board77

I wrote this today rather quickly after reading Halplm’s post elsewhere and won’t have time in the next week to reflect on and revise it, so I thought I’d just expose it in it’s immature state and see if any discussion arises. If I don’t respond quickly, it’s because of RL.

Introduction

Halplm’s recent excellent post elsewhere reminded me of the issue of adaptation that has been discussed in several old threads, also elsewhere. I think it is past time to contribute my thoughts.

My point is that there is a misplaced emphasis, on what we would have liked to have seen from PJ and Co., rather than what we should have expected and been pleased to see.

What We Wanted

I have absolutely no difference of opinion with Halplm about what we would like to have seen. Unfortunately, we don’t control the world and the more pertinent discussion is about what we were likely to see. The discrepancy between them is a long list of things we think were done incorrectly or not at all. An aspect of my ID is that it alludes to The Scouring of the Shire, which is my worst unreconciled conflict with PJ and Co.

Simpler and quieter works, like Jane Austen’s novels have been translated to film without suffering much in the translation. Branagh and Olivier have sometimes shown what can be done with Shakespeare, but a play is a tiny thing. More complex works seem to have always been problematic. I don’t expect to ever see a successful “War and Peace”, or “Remembrance of Things Past”, for example. For me the reason seems obvious. Once you start down the path of discarding parts of a story, parts of its characters, and parts of its themes, because there is too much bulk to translate it intact, you very soon notice how all of these interact and tugging on a thread in one place causes unexpected disturbances elsewhere. In compensating for these, you create even more disturbances. Faramond can probably give us a formula to describe this complexity.

What We Got

My own opinion is that PJ and Co. tried very hard to deal with the complexity. As in most fields, they seem to have assigned priorities. The “image” seems to have been held as most important, which makes perfect sense, as this is a visual medium. They succeeded far beyond my expectations and I think even Halplm agrees they did a good job. The second, at least in my view, is the music. I think most of us agree that it may convey the “feeling” of Tolkien better than the images. The third was the plot. I think they recognized the huge mass of Tolkien readership and were determined to follow the main events of the story as closely as possible thinking that was sufficient to satisfy us. Look at the reports from the recent audience with PJ and see how close we came to a much different story. The fourth seems to have been the themes. I think they did a reasonable job with hope, mercy and fellowship, with some disturbing exceptions. The fifth seems to have been characterization and here they seem to have run out of energy, understanding, and discipline. None of the characters are same as those we have grown to love or hate. At best they are vaguely congruent.

There are legitimate counterpoints to each of these opinions. What about plate armor? You can legitimately say an orchestra is totally out of place in middle earth and they should have kept with the simpler music of Enya and Lennox. However, in general, they seem to have done a stunning job in some areas made reasonable compromises on everything but characterization that injured the themes. Is there any character they portrayed well? The worst deviations seem to be in the main characters. The only characters I’m pleased with are Theoden and Boromir, neither of which are exactly Tolkien’s characters.

So, we didn’t get what we wanted.

Precedent

Most human endeavors are restricted by precedent. It limits the range of action to at most a few steps beyond the frontier. The law, Voronwe will assure you, and many other fields are utterly dependent upon it. New work is an extension of the old. I think films follow this pattern too, and it is unrealistic to expect radical changes. They can occur, but they are an aberration.

What did we have a right to expect? As I said before the history of film and complex stories is unsatisfying. I have been thinking for some time of what legitimate comparisons can be made. The depth and breadth of Tolkien is almost unparalleled. The closest comparison that can be made, of which I am aware, is with the treatment of the Arthurian legends, with which I am somewhat familiar. The span seems comparable and depth exists in the layers that built up over the centuries, although at the price of consistency.

What have films given us for Arthur and how faithful are they?

