DVD review: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)

I do not own a DVD player. Given that The Fellowship of the Ring was the best movie experience I have had since The Empire Strikes Back, I was not about to let that detail stop me from acquiring it. Given that DVDs of most films contain multiple versions such as the �director�s cut� in addition to the theatrical release, many reviewers and fans dismissed FOTR: Extended Edition as a marketing gimmick. In fact, for any other movie, it would have been. But not for Lord of the Rings^[1].



In fact, director Peter Jackson shies away from the term �director�s cut�, insisting that the theatrical version is one and the same (after all, the director should take ultimate responsibility for the final product). Jackson calls the Extended version �an alternate version of the film� � since it is targeted at a different audience:

...rather than simply inserting deleted scenes, Jackson aproached this Extended Edition as if he were creating a whole new version of the film. He and the editor, John Gilbert, carefully evaluated material to be integrated into the film, and then worked to bring each scene up to the same polish as the rest of the feature - visual effects were completed, dialouge was recorded, and sound effects were created. To make sure all of the scenes flowed, Howard Shore composed and recorded new score with the London Philharmonic Orchestra.

The results is a seamless integration of the new material into the film, giving the Extended Edition an integrity of its own. This Extended version is for the fans, who have read and re-read the books, who have revered them and been inspired by them. The theatrical version is not even present on the Extended version, to underscore the point that this is a different movie than what you saw in the theaters.



This is not to say that the DVD of the theatrical version is not true to the book, or any less worthy of Tolkien�s vision. In one of the interviews on disc 3, Jackson discusses the editorial difficulties in translating from novel to screenplay, from screenplay to raw footage, and finally from footage to final product. For the theatrical release, the main rationale for cutting/keeping scenes was to make the movie �Frodo-centric� � each scene had to move the central plot of Frodo as Ring Bearer forward^[2]. The result is a tightly woven film despite its nearly 3-hour running time.



So what then, exactly, is the Extended Edition? For starters, it is longer - MUCH longer - over 30 minutes of new footage and music, bringing the total to over 200 minutes. The new scenes are (to borrow Jackson�s own analogy) additional layers over the core, adding richness and depth to Middle Earth and the characters. Important but slow scenes such as Galadriel�s gift-giving in Lothlorien^[3] are restored, which will only be referred to in the theatrical sequels via flashback or dialogue. A scene where the Hobbits observe Elves leaving Middle Earth is included, which emphasizes the poignancy that suffuses the ending of the age of the Elves. No matter who wins the war of the Ring, Middle Earth will be changed forever. Relationships between characters are fleshed out in more detail, including the Hobbits cavorting in a tavern in the Shire, and additional exploration of Aragorn and Arwen�s relationship, hinting at the tragic sacrifice they have to make to be together. �Beauty shot� footage of the varied landscapes and architecture in Middle Earth are included, such as a leisurely tour in the Shire, emphasizing its idyllic nature. And trivial but favorite scenes such as the Midgewater Marshes are included solely to delight fans looking for the narrative landmarks that they desire as proof of authenticity and faithfulness.



The extra material adds orders of magnitude more complexity to the sub-Creation that is Middle Earth, but at the expense of momentum. It is designed to resonate strongly with fans, but would be mostly extraneous from the perspective of the average moviegoer. That said, anyone who was entranced enough by Middle Earth to almost wish it truly was the lost history of a long-vanished age of our own world^[4], will find this Extended version well worth the expense.



The additional 30 minutes of footage would not normally require an extra disc, but the Extended version has a much higher quality digital signal than would be possible with including all the feature footage on one disc. There are multiple digital sound channels, including DTS and 5.1. With a HDTV, a progressive scan DVD player, and a Dolby sound setup, this DVD would be immersive to the point of disorientation.



But there is much, much more to this edition.



