means that materiality, including the materiality of cultural artifice, becomes the means of connection with the divine.<\/p>\n Some people have compared this film, especially the TCBS related scenes, what that 1980s favorite \u201cThe Dead Poets Society.\u201d But there is a critical difference here. The TCBS, including how they are portrayed in the film, are not a band of students following a charismatic teacher who easily urges rebellion against authority and following whatever passion takes hold of you. I liked \u201cThe Dead Poets Society,\u201d but let\u2019s face it: That\u2019s basically its message. The TCBS are concerned with culture-building, not rebellion, and even where there is a pushing against authority in the film (not all of which is fictional, by the way — Tolkien actually did steal a bus at one point!), it is a testing of boundaries, not a 1960s style abolition of them.<\/p>\n So this underscores another element I wanted to mention, and that is that the moral universe of the \u201cTolkien\u201d film is very much not the normal moral universe of most of modern cinema, in which authority is denied and mores are cast easily aside. This is perhaps no more clearly shown than in the relationship of Tolkien to his fellow orphan, love interest and eventual wife Edith.<\/p>\n The film, true to history, shows Tolkien finishing his growing up with Edith in the same house, falling for her there, and then honoring his guardian Fr. Francis Morgan\u2019s command that he not see her until he turns 21. The moral universe of 2019 would have them running off against his wishes and doing who-knows-what away from judgmental eyes. But that\u2019s not what the film shows.<\/p>\n And even in the moments where physical affection is shown between the two, it is portrayed as very much chaste, with no groping at each other or sexually suggestive behavior of any sort. Most films released in 2019 would throw the two into bed with no hesitation at all. We might even have expected that to happen after the two get married — but it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n It\u2019s clear throughout the film that Tolkien has eyes only for Edith, and yet a physical consummation is never put on the screen. That that should be so in 2019 is almost shocking.<\/p>\n Now, let’s get to what is the primary feature in so many of the reviews panning the film.<\/p>\n So it occurs to me that a lot of the reviews complaining of Christianity being “ignored,” “cut,” “whitewashed” or “secularized” (all words I’ve seen) from “Tolkien” are basically looking for a kind of culture-war approach in which we see explicitly “religious” actions as the mark of what it means to portray Christianity. That thought occurred to me when I read one review that said the film was \u201csecularizing\u201d Tolkien\u2019s life. A-ha — secularizing! What is that word supposed to mean here? It means that the religion is being subtracted so that it\u2019s not actually evident.<\/p>\n But is it not?<\/p>\n I am not going to claim that the filmmakers were actually just trying to be stealthy in portraying Tolkien’s faith (there was apparently a communion scene that got filmed but cut<\/a>), but my sense of these reviews I\u2019ve read is that they would actually not find Middle-earth itself to be Christian enough because Jesus never steps out from behind an Ent somewhere to say hello. I mean, no one in Middle-earth even goes to church, and there is almost no prayer.<\/p>\n But shouldn\u2019t the unabashedly Catholic Tolkien be shown doing those things? Well, yes, I would like to have seen some of that made explicit. But does that mean that his faith was \u201ccut\u201d or \u201cwhitewashed\u201d or \u201csecularized\u201d out of the film? I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n Does the film show us that J. R. R. Tolkien is a Catholic Christian?<\/b> YES. But not enough, apparently. Okay.<\/p>\n But, more importantly to me: Does the film contain any Christian themes?<\/b> YES. I mean, if you\u2019ve read this far, you already know this.