Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Correction: Merry and Pippin's "reality check" came when they looked into Boromir's eyes as he knelt dying in front of them with arrows sticking out of him. It was a legitimate turning point for both of them.

Please don't view my corrections as a sign that I've become...gasp...a nit-picker!!! I don't want to go down the path to the Dark-Purist-Side!!!

M&P never "look into Boromir's eyes"; they have already been caught by Saruman's orcs while Boromir still lives and are long gone by the time Aragorn shows up to keep "Lurtz" (another of Jackson's needless inventions) from finishing off Denethor's elder son. Certainly, that scenario goes a long way toward maturing the two young hobbits - as it did in the book as well!

I would have to look again at the EE of FOTR to see if you are correct in the former, but he certainly does call him "Mister" Frodo, which is hardly the sort of thing that one does with a contemporary. Since Frodo is not 50 years old (as he was in the book) but is in fact about Sam's age, why should Sam call him "Mister", even if he never called him "Master"? Remember, neither Merry or Pippin call Frodo "Mister", so that means that Sam has a very different relationship with Frodo. Oh, and by the way, you do not address Sam's being under the window in the middle of the night! If you are going to address one point, it would be wise to address them all! Frankly, there is no real establishment of these inter-relationships in the films which seriously affects the story - and not for the better.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It certainly wouldn't have taken Jackson a great deal of film to establish a close friendship among the four hobbits and he certainly should have established Sam's "relationship" with Frodo (his gardener) rather than simply have him "appear" under Frodo's window in the middle of the night (which suggests an altogether different "relationship"!). In the EE of FOTR, this point is made, albeit without much stress, which is a shame. Why Sam should be calling Frodo "Master" when that relationship is never established, merely adds to the confusion in the film and frankly, goes to show that Jackson was far less concerned about establishing the characters and their interaction than he was in simply establishing opportunities for "action" itself (sword fights etc.).

I agree with you on these points completely. But I disagree with your statement that "you either have LotR translated or you don't." There can be a mediocre in-between area. (How about Rankin-Bass Return of the King?) I think that he did translate it -- his translation of it is mediocre (others would say poor), but it is still LotR. I found the movie enjoyable, and I agree with your subsequent (or previous; I'm getting lost in all these posts!)statement that liking or not is a matter of opinion, and need not be defended either way.

Elfhelm: I completely agree with you re: Tolkien being the ultimate authority to which all arguments must bow. As BoP said, he was perhaps too close to LotR to see it completely as the reader could see it. I believe that in regards to a work of art, the artist is forced to give up some of his authority on it to the viewer of the work, because to me, a large aspect of art is interpretation. Tolkien may have wanted it to be all about "facts," but as he created it, it simply could not be thus, as soon as it was published.

Re: general comment regarding differences between film and literature: Jackson found it necessary to exaggerate some (or many) characters and events to convey certain points and ideas to his viewers. This accounts for some of the Merry and Pippin stuff (as well as other stuff), although it could be rightly argued that he took it too far (no pun intended -- TOOK it too far ).

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
M&P never "look into Boromir's eyes"; they have already been caught by Saruman's orcs while Boromir still lives.

Wrong, Mrs. Maggot. There is a very moving moment when Boromir has been struck by Lurtz's arrows where we see Pippin and Merry's shocked faces as they stare at him before whipping out their swords and having a go at the orcs themselves (and subsequently getting captured.)

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I would have to look again at the EE of FOTR to see if you are correct in the former, but he certainly does call him "Mister" Frodo, which is hardly the sort of thing that one does with a contemporary.

Exactly. This is the way PJ communicated the fact that Sam didn't have the same social stature as Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Oh, and by the way, you do not address Sam's being under the window in the middle of the night! If you are going to address one point, it would be wise to address them all! Frankly, there is no real establishment of these inter-relationships in the films which seriously affects the story - and not for the better.

