board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Adaptation in Lord of the Rings: Elti's Big Fat Paper

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 12 posts ]
Author Message
Eltirwen
Post subject: Adaptation in Lord of the Rings: Elti's Big Fat Paper
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 9:33 pm
Bored Silly
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu 10 Mar , 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Fidgeting
 
Background story: I took a class this semester on Film History and Criticism. It has been an interesting experience - first I hated it, but now, as my final in it is tonight, I'm going to miss it very much. Well, we were given an assignment to write a paper, and I jumped at the chance. My last big paper in high school was on LOTR, and now my last big paper in college was on LOTR. Here it is. I couldn't have done it without ya'll. (I had to explain the theory of adaptation first, then apply it to the films.)

Adaptation in Lord of the Rings

When The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring came out in December 2001, it sparked a world-wide phenomenon. The film was the first of three, a trilogy introducing audiences to a magical world with elves, dwarves, powerful swords, and strange little creatures called hobbits. The second film of the trilogy, The Two Towers, came out December 2002, and made more money than its predecessor. The third film came out December of 2003 and became the second-highest grossing film of all time, after Titanic. Return of the King broke box-office records and was nominated for eleven Oscars, winning them all on the ceremony night. It was an amazing first for any fantasy movie, winning both Best Picture and Best Director. However, none of this would have been accomplished without a shy Oxford don writing during the first half of the twentieth century. These incredibly popular films were based on incredibly popular books that have been called the greatest books of the twentieth century at times. They have legions of fans, and the people who adapted the books for film were also fans. The adaptation of such a beloved work to another medium requires much care and bravery. Fans of the books had wildly different reactions to the on-screen version. Some hate the films, believing they are horrible adaptations. Others love the changes and think the director was completely justified to alter what he did. However, to truly gauge the adaptation, a more scholarly analysis must be done to ascertain whether Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings was a good adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.

The main problem with the criticism of most adaptations of classic novels is that they employ several unfair tactics. One type of critic is known as the purist, and expects the film to be exactly like the book. If this is not true, the purist continually rants about the director raping the text and makes no attempt to understand the circumstances that mandated changes. Others rely on their own distinct impressions to criticize a film, not using any particular ideology (McFarlane 195). Still others insist upon the film’s independence as a work of art and refuse to consider it an adaptation at all (Ibid, 194). However, the best approach to criticizing an adapted film is to use a methodology, just like criticizing any other film. Brian McFarlane proposes a methodology that is widely regarded as the best in his work Novel on Film. First, the critic must differentiate which elements of the classic novel can be transferred, and which must be adapted. Elements that can be easily transferred include the narrative and basic plot of the story. Elements that must be adapted are those which fall under the theoretical name of enunciation. This category concerns itself mostly with the way the narrative is presented to the reader, or the “voice” of the narrator (McFarlane 26). This methodology is crucial to an objective study of any adaptation.

Purists might ask why the book had to be changed at all to be put on film, and if you frequent a scholarly Tolkien website there will be many posts asking this very question. However, there is a very basic reason why a story must have its enunciation changed between book and movie. Books and movies utilize two different systems to put across their meanings. A book must use wholly verbal signifiers, because of its nature. Also because of its nature, actions must be purely linear, as the words appear in sequence. Conversely, a film uses verbal, visual, and aural cues to convey meaning. Even printed words, taken straight from a scene in a book, will have symbolic meaning in a movie that they could not have in a book. The composition of a film also makes a difference. Audiences do not view a film frame by frame as a book is read word by word, but instead view the film as a collection of scenes. This also means that the film director has less control over what the audience notices than the author of a book: because of the immense amount of information contained in the mise-en-scene, each audience member could see a different part of the scene first. Because of these different factors, it is impossible for a film adaptation to completely reproduce the experience of reading a book (McFarlane 26-28). After all, what is the point of adapting a book to film if the final product is just like the original? That would be reproduction, not adaptation.

