GET IN THE 'RINGS': Reading the entire Boston Sunday Globe over the weekend, I came across a goofy little cover story in the Globe Magazine arguing that the "commercialism" of the popular "Lord of the Rings" movies has somehow "tarnished" the legacy of author J.R.R. Tolkien. Despite some interesting stuff about various feuds among Tolkien heirs, I couldn't agree less with author Ethan Gilsdorf's analysis.
Pretty much starting with a hatred of capitalism and consumerism and working his way out, Gilsdorf argues that Tolkien's "legacy" has been done a disservice by Hollywood movie versions of his works that have cost hundreds of millions, and grossed billions of dollars. Never mind that Peter Jackson's movies themselves are almost universally loved by critics, Tolkien freaks and neophytes alike, are painstakingly faithful to the source material, and have introduced millions to the 'Rings' mythology and thus driven up sales of the books. They're "commercial," and thus must be horrible and nefarious.
Demonizing the successful, and calling them "sell-outs," is of course a popular lefty and/or hipster pastime. And while I did find it a bit incongruous, say, to hear the music of The Clash (a band that recorded an album called "Sandanista!") in a commercial for the Jaguar, and a bit strange to see "The Matrix" being used to sell soft drinks and other products when it's pretty clearly an allegory about technocratic enslavement, there's nothing explicitly anti-commercial or anti-capitalistic about the LOTR mythology. Unless you think it's funny to compare Bush to the Dark Lord Sauron, but by that rationale one can pretty much use 'Rings' to back up any political viewpoint. And believe me, it's been used to argue for just about every political cause imaginable.