 by -
lkalliance
(Wed Jan 1 18:10:23)
|
|
 UPDATED Wed Jan 15 01:20:52 |
Well, now that the tide seems to be ebbing a bit (hopefully the new posters that are interested in a more substantive discussion that were "washed ashore" with the flotsam and jetsam choose to stay), I wanted to put this post out there.
There have been a lot of issues flying about concerning the film and concerning Peter Jackson's interpretations of it. Based on volume of posts (which I don't take as being definitively representative of the opinions of moviegoers in general), I'd have to guess that those that are bothered by some or all of the "liberties" taken by PJ with the text outnumber by a small margin those that are not bothered or are bothered too little to worry about.
I've been continuing to mull over the whys and wherefores behind those decisions and this post is by way of covering a lot of it. It's a long post and a lot of it is repeats of other posts I've put up here. I have to say that I'm more and more thrilled with TTT the more I see it (three times now) and the more I think about it in this way. Personally, I'm not at all put out by the fact of the changes; all I care about is that there are good narrative reasons for those alterations.
In fact, I was hesitant to call them "changes." I prefer to call them "differences" -- ways in which Jackson's vision of the story is different from Tolkien's. I think it's the same story, but that Jackson chose to couch it differently (in a way that would come across much better on film) and that his different approach necessitated some differences in story development.
I'm not a film expert, I'm just a regular guy. I've not got the background to knowledgeably talk about editing or effects or score or whatnot...I'm mainly concerned with the story.
If it sounds like I'm here to defend the film and that it's flawless and that I'm some sort of PJ apologist, well, I can't help that. I very much want to love these films, not just like it. I don't think if these issues really bothered me that I'd be able to fool myself into loving them. But I'm ECSTATIC about them!
As I've said in other threads, as well, I feel the films being a different perspective (and thus necessarily being different in detail) is a GOOD thing, so long as nothing important is tampered with...it enables me to love both the books and the film without having to "choose" between them. I've already got the pictures and sounds to the book...in my head, where they've been marvellously unchanged since my first reading years ago.
BACKGROUND
OK, I started by considering some of the basic tenets that Jackson seems to have embraced in creating this film. If a viewer doesn't buy into these, then he's going to have trouble, period, with my analysis:
====================
The emotional development in Jackson's version is contained within the characters, not the institutions. I've posted this before; in Tolkien's work the individual characters don't undergo much in the way of evolution (except for the Hobbits). In general, they are what they are, and they have to overcome hurdles that don't really require them to grow. BUT Tolkien does allow his institutions to evolve. They change their natures as the people that make up those institutions rise and fall in importance. The people represent fixed sets of values; their relative importance suggests the priority of those values within the institution.
My favorite example is Gondor. Aragorn represents a fixed set of values or attributes. So does Denethor: a different set of values. So does Boromir and so does Faramir. The concept of "Gondor" changes depending on who's "in charge." Gondor under Denethor is more representative of Denethor's character than Gondor under Aragorn. Denethor and Aragorn never change; Gondor does.
Jackson instead wrote complexity into his characters. Aragorn is wonderfully complex in the films, much more so than in the books. He's got to grow and evolve, not just overcome. Elrond is much more interesting to me in the film than in the books. That's because in the books the institution of Elvendom is the thing that evolves, not Elrond himself. Theoden changes before our eyes, as well, in the film.
-------------------------------------
--Jackson wants to be as true to the story as possible. That means true to the themes, true to the main storylines and as true as possible to the fine details of plot, in that order of significance. I'm no good at themes, and I'm going to leave those out for others to debate. I think Jackson has identified these main storylines as primary (listed in no particular order, numbered for later reference):
(1) The Quest
(2) Aragorn's character evolution
(3) The race of Men overcoming its inner flaws
(4) Elves deciding their fate
(5) The Hobbits expanding beyond their narrowly-defined life.
(6) The Fellowship
-------------------------------------
--Jackson wants to make a film that will appeal to a mass audience. That being the case, he's got to cut and simplify where he can, while still being true to those storylines and being true to as many details as possible from the books.
=====================
OK, with these tenets as the backdrop, let's look at some of the differences between the film and the book and see if they flow logically.
HELM'S DEEP
There are lots of issues tied into Helm's Deep; a couple of them would have been considered "major" a year ago but seem not to have generated a lot of hubbub. But one of these differences plays a part in some of the other, more debated issues.
The Elves appearing at Helm's Deep was a big red flag to the text purists before the release of the FIRST film. I'm glad to see that it played out so well and seems to be getting very little lashback, because that plays right into both (3) and (4) and gives some insight into (2). And it doesn't interfere with (1): the net result is the same...a victory at Helm's Deep. It touches on (3) in the form of Theoden seeing that in fact old alliances do mean something, and that in fact he can count on help from others (per Elrond, the race of Men are "scattered, divided, leaderless;" they must overcome that division to be victorious).
Of course the Elves at Helm's Deep very specifically treats (4): Haldir's dying scene in fact keeps the question very much in doubt (it would be cliche to just assume that the right thing for the Elves to do would be to stay and fight; it's good that a very specific example of the downside is provided). I found the most subtle effect to be its relation to (2), as Aragorn is CLEARLY in his element when dealing with the Elves in the battle and less so when dealing with Men (witness his instinct to shout orders in Elvish rather than in the common tongue, and the camaraderie he shows with Haldir but not to Men -- let's not forget he had not met Haldir before FOTR to judge by their greeting in the EE). He must learn to appreciate the worthiness of Men as part of his inner journey towards the Kingship.
The other difference no one seems to mind is the evacuation of Rohan's people being to Helm's Deep rather than to Dunharrow. In fact, there is very subtle reference to the Paths of the Dead, which in the book exist in Dunharrow and not at Helm's Deep, thus completing the merger. There is no point to creating a Dunharrow location, of course...why introduce another location for a very limited purpose when so much already has to be put into Helm's Deep. Just let Helm's Deep assume the significance of Dunharrow, and it does so quite neatly and cleanly. But it has some consequences I'll cover below in "Aragorn's 'Death'".
In a similar vein but of less structural import is the changing of Eomer's role. I, for one, prefer the treatment of Eomer in the film to the books. Eomer is far from the most developed character in the books, his main characteristics being (a) a fine warrior and leader of his men, (b) loyal to Theoden despite rough treatment, and (c) someone who trusts Aragorn when he has no reason to and who becomes a close friend (and an ally) later in the story. Personally, I feel that (a) and (b) were well-established in the film and that (c) can still be well-established in what remains. And you get the benefit of having an established character be the hero that leads the cavalry behind Gandalf in the climactic scene. All you miss is some specific heroics in the earlier battle; no loss there, in my opinion.
THE ENTS
There seems to be some acrimony involved in PJ's treatment of the Ents; they're characterized as "short-changed" by some posters. The more I analyze the more logical their treatment seems to me, though. In trying to build on (5), Jackson naturally needs to do so on two different story lines: Frodo/Sam's and Merry/Pippin's. There's this feeling that PJ somehow made the Hobbits less "heroic" than in the books -- I can't think of anywhere that comes from besides Ebert. The Hobbits have been at least as heroic and arguably MORE heroic up to this point in the tale.
But that's neither here nor there...the finest moments for the Hobbits come in the part that hasn't yet been told. The fact is, though, that the middle film, where it stood, offered no chance to build on storyline (5) for Merry and Pippin as it stood, so I'm theorizing that PJ opted to make their role in rousing the Ents more active. To do so, he may have judged it wiser to dumb the Ents down a little, so as to make this leap of confidence by the Hobbits (especially Pippin's) more believable.
Still, a lot of people feel that this "ruins" the Ents. That may or may not be true...the question is, how important is that? The Ents serve a very specific plot purpose: the destruction of Isengard. There is no greater resonance they have in the story within the limits of LOTR (within the totality of Tolkien's universe, sure). They represent an element that Jackson has greater liberty to adjust to meet the needs of the film, because the "damage" is localized. The story has moved on...the Ents are no longer a part of it.
The same kind of analysis can be put to Gimli (and in fact I have on other posts) and his use as comic relief. If you need comic relief (and you do), Gimli is the natural character to provide it. You can't do it with Merry and Pippin...in their screen time Jackson has to work on (5). You can't do it with Aragorn or Gandalf or Theoden, obviously; it has to be either Legolas or Gimli, who are the two "free agents" among the main characters. Legolas, as an Elf, has a dry sense of humor and a nobility that does not lend itself to the purpose. Gimli is the best option. Those that feel this somehow "ruins" Gimli need to answer the same question: how important is that, given what you gain by having some comic moments in a very very serious film?
ARAGORN'S "DEATH"
More than ever I am now convinced that Aragorn's Death plays a part in several of these storylines, and most importantly in (2). The Aragorn / Arwen / Eowyn love triangle is a major issue in (2), and the events that happen between Aragorn and Arwen in TTT (or are flashed back to, at any rate) are not specifically stated in the text, even in the Appendices, but could very well have happened if we assume that Aragorn is a more conflicted character than in the books, as Jackson has portrayed him.
OK, so given that there is clearly more "meat" to the Eowyn-Aragorn part of that triangle. In the books, Eowyn meets Aragorn at Edoras. Then Aragorn and the rest ride off to to battle at the Fords of Isen and are diverted to Helm's Deep, while Theoden entrusts the evacuation of Edoras to Eowyn. The battle ends, Aragorn rides to Dunharrow with Legolas and Gimli, where he meets Eowyn again before taking the Paths of the Dead.