Discs 1 and 2 also contain four feature-length commentarie by the cast, director and writers, and production and design teams. Consider that this amounts to 12 hours of comentary - there is so much information that trying to summarize it for a review is essentially impossible. They lend a real sense of intimacy to the movie that carries over to normal viewing, like extra layers of appreciation and understanding in your mind.



Discs 3 and 4 are packed with supplemental information that give a true sense of just how epic was the conception and making of this film (actually, three). There are storyboards, animatics, stills, interactive maps, and photo galleries. But even better are the documentaries, which are numerous, lengthy and detailed. Some are devoted to production issues like scale (just how did they make those Hobbits so small?) and use of �bigatures� (enormous miniature-scale sets like Rivendell and Orthanc). But the most engaging ones are the ones devoted to the cast.



The shining star of these is on Disc 4, titled �The Fellowship of the Cast� and which really gave a feel for just how close-knit the cast became over the course of 18 months of filming in New Zealand. It�s captivating to hear Sean Astin describe how life imitated art, in that he would up being caretaker of Elijah Wood (who was prone to locking himself out of his apartment). Elijah Wood impishly describes Viggo Mortenson as �slightly mental� and recreates Ian McKellan�s roar of protest at the loud music that he would play in their shared trailer. Liv Tyler wistfully notes her homesickness, how she bummed rides off Orlando Bloom because she was scared to drive on the wrong side of the road, and makes innocent references to �dad�. Ian McKellan is ever the professional, with praise for Hugo Weaving (Elrond) and Ian Holm (Bilbo) as veteran brothers of the stage, and noting that he had always underestimated Christopher Lee because of the �quality of most of his work� � with a twinkle in his eye. And Dominic Monaghan�s impersonation of John Rhys-Davies ordering a feast of lobster, grouse and wild boar is tear-wiping hilarious. The interviews in this segment, and the accompanying documentary titled �A Day in the Life of a Hobbit� which traces the four from early morning putting on the feet, all the way to the late night and taking off the feet, are as engrossing as the movie itself.



Middle Earth was conceived in the trenches of World War I, and was intended by Tolkien to be a replacement mythology for England. He vehemently rejected the idea that it was allegorical, which if true would have severely limited its scope. The universal themes of the book - which made it so timeless - are masterfully translated to film by Jackson, who was so fcused on preserving Tolkien's vision that the words "A Peter Jackson film" do not even appear in the opening credits. This is Tolkien's world, and Jackson proudly says that it is Tolkien's film. What this DVD does is bring that world home. But there is a world as rich as Middle Earth glimpsed on this DVD � a world that Peter Jackson deserves ultimate accolades for bringing into existence. That world is the adventure and epic saga of making this film itself. It will always exist on film, even though the sets are long gone. It deserves a place on my shelf, and if you love The Lord of the Rings, it deserves a place on yours.





^[1] The marketing gimmick for FOTR is actually the Super Happy Deluxe Mega Fun Collector�s Edition. For the extra money you get a 5th DVD disc containing a documentary special about the geology of New Zealand, and a pair of Argonath bookends. I cannot in conscience recommend this to anyone, not even die-hard fans such as myself, except perhaps for those with far too much disposable income, or similarly disposable priorities.

UPDATE: I was mistaken. My old friend Chris points out that there are good reasons for buying the MegaFunDeluxe version:

I purchased the "Super Happy Deluxe Mega Fun Collector�s Edition" mainly for the 3 exclusive LotR TCG Cards (which you can sell if you want), but the bookends are really cool as well. The National Geographic DVD is still in its original shrinkwrap.

I've deliberately weaned myself from trading card collectibles, but I certainly can see the appeal.

^[2] Of course there were some scenes that simply had to be left in for continuity to the sequels, despite being tangentially if at all related to Frodo, such as the scenes between Gandalf and Saruman, and the Arwen-Aragorn love story.

^[3] I�m not even going to make an attempt at proper spelling with diacritical marks of Eldarin or Sindarin!

