Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, Celebreiel, I've often wondered that. There are a number of people on this site who feel that the movies quite adequately portrayed Tolkien's work. But none of them are as rude, militaristic, and patronising about it as Black Breathelizer. Most of them understand that we are not idiots because we disagree.

My point was that if BB could just go around treating us the way he does and ignoring many of the points we make, why should we have to answer what everyone says? The childish behaviour comes rather from the one who day and night sings praises to Peter Jackson, and yet ignores many of the points made about flaws in his work, in my opinion.

[Elfhelm]

Rag, if you look you'll see Iron Parrot and Gwaimir both have massive post numbers. I've only been here a year and I know that Iron Parrot understands when another long standing member is being sarcastic.

But Iron Parrot, many of us are bothered not so much by a couple changes for cinematic simplicity or cuts because it doesn't all fit, but by characterization changes. You seem to say it's a tautology to object to characterization changes simply because they are changes. But in fiction and drama, according to every theorist since Aristotle, character is central to the story. So if I object to a cheery not being red on the grounds that a cherry is supposed to be red, you may call that a tautology all you wish but the fact remains, it's supposed to be red. And Gimli is supposed to be a respectable person, not a fall guy.

And the difference between the brothers Boromir and Faramir is really important. Boromir is just a traditional Beowulf-like guy who faces everything straight on and he's not equipped to deal with the moral dilemmas the One Ring forces on him. Boromir has courage but not wisdom. Faramir on the other hand, would like to be like Boromir, but he isn't and never will be because he loves the old scrolls and spends so much time learning from history. He is supposed to be so respectful of Gandalf, having helped him research the One Ring already, that when the hobbits say they are on a quest and Gandalf sent them and they think he's dead, he immediately helps them. He knows what the One Ring is already. He knows it must be destroyed. And by now Sam and Frodo are practically lost, but from Faramir they get help, friendship, food, and a new sense of hope. But the writers of the script made Faramir so dark and gloomy that I don't even like him anymore.

Poor Eowyn - is this the boring creep she has to look forward to spending her life with?

Because unless things change, I am now hoping that PJ will change that, too.

[Elfhelm]

I just want to officially object to Peter Jackson's obesity being continually brought up when disagreeing with him. It really detracts from your arguments if you show yourself to be so heartless.

I think the movies are beautiful (for the record).

[Ragnarok]

I think most people have seen Meet the Parents, anyways

Its just a movie focker.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I just want to officially object to Peter Jackson's obesity being continually brought up when disagreeing with him. It really detracts from your arguments if you show yourself to be so heartless.

I think the movies are beautiful (for the record).

Yes, you're right, that was uncalled for. I want to officially retract that. Though I don't think "continually" is really accurate. But it was cruel, and I shouldn't have done it.

Do you mean beautiful as movies, or beautiful as adaptations, or both?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

For the record, I editted out the rude comment, as a step beyond retraction, and would like to officially apologise.

[Entlover]

Before we get too bent out of shape over PJ's alterations, let's recall that we've only seen 2/3 of the movie(s).

It's possible that Faramir will redeem himself in RotK, that Frodo will show enough backbone to keep everyone happy (he'd better if he's going to make it to the Cracks of Doom), that Arwen will keep her clothes on and stay out of people's way, that Shelob will be so cool we'll forget all our differences in sheer terror and admiration.

Or maybe not. But as Tolkien knew well, civilized people can disagree without getting personal about it. Waste of time.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
BB, will you please say something about the point I have made many times about the Elves at Helms Deep destroying the whole fading-of-the-Elves business? And maybe stop repeating yourself and counter our points? If you do not, I will be forced to listen to my growing suspicion that you are merely out to cause trouble, and not actually debate.

If you are genuinely interested in a debate with me and not out to cause trouble, perhaps you should rethink your approach. Calling Jackson's elves a "bunch of armoured, walking-in-unison idiots" in your counterpoint makes you come off sounding juvenile at best.

If you were paying attention to what the movie was saying rather than freaking out over the appearance of the elves, you would have understood that it perfectly folded into Tolkien's grand themes, particularly given the screenwriters need to streamline this part of the plot.