The English language list is:

Prince Valiant, Hathaway 1954
Black Knight, Garnett 1954
* Knights of the Round Table, Thorpe 1953
Lancelot and Guinevere, Wilde 1963
Camelot, Logan 1967
* Excalibur, Boorman 1981
* First Knight, Zucker 1995
* King Arthur, Fuqua 2004

There are a few French films and at least one German that might be considered, but I don’t pretend to be able to adequately assess them. Maybe our French speaking, consonant loving friend can help there.

I will limit most of the discussion to the more interesting of the group, which are marked with an asterisk.

Within the whole group, there is a general shift from hiding the forbidden aspects of the story, which include incest and adultery, in the early ‘50s to a full exposition in 1981.

General Story in the Legends

The setting is the collapse of the Roman Empire around 475 CE. Most of the stories center around the current area near Bristol, but include southern Wales, eastern Cornwall, and southwestern England with Glastonbury and Stonehenge being closely associated. There is also a substantial set of French stories centered in Armorica (Brittany). The Saxons have invaded or been invited and become disruptive. A Briton leader (Arthur) emerges. He is identified by his ability to draw the sword Excalibur from a stone. He has a Druidic advisor (Merlin), although the culture is becoming Christian. Arthur has a son, (Mordred) by his half-sister (Morgana). The Saxons are defeated. He marries Guinevere. Many knights are attracted to his court, in which equality is signified by a round table, including the French knight Lancelot, with whom Guinevere falls in love. This destroys the camaraderie and the health of the kingdom. The knights go in search of the Holy Grail to heal the king and the country. At this point, there is wide variation related to the Quest and its results. Morgana and Mordred take advantage of the situation and attempt and/or succeed in controlling the kingdom. In the final battle Mordred and Arthur mortally wound each other. The sword is returned to the Lady of the Lake, usually by Perceval. Arthur goes off to Avalon to die.

There are many variants in the details, but this is the general story. Please pay attention to how even this oversimplified version is seriously violated in most of the movies discussed.

Knights of the Round Table, Thorpe 1953

The “Knights of the Round Table” somewhat follows the stories in Malory and Monmouth. It conflicts with the “real” stories in numerous ways:

Arthur’s origin is ignored
Mordred is not Arthur’s son
Saxons are absent
Merlin is presented as a political advisor, his pagan beliefs are ignored
Incest is absent
Consummation of the Lancelot Guinevere romance is absent
Mordred is the lover of Morgan
Mordred and Morgana kill Merlin
Lancelot returns Excalibur to the Lady of the Lake
Lancelot kills Mordred
The Grail quest is mentioned, but subdued
The main themes, like the health of the king linked to the country’s are absent

As has been the case for the last few hundred years, the time of Arthur, judged from costumes and architecture is shifted to 1100 CE or later from around 500 CE.

Excalibur, Boorman 1981

This may be the best adaptation. Boorman was fairly meticulous in justifying his choices by reference to precedent in Chretien, Malory, Tennyson, Eliot, White, and several older Tristan stories. The music is an important aspect of the film as it conveys the “feeling” very well.

The range of sources legitimized character modifications to suit his needs. For the first time, the main aspects of the story, including incest and adultery were presented rather than ignored or insinuated. It stressed the old Celtic view that the land and the king were one. This connects with Cerin’s point in her monarchy thread, using biblical references in place of the Arthurian. Tolkien’s version is that the hands of the king are the hands of a healer, which may not seem the same, but if the doctor is in his sick bed, the patients aren’t being healed. Variations from the identified sources exist but are relatively minor when considering the other movies mentioned. The main variations include:

Additions to Lancelot’s material after he leaves Camelot
Changes in the events of the Grail quest, especially the absence of the Fisher King
The method of Merlin’s entrapment

The Lancelot additions don’t conflict. The Grail quest has numerous variations in the source, so it may be possible to defend the variations, although the main ones connect to the Fisher King. There are also numerous variations of Merlin’s entrapment, the most common, originating in Armorica, is entrapment in a tree trunk in the forest of Broceliande.