Adaptation theory has not been the most popular among film theories, but has been studied for a long time. Andre Bazin wrote a formative essay on the topic, called Adaptation, or The Cinema as Digest. In it, he attacks the idea that fidelity to the text is the most important feature of adaptation. Instead, he postulates that behind every great novel is a “work” that could be adapted into a splendid film. With this Platonist assertion, he removes the problem of the book automatically being considered better than the movie, and exalts the concept of the work above both. He acknowledges the fact that some books can never be truly adapted to the screen, and that others can not be adapted in their entirety, citing Jacques Copeau’s The Brothers Karamazov as an example of this latter problem. He speaks of enunciation as the aesthetic energy of a book, and says that by necessity the energy must be distributed differently in a film than a book (24-26). Bazin did not believe all adaptations were beneficial: indeed he deplored the dominance of genre in its mangling of one classic work after another until Shakespeare could not be told from Hugo, and neither from an original story (Andrew 174-175). Adaptation was not Bazin’s greatest concern, but he still argued effectively for its importance as a subject of study.

Many years later, Robert Ray wrote on the subject of adaptation, concerned at how little study it received among scholars of cinema. He writes of the serious oversight of film and literature critics to notice the translatability of “cultural codes” that can be used in any medium, not only novel or film. For example, “if a champagne glass meant one thing in an ad and another in a film, Casablanca’s audience might not be so readily able to decipher Rick Blaine’s character” (40). In other words, ideology and narrative are not limited by the type of media they currently serve (38-41). Therefore, one of the questions to ask when studying the adaptation of a novel to film is how much the ideology and narrative have been transferred.

Studying the transfer of ideology and narrative between the novel and the film of Lord of the Rings proves very interesting. One ideology is the view of war. In all of Professor Tolkien’s work, war is seen as causing great evil and a last resort, to be used only when all other options have been exhausted. A lifelong horror born of spending time in the trenches of France during World War I clearly shows in his abhorrence of violence. For a book about a war to regain Middle-earth for good, Lord of the Rings contains relatively little fighting and almost no description of the battles. In contrast, Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings almost glorifies violence. The relatively peaceful journey of the Fellowship is broken up with skirmishes and monsters, and even some characters have been transformed. The elf Legolas, a remote and distant figure in the book that mostly scouts and shoots arrows, has been turned into an action hero reminiscent of Bruce Lee. Even more of a change, Gandalf the wizard has been transformed from a gruff advisor to a samurai warrior, especially after his return as the White. There is even a physical battle added between Saruman and Gandalf, where a mere verbal argument existed in the book. Even non-violent confrontations have been augmented to make them tenser, creating the atmosphere of a horror film. For example, the first time the elven princess Arwen appears she holds a sword to the hero Aragorn’s throat. Of course, this does not occur in the book, but instead a very rushed encounter with another elf happens. Another example is of when the hobbits Merry and Pippin first encounter Treebeard. In the book, the Ent suspects them of being orc spies at first, but upon learning their names already has information that they are friends, and treats them magnificently the rest of the time. In the movie, he believes they are orc spies and frightens them quite badly, almost squeezing them to death, before taking them to someone they think is Saruman, the evil wizard (Thompson 49-53). Obviously, this is one ideology that has changed greatly from the book to the movie, perhaps a result of modern culture.

One way Tolkien moves his narrative forward is through events connected with specific characters. As simple events, these ought to be easy to transfer from the book to the film. However, Peter Jackson changed some of the events surrounding characters, particularly those pertaining to the character of Faramir. Faramir plays a vital role in The Two Towers and Return of the King, aiding Frodo and Sam in their quest to Mordor and letting them through Gondor territory at the potential cost of his life and what is left of his father’s respect. He is meant to be an example of the noblest qualities in men, declining the seductive potential of the Ring’s offer of power where his brother Boromir gave into the temptation. Later, when his father castigates him for letting the Ring go into Mordor, Faramir replies with a maturity not present in the older man, holding honor more important than victory.