^[4] The difference between Tolkien and the typical �fantasy� fiction with dragons, elves, and wizards, is that Middle Earth is designed to be a mythology, not fantasy. The difference is subtle, and crucial.

lock your doors!

Can someone explain to me why there is so much romantization about the era of "when no one locked their doors" - as if this was a good thing? It seems to me that unlocked doors invite crime. Maybe if doors had been locked back in the 50's the barrier to violent crime would have been higher (literally). Should we romanticize the good old days when airport cockpit doors were unlocked?

Religion, not Culture, of Peace

The question remains. Is Islam a Religion of Peace? The social, cultural, and political entity is not, by simple fact that counterexamples to peaceful muslims, namely, violent muslims, do exist. QED. But what about the religion itself?



I think I answered this question in an earlier post, actually:

True Islam - even if mis-practiced by a billion Wahabi fanatics, is eternal. It cannot be suppressed. As long as a single Muslim like myself practices it in accordance with the original teachings of the Prophet, it cannot be extinguished from this world. As a Muslim, it's not my place to worry about how Islam is perceived by you. It's to worry about how Islam is practiced by me.

The peaceful message of Islam the Religion itself is clear, apparent even from the crudest translations. Those who espouse a violent interpretation are in violation of the clearest possible aspect of the religion - the Qur'an - and this is why you will never see such a craven dog as Osamam bin Laden even acknowledge the existence of ayats 2:256, 109:6 5:32-33, 2:190, 5:61, and the full version of 4:91.



To argue that Islam has a religious message of intolerance and violence, and that violent interpretations are as valid as non-violent ones, is a complete slander. An anlogy would be to infer from a selective reading of the US Constitution that the Self-Evident Truths mentioned in the Declaration applied only to white males, or that there was no right to free speech, press, or separation of church and state. By ignoring parts of the Constitution, certain people can always invoke other parts of it to justify actions drastically at odds with the intent of the document.



But should Muslims go around parroting the phrase "Religion of Peace" ? No. It's a useless and meaningless excercise. If you believe in the Qur'an, live by its teachings, and leave the opinion making to the opinion makers.

EU-paradoxes

Hey froods, just try to wrap your brain round this one: Israel joining the EU? Unlikely, but Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared that Israel was indeed interested. The Foreign Ministry subsequently withdrew the statement of interest, but it certainly set wheels turning. The Ha'aretz article notes that Israel would need to make some serious changes in order to qualify:

The truth is that along with realization of a dream of "joining Europe," membership in the EU could also incur what Israel might consider a very steep price. Israel would have to nullify the Law of Return - EU legislation stipulates that all citizens living within its boundaries are free to settle and work without restriction in all of its member states - and all of the laws that discriminate favorably toward Jews. Israel would be required to unilaterally adopt all sections of the European legislation, and the European Convention of Human Rights. In so doing, it would all at once become a "state of all its citizens."



Israel would also be required to make a series of structural changes to its economy, to comply with the rigid criteria of the Maastricht Treaty. Joining the European Monetary Union - another prerequisite for joining the EU - would place it in a pillory of fiscal and monetary constraints over which it has nearly no control or maneuverability, such as the determination of interest rates (an authority now given to the European Central Bank). Additionally, Israel would be required to make harsh concessions in its defense and trade agreements with the U.S.

which already make it seem less than likely that the idea will ever wash. Israel is the only country in the world more concerned with its sovereignity than the United States, and joining the EU seems to carry with it commitments that Israel is ideologically incapable of making. But the ultimate reason that Israel seems a poor match has more to do with the basic concept of what the EU is and the basic concept of what Israel is. As the Ha'aretz article succinctly puts it:

The September 11 terrorist attacks reignited the argument over whether the EU is a members-only club of Christian countries that provides a barricade to the spread of Islam, or a supra-national framework that sanctifies freedom and rights of the individual. Israel does not naturally conform with either of these models.