Once again, the costumes and architecture are shifted forward at least 600 years.

First Knight, Zucker 1995

This is a beautiful film and anyone unfamiliar with the stories is likely to go away very impressed. The story is claimed to be drawn from Malory, but is more likely Chretien, as the underlying incident is given very few lines in Malory and is quite substantial in Chretien. I will use Chretien’s “Knight of the Cart” as the main reference.

Maleagent is an extremely minor character in most versions of the stories sometimes with a few lines and sometimes none. In Chretien he has his largest role. He abducts Guinevere, Lancelot rescues her, Maleagent accuses Guinevere of adultery, but with Kay, not Lancelot, and after several false starts Lancelot kills Maleagent in combat. The differences are:

Arthur’s origin is ignored
Merlin is absent
Saxons are absent
Morgana is absent
The Grail is absent
Maleagent is made a central figure
Maleagent is made the killer of Arthur
The main themes, like the health of the king linked to the country’s are absent

Once again, the costumes and architecture shift the time forward at least 600 years.

King Arthur, Fuqua 2004

This was a much anticipated film because it was promoted as being historically accurate and had John Matthews, an Arthurian “expert” as a consultant. In some ways it corrected frequent historical inaccuracies in past versions. It set the time correctly at around 485 CE and used appropriate costumes and architecture. It added some usually discarded but connected historical figures in Germanus and Pelegius, and the Saxons are an important aspect of the story the other movies left out. Arthur and his knights are presented as the last remnants of Roman military, which they probably were. However the plot doesn’t follow any of the stories I know, so it seems like an almost complete fabrication. Arthur is presented as having been born in Britain, but raised in Sarmatia. There is historical evidence, from a 1929 discovery, of a Sarmation detachment stationed on Hadrian’s newly constructed wall, several hundred years before Arthur, whose leader was Artorius Cononmorus. Only wild speculation has tied them together. The wall is in the north.

The main discrepancies are:

Merlin is a secular leader of the primitive Jutes, not a Druid
Merlin is never represented as Arthur’s advisor
Mordred is absent
Morgana is absent
Excalibur is absent
The Grail is absent
Guinevere is a primitive Jute, not Briton aristocracy
The Sarmation connection is not in any Arthurian story
The Sarmations have been time shifted several hundred years
No known Arthurian quest or event is mentioned
Most Arthurian stories take place near current Bristol or Brittany, not in the north
The themes, like the health of the king linked to the country’s are absent

Conclusion

Without concern for the reasons, I have shown that filmmakers have a history of not being able to adhere to the elements of a complex story, even when condensed to its rudimentary elements. Usually we get something that leaves out some or most of the main characters, radically changes the remaining characters, and is disconnected somewhat or almost completely from the source stories in both plot and theme.

This exercise tells me that the best we could have reasonably expected was a John Boorman adaptation of three hours in length. I know that Boorman has been considerably abused in several threads, but no on has come as close to accurately representing similar source material in films. I think the result may have been far less satisfying than PJ and Co.’s film. However, I can remember Boorman making at least a pretense of being a student of Campbell and some discussion of Jungian philosophy and the relationship between the conscious and unconscious. For some reason, I can’t see those thoughts going through PJ’s mind, so it is possible Boorman would have given us an LOTR from a more intellectual viewpoint.

So, yes I’m disappointed that they weren’t the films I would have liked to have seen, but I am very pleased with what PJ and Co. created and it is likely to be the best adaptation of its kind I will ever see. I can honestly say I love the films dearly.

Life would be very lonely for some of us, if a lack of flaws were a pre-requisite for love.

Explain to us again why it is that you lurked for four years? I'm a little bit miffed that you denied us the benefit of your participation all that time. Oh well, better late then never.

For the record, I think that Boorman's LOTR would have been a travesty that I would have hated far more then halplm hated Jackson's LOTR. I also believe that most if not all of the characters in the films were characterized very well as characters in films. Its only when one expects them to match the characters that we have loved so intensely for so long that they seem to be so off.