However, in Peter Jackson’s The Two Towers, Faramir has been changed greatly. When he encounters Frodo and Sam, he treats them quite roughly, mistrusting them, and when he learns they carry the Ring he decides to take it to his father to try and win Denethor’s love and respect. Faramir intimidates Frodo and Sam, pulling his sword on them at one point, and takes them all the way to the city of Osgiliath before changing his mind. The sequence at Osgiliath is entirely new, having no basis in the book, and includes yet another battle. It also includes an encounter between Frodo and a Nazgul, a servant of Sauron, which creates an enormous plot hole. The whole point of Frodo’s mission into Mordor is secrecy, yet in the encounter at Osgiliath Sauron learns exactly where the ring is and who carries it. Only after seeing the Ring’s effects on Frodo does Faramir realize how dangerous the thing would be to his city, and allow Frodo to continue his mission. In the book, Faramir is a scholar and knows already of the dangers of the Ring, and that is why he refuses it, saying, “I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway” (Tolkien, The Two Towers, 314). In the movie, he is more of a warrior, and does not refuse the Ring until the crucial moment, after the Nazgul battle. In the film of Return of the King Faramir returns to a character more like that in the book, standing quietly while his father berates him and accuses Gandalf of treachery.

Another event concerning Faramir occurs in the movie that is changed from the book. In the book, Faramir is struck down with a deadly illness by a Nazgul while fleeing from the failing defenses at Osgiliath, after he has already spoken to his father. In the movie, Faramir starts out at Osgiliath, so he suffers no harm on the retreat from the city. Instead, he is ordered by his father to lead a suicide mission to try and retake Osgiliath, and complies. This leads to one of the most beautiful montages of the movie, with scenes of Faramir and his line of brave knights on horses being struck down by sneering Orcs alternated with those of Denethor gorging himself on food while listening to Pippin sing a sad song about war. Emotionally provocative and beautiful though this scene may be, it still changes a vital part of the narrative. In the movie, Faramir is struck with several arrows, but has no mysterious illness. In the book, he has been shot, but has also been afflicted with the Black Breath by the Nazgul, and requires Aragorn’s healing. This healing is a vital step to the acceptance of Aragorn as the true king of Gondor, since it fulfills a prophecy. In the movie, Aragorn does not heal Faramir, but apparently Faramir accepts him as the king anyways.

Eowyn’s encounter with the Witch-king at the Pelennor Fields in Return of the King offers interesting insight into cultural influences upon adaptation, and also transfer of ideology. Eowyn fights the Witch-king to keep him from killing her uncle, and the fight itself in the film is remarkably close to the events of the book. The phrasing is updated to ease understanding for modern viewers, but otherwise the sequence is nearly unchanged. It is interrupted at one point by the arrival of Aragorn at another part of the battlefield, which only heightens the dramatic tension. The witch-king taunts Eowyn when she challenges him, telling her that no man can kill him, but Eowyn pulls off her helmet to reveal her face and tells the Nazgul lord that she is not a man. In his moment of shock, Merry is able to stab him in the leg, and enables Eowyn to finish off the creature. This may seem like modern feminist ideology, but in fact was present in the original text. Tolkien did not hold women in war to be a good idea, but had a high regard for strong women that could fight. Peter Jackson translated this little bit of ideology into the film nearly seamlessly, perhaps because it fits so well with modern feminism.

However, the next scene, between Eowyn and Theoden, offers interesting insight into how sources other than the original text can affect a film. In the book, Eowyn collapses after fighting the Witch-king, and Merry comforts Theoden as he dies. However, in the movie it is Merry who collapses, and Eowyn crawls to her uncle. They speak, and Eowyn tells her uncle that she is going to save him. He tells her she already has, and that she needs to let him go. This scene, in dialogue and character positioning, is almost an exact replica of the scene at the end of Return of the Jedi when Luke is holding his father and Anakin dies in Luke’s arms. Perhaps meant as homage to this great moment in another famous fantastic trilogy, this moment reveals how outside influences can affect a film’s adaptation.