<\/p>\n And I think one of the things also being ignored in these reviews is that they are looking for Christian identity-markers in a film which covers a period which Tolkien himself identified as being very problematic for the practice of his faith. He wrote the following in 1963 to his son Michael:<\/p>\n But I fell in love with the Blessed Sacrament from the beginning \u2013 and by the mercy of God never have fallen out again: but alas! I indeed did not live up to it. I brought you all up ill and talked to you too little. Out of wickedness and sloth I almost ceased to practise my religion \u2013 especially at Leeds, and at 22 Northmoor Road. Not for me the Hound of Heaven, but the never-ceasing silent appeal of Tabernacle, and the sense of starving hunger. I regret those days bitterly (and suffer for them with such patience as I can be given); most of all because I failed as a father. Now I pray for you all, unceasingly, that the Healer (the H\u00e6lend as the Saviour was usually called in Old English) shall heal my defects, and that none of you shall ever cease to cry Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini<\/i>. (Letter 250<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n His time at Leeds and Northmoor Road (which is in Oxford) is just about all the 1920s-40s, which is a big chunk of the period covered in the film. He would have been 28 at the beginning of the period in Leeds — only four years into his marriage with Edith — and in his mid-fifties by the time he moved away from Northmoor Road in 1947. Is it possible that his struggles with practicing his faith might have started earlier in his twenties? I don\u2019t know, but it\u2019s not unreasonable to wonder.<\/p>\n Even before that, by the way, Tolkien described, for instance, his first year at college as a fall into \u201cfolly and slackness\u201d in Letter 43<\/a>, written in 1941. I haven\u2019t yet found anything by him specifically describing the state of his faith during that year (write to me if you know of something!), but might a time of \u201cfolly and slackness\u201d not also include some failure to practice his faith? That seems reasonable to wonder, as well.<\/p>\n Now, if I were making the film, I would have found it very interesting to show his struggle in that period in which, in his words, he \u201calmost ceased to practise [his] religion,\u201d a period in age which covers his twenties into his forties — a time not unknown to be one of struggle in faith for many people.<\/p>\n This period was rather different from the one in his later life in which he was very explicitly and staunchly Catholic (and even rather “papist,” by the way, as also seen in Letter 250!), and all this was particularly in the face of many changes in the Roman Catholic Church which he did not like at all. So I think that some of the reviewers who wanted to see a more Catholic Tolkien are probably expecting the older, more mature Tolkien in a film that is limited to portraying the younger one.<\/p>\n All that said, does this really mean that Christianity was absent from the film\u2019s depiction?<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think so. To everything said up to this point I would also add that I did not see anything in the film\u2019s depiction of Tolkien himself that actually contradicts Christianity. And there are a good many things we see that are expressions of Christian themes, such as love, friendship, self-sacrifice, chastity, humility, diligence.<\/p>\n I believe that this is certainly a distinctly Tolkienian film, and if it did not do as much as one might have hoped in any one theme from his life or writings, I believe that the overall character of the film presents a true if not perfectly factual image of the man. But again, we should remember that a biopic is not biography. If biography is what you desire, of course pick up the Humphrey Carpenter classic<\/a>, and although I have not yet read it, I\u2019ve also seen many recommendations for John Garth\u2019s Tolkien and the Great War<\/a>, which covers much of the same period as the latter parts of the film.<\/p>\n Is it even possible for a film to capture the man? Well, even those of us who love the Peter Jackson films (usually the first three more than the latter) will admit that films cannot capture the man\u2019s work. So how much more is that true of the man himself? So, no, I do not think that this new film captures the man. And there are of course things that I wish it had done more of or done better.<\/p>\n No, the film is not overt about Tolkien\u2019s Christian faith, and we\u2019ve discussed already why in some ways that might actually be an accurate depiction of that period in his life. But even if it\u2019s not, not being so overt about faith might actually be Tolkienian, too.<\/p>\n My overall sense of this film is that it does present a fairly, if not perfectly true image of this author in his younger years and most especially that it will do at least some of the job of helping the viewer to long for some of what Tolkien himself longed for.<\/p>\nThe Same-Sex Attraction Issue<\/h2>\n
Tolkien’s True Loves<\/h2>\n
The Moral Universe of “Tolkien”<\/h2>\n
But where is Tolkien’s Christian faith?<\/h2>\n
Is This a Tolkienian Film?<\/h2>\n