Elrond has made it clear that the battle for Middle-Earth is no longer the elves' affair. Yet after telling Arwen there is no hope, he responds to her passionate reply. After consulting with Galadriel, Elrond decides to assist Rohan, despite his misgivings. (No doubt this will be expanded in the Extended DVD.) This was the movie trilogy's "last hurrah" for the elves of Middle-Earth and their selfless support of mankind allowed Helm's Deep to hold out long enough for Gandalf and Eomer to show up.

It worked in the movie in large part because the elves ARE fading away and their appearance at Helm's Deep didn't alter or deemphasize that fact. On the other hand, their appearance allowed Jackson to reemphasize one of Tolkien's most important themes.

[Black Breathalizer]

One more thing:

Originally posted by Elf Girl
As for themes, what about the fading of the Elves? If he must focus so much on Men, then he could at least show how much Elves are giving way to them as "race of glory". But no, he was doing a great job when suddenly a bunch of armoured, walking-in-unison idiots who call themselves Elves, not to mention Haldir, show up to save Helms Deep.

(Note - the bold emphasis in the above quote was added by me.)

I would say ESPECIALLY Haldir. Haldir gave the audience someone to care about within the squadron of archers who came to Helm's Deep. Because of this, Haldir's death emphasized to the audience the ultimate sacrifice that these immortals were making to save Mankind.

[Elf Girl]

Hey, I am a juvenile.

As for an actual debate, after considering your post, I think the Elves (at Helms Deep) would have been a nice touch- had they not looked like they were saving the day. If, perhaps, Theoden had had more troops, and the Elves were merely a token of "We do care what happens to you", it would have made more sense. (It also kind of messes up the phrase "Last Alliance", but that is beside the point.)

I have also been thinking that perhaps it is necessary to simplify some aspects of LotR as Jackson did. It is quite possible to simplify at least some of Tolkien's themes into the movies, and Jackson has done so. However, not all of the public is going to think it out as far as you have, BB. So why should Jackson, except thinking, "Hmm, I need Elves in the plot, I need Arwen in the plot, I need Elrond to hate Aragorn... Let's have Arwen get Elrond to send Elves to save Aragorn!"

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Hey, I am a juvenile.

That was a GREAT comeback, Elf Girl!

One teensie weensie point - The so-called Last Alliance of Men and Elves wasn't the absolute last alliance of men and elves at war in Tolkien's books either.

[Black Breathalizer]

Here's another great example of a small change that enhanced Tolkien's "selflessness of true friendship" theme:

In the FOTR, after Gandalf causes the Balrog to fall in the mines of Moria, the creature flicks his firey whip and grabs the old wizard by the ankle.

In the book, the Balrog pulled Gandalf down with him. In the movie, Gandalf is thrown over the edge but is freed from the clutches of the whip and is left weakly hanging on the edge of the broken bridge. At the time, many posters here were upset about why Peter Jackson chose to give us a shot of Gandalf's face as he looks at Frodo before (it seemed) giving up and falling to his death rather than strictly following Tolkien's text.

It is clear now why he did it. If PJ had followed Tolkien's text, it would have been the Balrog who determined the wizard would fight him to the death. Instead, PJ has Gandalf making that key decision.

After seeing Gandalf dive down to regain his sword and then launch an attack on the Balrog, the poignant shot of Gandalf's face looking at Frodo before he releases his grip on the bridge has a powerful new meaning for the audience. Gandalf realizes that a fall from the bridge will not kill a powerful being like a Balrog. After his fall, he knew the enraged creature would continue to pursue them. So Gandalf's look at Frodo and his "Fly, you fools" line before letting go is a key moment in the movie where the old wizard realizes he must sacrifice himself if the ringbearer is to make it safely away from the mountains.

It could be argued, that in this instance, Jackson was more faithful to Tolkien's themes than the author was himself.