However, I think the idea of Israel in the EU is not any more bizarre than the fact that Britain already IS a member. There's a compelling argument that the UK should not be in the EU - in fact, a far more compelling case can be made for the UK joining NAFTA :

First, the U.S. is already deeply enmeshed commercially with Britain; further trade liberalization would result in immediate and significant benefits for the American economy. Over the last 10 years UK net direct investment in North America has been greater than double its investment in the EU. Direct net investment in the UK from the U.S. and Canada has been 1.5 times the figure of total EU investment in Britain. In 1997 British direct investment in the U.S. was $18.3 billion, greater than any other country's, and 30 percent of the total of all foreign direct investment in the U.S. America invested more in Britain than anywhere else--$22.4 billion, or 20 percent of the total of all U.S. foreign direct investment. Also, Sterling has tended to be more in line with the dollar than with the D-mark and the other European currencies. This greatly affects interest-rate harmonization, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the American and British economies are more in-sync with one another than either is with the economic powers on the Continent.

There is also a much more comprehensive analysis of the same issue at the Action Centre for Europe website, in an exhaustive piece titled, "Fog over the Atlantic: Britain and the NAFTA Option" (with a Foreword written by John Major). And in fact Britain may well repudiating its membership by letting its membership lapse (I recall seeing a story about this but can't find the link).

Wahabism IS the Reformation ?

One of the clearest voices in my coments section is that of Ikram Saeed. He posted this excellent comment in a post below which I felt needed a wider airing.



Ikram writes:

Wahbism _is_ the reformation. Traditional Sunni Islam has four Madhabs (schools of thought), and the interpretation of religion is only permitted by religious scholars in that Madhab. To become a scholar requires many years of work, and an understanding of some 1400 years of religious thought and commentary. Traditional Sunni-ism is somewhat centralized and "Catholic" (though not nearly as mush as Shi'ism -- "the fifth madhab?").



Wahabis smash this hierarchy, and go extreme "protestant" They argue that the 1400 years of interpretation has clouded and distorted the original message of the Prophet. Muslims need to go back to the fundamentals, to Islam the way it was practiced at the time of the prophet. Each Muslim should read the Quran, and particularly the Hadiths, and reach his own, correct, understanding.



It so happens that Wahabis believe the correct understanding is one that, by the standards of America's relaxed morality, is reactionary and repressive. Religious authority is being decentralized among hatemongers and fanatics.



And, for Christians who know their own religious history, this shouldn't be surprising. Calvin was an intolerant religious bigot. And Luther has long been accused of being a grade 'A' anti-semite. Both Luther and Calvin launched Europe into 300 years of religious warfare (that still continues in N.Ireland).



300 years of religious warfare -- is that the reformation Den Beste wants?

...

The Christian Reformation occurred as a reaction to corruption in the catholic church, not as a reaction to strict morals. If anthing, teetotalling moralistic protestants were more violent and more strict than Catholics. Similarly, Wahabis are more strict than "Madhabis" to coin a term.

Ikraam also has some important observations on Wahabism (and its detractors within Islam) in a second comment in the same thread. Take a look for yourself, in the comments section on this post.



UPDATE: Al-Munaqabah also has posted a comment, distinguising between a Renaissaance and a Reformation. I like this distinction, but I hope Bill or someone equally qualified can comment on it.

If you want the Muslim world to discover the virtues of secular humanism, then what you want is an Islamic RENAISSANCE. If you want the Muslim world to go through convulsions of violence and war as it struggles within itself to define the proper practice of the religion, you want an Islamic REFORMATION.

I strongly feel that there is no Reformation needed, but another (not a) Rennaisannce would be a good thing.



