The Lordliness of ‘Rings’

Filmmaker Aaron Landy (Calendar Letters, Jan. 6) finds it “disheartening that Turan has crowned ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring’ as his No. 1 film of the year.” I find it disheartening that a “filmmaker” is so blinded by his paranoia over corporate hegemony that he can’t recognize a special movie when he sees one.

I’m as anti-hype as they come, but dismissing “Fellowship” as “dreck” is both patronizing and disingenuous. In an era when studios often feel the need to pander to the MTV audience, there’s not a single winking reference to modern tastes in the film. It’s blessedly irony-free. It features stellar performances by first-rate actors. It takes the source material seriously--there’s reverence for J.R.R. Tolkien’s work in every frame. Is it perfect? Perhaps not, but even those critics who’ve found fault with “Fellowship” have applauded its ambition and execution.

Movies offer a forum for a wide range of artistic expression. Some films illuminate the human condition, others try to transport the viewer to an alternative reality. “Fellowship” is a sterling example of the latter--it’s the best fantasy film to come down the pike in ages. It could have been precisely what Landy accuses it of being; the true miracle here is that it avoided those potential pitfalls.

If Landy has a grudge against that particular genre, he should come out and say it. In the end, that would be more intellectually honest than launching into a rant against the evils inherent in commercialism.

LOWELL CANNON

Studio City