We see Frodo and Sam walking down the road together before Frodo enters Bag End. So the audience knows that Sam is "in the neighborhood." It doesn't take a major logic leap for the audience to understand after the fact that Sam had looked up at Bag End as he proceeded on home and saw Gandalf's shadow or something that caused him to be concerned. Other than it was night time versus day time, Sam's actions were the same in the book and in the films.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Wrong, Mrs. Maggot. There is a very moving moment when Boromir has been struck by Lurtz's arrows where we see Pippin and Merry's shocked faces as they stare at him before whipping out their swords and having a go at the orcs themselves (and subsequently getting captured.)

Exactly. This is the way PJ communicated the fact that Sam didn't have the same social stature as Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

We see Frodo and Sam walking down the road together before Frodo enters Bag End. So the audience knows that Sam is "in the neighborhood." It doesn't take a major logic leap for the audience to understand after the fact that Sam had looked up at Bag End as he proceeded on home and saw Gandalf's shadow or something that caused him to be concerned. Other than it was night time versus day time, Sam's actions were the same in the book and in the films.

To begin with, that's not the same as "looking into his dying eyes" as you put it - since it is you who are insisting upon "accuracy". Of course it was a seminal moment. Indeed, getting grabbed by orcs and taken into captivity and the threat of suffering and death was an equally "maturing" event!

As far as Sam's "social station": most Americans are not culturally attuned to differences in "social station". However, a servant could be understood as someone who might refer to his employer as "Mister". Yet, this relationship is hardly established either in the party scene between Frodo and Sam or in the scene where the two are returning from the inn. And, if Sam had seen something untoward at Bag End (always assuming that after a night of imbibing in the inn he would have noticed much of anything), given his rather straightforward personality, he would doubtless have come straight in the front door and not wandered about in the shrubbery! He would hardly have been much help to Frodo - had he needed any - crawling around outside!

Finally with regard to something "in between" LOTR and notLOTR: I do not believe you can hold up either Bakshi or Rankin-Bass as criteria. Neither of them - however sincerely and earnestly their creators tried to produce LOTR - can be considered a success. On the other hand, I do not believe that either was attempting to do anything more than present a story; no attempt was made (other than editing and combining various elements for time) to produce in depth, the work's vision as we were assured would be the case with Jackson's endeavor. However, when all was said and done, Jackson deviated more from the actual story than either of the earlier works. It rather reminds me of Frodo and Aragorn's conversation about servants of the enemy who "look fair and feel foul".

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
To begin with, that's not the same as "looking into his dying eyes" as you put it - since it is you who are insisting upon "accuracy".

um...let's see now...Pippin and Merry stare at Boromir...Boromir looks up at them. Boromir is dying. They can see he is dying. What's inaccurate about what I said?!?!?!?

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As far as Sam's "social station": most Americans are not culturally attuned to differences in "social station". However, a servant could be understood as someone who might refer to his employer as "Mister". Yet, this relationship is hardly established either in the party scene between Frodo and Sam or in the scene where the two are returning from the inn. And, if Sam had seen something untoward at Bag End (always assuming that after a night of imbibing in the inn he would have noticed much of anything), given his rather straightforward personality, he would doubtless have come straight in the front door and not wandered about in the shrubbery! He would hardly have been much help to Frodo - had he needed any - crawling around outside!

It's a valid point that PJ could have established Sam's relationship to Frodo more clearly in FOTR. In fact, after my first viewing of the film, it was my number one criticism. But upon repeated viewings, I realized that Sam's "Mister Frodo"s communicated a great deal about his social standing (yes, even to American audiences) without complicating issues for a modern-day audience by emphasizing his servitude.

Regarding Sam sneaking up to the window to eavesdrop rather than going in the front door--I do seem to recall Professor Tolkien writing something about that subject.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Neither of them [Bakshi or Rankin-Bass] - however sincerely and earnestly their creators tried to produce LOTR - can be considered a success. On the other hand . . . Jackson deviated more from the actual story than either of the earlier works.

Hmmm...considering the critical acclaim and commercial success of the Jackson films, looks to me that ol' PJ knew what he was doing.