Now, let's replay that via film, only this time everyone leaves Edoras at the same time for Helm's Deep, and the Paths of the Dead are there at the Deep. Aragorn meets Eowyn at Edoras, but this time they share the road to Helm's Deep. There is no separation, no time for Eowyn to reflect upon Aragorn in her own mind, free to imagine being with him. You need that separation...you don't want to have them resolve things right then and there. So Aragorn has to disappear. The insertion of the Warg attack accomplishes two things: (a) it gives Theoden a chance to task Eowyn with the evacuation, while the "real" warriors deal with the attack. Eowyn gets to chafe at that. And (b) it provides the necessary separation. Aragorn rides off to battle, Eowyn stays with the women and children, and when Aragorn "dies" Eowyn is now free to dwell on what might have been, in the self-pitying way that she does in the books, in fact.
So while so many people just see this as an "unnecessary change," I in fact see it as something that actually brings the film CLOSER to the books!
I've argued, too, that Aragorn's Death enables some reflection on (6). In the books, even after the Fellowship is fractured, there is an awareness of the continuing bonds of the Fellowship...Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli go after Merry and Pippin; they get split up again and reunited again in Gondor; everyone is reunited again at Cormallen. And there is this awareness that they're still a group that belongs together, even though their original purpose is gone. Aragorn's Death brings that into focus sharply. "You don't know what you have until it's gone" as the saying goes, and Legolas and Gimli have "lost" Aragorn, and not just Eowyn.
Finally, the episode enables more detail to be written into (2), specifically the Aragorn / Arwen part of the triangle. We've already learned through flashback that Aragorn has pushed Arwen away; Arwen's intervention as Aragorn floats down the river is a nice insight into Arwen's thoughts.
I don't have a detailed analysis of Arwen's scenes except to say that the Aragorn / Arwen relationship is central to both (2) and to (4)...you've got to have a few minutes of screen time, and that's all it is, is a few minutes.
A little cheesy and Hollywood? Maybe. Could all of this have been accomplished differently? I don't know, I'm not a screenwriter. But in my view, I feel I now have a clear understanding of why this scene is there, and a heightened appreciation for it and for the brilliant job Jackson et al have done in adapting the storylines.
FARAMIR AND OSGILIATH
Finally, there are all the issues revolving around Frodo's part of the story. Let's start with Faramir.
Tieno posted a link to a wonderful post on TORN with a very detailed analysis of Faramir's part in the text of TTT (it's here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/476985?d=476985#476985. It turns out that the film interpretation is not nearly as different as people think it is. But let's set that aside for a moment; granted, the scenes feel different than the books.
It's obvious to me, though others have said they don't take it this way, that Faramir HAS to be tempted by the Ring to be true to (3). In fact it's crucial...how can a Man have the strength to easily cast the Ring aside when Men have been set up as the most corruptible of races? There has to be some conflict within Faramir -- especially given that, as I've postulated, Jackson wants his non-Hobbit characters to show more internal strife than Tolkien's did.
Secondly, taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath accomplishes two specific goals: (a) It gets Frodo to the Crossroads between Osgiliath and Minas Morgul, where he'll need to be at the end of the film, and (b) it gets him into a warzone. Concurrent with Frodo et al being at Osgiliath, you've got the charge of Eomer at Helm's Deep and you've got the attack of the Ents. Sam gets to say his piece with all three of these scenes as a backdrop, and there is no drop in tension. The book, of course, is divided differently; Frodo and Sam's part is told all in one piece. By the time you get to the end of Frodo and Sam in the text, you're two hundred pages removed from the climax of the other story threads! There is no need to match up the tension and the drama of the different threads. In Jackson's telling, with the stories interweaving, some attempt had to be made to normalize the tension in the threads.
Some have complained of their distaste for the Frodo-Nazgul scene at the end; in my view this as well accomplishes a specific narrative purpose; Sauron is supposed to be alarmed into launching his war earlier than he might have. This plays out in the book of ROTK as Aragorn looking in the Palantir and revealing himself. But now Jackson has bought himself some extra screen time, if he needs to...Sauron's early start to the war could just as easily be because he KNOWS the Ring was in Osgiliath and that the Nazgul did not return with it...he may suspect that Gondor has it now.
AS WE HEAD TOWARDS ROTK...
I take great pleasure in knowing that the story is right on track. Frodo, Sam and Gollum are headed towards Morgul Vale, Faramir having let them go and risking the wrath of Denethor in doing so. The rest of the Company is victorious at Helm's Deep, with the denoument with Saruman to come and then events in Gondor.
The only difference of any significance I see is the location of Narsil. Jackson has clearly invested the sword with a lot of symbolism (Narsil not only is there in Rivendell but it's also held by the figure of Elendil at the Argonath in the film; it's also on Aragorn's breast in the scene where Elrond is painting a picture of Arwen grieving after Aragorn's death. So it makes sense to withhold its reforging until the last film, which of course is "The Return of the King."
All in all, I'm incredibly thrilled with how the second film worked out, and deleriously excited for ROTK!
-----------------------------------------------
Note added on 1/3/03: joeblimp2 found another extremely interesting piece I haven't touched on here. I don't know whether this is another storyline or a theme, but in any event it is yet another insight perhaps into why plot decisions get made. Joeblimp2's post is at the link below. Thanks, Joe!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/512040
-----------------------------------------------
Note added on 1/3/03: moonkids added a nice analysis on Sam's speech to Faramir here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/512844
-----------------------------------------------
Note added on 1/6/03: PitchBlank wowed me with this take...some of it says much the same thing from a different angle, but there are kernels in his analysis that sprout into juicy ears of wisdom. That is, if you can stomach him. Just kidding, Pitch.  :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/516508?d=516508#516508
-----------------------------------------------
Note added on 1/11/03: Here is a link to Tieno's post on Faramir. He is quoting a very in-depth analysis posted on TORN:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/476985?d=476985#476985
And, to be fair, here is a post that re-examines the Faramir text, but comes to a different conclusion, written by isengart:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/546536?d=557326#557326
----------------------------------------------
Note added on 1/12/03: Jimeous did a wonderful breakdown of Elrond's speech to Arwen, and compared it to the Appendices in the books. I've provided a link here to jimeous' comparison post, but note that elsewhere in that topic he does a good summary of the Appendices section on Aragorn and Arwen:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/551030?d=551580#551580
----------------------------------------------
Note added on 1/14/03: Dumblebore added this interesting take on Tolkien's writing style with a corollary on Jackson's interpretation. It's on this same thread but it was so good I wanted to link to it here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/505992?d=563524#563524
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
Hi Eke, Excellent comprehensive body of work my friend. I particularly like your paragraph analyzing "FARAMIR AND OSGILIATH ". It seems to me that the film version provided the most confusion or bewilderment for people. I also like and appreciate the logical constructs of your train of thoughts in your post. 
|
|
|
That means a lot coming from you.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
Wow Eke, that was an amazing analysis. How did you figure out how to put that all into words? I loved it.
"And you have my bow..."
|
|
|
Thank you, Caribbean. With all due modesty, it takes a healthy love for the sound of one's own words.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
LOL, so true. Still, wish I could put my ideas into words like that. Well done.
|
|
|
Couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks lkalliance for putting some thought and effort into a post that explains perfectly the transition from book to movie in a way that even the most hardcore book fans couldnt see.
What people need to remember is that Peter jackson isn't just some Hollywood shmuck, but a real fan of the stry thats making these movies for himself and for fans, not just to cash in on its potential to make money.
|
|
|
As one who has only seen the movies, I don't feel like I can say much, but I will say that your reasoning and logic are easy to follow and make sense to me.
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
Not a bad discussion (or bunch of discussions) you could generate with that lot.
I’ll start the responses.
“all I care about is that there are good narrative reasons for those alterations”.
Agreed. Though where as you agree with the reasons behind the changes, I’m less than sympathetic towards them.
[snip] “in Tolkien's work the individual characters don't undergo much in the way of evolution (except for the Hobbits). In general, they are what they are, and they have to overcome hurdles that don't really require them to grow.”
I really can’t agree with this no matter how hard I try to see your point.
e.g. Gimli and Legolas are such one dimensional characters at the start of the story. They are the stereotypical (at least in Tolkein’s world) dwarf and elves. However, by the end of the story they have bonded with each other, and the hobbits. They have each developed an appreciaton for the other’s favourite world (Gimli for the forrest, and for Galadriel, Legolas for the mines of Moria).
e.g. 2 Aragorn grows and changes from a man hoping to live out his numenor past in heroic anonymity to a great man. A leader of thousands. In doing so, he faces physical torture (the chase of the orcs), tests of character and inner strength (refusing the ring), tests of his strength of will and courage (the army of the dead), etc, etc. Through each test, he grows, not only in ability, but in self confidence. At the start he just believes that he has a king’s blood in him. By the end he truly believes himself to be kingly.
The hobbits evolve and grow. They start as carefree and all end up with deep attachments to each other and a personal feeling of responsibility towards the world in which they live.
Gandalf might not change much, but he’s been doing this stuff for a thousand years.
[snip] “Denethor and Aragorn never change; Gondor does.”
Denethor is probably too old to change much, but he is capable of seeing the future as being different to the past. As for Aragorn, see above
[snip]”Jackson instead wrote complexity into his characters. Aragorn is wonderfully complex in the films, much more so than in the books. He's got to grow and evolve, not just overcome. “
“Elrond is much more interesting to me in the film than in the books. That's because in the books the institution of Elvendom is the thing that evolves, not Elrond himself.”
Elrond is thousands of years old. It does not make sense for him to evolve. And to suggest the elves evolve in the books…well I can’t see it. The elves seem the same at the beginning as they do at the end. That they pass out of Middle Earth during this period shows that Middle Earth has changed around them, and they no longer see a place in it for their kind.
“Theoden changes before our eyes, as well, in the film.”
Yes he does, and for the life of me I can’t see why that happens. I have several problems with the exorcism scene. I’m not really sure where to start. But my chief objections is – If Sauraman had direct control over Theoden, then why is Grima Wormtongue needed at all. His only purpose is to persuade Theoden to do Sauraman’s bidding, and he’s hardly going to have to work to hard to persuade Sauraman himself.
with these tenets as the backdrop, let's look at some of the differences between the film and the book and see if they flow logically.
