Bending ‘Rings’ to Make a Point

It’s unfortunate that Aaron Landy, who makes some valid points about media conglomerates and corporate advertising (Letters, Jan. 6), has undermined his basic argument by lashing the critique to his stinging opinion of “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.”

If major corporations producing film franchises is “to culture what chainsaws are to rain forests,” as Landy asserts, then “The Lord of the Rings” is that rarest of accomplishments: a brilliant adaptation of what is arguably the literary masterpiece of the 20th century and a project that could not possibly have been made with the requisite sense of grandeur had it not had the wealth of corporations behind it.

It’s possible greed was the motivating factor in getting the trilogy green-lighted, but there can be little doubt that the resulting films are the product of deep commitment and passion on the part of everyone from director Peter Jackson and his magnificent cast to the costumers, art department and, I suspect, even the grips.

There is nothing inherently evil about epic filmmaking. When done correctly, it creates the sort of magic that is the reason most of us go to the movies. “The Fellowship of the Ring” is just such a film, and, because its sequels were made simultaneously, a risky move financially but a brilliant move from an artistic standpoint, I have little reason to believe that “The Two Towers” or “The Return of the King” will disappoint.

Isn’t it just possible that Kenneth Turan named “Fellowship” as his top film of the year not because he was “bought” but rather because he genuinely recognized it as a magical film that has finally done justice to the genre of epic fantasy? From where I sit, it’s not only the best film of the year, but the best film I’ve seen in the past decade. And nobody paid me a dime to write that.

ALAN SANBORN

Northridge

*

So Aaron Landy found it disheartening that Kenneth Turan would rank “The Lord of the Rings” as the best film of 2001?

Interestingly, he never says why, other than proclaiming the movie “dreck.” Apparently, additional endorsements of the film by respectable film critics were not cause for him to even momentarily consider the possibility that they might all be responding to something genuine. No, this critical collusion instead led Landy to conclude that the writers are all corrupt. (Are all the others, not cited, who loved the film also on the AOL Time Warner teat?)

Landy forgets that Turan, painted in his unfocused tirade as little more than a studio shill, was no friend of “Titanic,” the biggest financial blockbuster of them all. He ranked “Ratcatcher,” a Scottish film that barely saw the light of an American projector bulb, as his top pick of 2000.

Strangely enough, Landy fails to note that the nearly unanimous mediocre-to-negative reviews received by the recent “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” (including Turan’s) did nothing to ensure that movie’s box office doom.

DENNIS COZZALIO

Glendale

*

Having seen and thoroughly enjoyed “The Lord of The Rings,” I had some interest in reading Landy’s letter. He wants to warn us of the horrors of this film, which he describes as “dreck,” but I was confused.

Does he critique the acting? No. What about the directing? No. Maybe the writing? Again, no. Cinematography? No. In fact, Landy does not fault anything at all associated with filmmaking. His beef is with the ads and previews shown in front of the feature presentation. What has one to do with the other?

One is purely a marketing tool, while the other is the artistic endeavor we paid to see. Is there anyone who does not know the difference, and separation, of the two? There seems to be a movement to end the practice of placing ads ahead of feature films, but filmmakers should not be criticized for a distributor or studio decision.

Because Landy describes himself as a filmmaker, I sincerely hope that any reviewer of his endeavors focuses on his work and not on the marketing.

MARK HARTZELL

Los Angeles

*

I completely agree with Landy. He is totally on target when he says “an epidemic of monopolized culture is wiping out the arts before our very eyes and nobody is talking.”

I have noticed for a long time the decline in the presentation of movies and of the excessive abuse of advertisement imposed by theater owners on a captive audience.

ROBERTO C. REYES

Palm Desert