[Mrs. Maggott]

[i]
Hmmm...considering the critical acclaim and commercial success of the Jackson films, looks to me that ol' PJ knew what he was doing. [/B]

Critical acclaim does not make what Jackson produced Tolkien's LOTR, merely a fairly well made (so far and with the second film less successfully made than the first) sword-and-sorcery action film. That's a whole lot different than bringing the greatest book of the 20th century to the screen - which Jackson did NOT do.

And, frankly, what passes for "success" in today's culture is certainly no guarantee of either quality or worth.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Critical acclaim does not make what Jackson produced Tolkien's LOTR, merely a fairly well made (so far and with the second film less successfully made than the first) sword-and-sorcery action film.

Just want to point out that it really can't be called of the "sword-and-sorcery" genre; from my understanding, there is little similarity between Jackson's movies and the criteria for Sword and Sorcery.

Re: Authority of the Author: This whole thing is, quite frankly, rather ridiculous, IMO. I mean, if the author says something about his own work, and someone else says, "You don't know anything, you're wrong"; I must be stupid, because this does not seem right to me.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
And, frankly, what passes for "success" in today's culture is certainly no guarantee of either quality or worth.

But in a debate over such a subjective subject as "Did Jackson capture Tolkien's vision?", critical and commercial success should be worth something. I think there were quite a few Tolkien fans in the theatres. Did they see the movie over and over again and bought the DVD because they misunderstood Tolkien? I think you all have some valid points. But when you use the occasional film flaw to deny the obvious homage Jackson has paid to Tolkien's great work throughout both films, I can't help but question what's really going on here.

[Melko Belcha]

Ok this is kind of weird but here is the way I see it.

Lets say you have a pot of soup (type dosn't matter). If you made another pot but only used a little bit of this ingredient, alot more of another ingredient, and completely take out other ingredients, what are you left with? Not the same soup as in the first pot.

The ingredents that make LotR great, for me atleast, are the characters, dialoge, character interaction, the history that led up to the story, and I could go on and on. But to change, re-arrange, or omit any of the ingredients is to change the story. The story of LotR is not just about the destruction of the Ring, or the Domination of Man, it is every little detail in the story from the Prologue to the Appendix.

Aother thing that really makes me laugh about the movies is that PJ actually put corn in. He had no idea that what Tolkien called corn in the books is actually wheat. But again PJ must know what Tolkien meant more then Tolkien did himself.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I apologize for getting so exasperated with you people sometimes, but I never cease to be amazed at the literal-interpretation levels around here.

The problem is you Purists operate with some pretty kooky (and completely FALSE) assumptions often referred to, by us normal Tolkien fans, as "The Book Purist's Faulty Five."

And he calls us condescending? If only I had a penny for every time BB said something like "if you don't see that Jackson not only perfectly captures but also completely exceeds in quality Tolkien , then you obviously don't understand anything about what Tolkien is REALLY about*"...



Note: This is a dramatization.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But when you use the occasional film flaw to deny the obvious homage Jackson has paid to Tolkien's great work throughout both films, I can't help but question what's really going on here.

How can it be homage, when you have stated that PJ has improved upon Tolkien? Since when is the tribute better than that which it is rendered to?


P. S. Ocassional. Hah.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Re: Authority of the Author: This whole thing is, quite frankly, rather ridiculous, IMO. I mean, if the author says something about his own work, and someone else says, "You don't know anything, you're wrong"; I must be stupid, because this does not seem right to me.

Yes, but I fear that is what Jackson himself said in some electronic and print interviews. He was of the definite opinion that he could tell the story better than Tolkien - and I don't simply mean that he could "translate" it into film better since, of course, that would be expected given that Tolkien was not a screenwriter. What he actually meant was that he knew best how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien himself. And if that ain't hubris, I don't know what is!

If you read the Shippey books, you will see just how much craftsmanship went into LOTR. To simply "change" things in order to give the audience an extra 10 minutes of cyberwarfare is mindless to say the least. Tolkien's story required a great deal of care in translating it to film. There were plenty of opportunities for drama, comedy, action etc. without the need to bring in extraneous plot threads and pointless nonsense. Indeed, there was so much in the story, I cannot think of one "purist" who did not understand the necessity of cutting out the Old Forest-Bombadil-Barrowdowns thread for the sake of time and plot clarity.