HELM'S DEEP
[snip]”The Elves appearing at Helm's Deep was a big red flag to the text purists before the release of the FIRST film. And it doesn't interfere with (1): the net result is the same...a victory at Helm's Deep. It touches on (3) in the form of Theoden seeing that in fact old alliances do mean something, and that in fact he can count on help from others (per Elrond, the race of Men are "scattered, divided, leaderless;" they must overcome that division to be victorious).”
But it does interfere with the result. If the men of Rohan and a few bowmen can defeat Sauraman alone, then why on Middle Earth wouldn’t they not have set forth for and overrun him before?
Elrond’s statement above is a foreshadowing of Aragorn’s role to bring together men from all groups to work together.
The elves in Tolkien do not give up their lives for men. I think this is an important difference. PJ’s interpretation takes away from the feeling that when men take over Middle Earth for the next age, the can do it on their own.
[snip] Just let Helm's Deep assume the significance of Dunharrow,
Not opposed to this simplification. It has no significant impact on the story.
THE ENTS
”There seems to be some acrimony involved in PJ's treatment of the Ents; they're characterized as "short-changed" by some posters. [snip]
That may or may not be true...the question is, how important is that? The Ents serve a very specific plot purpose: the destruction of Isengard. There is no greater resonance they have in the story within the limits of LOTR (within the totality of Tolkien's universe, sure).”
I disagree. The Ents represent the land of Middle Earth. They are as old as Middle Earth itself and are one with it. When they rise up against the evil of Sauraman, it is as if the very land itself has recognised the evil and is trying to reject it.
I don’t get any feeling of ancient wisdom, or oneness with the earth and forest from PJ’s interpretation. The Ents even decide, after the Entmoot not to do anything about the evil.
Then you have the silly scenario of all the Ents being in uproar when they see the destruction at Isengard. But where are they all when they suddenly see this and become mad about it? They are all already at Isengard by mere chance but until carrying a hobbit on their head, they haven’t seen the destruction????
I agree that Gimli and Legolas are fine choices for comedy relief. George Lucas used the droids, and PJ also uses the two lesser hobbits at times. Tolkien had some humour, but in the interpretation of the film, it would be too little and not funny enough to brighten the mode.
ARAGORN'S "DEATH"
[snip]
The separation you explain to be necessary was already in the novel, and would have been in the film, by virtue of an enormous battle in which Eowyn could readily picture the immanent death of Aragorn. This is all the encouragement she needed to fall for him. The whole death thing was a waste of time, and is the biggest load of tripe in the movie.
FARAMIR AND OSGILIATH
[snip]
The audience want to see a Faramir that is tempted by the ring, but is strong enough of character and will to not give in to it. To recognise it for what it is. To learn from his brother. To be portrayed as purer. This is because one of the strengths of the book is the knowledge that Middle Earth is thrust into the next age with honest, and strong men as leaders. Faramir is one of the leaders.
The scenes feel different because PJ only portrayed the first side of Faramir. I.e. the fact that he was drawn to the ring. He could quite easily have finished the very same paragraph when Faramir shows he is a greater man by recognising and rejecting the rings evil lures.
I liked Sam’s speech to Faramir. But it could easily have been given to one of Faramir’s men as Faramir could have been deliberating with Frodo apart from them. PJ could have made things tenser by having the men of Faramir suggesting that they would most certainly be killed or taken to Gondor and Sam’s outburst. The actual taking to Gondor was not necessary.
Sauron launches the war on Gondor to try to finish them off before they can use the ring. He already thinks that that is where the ring is headed. Tolkien even explains that the way Sauron is thinking, men will take the weapon of power to the seat of power. He cannot contemplate another course of action in which the ring is to be destroyed.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Wed Jan 1 23:39:25)
|
|
Hi kevinpicton; I am afraid to respond to this topic. I worry that Tolkien fans would be offended by even calm logical discussions about differences between the film and the book.
First; I see the passion of the purists in their defense of the book and the idea that the book should have been followed more in the film.
Second; As a Tolkien fan who loves Tolkien's works and likes the film what can I do? Shall I defend the film but risk upsetting another lover of Tolkien? But should I sit back and let the criticism of these movies be the main voice on these Boards? After all a lot of the criticism is not well thought out and not polite. What about new people who have just beem introduced to Tolkien through the movies? Should they come here and only see criticisms?
This is a dilema.
Third; maybe some history would be helpful about what Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have said on the EE commentary. None of these people are purists. Jackson clearly wants to make an effective film and has a surface loyalty to the book. Walsh wants to make an effective script and has more loyalty to the story but has no qualms in changing the story from the book. As for the Tolkien expert, Boyens, she is loyal to Tolkien and not LOTR. She says it's in the BOOKS, plural. He view seems to be that the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, LOTR are all one story. Picking out themes from the Silmarillion (which they do with the weakness issue for Aragorn) and putting them into the movie is ok because it comes from Tolkien. There is no one who is saying well that can't be done because it is not in LOTR.
These are not purist films. And with their incredible success, I doubt there will be another LOTR film for 40 years.
Fourth; My solution to liking the films more, is to see them more. By doing this I slowly forget the books and become more immersed in the world of the movies. But just saying that side steps discussion on the Board.
Anyway, I will leave my responses to your comments possibly to another time. We shall see. Have a good one, BB ;-)
|
|
|
kevinpicton, I'm with you.
“Theoden changes before our eyes, as well, in the film.”
<snips>
I have several problems with the exorcism scene. I’m not really sure where to start.
This was a tragic error in the movie, transforming an extraordinarily emotional moment--an old man shaking off despair--into a hocus-pocus exorcism.
The elves in Tolkien do not give up their lives for men.
Tolkien called it the Last Alliance of Elves and Men, not the Penultimate Alliance of Elves and Men. Elves were never primarily interested in Men, nor we in them; our fates are sundered. And they are leaving.
Plus, relying on Elves made the forces of Rohan at Helm's Deep seem unrealistically weak. Rohan is a nation, after all, not an iron age renactment society.
I agree without reservation with your statements on the Ents. They are not a "plot device." Nothing was closer to Tolkien's heart than the notion that the earth would one day rise up against its tormentors.
Aragorn's "death" is beneath discussion. It's simply embarassing.
As for Faramir: There's too much to say. But I will say this: Where is the man who remembers the past? Who pays respect to Numenor? Who grounds the time of the War of the Ring into a much longer history?
Faramir serves many purposes in the book other than as a plot device. In the movie, he's not even that; you could have deleted all his scenes and gone straight to Shelob.
|
|
|
This was a tragic error in the movie, transforming an extraordinarily emotional moment--an old man shaking off despair--into a hocus-pocus exorcism.
I had no problem with the scene, and even appreciate the likely reasons to put it in...to create a more visceral showdown between Gandalf and Saruman. Without the virtually unlimited canvas a writer has in terms of pages, it seems extraordinarily difficult to me for a filmmaker to get across through equally subtle means the true conflict. It has to be shown, in some way.
Elves were never primarily interested in Men, nor we in them; our fates are sundered. And they are leaving.
I've mentioned in other posts that that's not literally true. Elves have given their lives for men before in Tolkien's writings, either in the form of giving up immortality (Arwen, Luthien, Idril) or by physically sacrificing their own lives to protect men (Finrod). Another theory put forth on this thread is that Elves are not fighting on Men's behalf but on Middle-Earth's behalf, knowing that an alliance is the only way to achieve that end.
Plus, relying on Elves made the forces of Rohan at Helm's Deep seem unrealistically weak. Rohan is a nation, after all, not an iron age renactment society.
The main strength of Rohan was with Eomer in the film...and Eomer was thought (incorrectly, in the end) to be too far away to help. The women and children (and King) of Rohan needed to last the night, and the arrival of the Elves helped facilitate that.
I agree without reservation with your statements on the Ents. They are not a "plot device." Nothing was closer to Tolkien's heart than the notion that the earth would one day rise up against its tormentors.
They can be both. In what way did the film not depict the Ents -- representative of the earth -- rising up against its tormentors? The only deviation I saw was, I argue, to make the Hobbits' roles more active.
As for Faramir: There's too much to say. But I will say this: Where is the man who remembers the past? Who pays respect to Numenor? Who grounds the time of the War of the Ring into a much longer history?
You don't know that that man won't be there in ROTK. Do you feel that the film hasn't grounded the current events into a larger history? That flashbacks to the Last Alliance and an actual prologue that gives the history of the Ring hasn't made it clear that this isn't a johnny-come-lately issue? There's a third film yet, with most of that occurring in Gondor. Let's wait and see what happens in the third film before we judge whether Numenor has been justly served.
You just cannot invest every single character in the books with the weight that Tolkien did. It's just not possible in a film. I can go back and re-read a paragraph if I want to examine text more closely. I can't do that in the theater, and by the time the movie is over I probably wouldn't be inclined to.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
One of my problems with these movies is how everything is being turned into a battle of some kind. For example, the trip over the mountain in FoTR went from a snow storm (possibly caused by the mountain itself) and turned into a wizard battle between Gandalf and Sauruman. Again with Theoden, it turns from Gandalf essentially just opening the windows to another battle between him and Sauruman. The trip to Helm's Deep was changed as well to include a battle. An orc follows the hobbits into the forest forcing Treebeard to kill him (ok hardly a battle but still worth mentioning). I could probably come up with a few more examples if I tried but I'll stop there.
I was also bothered that Theoden had so few men with him. If Eomer had the majority of the force of Rohan with him, why did he just take his banishment so easily? If he knew that the king was under the influence of Wormtongue, why not just move in with your men and remove him instead of riding away leaving the king and all of Rohan defenseless. They removed Erkenbrand from the movie and moved Eomer around to fill his place which didn't bother me too much since Erkenbrand was really just a background character but it was unnessecary to make Theoden's forces appear to be so incredibly weak.
|
|
|
Thanks for that analysis. Well-written, and I agree with much of it. I do like the movie.