[IronParrot]

Elfhelm:

"But Iron Parrot, many of us are bothered not so much by a couple changes for cinematic simplicity or cuts because it doesn't all fit, but by characterization changes. You seem to say it's a tautology to object to characterization changes simply because they are changes. But in fiction and drama, according to every theorist since Aristotle, character is central to the story. So if I object to a cheery not being red on the grounds that a cherry is supposed to be red, you may call that a tautology all you wish but the fact remains, it's supposed to be red. And Gimli is supposed to be a respectable person, not a fall guy."

Of course character is central to the story. But who dictates that Gimli is "supposed" to be respectable? (Which he is... I maintain that his occasional comic buffoonery does not detract from the fact that he is still mighty in battle and represents the dwarves nobly in his dedication to the Fellowship. Besides, his lightheartedness is something taken straight from the book - Gimli and Legolas comparing their kills comes to mind. As for him falling over on the odd occasion, you can't argue with the fact that dwarves just aren't built like elves.)

I'm going off on a tangent here. Back to the question: who dictates that characters are "supposed" to be a certain way? Well, just the book. Clearly, this sort of argument isn't discussing the specifics at all from a logistical standpoint, but is rather prejudicially attacking them based on the fact that they are different.

That's like saying that the Nazis in The Sound of Music weren't mean enough, so therefore, the film's not true to history and should be completely disregarded. Or that William Wallace was more of a rogue terrorist than a laudable freedom fighter, so suddenly all one hundred and seventy-nine minutes of Braveheart is trash. It reminds me of all the arguments I've read that Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ is the toilet-fodder defecation of cinema because it doesn't follow the Bible. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't hold up. The film has to be analyzed - and analyzable - on a standalone basis, first and foremost.

My point is: You can't hold to Tolkien's writings letter by letter as if it were absolute indisputable truth, and that everything else is "wrong". As I've already pointed out before (though everybody ignored it, perhaps because I'm right): Tolkien's fundamental approach to The Lord of the Rings was one of rediscovering a lost mythical past by way of extrapolation.

Peter Jackson's approach to the material is exactly the same. It is not so much based on the English translation of the Red Book of Westmarch as it is based on the "historical" events of the War of the Ring and the Downfall of the Lord of the Rings.

Watch the DVD interviews. On many occasions, the likes of Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens and Richard Taylor cite that the perspective of the films is that these events really happened. That is the same approach Tolkien took, and this is something you can tell from right within the book itself: The Lord of the Rings is self-referential. Tolkien pretended he took what Bilbo, Frodo and Sam wrote - a historical document from the perspective of the Shire - and brought it into our present consciousness. I would very firmly argue that Jackson did the exact same thing.

And as with any legendary epic worth mentioning, both historical and literary, therein lies interpretation. Maybe T.E. Lawrence wasn't supposed to be an egotist struggling with the fruits of fame. Maybe Robin Hood wasn't supposed to be such a valiant defender of peace and justice and all that Richard the Lionhearted was supposed to stand for. Maybe the Artful Dodger wasn't supposed to sing "Consider Yourself", which I think is a really catchy song. Maybe Spartacus is suddenly a worthless movie because the title character didn't really have a surviving son, and Crassus wasn't actually gay. (I don't know this for a fact.)

The film was not meant to be, and absolutely should not be, a cinematic edition of "Books on Tape". (Apparently, some of you disagree.)

Once again, the "it differs from Tolkien, so it's bad" argument does not stand. You can't take every account or adaptation of the Trojan War and say, "that's not how Homer envisioned Achilles, Priam, Hector and Paris." Saying this about The Lord of the Rings is just as absurd.

[IronParrot]

Elfhelm (continued):

And the difference between the brothers Boromir and Faramir is really important. Boromir is just a traditional Beowulf-like guy who faces everything straight on and he's not equipped to deal with the moral dilemmas the One Ring forces on him. Boromir has courage but not wisdom. Faramir on the other hand, would like to be like Boromir, but he isn't and never will be because he loves the old scrolls and spends so much time learning from history. He is supposed to be so respectful of Gandalf, having helped him research the One Ring already, that when the hobbits say they are on a quest and Gandalf sent them and they think he's dead, he immediately helps them. He knows what the One Ring is already. He knows it must be destroyed. And by now Sam and Frodo are practically lost, but from Faramir they get help, friendship, food, and a new sense of hope. But the writers of the script made Faramir so dark and gloomy that I don't even like him anymore.