UPDATE2: Bill Allison has commented! In a length post he lays out his case for why he disagrees with Ikram. Rather thanb excerpt him, I urge everyone to read it in full, as the argument is typically subtle and insightful. It motivated me to add a question mark to the post title :) I hope it will generate healthy debate in the comments section, which is now directly linked from the sidebar.

judgement by deeds

Steven Den Beste thinks that I think that Islam, as a social, political, and cultural entity, is immune to the actions of its extreme fringe. He points to the phrase "Religion of Peace" as an example of this "wishing-it-away" syndrome and raises the repeptition of the sarcastic "Religion of Peace^TM" moniker at LGF^[1] as a valid countering ploy.



The problem is, I have never used the phrase Religion of Peace^[2]. In fact, I find the extensive use of that stock phrase to be precisely the kind of PR sinkhole that I have been stridently advocating against in my silence of the media series.



Steven is right when he says in his recent post that:

It assumes there's a single Islam. It assumes that that single religion is actually peaceful. In reality, different forms of Islam are to a greater or lesser extent warlike and violent. Some are indeed peaceful. Some are intensely hostile and violent.

But then why has he been consistently treating Islam as precisely such a monolithic entity? He says in a preceding post:

I've been wondering for a while, and have sometimes voiced the possibility, that indeed one way for this war to end is for us to shatter Islam itself; not Islamism or pan-Arabism, but Islam outright.

I addressed the problem with his Catholic-Protestant analogy in detail. What he wants is to create a Neo-Islam, one that has zero possible violent interpretations^[3]. But the Protestant analogy of a "Islam as a personal faith, interpreted as the result of individual study and thought" is exactly the situation that caused Wahabism to flourish. Few Christians, even Protestants, tend to their religion as a careful construct in individual thought. Most simply subscribe to a aggregator - a denomination - and rely on that framework for their guidance. This is human nature, though perhaps since Steven has spent so much time analyzing his own self-philosophy he is unaware that he is an exception.



My own faith, the Bohra Ismaili Shi'a variant of Islam, has a very rationalistic ethos which is very akin to Steven's call for self-analysis and personal understanding. But it also takes the preference of most people for a guiding franework into account. But the theology of my sect is not really relevant, as Steven noted. We aren't talking about Bohras, we are talking about Islam as a collective sum, an integration over the limit of all Muslims.



The reason I introduced historical evidence of tolerant Islamic societies throughout history was to counter this specific SDB claim:

... the western concepts of tolerance and sympathy (which manifest in the most extreme form now as "multiculturalism") are in fact relatively modern, and that the Muslims who embrace those ideals learned them from the West (mainly from Christian missionaries), and are in the minority.

(emphasis mine). This is a very specific claim. Steven is saying:



[1]. tolerance and sympathy are Western concepts (and he excludes Islam from his definition of Western)

[2]. muslims only acquired tolerance from Western sources, not from any Islamic source

[3]. that most of the world's muslims are intolerant



I think that my counterexamples are very relevant in addressing these blatantly false claims. I was strictly on target, and was not claiming that there are no intolerant Muslims today, or that the existence of these past tolerant societies somehow negated the existence of intolerant (and violent) Muslims today.



Steven emailed to respond:

That was Warren's point, not mine.

Demonstrably false. Warren made no such broad assertions as numbered points [1-3] above. Warren actually said the following:

For the sad truth is that the only people to whom we can appeal for "mutual understanding" from the other side, are the people who have themselves been Westernized, or "Enlightened".

But Warren assumes that Enlightenment first arose in Christendom, when my historical examples already served as a counterargument to that assertion. Tolerance and Sympathy did not arise exclusively for the first time in the history of the world during the European Enlightenment. Warren has an ultimately provincial view of history. This is analogous to asserting that "Democracy was invented by Americans" (hint: where does the word, "Senate" come from?).



Steven goes on to say,

**Warren** said that the particular Muslims in the area where he grew up had only learned about tolerance from the Catholic schools where some of them went, and it was him and not me who generalized about that to the culture more commonly. What I said was "If he's right about this then..."