In support of the differences in the ent story, Tolkien himself portrays the weakness of the ent culture to be their propensity toward apathy and inaction. In the book, Treebeard says that many ents cease to care about anything and become more and more tree like. Their decision in the film shows this weakness. I would have preferred that they didn’t have stupid-looking ents (I’m not referreing to Treebeard, but some of the background ents), and their change of mind is too hasty for ents, but overall I didn’t think the change was too jarring. I can believe that the ents didn’t go close enough to Isengard to see the destruction before, although I wonder why Treebeard didn’t put together his own observation that “There is always smoke over Isengard these days” with what must be causing the smoke. Sleeping too much, I suppose. I like seeing the hobbits becoming more than tagalongs.
BUT
The Elves being at Helms Deep does bother me. Although it is a heart lifting experience, and it is interesting to see Aragorn’s interaction with them compared to with men, it is a fundamental change. The Last Alliance is no longer the last alliance, for here is another. And as Kevin said, I also feel that men need to win this world for themselves in preparation for the Fourth Age. The elves have nothing to fight for. Middle earth is not theirs anymore. And the death of immortal elves is so much more tragic than that of men, who have been given the gift of death. The reasons for the change just don’t seem to outweigh the problems.
Theoden’s possession, as mentioned by Kevin, is probably my biggest difficulty:
a. If Saruman has been in Theoden’s mind, he knows about the culvert, and whatever other secret knowledge was necessary
b. Saruman was in control of his decisions, not Wormtongue. Why did Wormtongue have to tell him that Gandalf wasn’t welcome? Why was Wormtongue even there?
c. Saruman had enough to do with his preparations for war, and all we’ve seen him doing without him possessing Theoden full-time for the last few years.
d. The lesson of Theoden giving in to age and giving up control of his kingdom is so much more important when it is kept in natural terms. People do believe the lie “I’m too old” and suddenly become old. This is a great warning!
Kevin I don’t quite understand your point in:
“But it does interfere with the result. If the men of Rohan and a few bowmen can defeat Sauraman alone, then why on Middle Earth wouldn’t they not have set forth for and overrun him before?”
Because of Wormtongue persuading them not to, right?
"I ain't been dropping no eaves, sir, honest!"
|
|
|
Lightningbug and Kevin,
I hope you don't mind...to be more efficient I'm going to combine responses on this one post.
Kevin wrote:
[snip] “in Tolkien's work the individual characters don't undergo much in the way of evolution (except for the Hobbits). In general, they are what they are, and they have to overcome hurdles that don't really require them to grow.”
I really can’t agree with this no matter how hard I try to see your point.
e.g. Gimli and Legolas are such one dimensional characters at the start of the story. They are the stereotypical (at least in Tolkein’s world) dwarf and elves. However, by the end of the story they have bonded with each other, and the hobbits. They have each developed an appreciaton for the other’s favourite world (Gimli for the forrest, and for Galadriel, Legolas for the mines of Moria).
e.g. 2 Aragorn grows and changes from a man hoping to live out his numenor past in heroic anonymity to a great man. A leader of thousands. In doing so, he faces physical torture (the chase of the orcs), tests of character and inner strength (refusing the ring), tests of his strength of will and courage (the army of the dead), etc, etc. Through each test, he grows, not only in ability, but in self confidence. At the start he just believes that he has a king’s blood in him. By the end he truly believes himself to be kingly.
I disagree with both of your examples. Yes, Gimli and Legolas go through what they go through. But I've always found that to be a pretty simple transformation. I can't explain it better; I think it's the same device: the "institutions" in this case are Elvendom and Dwarvendom (is that a word?) and Gimli and Legolas are our representations. I've always found the character development on the Hobbits to be much more complex.
I still cannot agree with your take on Aragorn. In the books, I've always considered him to be the same individual at the beginning, at the end and all the way through. I've never detected any change in self-confidence or any movement in his own self-conception. There is certainly an awareness on his part of the need for certain events to play out, and certain hurdles to clear, before he can become King. But the Aragorn of the film doesn't even want to become King at the start of the tale, nor does he possess the confidence in his people needed to rule effectively.
An additional example is Faramir. It's been argued (effectively IMO) on other threads that his film characterization is actually very similar to his book characterization. But without thinking hard I would not detect a lust for the Ring in the book version or detect a change in his thought. He seems very representative of a particular type of Gondorian, and not conflicted.
Kevin wrote:
The hobbits evolve and grow. They start as carefree and all end up with deep attachments to each other and a personal feeling of responsibility towards the world in which they live.
This is in agreement with what I said originally (storyline 5 in my numbering). I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing. The Hobbits are Tolkien's Everymen, the ones the reader is supposed to identify with.
Kevin wrote:
Elrond is thousands of years old. It does not make sense for him to evolve. And to suggest the elves evolve in the books…well I can’t see it. The elves seem the same at the beginning as they do at the end. That they pass out of Middle Earth during this period shows that Middle Earth has changed around them, and they no longer see a place in it for their kind.
Perhaps my view comes from many years dissecting the books. Different people would think differently than I, but I believe Tolkien's greatest strength as a writer was his ability to provide an incredible depth of detail, not only to the immediate scene but to his histories.
Through expositions by Elrond and by Gandalf we get some scope on the evolution of the Elvish "nation." Further, by examining Galadriel we get a good historical perspective, too...Lothlorien is described quite thoroughly as a land where time stopped, a snapshot of an earlier age. Galadriel represents an earlier moment in Elvish national identity; Elrond a later moment. And Legolas represents another entire nation of Elvendom, the Sindarin.
One of the challenges faced by Jackson was the compression of these histories into chunks of film that somehow connote the long passage of years. I thought the constant background ruins in the first film did that effectively without having to waste exposition. It's more subtle and less necessary in the second film, which concentrates less on Elves and on Gondor and more on the younger Rohan. But there was a beautiful piece of dialogue in TTT: Gandalf saying "The Grey Pilgrim, that's what they used to call me. For [insert number here, I forget what it is] lifetimes of men I've wandered this Middle-Earth and now I have no time." That captures Jackson's challenge: he's got just nine hours to tell this tale that really encompasses thousands of years. Elrond is the representation of that for the Elves in the film. He, too, has little time but he's being forced to make these decisions on the fly after three thousand years of waiting. I find it very compelling.
Kevin wrote:
“Theoden changes before our eyes, as well, in the film.”
Yes he does, and for the life of me I can’t see why that happens. I have several problems with the exorcism scene. I’m not really sure where to start. But my chief objections is – If Sauraman had direct control over Theoden, then why is Grima Wormtongue needed at all. His only purpose is to persuade Theoden to do Sauraman’s bidding, and he’s hardly going to have to work to hard to persuade Sauraman himself.
Lightningbug wrote:
Theoden’s possession, as mentioned by Kevin, is probably my biggest difficulty:
a. If Saruman has been in Theoden’s mind, he knows about the culvert, and whatever other secret knowledge was necessary
b. Saruman was in control of his decisions, not Wormtongue. Why did Wormtongue have to tell him that Gandalf wasn’t welcome? Why was Wormtongue even there?
c. Saruman had enough to do with his preparations for war, and all we’ve seen him doing without him possessing Theoden full-time for the last few years.
d. The lesson of Theoden giving in to age and giving up control of his kingdom is so much more important when it is kept in natural terms. People do believe the lie “I’m too old” and suddenly become old. This is a great warning!
I made a poor choice of words in my original post. I was not literally referring to the exorcism scene, but rather to Theoden's shifting strategies. First he's going to run and hide, then he's going to outlast a siege, then finally he's going to ride out to meet the enemy. This is different than in the books, where he is healed and immediately takes Gandalf's advice to meet Saruman head-on. The subsequent (book) changes in Theoden were in his decision to personally take part. I consider this another good example of Jackson internalizing growth in his characters rather than in his institutions.
But to touch on the exorcism scene, I've got to say that it is one of my favorite scenes in the movie, just standing on its own. I loved the imagery and the confrontation. Setting that aside, the issues brought up here are good and have less clear answers. I think viewers are inferring complete possession of Theoden. I interpret the film thusly: Saruman has used his will to affect the overall mood in Rohan (this is in the books...the Three Hunters feel it even as they enter the area). Grima has been doing his thing with the King, but with Saruman as an influence and not a possessor. In the moment that Gandalf comes to "lift the spell" Saruman channels all of his efforts through Theoden alone, and in that instant is fighting for possession. I do not take that instant as representative of the norm.
That's my theory at any rate, though I think one has to be predisposed to see it that way. But I see no evidence to refute it, at any rate. We don't see Saruman "using" Theoden in earlier scenes, and I don't see Saruman "wasting" a resource such as Grima like that. I also don't see any other evidence in the film of Saruman necessarily having control of Theoden's mind.
I don't know about (d), Lightningbug. That's a good point, that lesson is probably weaker in the film.
Kevin wrote:
But it does interfere with the result. If the men of Rohan and a few bowmen can defeat Sauraman alone, then why on Middle Earth wouldn’t they not have set forth for and overrun him before?
Elrond’s statement above is a foreshadowing of Aragorn’s role to bring together men from all groups to work together.
The elves in Tolkien do not give up their lives for men. I think this is an important difference. PJ’s interpretation takes away from the feeling that when men take over Middle Earth for the next age, the can do it on their own.
No it doesn't interfere. If the Men of Rohan (Eomer's men included) could defeat Saruman then that was key in Saruman's corrupting of Rohan through his will and through Grima, until he (wrongly) felt he was ready to strike.
Tolkien has plenty of examples of Elves giving up their lives for men, from the Last Alliance dating back to Finrod Felgund dying in the dungeons of Taur-en-Gorhauth defending Beren.