So I disagree strongly with all the harangue about the fact that we demanded a word-for-word translation of the book to the screen in order to be satisfied - because it isn't true. We did, however, demand a certain faithfulness to Tolkien's vision and the essential meaning of the tale, both of which were totally ignored by Mr. Jackson and his screenwriters.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But in a debate over such a subjective subject as "Did Jackson capture Tolkien's vision?", critical and commercial success should be worth something. I think there were quite a few Tolkien fans in the theatres. Did they see the movie over and over again and bought the DVD because they misunderstood Tolkien? I think you all have some valid points. But when you use the occasional film flaw to deny the obvious homage Jackson has paid to Tolkien's great work throughout both films, I can't help but question what's really going on here.

I, too, know of many "Tolkien fans" who "love" the films. I also know many who did not. Of those who did, these same people often voiced severe criticism of the films (especially TTT) upon their release, but later after viewing them several times and especially the EE of FOTR, were more satisfied at least with the films as films. However, many people who say that they love the films, reluctantly admit that they are not "Tolkien"- but they love them "anyway". Frankly, I too "liked" the first film (especially the EE version) because it was well made and well scripted. Was it Tolkien? Definitely not! But at least it was an enjoyable film. On the other hand, the second film was painful. It was choppy, badly edited and scripted and full of nonsense. I saw it once and will not buy the DVD until I see ROTK. If that is anything like TTT, I will simply give my daughter my DVD of FOTR and consider the whole thing a loss.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Yes, but I fear that is what Jackson himself said in some electronic and print interviews. He was of the definite opinion that he could tell the story better than Tolkien - and I don't simply mean that he could "translate" it into film better since, of course, that would be expected given that Tolkien was not a screenwriter. What he actually meant was that he knew best how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien himself. And if that ain't hubris, I don't know what is!

-snip-

Indeed, there was so much in the story, I cannot think of one "purist" who did not understand the necessity of cutting out the Old Forest-Bombadil-Barrowdowns thread for the sake of time and plot clarity.

Actually, I was referring to the discussion here. I remember reading in an interview with Jackson where he said (don't remember exact words, but was rather like this: ) "What we've done is we've taken all of the good/important parts, and we've actually enhanced and improved upon them".

Understand, but that doesn't mean I gotta like it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I, too, know of many "Tolkien fans" who "love" the films. I also know many who did not. Of those who did, these same people often voiced severe criticism of the films (especially TTT) upon their release, but later after viewing them several times and especially the EE of FOTR, were more satisfied at least with the films as films. However, many people who say that they love the films, reluctantly admit that they are not "Tolkien"- but they love them "anyway". Frankly, I too "liked" the first film (especially the EE version) because it was well made and well scripted. Was it Tolkien? Definitely not! But at least it was an enjoyable film. On the other hand, the second film was painful. It was choppy, badly edited and scripted and full of nonsense. I saw it once and will not buy the DVD until I see ROTK. If that is anything like TTT, I will simply give my daughter my DVD of FOTR and consider the whole thing a loss.

I liked both of them as films (especially the first, especially the Extended Edition), but feel they failed as adaptations. I'm what I call a "Separatist Purist", which is someone who think the movies were poor adaptations, but is able to enjoy them as a separate work.

I take it that your daughter likes the movies more than you do?

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm not too sure. I know she liked the first one but interestingly enough, when she saw the EE at our house, she kept saying, "Why did he leave that out! It doesn't make sense otherwise!" all through the film! We haven't spoken much about TTT, however and I don't know if she has purchased the DVD or is waiting for the EE of that. She of course, is looking forward to ROTK with less trepidation than I, but then, she's still young and optimistic!

Her husband, on the other hand, loves the films. But then, he's never read the book!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Is the DVD out yet? Thought it was in June...

Yep, that certainly makes sense. I know a few who have never read the book, but loved the movies. One of them has started reading the book (in a half-hearted way...but then again, I think he's a bit half-hearted when it comes to reading in general), and the other says he will after RotK comes out.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Overcoming racial prejudice, and casting aside ancient history:
The mangling of Gimli and Legolas' friendship is to me, one of the most disappointing things that PJ bungled. There is no sense of reparation between these two characters in Fellowship: such that there is a definate absense of the burgening of a new friendship. What we do get is a rather comfusing competition between them at Helm's Deep over how many kills they managed to get, which I guess is the culmination of their friendship. PJ also failed to really bring across how bitter the hatred was between these two races.

The EE-FOTR gave us some wonderful scenes between Gimli and Galadriel and Gimli and Legolas. Also, the focus of TTT was on the friendship between a man, elf, and a dwarf. More specifically, we saw how Legolas came to Gimli's defense against Eomer. Lastly, you are comparing THREE books against TWO films. I have a strong suspicion that the Gimli-Legolas relationship will be expanded upon in the EE-TTT and in ROTK.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
We also have Elrond being openly scornful against 'man-kind', which is ludicrous given that he is half-elven!

I interpreted Elrond's comments as being candid, not scornful. Many posters here have talked about how he "scolded" Gandalf. I've watched their scenes together many many times and I've yet to see it.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The Istari, and the theme of wisdom:
I ask, would Tolkien's Gandalf have managed to attract the scorn of a mere elf (Elrond)? Would he have resorted to Sumo Wrestling with Saruman? Would he have stupidly told Saruman where the ring was? In Tolkien's world, the role of the Istari is clear: they are emissaries sent directly from the Undying Lands to work against Sauron (by guiding the free peoples of Middle Earth.) Their wisdom, and and their knowledge are imcomparable with the other races in middle earth. And yet: we have Elrond openly scorning against Gandalf. How can Gandalf even hope to rouse the peoples of Middle Earth against Sauron, when he can't even get Elrond to trust him?!

We are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. I thought Jackson's/McKellan's Gandalf was wonderful and captured the essence of Tolkien's character. Many posters last year talked of the film Gandalf's "weaknesses." But the reality was that some people here were confusing the wisdom and leadership of Gandalf the White in books II and III with the Gandalf the Grey of the Hobbit and FOTR. Regarding the wizard duel, how do you suppose Gandalf the Grey got to the top of Orthanc in Tolkien's book. It wasn't described but do you think it would have been in character for him to go willingly?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants:
The breaking of the fellowship:
Perhaps one of the more important themes of the book was reduced to mere battles, blood, and gore. ... Frodo's consideration for the other members of the fellowship is lost because they already know about his departure, and aid him in it! And Aragorn's loyalty to Frodo is cut, with him instead chosing to let him go alone.

This is one of those times when you've got to avoid the temptation to freak out about the changes from the book. If you can step away from your literal thinking about the breaking of the fellowship and think about what this version is communicating, you will see the beautiful way that Jackson has used it to ENHANCE Tolkien's own themes of selfless friendship and the importance of different races coming together for the good of all.

In the book, the focus of the breaking of the fellowship is exclusively on Frodo screwing himself up to leave the others and make a go of it alone. In the film, the early arrival of the uruk-hai allowed the entire fellowship to work as a team to keep the quest of the ringbearer alive. Talk about a powerful illustration of key themes! Speaking for myself and the audience members I've seen, people were very moved by the way every member of the team (except Boromir) helps the Ringbearer--and even Boromir redeems himself by coming to the aid of Merry & Pippin in the end.

So do these "deviations" weaken Frodo's character? Absolutely not! As far as anyone in the fellowship knew (with the exception of Aragorn), they would be joining Frodo again as soon as they got rid of the orcs. But Frodo screwed himself up and decided to go it alone. It was the most moving moment in the films thus far. True bravery isn't the absence of fear, it's proceeding when you're scared to death. The audience identified with Frodo at that moment and he instantly became the emotional "everyman" for the films that Tolkien created for the books. This was one of THE key underpinnings of the books. If Jackson doesn't create Tolkien's everyman (as the animated versions clearly failed to do), the series doesn't succeed on the most fundamental level.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...If you can step away from your literal thinking...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.