If Warren was making a point about particular muslims in a specific area, then why is Steven extrapolating it to all Muslims, throughout all of history? Look at points [1-2] above again and see if Steven's characterization of his words is accurate, for yourself.

And the fact that there have been Islamic societies which were tolerant doesn't mean that the people in the area where Warren grew up didn't learn tolerance from westerners.

Well, true. But this is irrelevant to what we are discussing, and what I responded to : points [1-3] above.



What Steven has done is make an assertion (actually, three). It was general, and it was stated factually, extrapolated from Warren but stated as fact, not "If true, Then". I proved those assertions to be demonstrably false. Steven took my response and applied it to a straw man argument. This post points out that I never endorsed that straw man, and that my remarks were aimed at what he actually wrote, not what he thinks he wrote or even what Warren wrote.



in other words, judge Steven's writing by his words. Just as he would have you judge a group by its actions.



UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus recycles some polemical accusations about how intolerant the Abbasids were. While I concede that Bartleby has some polemical nuggets scaterred throughout (especially with regard to Shi'a history), I still prefer the common framework of a respected historical source like Bartleby to a political magazine like Front Page Mag (not exactly a reputable source). Still, I didn;t claim that ALL Islamic (or Christian, or Jewish) nations and empires were tolerant, but simply presented some counterexamples of a few that were (to the satisfaction of historians at least, frontpagemag partisans aside) in order to debunk SDB's specific claims [1-3].





^[1] I don't pretend to know anything about Charles, but I do know that his use of the phrase Religion of Peace TM is understood to mean "typical violent behavior from Muslims" in the comments section. Applying Steven's own "a group is what it does" arguments, it doesnt matter what Charles intends by using the phrase or repeating it. The LGF commentators DO assume the phrase to mean "all Muslims are murderous bastards who'd as soon slit your throat as look at you".

^[2] Though I will address the specific question of the Religion's basic message, as opposed to the cultural and social collective entity, in the following post.

^[3] Existing Sunni Islam (the equivalent of Protestantism) is uniquely open to personal interpretations. In fact, one Abdul Wahab had such an interpretation, and look where that got us. Steven's call for breaking up Islam away from centralized religious interpretation actually contradicts his desired end result, a logical fallacy.

proposed: a common framework

One of the frustrations in trying to discuss Islam (with non-Muslims and Muslims alike) is the heavy reliance on recollection, opinion, stereotype, and media-filtered factoids by most commentators rather than a detailed study of history.



Common misconceptions like "jihad has always meant war" and "Islam conquered by the sword" and "non-Muslims under Muslim rule are third-class citizens at best" are easily refutable by simple historical facts. But the patience required to try and research those facts, and insert them appropriately in the course of a debate, is beyond the capability of even those muslims who are heavily studied in the history of the world (and I am not one of them, I am a mere dabbler).



It's probably too much to expect the average questioner to do due diligence on their own - but even if the average non Muslim (seeking a dialouge with a Muslim) were to try and research their question beforehand, it is difficult to know where to even begin.



Therefore, as a common framework, let me propose the following historical reference: Bartleby's Encyclopedia of World History. Specifically, the section on the Postclassical period of world history, 500 - 1500 AD. Their copy of the World Factbook is also a useful source of data for discussions aimed at modern times. Bartleby's reputation is in my opinion beyond reproach - their goal of providing open and free access to great works of literature and reference is a noble one. I have added these links to my sidebar for convenience, and there's a search box for the entire Bartleby Reference section floating further down the sidebar.



I also highly recommend the PBS series, Islam: Empire of Faith - a grand sweeping overview of the history of the rise of Islam and it's impact upon the rest of the world. I think that this series does a lot to illustrate the weaknesses in the Clashist view of Islam.



While no historical text or documentary can hope for ultimate accuracy, or satisfy all factions, I am willing to rely on Bartleby as an agreed starting point. I hope that visitors to this blog continue to challenge me as they have done, and I ask that they also use this reference so that we can indeed be "on the same page".