Luthien Tinuviel gave up her immortality for Beren, as did Idril for Tuor, as did Arwen for Aragorn. And if your feeling is that the Ents are Middle Earth itself then the Elves are the next closest thing and there must be a part of their nature that makes them want to defend it. And we're back to Elvish evolution again.
Lightningbug wrote:
The Elves being at Helms Deep does bother me. Although it is a heart lifting experience, and it is interesting to see Aragorn’s interaction with them compared to with men, it is a fundamental change. The Last Alliance is no longer the last alliance, for here is another. And as Kevin said, I also feel that men need to win this world for themselves in preparation for the Fourth Age. The elves have nothing to fight for. Middle earth is not theirs anymore. And the death of immortal elves is so much more tragic than that of men, who have been given the gift of death. The reasons for the change just don’t seem to outweigh the problems.
As far as the semantics of the Last Alliance, Haldir mentions they're honoring that same Alliance, so it's stil the last one.
The crux of the matter lies in Elrond's and Galadriel's telepathic conversation. Should the Elves leave the problems of Middle-Earth to Men alone? Somewhere in there is a lesson about banding together for the common good. It's a good for Elves because they are so much more in tune with the Earth and, I would imagine, feel Middle-Earth's pain whether or not they were there.
Kevin wrote:
I disagree. The Ents represent the land of Middle Earth. They are as old as Middle Earth itself and are one with it. When they rise up against the evil of Sauraman, it is as if the very land itself has recognised the evil and is trying to reject it.
I don’t get any feeling of ancient wisdom, or oneness with the earth and forest from PJ’s interpretation. The Ents even decide, after the Entmoot not to do anything about the evil.
Then you have the silly scenario of all the Ents being in uproar when they see the destruction at Isengard. But where are they all when they suddenly see this and become mad about it? They are all already at Isengard by mere chance but until carrying a hobbit on their head, they haven’t seen the destruction????
I think the Ents and their symbolism were portrayed sufficiently, and that it's easy to see them in the film as representative of Middle-Earth itself. I got a feeling of ancient wisdom perfectly well...it's just a different wisdom than our own. When Entmoot ends and Treebeard explains why they do not plan to attack Saruman, they reference their own cultural wisdom for their reasons. I had no problem with that at all.
And I'd believe that the Ents did not skirt the borders of the forest near Isengard. They make their homes deep in the forest, do they not? I'm running out of steam here, it's very late, but I'll just say that didn't bother me so I let it lie.
Lightningbug said:
I would have preferred that they didn’t have stupid-looking ents
I'm right with you there, chief.
Kevin wrote:
The separation you explain to be necessary was already in the novel, and would have been in the film, by virtue of an enormous battle in which Eowyn could readily picture the immanent death of Aragorn. This is all the encouragement she needed to fall for him. The whole death thing was a waste of time, and is the biggest load of tripe in the movie.
Doesn't work for me. Eowyn needs time to dwell on her and Aragorn in a time of relative calm. And the audience has to feel that, too. In the battle scenes the attention is not on Eowyn it's on the battle. Having Eowyn give Aragorn a meaningful glance before he rides off to face the Warg-riders and then having her hear of his "death" puts the attention where it belongs: on her. What is she thinking?
Kevin wrote:
The audience want to see a Faramir that is tempted by the ring, but is strong enough of character and will to not give in to it. To recognise it for what it is. To learn from his brother. To be portrayed as purer. This is because one of the strengths of the book is the knowledge that Middle Earth is thrust into the next age with honest, and strong men as leaders. Faramir is one of the leaders.
And I think the film accomplished this just fine. We have another film yet to go for Faramir to "show his quality."
Whew, OK, it's time for me to crawl off to bed. You're right, Kevin, lots of ground to cover in one post, lol!
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
Well LK, I’m not convinced on the exorcism scene. I feel Saruman was out of place in that scene, and I think your interpretation, while feasible, is not natural. You create that interpretation because of your background knowledge and because you want to like it. We’ll have to agree to disagree. The same with the Last Alliance semantics. It seems to me to be a stretch. Elrond and Galadriel’s telepathic conversation I can’t comment on because it was at least partially in Elvish (with Chinese subtitles) so I don’t know what all they said yet. Maybe that’s my whole problem.
"I ain't been dropping no eaves, sir, honest!"
|
|
|
Kevin I don’t quite understand your point in:
“But it does interfere with the result. If the men of Rohan and a few bowmen can defeat Sauraman alone, then why on Middle Earth wouldn’t they not have set forth for and overrun him before?”
Because of Wormtongue persuading them not to, right?
Yeah, I see your point. OK, they wouldn't have ridden out to overthrow him without their King as the driving force. I think I jumped two steps ahead of my initial thought. That thought was that the Rohirrum and a few elven archers seem to be enough to defeat the Sauraman army. Well if that's all they need, why didn't they defeat him earlier.
In the books they need the Ents and Huorns. I miss them in the movie vesion. I love the scene as it appears in my mind when reading it.
|
|
|
In the books they need the Ents and Huorns. I miss them in the movie vesion. I love the scene as it appears in my mind when reading it.
Now, here is an angle I'm perfectly ready to agree with. I would have LOVED to see the Huorns. And I think an extended Isengard-destruction scene would have been WAY cool, too. A couple of my favorite parts from the book that would have made some pretty awesome scenes.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
| by -
Lightningbug
(Sat Jan 4 05:04:59)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Jan 4 05:09:48 |
Hi Kevin
I think the Rohirrim would have been enough to defeat Saruman if they had attacked at the first signs of trouble before he had that whole army. What they needed to defeat him later was an army of well-trained elven archers, the Rohirrim under Eomer, as well as desparation, and the tactical advantage of Helm’s Deep. They wouldn’t have had the last two if they had attacked Saruman. I’m not sure that they didn’t have the help of the huorns. The end of the battle is very abbreviated. We don’t actually see how Saruman’s army is defeated. I’m hoping it will be made clearer in the EE. And yes, me too on seeing the huorns do their part!
"I ain't been dropping no eaves, sir, honest!"
|
|
|
Just a little note on your response:
The elves have nothing to fight for. Middle earth is not theirs anymore
I would disagree with this. The Elves have something very precious to fight for- the inheritance they will leave to Men. The Elves have been safeguarding and preserving ME as best they could for a very long time, against the day when Men will be ready to take on their responsibilities. ME is still the Elves' to give.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Athene, good point. But I do feel that this war is where men are supposed to take on that responsibility by themselves and prove their mettle. But your point does soften me a bit to the elves giving a little help.
"I ain't been dropping no eaves, sir, honest!"
|
|
|
| by -
bbrook
(Mon Feb 17 22:33:55)
|
|
The comment "The Last Alliance is no longer the last alliance, for here is another." is hardly damning.
After World War I, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, WWI was known simply as the "Great War" or "The War to end all Wars". Well, ummmm, in 1939 a "greater" war started (WWII), and so neither of the previous epithets turned out to be appropriate.
Similar situation with the Last Alliance - it was the last alliance for 3,000 years...
|
|
|
| by -
Tieno
(Thu Jan 2 08:44:42)
|
|
Great post!
"The Ents are going to wake up and find that they are strong."
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by an administrator
|
|
|
Hmmmmm.......I was going to say something sarcastic, but I don't want to ruin lk's thread. You lucked out KingLear  .
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
| by -
lkalliance
(Thu Jan 2 12:55:20)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu Jan 2 12:58:31 |
Well posed! The fact of the matter is, though, I loved the film. Sitting in the theater, being engrossed in the film and coming out of it with the giddiness from watching a wonderful film, I'm not thinking of these things.
The post was just my attempt at explaining WHY I was not bothered. It took a lot of self-reflection and analysis. None of that was necessary for me to love the film. But I enjoyed doing the analysis, though.
You're right, the truth is usually quite simple, and in this case it is: "The deviations from the plot of the book were neither significant nor ruined the story for me." However, there are plenty of people on these boards who question that truth, or who hold different truths. So I explained. Even the simplest truth can be dissected.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by an administrator
|
|
|
It's nice to see this dialogue end up in a good vein.
Kudos.
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
| by -
keith-185
(Fri Jan 3 01:35:19)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Jan 3 01:40:43 |
Not way too long for me.
I found it a fascinating post.
I do not think lk is trying to convince himself, but more showing the naysayers that there are reasons for the changes; that they were done with a great deal of consideration.
I had a few concerns. Some of PJs solutions I was not convinced by. But that did not stop me loving the movie.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by an administrator
|
|
|
I had difficulties with Frodo's Nazgul confrontation at first, too, but then it occurred to me that it's probably a moment that strongly foreshadows a certain extremely sihgnificant event in RotK: Frodo, at this point, is ALMOST ready to give in to the temptation of the Ring, and it's Sam who jumps at him and keeps him from doing it. I wouldn't be surprized if we'd see something very very similar close to the end of RotK, only this time it's Gollum.
Great point, Frodolives! I wonder if Jackson will turn that moment into one where finally Sam "sees the light" about Gollum in a way...much as Frodo now feels a kinship with Smeagol. Eh, probably not...motivations for each are different. But I hadn't thought about this foreshadowing.
I'm still (after six viewings) not entirely happy with the character of Faramir - especially his somewhat unmotivated change of heart. But I think Faramir's character will become a lot clearer in RotK - and I also suspect that the TTT EE might help to make that particular bit of the action seem more logical. I get a feeling that in TTT a lot of scenes ended up on the cutting room floor at the very last minute - if for no other reason than that there are a lot of publicity stills, and scenes in trailers, floating around, that never made the movie (and that includes even the famous still of Frodo being taken captive by Faramir's people - I've checked, it's NOT there in the movie!)
I can't wait for the EE...if it rounds out TTT as nicely as the FOTR EE rounded out the first film, we're in for a real treat! I know what you mean about Faramir...the whole storyline, unfortunately, probably had to be rushed just because of the pacing of TTT. I felt Boromir's similar challenges were better portrayed, but of course FOTR is Act I and is all about character development, in which environment that storyline flourished.