The climactic moment in both book and movie occurs when Frodo finally arrives at the Cracks of Doom to destroy Sauron’s Ring. In Tolkien’s Return of the King, Frodo claims the ring, finally falling to its seductive power, but the creature Gollum, who once had the ring, attacks him and bites Frodo’s finger off to finally get “his” ring back. Gollum dances gleefully at the edge of the precipice over boiling lava, and trips, falling in and destroying the ring. However, in Peter Jackson’s Return of the King, events turn out differently. Things are essentially the same until Gollum re-claims the Ring. However, at this point Frodo does not lie on the ground in pain and watch Gollum fall over of his own clumsiness. Instead, Peter Jackson’s Frodo gets up and starts fighting with Gollum, trying to get the Ring back, until both topple over the edge of the precipice. This narrative change shows a shift in ideology. Tolkien held a strong belief in the workings of God, so events like Gollum tripping were seen as the hand of God in Middle-earth. Apparently Jackson did not like the seeming randomness of this intervention, and wanted to show a more obvious hand in Gollum and the Ring’s demises. Frodo does not mean to push Gollum over the edge, but he still has much more part in that action than in the book. This could be a reflection of Jackson’s personal beliefs regarding acts of God, or a reflection of the current aversion to ascribing any actions to God. Either way, this is another example of something that could have been transferred, which was instead adapted.

Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings will probably have great influence in future years as an example of adaptation of a classic work. Not only did it establish the fantasy film as an accepted genre, it made enormous profits, so its influence cannot yet be measured. It provides an immense opportunity for research, particularly into fan reactions and the influence of the Internet on a movie’s popularity. Very little research or critical work has been done on the trilogy so far, so it holds an immense opportunity for both. However, all fans and critics ask the same question, which must be answered: is Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings a good adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? Unfortunately, this question involves comparing novel and film, which is like comparing apples and oranges. To use Bazin’s idea, they both come from the same work, but have very different exteriors. The decision of whether the adaptation was good is ultimately subjective and must be made by each viewer of the films and reader of the books. Judging by the methodology, it was surprisingly faithful and created an enthralling mise-en-scene in the vein of the books’ enunciation. Fidelity to the narrative was completely laid aside at a few crucial points, and this probably could have been treated with more tact. Overall, by subjective standards it was a decent adaptation. The interesting part will be watching what new adaptations of Lord of the Rings emerge, and if they take advantage of the opportunity to better Jackson’s achievement. Perhaps one day, an adaptation will be made that will even satisfy the purists.

Works Cited
Andrew, J. Dudley. The Major Film Theories. London: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Bazin, Andre. “Adaptation, or the Cinema as Digest.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000. 19-27.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Dir. Peter Jackson. New Line, 2001.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Dir. Peter Jackson. New Line, 2003.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Dir. Peter Jackson. New Line, 2002.
McFarlane, Brian. Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Ray, Robert B. “The Field of ‘Literature and Film.’” Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000. 38-53.
Thompson, Kristen. ”Fantasy Franchises and Frodo Baggins: The Lord of the Rings and Modern Hollywood.” Velvet Light Trap 52 2003: 45-60. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. R.T. Williams Learning Resource Center, Bethany, Oklahoma. April 13, 2005. <http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?dire ... n=10859650>.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. New York: Ballantine Books, 1954.
- - -. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. New York: Ballantine Books, 1955.
- - -. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. New York: Ballantine Books, 1954

_________________

Searching for my sanity...

"A life lived in fear is a life half lived" - Strictly Ballroom


Top
Profile Quote
Di of Long Cleeve
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 10:47 pm
Frodo's girl through and through
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: The Shire
 
Very interesting, well thought out essay. :)

I learned a lot from it, about adaptation theories. :)

Enunciation ... the aesthetic energy of a book. :)

I am not that much of a purist when it comes to PJ's LOTR - although I have my criticisms - but I've always been impressed by the force of Semprini's argument, that the way to make a faithful adaptation is not to stick so closely to book narrative (overall PJ does do this, despite his many changes) but focus more on Tolkien's metaphors and meanings.

_________________

"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... " Letter no. 246

Avatar by elanordh on Live Journal


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 10:59 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Well done, Elti. Very interesting and illuminating. :)


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 2:59 am
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
Very interesting paper, Elti. :) Very informative as well.

Thanks for posting it!

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 8:03 am
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
Eltirwen,

Thank you for posting your interesting essay. I have a few comments that I would like to share with you.

You say:

"The main problem with the criticism of most adaptations of classic novels is that they employ several unfair tactics. One type of critic is known as the purist, and expects the film to be exactly like the book. If this is not true, the purist continually rants about the director raping the text and makes no attempt to understand the circumstances that mandated changes. Others rely on their own distinct impressions to criticize a film, not using any particular ideology (McFarlane 195)."