At times like this, I'm not even going to bother writing up a full response. I might as well quote myself from another thread. I wrote this the day after the film was released:

Well, now that I saw the film a second time, I understood the changes with Faramir far more.

Upon reflection, he is still the same character as Tolkien's Faramir - and before you rope me my the neck and drag me through the Emyn Muil, let me explain why.

In Tolkien's work, why is Faramir so resistant to the Ring? Well, it's certainly in his character that he is less ambitious than his brother, and is the neglected younger son in many ways. But his concern for the defense of Gondor is no different.

In the film, what Jackson/Walsh/Boyens changed was not Faramir's fundamental personality, but rather the information he had.

I would argue that a major reason why Faramir allowed Frodo to go in the book was because he was well aware of the nature of Boromir's death. He knew that it had something to do with "Isildur's Bane", and that there was dissension in the Fellowship.

He doesn't know any of this. In the film, he lets Frodo go right after two critical moments: first, Sam tells him of Boromir's fall - and second, he sees how the Ring draws evil when the airborne Nazgul confronts Frodo. He witnesses firsthand the power of the Ring, but prior to that, did not know of its power to corrupt, and its utter inability to do good.

In the book, he knows all of this early enough to make a firm, early decision to forsake the Ring.

Also notice that Faramir does not take the Ring. He still resists, but in his desire for the defense of Gondor, he plans to bear it as a gift to his father.

Also notice that while the attack on Osgiliath and Faramir's retreat over the river is a passing "background" event in ROTK, the threat from the East is clearly established in the film. In the film, Faramir has the additional motive of coming to Gondor's defense; such urgency, and the nature of what he does after he leaves Frodo, is not mentioned until far later in the book.

I would dare say that Tolkien's Faramir would have done exactly the same thing - resist taking the Ring for himself, but take the Ring to Gondor - had he possessed the knowledge of the preliminary assault on Osgiliath, and lacked the knowledge of the nature of Boromir's fall.

What you are seeing in both versions is the same character, just under completely different circumstances that necessitate completely different reactions.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I have also been thinking that perhaps it is necessary to simplify some aspects of LotR as Jackson did. It is quite possible to simplify at least some of Tolkien's themes into the movies, and Jackson has done so. However, not all of the public is going to think it out as far as you have, BB.

I disagree. I believe most people understood it, particularly people unfamiliar with the books. On the other end of the spectrum, most book purists were probably too busy reacting to the change to appreciate its meaning.

I do appreciate your posts, Elf Girl. You are a worthy opponent.

[Elf Girl]

Hahah! I'm a worthy opponent!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That was a GREAT comeback, Elf Girl!

Wasn't it, though?

Since my parents ar only letting me on the computer for 10 more minutes today, I am answering one point only. More tomorrow, I promise.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would say ESPECIALLY Haldir. Haldir gave the audience someone to care about within the squadron of archers who came to Helm's Deep. Because of this, Haldir's death emphasized to the audience the ultimate sacrifice that these immortals were making to save Mankind.

I would rather expect that the vast majority of the audience had no idea who Haldir is, let alone why Aragorn is hugging him. What they are probably thinking:

"Who's that ugly guy with the dark, dark, eyebrows and the light, light, hair? And the squashed looking face?"

People at my school have described Haldir with all of those.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Blackbreathalizer and Iron Parrot what planet are you guys on?

You are trying to argue that the film is true to Tolkien's vision when the man himself is on the record blasting Zimmerman for EXACTLY THE SAME changes Jackson made to the narrative. Tolkien even specificly implies in the letter that Zimmerman doesn't understand the core of the tale if he is proposing these changes. I guess you can both continue these moronic claims that "Jackson truely understands Tolkien" (which by default has to mean that Tolkien doesn't truely understand Tolkien) if you wish but you are reaching new depths of stupidity here.