Theoden also becomes something of a mentor for Aragorn - teaching him something of what kingship is about. There's that great scene where Aragorn tells him that those Orcs have come not to destroy crops and villages, but mankind itself, and Theoden turns to him and says: "What would you have me do? ..." - that shows him as an experienced ruler, who, even though he may have less wisdom or nobility than Aragorn, who was raised among the Elves, still knows his stuff, and has something to teach to the one who will become the King of Gondor.
I remember thinking this same thought about Theoden. The theme of Aragorn's coming into the Kingship is very strong and I think will be well served in ROTK. In the books, his coronation always elicits a shrug from me...you know, OK, this was going to happen. No surprise. But I think the film version has this extra edge where not only have Men and Elves and Dwarves and Hobbits gone and succeeded against all odds, but Aragorn himself will have undergone his inner journey as well.
Another piece of Bernard Hill dialogue that strikes me is his "Where was Gondor when..." speech. When he stops short at the end, I can feel the palpable waves of frustration.
I agree totally on Haldir's scene, as well. Incredibly moving, to me.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
This is an extraordinary post, elkie! I have been sharing my thoughts on various aspects of the movie throughout different topics being posted here, so I have very little to add, except to say thank you for taking the time to write such a lovingly detailed analysis. Like you, I just loved the movie!
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
When reading your post, Iki, I wholeheartedly agreed. The movie changes are not arbitrary or pointless, but they do make sense and help bring the story to a resolution that will allow ROTK to be faithful. I'm just going to add my opinion to the changes.
RE: ELVES AT HELM'S DEEP
While I understand that the Elves are in a recession, I think it would be uncharacteristic for them to turn a blind eye to man's suffering. I mean, Peter Jackson might have made them more serious than in the books, but he didn't make their character that of a race that doesn't give a damn about anyone else. And, while the elves were definately a help in the battle, the battle wouldn't have been a victory if it wasn't for Gandalf and Eomer charging down the hill at the end. I think that Pete was emphasizing the bonds between the races and not the dependence on elves. He's highlighting the unity needed to overcome evil.
RE: ENTS
I've been re reading the book, and I think that their treatment in the movies is not a change from the books. The books made a point of the fact that the Ents were hard to rouse because they've been becoming more tree like. The movie just emphasized that. The actual, visual sight of the carnage that Saruman wrought was the shock needed to push the ents into action.
RE: FARAMIR
I think that the movie's treatment of Faramir is actually more clear than in the books. I remember first reading about his character, and I was extremely confused that he could just give up the ring as if it were nothing. Tolkein excellently highlighted the temptation of the ring, hell even Galadriel was tempted. But for this one man to just refuse it is definately a negation of the former premise. I think that Faramir will become the brave, noble character that he was meant to be in ROTK.
|
|
|
Good additions, Moonboots. I particularly like this:
I think that the movie's treatment of Faramir is actually more clear than in the books. I remember first reading about his character, and I was extremely confused that he could just give up the ring as if it were nothing. Tolkein excellently highlighted the temptation of the ring, hell even Galadriel was tempted. But for this one man to just refuse it is definately a negation of the former premise.
So much time is spent on these boards (by myself and others) defending the point of view that Faramir of the film is NOT so different than the Faramir of the books, that it's refreshing to find a point of view that says this part was treated differently AND BETTER.
I've said similar things about the Eomer-for-Erkenbrand switch at Helm's Deep...I like the film version better than the book version. In another post I mentioned that you have the opportunity in a book to say to yourself, "Huh? I didn't quite get that, I'll read it again." But you don't have that opportunity in a theater. So sometimes with an issue such as this it has to be brought more to the surface.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
There are so many facets that are being discussed that it occurred to me that they might be in some way interconnected, so I felt the need to put it all into one long post. The fact that there are so many things to debate is, according to some, proof of the movie's quality! I don't know about that, but I know I'm more ecstatic about the film with each viewing.
Thanks, Athene!
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
"Your forgetting the great big elvish warrior that's loose!"
|
|
|
Great post.. agree with most of what you said :) I actually don't think that TTTs detractors outnumber its supporters (just look at its ratings on this site or rottentomatoes.com, and almost every professional review of the film has been very positive). I also agree that the EE will probably smooth out the problems with Faramir et al. In fact, the first film also suffered from some character depth problems that were fixed in the EE (Galadrial is a good example).
I've written a little piece about what Sam says to Faramir in Osgiliath (something a few people have complained about), but its quite long, so I'll start a new topic-- I'd be interested to hear what you think. It's the post titled "Your brother died because he tried to take the ring..".
Saul
|
|
|
That was a nice analysis, Saul. I've responded there, and also edited this thread to include a link. Thanks!
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
My problem with the Faramir/Osgiliath sequence is twofold:
1) Faramir's character as delineated by Tolkien gives us a man who is radically different than his older brother, and this difference sets up a tension between him and his father in the third book.
2) How does Faramir get Frodo to Osgiliath? They are clearly on the western shore, yet the bridge over the Anduin is broken. That's a neat trick, getting your squad of men and two prisoners through hostile forces and over a great river. It's an even neater trick for two hobbits and Gollum to get *back* to Ithilien.
I am not usually one to be bothered by "differences" in screen adaptations--books and films are two different art forms, after all. But they have to make sense. Faramir dragging Frodo to Osgiliath is just logistically illogical.
Otherwise, a good film, very enjoyable. Well, okay, Aragorn's supposed death was just stupid, but otherwise, a good film. :)
|
|
|
2) How does Faramir get Frodo to Osgiliath? They are clearly on the western shore, yet the bridge over the Anduin is broken. That's a neat trick, getting your squad of men and two prisoners through hostile forces and over a great river. It's an even neater trick for two hobbits and Gollum to get *back* to Ithilien.
 I don't see how "the bridge over the Anduin is broken" applies to the movie. As I recall, it's not mentioned or seen, so I doubt it's even an issue.
|
|
|
OMGitsDal wrote this:
) How does Faramir get Frodo to Osgiliath? They are clearly on the western shore, yet the bridge over the Anduin is broken. That's a neat trick, getting your squad of men and two prisoners through hostile forces and over a great river. It's an even neater trick for two hobbits and Gollum to get *back* to Ithilien...Faramir dragging Frodo to Osgiliath is just logistically illogical.
What the hell are you talking about? Look at the maps again, you can obviously tell Frodo and Sam were east of the river Anduin(they already passed east through the dead plains when they were resting), so there is no bridge that needs to be crossed, because Osgiliath is on the east side of the river.
|
|
|
No, he's right. They were on the east side of Anduin when they were captured by Faramir, and Anduin flows through Osgiliath, with Gondor holding the West side. I wasn't bothered by it...we can't pretend to know all about the geography of the area. Knowing what I know of the books, I'd expect they would have crossed at Cair Andros.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
| by -
Kit-11
(Fri Jan 3 19:37:32)
|
|
Thank you very much for your comments. They helped answer some questions I had.
|
|
|
First of all congratulations to all of you!!!
Your diferent points of view just made me loving the movie even more!
I never really liked this "midle earth",elfs,...etc stuff, i liked more the universe of starwars even though the episode 1 and 2 were really,really bad!!!
(except for the creation of DarthMaul).
My dream was that PJ was also responsible for starwars! can you imagine what Legolas could do with a lightsaber and the force!!!
However i just love the movie lord of the rings, for various reasons(to many to wright them all here) !!!
There are only some basic questions that i dont understand:
a)Ring of power! what power? you can be invisible and deeply in love with
the ring!What the hell is this?Iam sure gandalf or saruman have powers much more powerfull than this!If the ring is so powerfull why did sauron engaged in physicall combat before he lost his fingers?
b)Is gandalf a wizard? if so why does he fight with a sword and is part of a cavalary assault on saruman's army? shouldnt he use magic as first "weapon" of choice?
c)how did the dwarf and argnoth managed to survive the battles they survived with their poor skills? i mean Legolas his on a level far beyond the dwarf and argnoth!Will power and "destiny" are not in my opinion enough when you are in the midle of hundreds of orcs!Shouldnt the dwarf excell on strenght and argnoth
on sword fighting?
I now these are very basic questions,compared to your excelent analysis,so it woul be a honour to now your opinion about this!!!
Thanks
Gen-Han Shin
"Evil prevails, when good man do nothing"
|
|
|
judging by your messages, you guys seem to really understand the books and movies.. so can you please clarify what Galadriel meant when she said something like "there is nothing we can do for Frodo. The quest will claim his life. You know this" to Elrond. I've read the books and I know that Frodo doesn't die... so what was she saying? ok, sorry if i sound very stupid... i just want to know
|
|
|
Once again, thanks for the generous words, einahpets. I'll do my best to answer.
can you please clarify what Galadriel meant when she said something like "there is nothing we can do for Frodo. The quest will claim his life. You know this" to Elrond. I've read the books and I know that Frodo doesn't die... so what was she saying?
You're right, Frodo does not literally "die" in the books, but he does die figuratively.
Actually, there is a very close analogy in the Star Wars saga...Luke is confused that Obi-Wan told him Vader killed his father, and yet Vader is his father. Obi-Wan explains that when the Dark Side took over, "the good man that was Anakin Skywalker" ceased to exist, and thus in a very real way Vader DID kill Luke's father.
Same situation here, only expressed much more subtly in the books (we'll see how it's treated in the films). The Hobbits return to the Shire, they roust Saruman out of Bag End, Sam goes all over the Shire restoring things to the way they were. Happy ending, right? Except that Frodo finds himself completely unable to find peace. The destruction of the Ring has excised part of him forever...he's no longer completely whole.
