LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring is a must-see for anyone who believes in freedom! The whole theme of the story revolves around how power corrupts people.

Let's say the One Ring signifies government. It was created by the dark lord, Sauron, the incarnation of evil and can only used for evil purposes. The heros' go on a quest to destroy it. All who have possessed the ring, even the most seemingly innocent and NON-power-mongering people to ever walk Middle-earth, succumb to the lure of it's dark power.

The message here - at least, in the eyes of my mind - is that government can do no good and must be destroyed forever. Even if a good person "wears the ring," they will become evil.

Power and evil are one.

But "evil" spelled backwards is "live" and "power" spelled backwards is "rewop."  So, you see, what the movie is actually about is "live rewop," IOW, the return of live performance of Doo-Wop music.  I can see how you would become confused, though.  Everything in the movie is a symbol of a hidden meaning, but that hidden meaning is itself only a symbol of an even more deeply hidden meaning.  Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

yeah, tolkien even admitted once that his politics leaned towards anarchy.

 I wrote a short article on this for my website a few days back:

[url]http://www.anotherpundit.com/cgi/viewnews.cgi?newsid1008545931,60408,[/url]

Anarchy does not work. even small tribes in far off lands develope some sort of jurisprudence through a tribe leader or council.

the "One Ring to rule them all" is the federal government. all the other rings were the balance and distribution of power amongst the represented races. or in other words, the rings possessed by various races were "state" rings. the "One" ring usurps their powers and controls them. thereby making their independent powers useless to the represented races.



One lib to rule them all. Bwaaahahahahaha!!!!!

...and, of course, the real heroes of the story are the hobbits, who don't ask for their role in the great doings, only muddle through.

someone made the interesting argument that the real hero of the story is not even frodo--already less conventionally heroic than aragorn or gandalf--but rather sam. frodo in the end fails to voluntarily relenquish the ring. sam, on the other hand, demonstrates love, faith, and steadfastness throughout.

McGredo, please put in a spoiler warning for those members who haven't read Book 3.

Thanks a lot, mcgreedo!  I was going to see the movie this weekend.

Well, that doesn't happen in Fellowship of the Ring, anyway, so go see the movie in peace.  
This movie is mainly taken from the first book of three.  (I say mainly rather than completely since there is some content and interpretation taken from the next two books.)  The three comprise one whole story, and unlike some trilogies, the story doesn't have a nice resolution at the end of each component part.

Led Zeplin

I encourage anyone who liked the movie to read the book. There is a reason that so many people call LOTR the book of the 20th century, because it's just so damn good.

Aren't the anti-gunners the ones who believe that an object of destructive power (such as a gun) has an evil influence upon those who use it?