Just because Tolkien liked to answer fan mail questions and discuss his story as though it was real doesn't change the fact that the story is fiction and he is it's author- and changing the story is changing the story. (Tolkien does discuss writing the tale at great length in some letters even going into parts that were difficult for him and what he was thinking when writing certain passages, so this whole "the story is history" angle is nonsense as it relates to character and plot changes).

I would pay money to see someone try to tell Tolkien that there is no absolute truth with respect to his characters and therefore they can be modified. I would love to see the look on Tolkien's face when Aragorn tells Elrond "I have never wanted to be king" Read some of his responses to readers who proposed alterations to his characters or questioned their choices Iron Parrot and your thesis is dead. He blasted Zimmerman for making ONE joke at the expense of the hobbits in his screenplay and it was no where near the level of some of the stuff in the film. Tolkien never responded favourably to a change made to his characters by someone else. You either used what he wrote or you left it out, that is clear from letters.

Helm's deep is perhaps the best single example of Jackson not at all being in accord with Tolkien. Jackson expanded the 11 page battle into 1/3 of the second film while Tolkien suggested to Zimmerman that he should leave it out if he didn't have enough time because battles can get boring and there is a bigger one in ROTK anyway.

The question here is not are these good films (which is subjective) the question is do they adhere to "Tolkien's vision" The author has said no; what is left to discuss?

"It could be argued that Jackson was more faithful to Tolkien's themes than the author himself"

What is this the twilight zone?

[Melko Belcha]

Iron Parrot and BB need to listen to squinteyedsoutherner, like he said, Tolkien has already stated that the movies are not his vision, and he did it 40 years before PJ even began the movie. Take the time to read Letters and get some insight into who Tolkien is, because I can tell you have no idea who Tolkien is.

[IronParrot]

This is going to be split over several messages. Stupid post length limit.

squinteyedsoutherner, you make some very good points, so I'll actively not ignore you.

"You are trying to argue that the film is true to Tolkien's vision when the man himself is on the record blasting Zimmerman for EXACTLY THE SAME changes Jackson made to the narrative. Tolkien even specificly implies in the letter that Zimmerman doesn't understand the core of the tale if he is proposing these changes. I guess you can both continue these moronic claims that "Jackson truely understands Tolkien" (which by default has to mean that Tolkien doesn't truely understand Tolkien) if you wish but you are reaching new depths of stupidity here."

Now, I'm not going to go quite as far as BB and claim that Jackson was truer to Tolkien than Tolkien himself. I'm not going to use contentious terms like "Tolkien's vision" because after three years of being here, I don't think there's a single person on this bulletin board who is qualified to define those words. (Michael Martinez, if you read this, don't grill me out for it. )

However, what I will say is this: it doesn't matter what Tolkien thinks of those changes. Certainly he understands his own creation better than anyone. Certainly he is the only one who has a clear idea of his personal vision.

Now, while I think that Tolkien was an indisputable genius, and that his writing is simply superb in many ways that could never be captured on film - the non-linear flow of Books III to V come to mind, as a pinnacle of literary structure in the English language - from everything I have read, Tolkien knows nothing about filmmaking.

Tolkien may know writing and language better than pretty much everybody else you can name, past or present. However, he was not into film at all, and had at best a layman's understanding of the movie-making process.

His reaction to anybody "modifying" the work is of course going to be negative. It's based on a natural sense of possession of his own rightful creation. There are indeed some authors who will claim that the movie adaptations were better than their actual works, but Tolkien wasn't one of them, simply because... he... doesn't... like... movies.

I will in fact quote #210, apparently everybody's favourite source for this kind of thing, and demonstrate my point.

"the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration and the intrusion of unwanted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies"
- Tolkien

This is the primary assumption that falls. I'd have a more comprehensive thing to say if Tolkien actually cited examples of what he saw as poor films (The Wizard of Oz being the litmus test at the time he wrote this). So I'm not going to address his flawed assumption that "unwanted matter" - in a word, changes - are the root of all evil.