I find the last chapter of the book incredibly sad, and even after so many readings it can sometimes bring me to the brink of tears for Sam. Here he is, he's selflessly stuck by Frodo's side through this entire story, putting himself into the most frightful danger imaginable, lost Frodo, rescued Frodo, endured Frodo's growing separation from him and odd attraction to Gollum, even briefly taken up Frodo's burden. He's come back to the Shire and healed it, all in Frodo's name...and now that it's all done, after everything he's done, Frodo is still broken and must give up and go into the West.
It's even more poignant in the books than I can ever expect it to be on film, Sam's love for Frodo and the fact that he's gone on this quest as much for that as for any promise he made to Gandalf. And at the end Frodo sails off and tells Sam that no, he CAN'T come with him...my heart breaks for Sam, and I'm getting all veklempt just writing this post. Sam goes on to what is evidently a wonderful, full and enriched life, but no matter what he does, ever, for the rest of his life, there's an empty space there that he's never going to fill, because in the end he COULDN'T save his friend and master, he failed at the single task that defined him.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by an administrator
|
|
|
Frodo is indeed a broken Hobbit, and it is unfair that he has paid such a disproportionately heavy price. I was very bothered by this as a child - I thought it was unfair of Tolkien not to allow him to "get over it" and find peace in the Shire. Since then I have read about how Tolkien's experiences in the First World War shaped his philosophical struggles and his books. Frodo is like so many who came back broken from the war, fairly whole in body, but having borne mental stresses and strains that were simply too great to recover from fully, especially for those of sensitive temperaments. In WWI it was called shell shock, then in WWII battle fatigue, now since Vietnam post-traumatic stress disorder. I do not know how many authors before Tolkien focused on this part of the cost of war, but he really hits it home - delivering a stern rebuke to those who thought at the time that shell-shocked men were just faking it, or were cowards, or just needed to stiffen their upper lips. Clearly in LOTR it's not the result of any lack in Frodo's character, but the burden placed on him that is simply too much. I have come to admire Tolkien for both insisting that some wars must be fought and mourning the inevitably resulting sacrifices and loss of innocence. And I think Peter Jackson is doing a good job of bringing out both of those so far.
|
|
|
Thanks Ikalliance. I think i understand now... I guess I didn't read the books thoroughly enough! I nearly cried in the "Don't you know you Sam?" part in the Two Towers (movie). I guess it gets even worse for him... sigh.. he really is a wonderful hobbit and a great friend.
|
|
|
| by -
joeblimp2
(Sun Jan 5 10:33:06)
|
|
| UPDATED Wed Jan 15 12:15:03 |
Interesting post Ikalliance.
It's even more poignant in the books than I can ever expect it to be on film, Sam's love for Frodo and the fact that he's gone on this quest as much for that as for any promise he made to Gandalf. And at the end Frodo sails off and tells Sam that no, he CAN'T come with him...my heart breaks for Sam, and I'm getting all veklempt just writing this post. Sam goes on to what is evidently a wonderful, full and enriched life, but no matter what he does, ever, for the rest of his life, there's an empty space there that he's never going to fill, because in the end he COULDN'T save his friend and master, he failed at the single task that defined him.
I have this post on Samwise that I would like you to check out, as well as Athene, Aule and Paul among other respectable posters on this board.
www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/512482?d=512482#512482
Sam and Frodo are the best of friends. They share a bond not unlike those who suffer under war share. A band of brothers they are, a bond exists that is very deep and strong. Clearly Tolkien wanted to communicate this experience of the emotional depth felt in war with these two characters. During WW I the gentry class often thought of the lower working classes as of another race until they got into the trenches and had to serve along side there fellow countrymen. Tolkien was an officer during this time, a man of the upper classes, he had gone to college unlike many during the early 20th century.
I think Sam represents a lot more. It does often appear that Sam and Frodo are one character, or different aspects of a single character. They are that close. But as you remembered Sam was also a ring bearer. For this reason he gets to cross over the sea and into the west. I believe his choice is not a choice over Rose and his children, but after Rose dies he has fulfilled the extent of his natural life in the Shire. It seems that Sam was touched by the Ring's powers too and for this reason maybe it has extended the length of his life.
Sam also represents his class. The rise of the working and middle classes to power and wealth. Sam has risen from tending Frodo's gardens at Bag End to living in Bag End. He has come from being a servant to being a master himself. Tolkien illustrates this point in that Sam becomes the mayor of the Shire and serves seven terms.
I believe Frodo goes over across the Sea because his time, his class, is also coming to an end. The gentry class in England is losing control of power in government and society. Frodo represents this passing. Frodo's passing makes way for Sam's ascendancy, for Sam lives now in Frodo's house and is its master.
I think that Sam was able to fill any empty space Frodo's leaving made. He had a very productive life and Rose was his great love, clearly not someone who is focused on a loss. But when everything was gone that empty space, much like a missing limb, made him make haste and leave middle earth. Sam is no longer Frodo's servant but his equal and this is also another reason why Sam is the last ring bearer to be accepted over the Seas. This is also why Sam can't cross with Frodo because then they will be forever stuck in an unequal relationship.
"Your forgetting the great big elvish warrior that's loose!"
I keep on coming back to this post to add new things. Two more new ideas to be exact.
1. Frodo going over to the West- like many in WW I that were cut down in the flower of their youth, Frodo will never grow old in the undying lands. So we will always remember him as he was, as a young-adult hobbit. In this way he represents those who had so much to offer as the youth of Europe did during the beginning of the 20th century but were cut down before their time.
2. In the other post on Samwise Gamgee I said that the council of Elrond made the wrong choice and Sam should have carried the ring because he seemed less affected by it or more capable of carrying the burden. In war I think this is also the case as well. Some officers are in a position of authority of other men who are in some cases more capable of leading or performing certain tasks than the leader. I don't know if I am reading too much into this but it seems to me that Sam turned out to be more of a hobbit than Frodo would ever been.
|
|
|
The good news with Sam, however, is that "according to tradition" 60 years after Frodo went to the Havens then on to The Undying Lands, Sam follows him, after 7 terms as mayor, and following the death of Rosie. So they eventually do meet up again.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Thanks for the kind words, Gen-Han; I'm glad the discussions here have heightened your enjoyment of the films!
I'll do my best to answer your questions:
a)Ring of power! what power? you can be invisible and deeply in love with
the ring!What the hell is this?Iam sure gandalf or saruman have powers much more powerfull than this!If the ring is so powerfull why did sauron engaged in physicall combat before he lost his fingers?
Well, the power of the Ring is a very circumstancial thing. In the hands of a Gandalf or a Sauron, or a Saruman, or a Galadriel, or even a Man like Aragorn it can be used to great effect. It's chief power lay in the dominion over the other Rings. That's where the Ringwraiths come from, and the Ringwraiths don't reprepresent direct military skill as much as they represent despair...they are a very effective PSYCHOLOGICAL weapon. And the Ring ties into that greatly. Per the Prologue, the Ring had the power to control all the others.
But it needs a wielder with great strength of will to use it to these ends. In the hands of a Hobbit (Bilbo, Frodo, Gollum) it's got the limited power of invisibility (in fact it's more complex than that...it's pulling the wearer out of our physical world and into the wraith world, which is why the Nazgul see Frodo so clearly on Weathertop when he puts on the Ring).
b)Is gandalf a wizard? if so why does he fight with a sword and is part of a cavalary assault on saruman's army? shouldnt he use magic as first "weapon" of choice?
Yes, Gandalf is a wizard, but you have to understand his mission. Gandalf (and Saruman, for that matter) was sent to Middle-Earth by the Valar -- the Gods of Arda, in essence -- to be a motivator, to rally the peoples of Middle-Earth together in an effort to stand against Sauron. He's not supposed to use his powers in direct opposition to the Enemy, and does so only in extreme cases. He's not your standard sorcerer.
c)how did the dwarf and argnoth managed to survive the battles they survived with their poor skills? i mean Legolas his on a level far beyond the dwarf and argnoth!Will power and "destiny" are not in my opinion enough when you are in the midle of hundreds of orcs!Shouldnt the dwarf excell on strenght and argnoth
on sword fighting?
Aragorn and Gimli are very skilled fighters and experienced warriors. I'm not sure I understand your question. Legolas has a very different means of fighting, which happens to "look" prettier. Comparing him to Aragorn or to Gimli is like comparing Picasso to Rodin to Shakespeare...they're all creating works of art but using very different means; and you may love one but think another ghastly.
Hope that helps!
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
LK, I'm a new (and likely to be infrequent) poster, but would like to thank you for your opening and other contributions to this thread. My first few days on this board have been a mixed experience, with insults flying around, but a few outstanding posts have made it all worthwhile. I have realised fairly quickly who the most informed and informative posters are.
I wouldn't purport to criticise any aspect of your post (or risk enhancing your ego!); it consolidated in a far more articulate manner many of my own thoughts.
May I simply add two more, however, which I think will (eventually) relate to your theme.
1. Tolkein as novelist
When I first read the LOTR books, I was always fascinated with the way in which Tolkein's language changed throughout the books. In FOTR, for example, the language Tolkein invests in his characters is relatively vernacular and comely. There's lots of jolly rustic imagery. It feels like it does indeed follow on from The Hobbit. By the time we get to ROTK, his language becomes more formalised and almost neo-Shakespearian, some might say somewhat flowery. Even in his narrative, we have at the end lots of "and lo! there was this, and lo! there was that" etc. Even a few "thees" appear in place of "yous".
I initially thought this was simply a sign of Tolkein's naivete as a novelist, as it seemed to illustrate a poor eye for consistency of language and narrative, while not necessarily affecting his skill at creating and driving a plot. I wondered if this betrayed the professional academic beneath the amateur novelist. Any of us who has written a thesis knows how tempting this can be: we formulate our ideas at the outset, spend ages on the first few chapters, then whizz through the final half as we finally "get into" the arguments and head towards our conclusion. A thesis supervisor will review the work as a whole, then sit back and comment on the requirement for consistency throughout the whole. I wonder whether anyone ever did that with JRRT. I felt it was as if he focused so much on finishing ROTK that he did so in a different mindset for using vocabulary than when he started the whole project.
An interesting comparator is J K Rowling. (My posting moniker is deliberately misspelt as my small way of acknowledging her derivative nature, especially from Tolkein, too obvious to record here.) Her plotting can be corny and, as I say, highly derivative, but she writes real page-turners. She's a better writer than Tolkein, in terms of consistency of language and narrative, but does not (yet) compare to him as a driver of plot. There are numerous reasons why an analogy between the two writers is unsatisfactory and even misleading, but I hope this illustrates my point.
Then, as I re-read Tolkein as an adult, working my way through the Silmarillion, I recognised more what it meant when Tolkein created a mythology. I noticed that Tolkein seemed to like using the conceit that he was compiling a mythology based on history based on artefact (i.e. primary source documents). Such documents could include Bilbo's book of There and Back Again, records stored in Minis Tirith etc. There are numerous mentions in the Appendices about how plot is served by a literary device such as this: "And it was later said by many that ...". It's as if Tolkein is recording the testimony of others.
I may well be wrong on this, but it now makes me wonder whether this offers a better explanation for the inconsistency in narrative and language throughout LOTR. We follow history as recounted in FOTR from the perspective of hobbits and related source material, and then by the time we get to the end of the entire novel, we follow history as recounted in ROTK from the perspective of kings and related source material. I wonder whether Tolkein was - deliberately or otherwise - adopting the idea of myth creation by creating a composite narrative from discrepant source materials. As an analogy, think how the myth of Robin Hood was created: early parish records of a "Bob Hod", turned later into the medieval "gest" of Robin Hood, and then finally transformed by Tudor snobbery into a dispossessed noble. Where does the truth now lie in the myth of Robin Hood? And does it matter, so long as it contains meaning and serves as thumping good entertainment (Kevin Costner aside)?
Again, when one looks at the War of the Ring as described in the Silmarillion, it is as if it is being described by someone else. The same goes for the assorted Histories of Middle Earth, which again service the underlying mythology by adopting the processes and analysis involved in the study of history: looking at matters from different perspectives, the views of different races, etc.
2. Jackson et al as screenwriters/film-makers
So I suggest that the myth of Middle Earth was created so convincingly precisely because it adopts the conceit of history, namely that it is a composite narrative drawn from discrepant source materials. And why should it not? That is not a criticism at all. Indeed, all history is written from different perspectives. The perspective of the victor is probably the most common. But history is also recorded from the perspective of others - look at the growth in feminist and social history in the last 40 years. Many historians would concur that there is no "objective truth" out there by which history can be recorded as fact. History is translated through the subjective prism of the observer, and then the recorder, and then finally the communicator.
An example comes from a programme shown recently in the UK, by Simon Schama, entitled "A history of Britain". It was a roller-coaster ride with an intellectual through 2000 years of British history. It was subjective, opinionated and polemic. That's what made it so compelling.
Likewise Tolkein. A novelist who adopted the conceit of history would surely have approved of an interpretation of that history by a film-maker that is openly represented merely as a subjective vision of the myth. Peter Jackson has been loyal to Tolkein precisely because he has flattered his approach to the conceit of history. This is not Jackson portraying "what happened in the Lord of the Rings". This is Jackson portraying his vision of Tolkein's myth represented as history. And, in my view, those who are overly-defensive of the "history" behind the myth overlook that (a) history is primarily subjective, and (b) this is not history, it is fantasy. The fact that it is a very convincing mythology does not really mean that it is more like "proper" history, with which we should not tamper; it simply means that it is very good fantasy.
That is why I agree with you. Jackson was always free to interpret Tolkein historical conceit freely. I hoped he would do it well. He simply happens to have done a brilliant job from an astonishingly difficult task. His version - and his changes - serve the overall myth. Good for him and his colleagues.
Thanks for listening. As a newbie, I'm slightly fearful of being shot down in flames by those whose e-articulacy exceeds mine, so be gentle with me!
|
|
|
Dumblebore,
Welcome and thanks for your kind words! I wouldn't worry; not much anyone can say at this point that would actually make my ego bigger than it already is, lol. I'd arrange to make it smaller, but I'm not sure my health plan covers it.
I'd like to say that I LOVE your take on the text that you've expressed. In fact you've taken a couple of issues that I hadn't related in my own mind and brought them together for me: the issue of Tolkien's language and that of the work as a piece of history.
You are absolutely correct, the story is a retelling. It's in fact the Red Book of the Westmarch; the tale of War of the Ring as told by the Hobbits who took part, with input from others. But that being the case I've always taken it to be not exactly the text of the Red Book. The story, to me, contains more dialogue than I would expect in a history. The Silmarillion fits my own image of a history much more closely. Your example of the section of The Silmarillion covering the Third Age is a perfect example:
Again, when one looks at the War of the Ring as described in the Silmarillion, it is as if it is being described by someone else.
I know exactly which passages you're referring to, and you're spot-on in my view.
But be that as it may, whether or not it is literally the Red Book, granted it IS a history, a third-person retelling with different voices for the third person, or at least different SOURCES that that third person had access to for different parts of the story.
It's been said on these boards, in relation to Tolkien's skills as a writer, that Tolkien isn't a novelist in the same sense that other writers are novelists. He was a linguist and an historian that happened to write well. I and others have said we don't read much fantasy but love Tolkien becaus his writing feels different, deeper, more complete...this is where I think it comes from.
Now, I always took the varying language to be part of the scene-setting; I had found the language to be indicative of the location and feel of the scenes; the language in the Shire in Book I is a lot more rustic than the language at the Field of Cormallen in Book VI. Since a theme of the books is the Hobbits' growth from insular, isolated folk into people more integrated with the world around them, I just took it as a device for communicating that on a linguistic level.
But your analysis makes so much more sense! And actually, consider Frodo writing the tale and attribute to him the weaknesses as a writer that you at first felt you had perceived in Tolkien. Would Frodo have the professionalism to smooth out the differences of style in his sources? Would his own first-person telling of the journey from the Shire to Rivendell sound different than the descriptions of the others of the Paths of the Dead or the Battle of the Pelennor or of the Coronation? Sure, Frodo was at the Coronation, but how likely is it that he asked for other input about what he was watching?
That makes perfect sense. For all the times I've read the novel, I'm tickled to learn something new!
A novelist who adopted the conceit of history would surely have approved of an interpretation of that history by a film-maker that is openly represented merely as a subjective vision of the myth.
A very nice way of putting it. In another exchange with a poster elsewhere on the boards, I described the relationship between the books and the films in logical/algebraic terms. The other poster suggested a better visual representation: a Venn diagram.
You draw a big circle. Everything inside of the circle represents all the details and events of Tolkien's universe. Every place, every time, every battle, every conversation, every thought, every utterance, every blade of grass. Then inside of that you draw another circle. That represents Tolkien's writings -- the stuff that he put on the page. There's tons of stuff that happened that he didn't put on the page (we never read about the characters relieving themselves, as someone pointed out flippantly). Then, inside of the "Universe" circle but not necessarily completely inside of the "Writings" circle, draw a third circle. That represents Jackson's films. Again, he took a subset of the universe and used it on film. It's NOT a further subset of the writings. It overlaps the writings greatly. But theres some stuff in the writings not in the film, just as there is some stuff in the film not in the writings. But it's all within the universe.
Your quote above is a very nice and clean way of phrasing that. Or, as you put it later:
Jackson was always free to interpret Tolkein historical conceit freely.
And I further agree with your next statement:
I hoped he would do it well. He simply happens to have done a brilliant job from an astonishingly difficult task. His version - and his changes - serve the overall myth. Good for him and his colleagues.
Yes, good indeed!
========================
Oh, and some other things regarding your post...
My first few days on this board have been a mixed experience, with insults flying around, but a few outstanding posts have made it all worthwhile.
Remember that, on a public as opposed to private message board, the community is always in flux. Just like in real life there are heroes, villains, knaves, damsels, shoe salesmen, jerks, egoes, bourgeoisie (sp?), teachers, clowns, and marketing consultants. They come and they go. One constant is that after the hype of the movie dies down, you'll find that the people that stay are the ones that care or that have found value here. It's a constantly evolving organism.
As a newbie, I'm slightly fearful of being shot down in flames by those whose e-articulacy exceeds mine, so be gentle with me!
People get shot down in flames. It happens. The only thing to do is to get up, brush yourself off, and move on. Some people get shot down but consider it just part of life, decide that the value they get from posting and reading is better than the downside of the flames, and stay. Others don't find it worth the hassle and leave. Just follow your gut. And welcome!
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
Thanks LK! 
|
|
|
"Your forgetting the great big elvish warrior that's loose!"
|
|
|
My wife would like to thank you, joe, for making my ego EVEN LARGER, lol
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
I've added links to several other really cool posts in this thread.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
What you mean...
Bump?!
Give peace a chance.
|
|
|
And right then I knew, like you know about a good melon.
|
|
|
I've told your name to the Rings moot and we haven't still decided whether you're a Troll or not. 
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Jan 15 23:16:32)
|
|
Hmm. Sorry Lkie. Just replying to Athene.
This is what I do in real life. (seriously)
Scary huh? 
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Jan 15 23:36:01)
|
|
Love your analysis Lkalliance.
Think I'm going to have to add another link ;)
|
|
|
Thanks, sinaes...are you collecting links? I haven't been able to pay as much attention the past few days.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu Jan 16 15:13:22)
|
|
Collect? What would life be without more links ;)
|
|
|
If we send our sons & daughters to fight our wars
Is there anything left home worth fighting for?
|
|
|
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.
|
|
|
these question are being asked again. Time to move lucid answers to the front...
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Great analysis LK, and the informative topics on this thread are an absolute delight to read. It will be refreshing to read LOTR, again, with a different set of viewpoints brought by others on this board. Thanks!!
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