Allow me to respond that this is a very unfair and incorrect portrait of the purists in general. I have never met a single purist who expected the film to be "exactly like the book". Many purists (including Queen B and myself) have a problem with PJ's LOTR as film, and not as adaptation. I am a purist and my position, as Di kindly recalled ( :) ), is that you cannot adapt faithfully a book if you stick too closely to the narrative at the expense of the mood, the themes and the characters, as PJ has done, which resulted in a crammed and unbalanced narration. I have written many posts on this, often giving as examples Kurosawa's and Welles' adaptations of Shakespeare, which are very faithful without sticking that much to the narrative.

I absolutly agree with you that PJ's film "glorifies violence", whereas Tolkien's LOTR shows Tolkien's "abhorrence of violence". I thus have trouble understanding how you can write at the end of your essay that PJ's film was "surprisingly faithful" (even if you refer to the "methodology"). Because PJ's film glorifies violence it is precisely not "surprisingly faithful". And the fact that PJ let "modern culture" pervade his film at the expense of Tolkien's views is precisely why it was not "surprisingly faithful". In an adaptation, ideology is as important as enunciation, and actually has a direct impact on enunciation. The cinematic tools a director will use will be different depending upon whether he shoots a contemplative scene or a frantic action-packed scene. A contemplative scene and an action-packed scene never share the same ideology. Apparently, and if I understand you correctly, MacFarlane does not insist on ideology and only bases his views on plot, narrative, and enunciation; this is a flaw in his methodology.

I also disagree with you that there exist only subjective criteria to analyze an adaptation, as you seem to imply in the last paragraph of your essay ("apple and orange"). In addition to subjective criteria, there also exist objective criteria for that and it is the duty of the film critic to identify them and apply them to the film, as I tried to do in my posts on TORC. In your essay, you note several times that from an ideological point of view, PJ's film is different from Tolkien's book. Isn't ideology an example of objective criterium? And when you apply MacFarlane's flawed methodology to say that the film is "surprisingly faithful", don't you try to apply an objective criterium? :)

Finally, you were absolutly right in quoting André Bazin, one of the all time great critics of cinema. But knowing Bazin well, I am convinced that he would have disliked PJ's film.


Top
Profile Quote
Eltirwen
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 2:38 pm
Bored Silly
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu 10 Mar , 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Fidgeting
 
OK - To explain the purist description, I was poking fun at my own knee-jerk reaction when I saw the movies, especially TTT. My professor is woefully unacquainted with LOTR and its fan base, so I might have erred a bit on the side of extremism, but I wanted to make sure he understood how much we love these books. If I offend, I am sorry. I certainly did not intend that description to cover all purists, especially not those who calmly analyze the movies for what they are.

As for the discussion involving faithfulness and ideology, I do not know enough about ideology yet to consider making judgements on that basis. We only had this class for fifteen weeks, and only discussed ideology one of those. I'm trying to read more about it so I understand it more. I do agree that perhaps ideology should be the main concern when considering faithfulness, but as you noted the only methodology I found did not include it. There really just wasn't enough criticism related to adaptation, to have a more balanced methodology.

Concerning the subjective/objective thing, I was referring to the endless discussion of whether the book or the movie was better. On its own, I do believe that an objective analysis of the movies is possible, but comparison to the book must be each person's own judgement, since they are from two different media. But, that's just my conclusion from writing this paper. (Psst - the book's better!) I am only an egg, so to speak, and still have much to learn.

:bow: for Semprini! :D I've always admired your posts. It makes me very happy that you read my humble little paper.

_________________

Searching for my sanity...

"A life lived in fear is a life half lived" - Strictly Ballroom


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 3:36 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Semprini, for the record, I do not, and never have, consider you a "purist" as I understand the term. To me, the term implies putting fidelity to the text above the ideal of making the best movie possible. While I understand that part of your problem with PJ's LOTR is your feeling that they do not faithfully capture the spirit of the book I have always understood your primary complaint about the films to be their shortcomings as films. I would think that your belief would be that the filmmakers cinematic shortcomings was more the cause of the films not faithfully capturing the spirit of the book then the failure to capture the spirit of the book being the cause of cinematic shortcomings.