With my partner away, I did something today that I haven't done in a long time. I watched The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi, neither of which I had seen since they were originally in the theaters. I was struck by how small and thin they seemed, when compared to Jackson's LOTR films.

I will add that in my opinion the MOST IMPORTANT theme in The Lord of the Rings is mortality. And it is also the one theme that I most expected the filmmakers to give short shrift to, and yet it turns out to be the one theme that in many way they captured most strongly (I know many disagree with that opinion). I still get chills just thinking about hearing Arwen say "There is now no ship that can bear me hence." This is one of my favorite lines in the whole book, even though it is not even in the main story. That they were all to find a way to include it in the film (and delivered so well by the much-maligned Liv Tyler) fills me with great joy and boundless respect for the filmmakers (particularly Philippa Boyens, who I'm sure is responsible, for this, as well as the amazing flash forward sequence in the Two Towers, and Gandalf's discussion of the Far Green Land with Pippin in ROTK).

Goes off chuckling to himself at the idea of a film adaptation of "Remembrance of Things Past."

Voronwe,

Thank you.

I think of ROTP as being similar to 2001 SO, only longer.

I agree that mortality should have been in my list.

I am far more pleased with PJ than I would have ever been with Boorman. It's just when I look at who has explored this territiory, he was by far the most successful, prior to Jackson. Since Boorman was the most extended precedent, that should have been the limit of our expectations. PJ has now pushed the frontier outward in a dramatic way, that we had no right to expect.

I also agree that if you think of the characters as being defined by PJ rather than Tolkien, the films are more satisfying. I haven't relinquished that right. I had 30 years of Tolkien's characters, before PJ showed up. They are not that easily dismissed. I think that is at the heart of the problem for some of us. I think you had a thread about that a while back that I will revisit.

Idylle,

I do not think that the rule of precedent applies to cinema. The great filmmakers in the history of cinema have each invented a unique style that is a visual reflection, or projection, of their inner world. Their style was present, almost tangible, even when they tackled material that was different from their usual output.

If we are to limit our comparisons of LOTR to the adaptations of the Arthurian legends, I am afraid that we will not go very far, even if I find some merit to your point, because none of these adaptations were filmed by great filmmakers: none reflected a style strong enough to redefine and sustain the material adapted, to re-infuse them with consistence, since the latter may have been damaged by the adaptation process.

If we want to compare LOTR with other films and see how it could have been better, we must study the films of the great filmmakers.

Since we all agree that some changes must be made in an adaptation, that some scenes must be cut, a fruitful way to analyze PJ is to study how he filmed what he chose to keep. And what I see when I do that is a filmmaker that was not enough of an artist with a strong style, reflecting a strong inner world, to adapt LOTR with the vision that could have turned it into a different film from a hollywood blockbuster with particularly good production values. Voronwe mentioned Arwen and the mortality theme. I actually like Tyler's Arwen (although as an Elf, she perhaps cannot really understand mortality - the mortality theme would have been better channeled IMO through Aragorn than through her: the most important scene of the book on the mortality theme is the death of Aragorn where he accepts his death: if you want to really explore Tolkien's mortality theme, this is THE scene you must include, not only Arwen's reaction; but I digress). The problem is that in response to Voronwe, I can mention the POTD, where PJ mocks mortality. What are we supposed to do? To take Arwen seriously or to take the POTD seriously? I cannot take him seriously. PJ made too many compromises, did not have the required style, and gave us too many scenes that seemed to derive from different visions, different understanding of the world and of LOTR. Or, to put it bluntly, in spite of some great scenes, PJ was simply not good enough, not profound enough.

These posts are too bloody long. I refuse to read them.

This requires me to think and concentrate, damn you.

*sigh* Good ol' days. I'll have another go when the alcohol wears off.