The canons of narrative art in differing media are vastly different. Tolkien was a scholar of languages, not a scholar of cinema. Allow me to point out some ways that film is completely different from literature:

- Control of time. Film has a certain need for consistent pacing, a tight timeframe and at least some sense of linearity (even in the case of backwards-forwards-upside-down films like Memento, which didn't exist back then). You can't push and pull with film like you can with literature. The first two chapters of The Lord of the Rings takes longer than the rest of the book, and the last chapter spans year after year after year as well. You can't do this in film.

As you read this you probably want to quote Tolkien again:

"Gandalf does not say they should leave as soon as they can pack, 2 months elapse. The elapse of time should be indicated, if by no other means than the change to winter in the scenery and the trees"

And:

"Seasons are carefully regarded in the original and should be the means by which the artists indicate the passage of time"

Not so easy. Tolkien himself created environments so lush and diverse that at times, you can't tell which season is which: you know it's winter because there's snow all over the Misty Mountains, but can you tell the passage of time when you're in a seasonless place like Lothlorien? (Of course not. Neither could the characters.)

For all you know, in many of these cases, the change in time is present in the film - just in an implicit way. We don't really know how long they spent in Lothlorien, even though we only "see" one night, and time really flies there. We don't know how long it took for Gandalf to ride to Minas Tirith and back, or for Gollum to be interrogated and the Black Riders to leave Minas Morgul. Just because we're not explicitly told doesn't mean it was an instantaneous thing.

[IronParrot]

In the specific example of Gandalf's stay in the Shire, the gap is from April to June. Ooh, that's a big difference in the trees.

The gap between Gandalf's and Frodo's departures is a better example to work with: Spring green to autumn yellow, right? Again, not so easy. Film (and even still photography) is a language of its own in terms of the use of colour. The cinematography in the film tells a story of its own: you start out in the lush greenery of the Shire, but as you proceed onwards, by the end of TTT everything is less contrasty, less green, more saturated and more earthly. In pictures, oranges and reds are fiery colours associated with the industrialization of Isengard and the flames of Mordor. The film is extremely consistent about this: I watched both FOTR and TTT again today and the significance of colour cannot be understated. Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie very obviously recognized this. (See interviews.)

There's also the logistical bit with sets, but as we all know, digital colour timing can do anything. I speak from experience.

And what about other time changes? What about the huge gap between the 111st birthday and when Frodo actually leaves? Those are a huge problem in particular. And you can't just use "X years later" text arbitrarily - in fact, it's usually a bad idea to use it at all. (See Bicentennial Man for a textbook example of why not to do this.) In film, it's a cheat device. It's a cop-out of narrative storytelling. In a book, it works perfectly because words alone can twist time and space in as many dimensions as the author wants. Tolkien's own grasp of structure, if put into abstract terms, would probably confound students of higher-order mathematics. In film, achieving this level is not even possible.

One of the changes from FOTR Theatrical to FOTR Extended that I thought was commendable was the removal of that tacky "The Shire... 60 Years Later" thing. That detracted from the original product, and the flow works remarkably better in the Extended version.

Tolkien said:

"Strider does not whip out a sword (on Weathertop) his sword was broken. Why then make him do so here in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons"

Maybe this is best left until we've seen Narsil/Anduril reforged, so we have some kind of clue as to why it's been put off until ROTK: but my temporary response to this is that in film, everything has to be built on visual dynamism. That's why they're called "moving pictures": they MOVE! Now, Tolkien had a very keen visual sense, but much of the tension-release dynamic he creates with his writing - particularly in defining setting and mood - is one example of where "a picture is worth a thousand words" most definitely applies, in the sense that a single frame can capture a lot of what he writes.

Visual dynamism implies visual variety. Otherwise, it's boring. Strider still wards off the Nazgul by way of flaming brands, in case nobody noticed. His sword is broken, but unlike the book, the film doesn't have time to explain why he doesn't just carry another one (regardless of whether Narsil is in Rivendell or in his pocket). That kind of thing raises questions, and sticking to the book is no excuse for discontinuity.