I'm sure that's about as clear as mud, but if you can follow it, please tell me whether you think that is an accurate description of your feelings.


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 4:03 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
Eltirwen,

Thank you for your kind post. That was a good essay. :) If you allow me to give you an advice, remember to trust as much your sound personal judgment as the methodologies of the established authors you quote: no methodology is without flaws. It is by contrast, by criticizing other authors, that you identify and clarify your own opinion.

Voronwe,

>>>I would think that your belief would be that the filmmakers cinematic shortcomings was more the cause of the films not faithfully capturing the spirit of the book then the failure to capture the spirit of the book being the cause of cinematic shortcomings.

I goes both ways. I think that capturing the spirit of the book required a complete mastery of the Art of cinema, and a particular grace. LOTR is a very, very difficult book to adapt. To be faithful, the film thus had to be very good, because you cannot capture Tolkien without an elegant and rigorous direction. But I also think that the first step in the adaptation process was to fully understand the book, ie, its themes, its purpose, its atmosphere, before shooting the first scene. Because LOTR is a book easy to caricature, it was important that the film be particularly faithful. So if the films had been masterpieces of cinema unfaithful to the book, I would certainly have discussed some of the director's choices, while admiring the films. Hence my belief that I am a purist (although I myself am not too fond of the word; but it is still better than revisionist, pragmastist or transcendentalist! :) )

Let's say that I am a purist who thinks that in order to faithfully adapt the book, the director had to take a route some purists would, at first blush and without seeing the result, perhaps disagree with. I am a purist who believes in "ideology" to use the word used by Eltirwen more than in narration. I believe that each work of art has a particular meaning that should not be lost in an adaptation. And I value Tolkien's views on pity saving the world.

Finally, it is my experience that the best adaptations of cinema all valued more themes than narration. And it is my belief that PJ crammed so much narration and so many action scenes in his film that he could never have retrieved the poetic and contemplative nature of the book even if his name had been Akira Kurosawa.

I'm sure that this is at least as unclear as your post, but here goes. :)

Last edited by Semprini on Wed 11 May , 2005 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 4:18 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Because PJ's film glorifies violence it is precisely not "surprisingly faithful".
I agree that in this way PJ's film was not faithful to Tolkien's work. However, there are as many ways to judge faithfulness as there are grains of sand on a beach. I could as easily say that PJ's film was essentially faithful to Tolkien's work because it maintains Tolkien's belief in the possibility and desirability of a strong but benevolent monarchy. ;)

As it happens, I don't particularly care that much about that, but I do believe that PJ's films were remarkably faithful to Tolkien's work in that they captured, far more then I ever dared hope possible, what Tolkien referred to as "the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; [and] the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it."


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 4:24 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
I do believe that PJ's films were remarkably faithful to Tolkien's work in that they captured, far more then I ever dared hope possible, what Tolkien referred to as "the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; [and] the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it."
:love:

Semprini is one of those terribly annoying people whose criticisms of the films I mostly cannot honestly disagree with. I've thought of our differences in the past as a matter of cinematic taste (he having a lot and me very little :D ), but you put your finger on another source: which themes PJ did and did not serve well, and their different relative importance to different people.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 4:49 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
Yes, Prim, those are the two sources: Cinematic tastes and "which themes PJ did and did not serve well, and their different relative importance to different people." Add to that the fact that I do not believe that all themes are equal in LOTR.

Vor>>>what Tolkien referred to as "the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; [and] the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it."

You know, I love this sentence. I have always thought that it conveys such sadness, such beauty, such depth; it let the imagination wander and think about things which Tolkien does not clearly talk about in LOTR. But I would not use it to summarize or describe LOTR's meaning. I understand that for you the "anguish" part is important. For me, the anguish is mainly to be found in the Sil. LOTR is about the progressive liberation or neutralization of that anguish through pity and acceptation of mortality.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 4:52 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
That requires a week's answer, or none. ;) Since I don't have the time for the former, I will opt for the latter.

At least for now.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 12 posts ]
Return to “Literary Rambles: There & Back Again...”
Jump to: