What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Jon S.]

Thanks for your response, Curufin - this is perhaps a good time to reemphasize explicitly what we would hope would be implicitly obvious that discussions like these are intended in a positive spirit of further enjoying Tolkien's works and being exposed to new and alternate viewpoints on them. You have been really cool throughout this thread in that respect, thanks again for it.

Now back to the substance.

A bit part of our differing viewpoints concerning the book and films, it seems to me, is that you interpret many changes in the movies as "drastically altering what Tolkien meant to express" that, to me, do not at all affect a drastic alteration.

Faramir is a perfect example. I agree with the author of the piece I referenced earlier that Faramir's essential nature did not change materially between the movie and the book. Rather, what changed were various circumstantial facts to which Faramir reacted. To me, those changes are in no way "drastic" relative to Tolkien's basic themes. What they are is cinematic.

Likewise with the Elves joining in at Helms Deep. To you, that change eviscerated your interpretation of that battle, as best as I can construe it from your posts here, as a or the defining moment when men assumed their ascendancy in ME and established their independence from the need for inter-racial alliances to defend themselves.

That's fine, if you want to interpret it that way. If everyone bet on the same horse, there wouldn't be horse races. Nor Entmoot threads. And both racing and forums would be the poorer for it.

But for me, I just don't buy your interpretation of Helms Deep. To me, a key theme of the LOTR book was, and will always be, to emphasize the good in when people of different races bury old emnities and join together, based on common values, to oppose evil.

That was a key theme of the decision at the council at Rivendell to establish the company of 9. It was a key theme in Tolkien describing elsewhere how dwarves, elves, and men all fought against Sauron and his forces in their own lands. This theme, to me, was buttressed, not undercut, when the elves arrived, in the movie, at Helms Deep.

It was also cool as s-! In fact, when I saw the movie (twice), the elves arrival got the biggest audience reaction in the entire film. Be honest now - it was the same when you saw the film too, wasn't it? That's because, whatever else one may say about PJ, the man knows how to make a movie.

There were numerous other references and scenes in the films that served, independent of Helms Deep, to reinforce the notion that the end of Sauron and the Ring meant the ascendancy of the race of man. This is why I repeat, for me, the glass is half full on the change there. I appreciate that, for you, the arrival of men at Helms Deep apparently negated the impact of these references and scenes.

Different strokes for different folks.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Well, I won't now, as they're thousands of miles away and I'm knackered.

But yes, there are comments and notes written by Tolkien in The Histories of Middle Earth volumes as well as letters that can be found in Letters (shockingly ) that can give us a pretty good idea of Tolkien's intentions.

See, I'm a textualist in this regard. And, personally, I'm not at all concerned with 'intent', particularly literary intent. Get it on the page or leave it alone.

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Not only that but the text itself, the context if you will, is hardly ambiguous about the motivations of the characters and the points that are being made.

Here's one of the places we disagree. I think the text is highly ambiguous as to the characters' motivations. That's a strength of it. The reader inserts motivations that make sense to her or him.

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Thanks for your response, Curufin - this is perhaps a good time to reemphasize explicitly what we would hope would be implicitly obvious anyway that discussions like these are intended in a positive spirit of further enjoying Tolkien's works and being exposed to new and alternate viewpoints on them. You have been really cool throughout this thread in that respect, thanks again for it.

Well, thank you. I hope I don't come across as some vicious movie-hating Nazgúl.

Faramir is a perfect example. I agree with the author of the piece I referenced earlier that Faramir's essential nature did not change materially between the movie and the book. Rather, what changed were various circumstantial facts to which Faramir reacted. To me, those changes are in no way "drastic" relative to Tolkien's basic themes. What they are is cinematic.

And I have no problem with making the movie cinematic. I've directed both for the stage, and amateur film, and I understand that translating into another media necessitates changes. But I think that Faramir's essential nature did change. He was tempted by the ring, after all.

`What in truth this Thing is I cannot yet guess; but some heirloom of power and peril it must be. A fell weapon, perchance, devised by the Dark Lord. If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle. I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it. Alas that ever he went on that errand! I should have been chosen by my father and the elders but he put himself forward, as being the older and the hardier (both true), and he would not be stayed.
'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No. I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'

From 'The Window on the West.' That doesn't sound like the Faramir in the movie to me...

But whatever freaks your peaches.

Likewise with the Elves joining in at Helms Deep. To you, that change eviscerated your interpretation of that battle, as best as I can construe it from your posts here, as a or the defining moment when men assumed their ascendancy in ME and established their independence from the need for inter-racial alliances to defend themselves...But for me, I just don't buy your interpretation of Helms Deep at all. To me, a key theme of the LOTR book was, and will always be, to emphasize the good in when people of different races bury old emnities and join together, based on common values, to oppose evil.

See, I don't see this as a theme of Lord of the Rings. Well, maybe a minor theme, but not a major one. I guess I'm also looking at it as the final part of The Silmarillion. After the Lord of the Rings, the part of the Elves in Middle-earth is over. In the years soon following LotR, the remaining Elves sail west. They are convinced by the victory of men in the War of the Ring (including Helm's deep) that the time of the elves is over (to quote the movie), and that the time of men has arrived. Helm's Deep is the beginning of this realization. It is the first major battle that has been won in Middle-earth without the help of the Elves (with the exception of Legolas, of course, but that's a bit of a special case) in the entire history of Middle-earth. And it rankles me that PJ felt the need to change this. And isn't it pretty obvious that 'the Last Alliance' was supposed to be 'the Last Alliance'?

It was also cool as s-. In fact, when I saw the movie (twice), the elves arrival got the biggest audience reaction in the entire film and, if your going to be honest, it did when you saw the film too, didn't it? That's because you may like prefer PJ, given a choice, but the man flat out knows how to make a movie.

No, sorry, I didn't. I was horrified by this the first time I saw the film, and continued to be. Likewise with Faramir. And I disagree with the last statement there as well. He may know how to manipulate emotion, but that's not necessarily the mark of a good movie-maker.

There were numerous other references and scenes in the films that served, independent of Helms Deep, to reinforce the notion that the end of Sauron and the Ring meant the ascendancy of the race of man. This is why I repeat, for me, the glass is half full on the change there. For you, the arrival of men at Helms Deep apparently negated the impact of these references and scenes.

Well, it certainly negated the purpose of Helm's Deep. Heck, he could have just skipped it and had another Warg Attack.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

See, I don't see this as a theme of Lord of the Rings. Well, maybe a minor theme, but not a major one. I guess I'm also looking at it as the final part of The Silmarillion. After the Lord of the Rings, the part of the Elves in Middle-earth is over. In the years soon following LotR, the remaining Elves sail west. They are convinced by the victory of men in the War of the Ring (including Helm's deep) that the time of the elves is over (to quote the movie), and that the time of men has arrived. Helm's Deep is the beginning of this realization. It is the first major battle that has been won in Middle-earth without the help of the Elves (with the exception of Legolas, of course, but that's a bit of a special case) in the entire history of Middle-earth. And it rankles me that PJ felt the need to change this. And isn't it pretty obvious that 'the Last Alliance' was supposed to be 'the Last Alliance'?

As "The War to End All Wars" was supposed to be that?
Encyclopedia Brown had a mystery once where the answer was revealed because someone supposedly contemporaneous said "the First Battle of Bull Run."

"The final part of the Silmarillion."

*sigh*

Well, it certainly negated the purpose of Helm's Deep. Heck, he could have just skipped it and had another Warg Attack.

Swell costumes on those elven warriors, though. *ducks, giggling madly*
Maybe the purpose of Helm's Deep in PJ's universe, was to show Theoden's wounds were deep, and have Gandalf fly in so nicely. And the elves left in, because so much eleven stuff had been removed. where's my shrug smilie?...

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Curufin

But whatever freaks your peaches.

Excellent - thanks for the new expression!

Bet you didn't know many view the biblical Song of Songs as the original source (though undoubtedly the psalmist, too, heard it from someone else) for the expression, "Really like your peaches want to shake your tree."

"Your stature is like a palm-tree .. I will climb up into the palm-tree and take hold of the branches." [redacted]

P.S. The quote you post of Faramir from the book, it sounds quite like the Faramir of the movie, only after the Osgilliath incident which, of course, is my point.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You're just difficult, Jon S.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

See, I'm a textualist in this regard. And, personally, I'm not at all concerned with 'intent', particularly literary intent. Get it on the page or leave it alone. Here's one of the places we disagree. I think the text is highly ambiguous as to the characters' motivations. That's a strength of it. The reader inserts motivations that make sense to her or him.

Are you speaking of texts in general or specifically LotR?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Are you speaking of texts in general or specifically LotR?

In no particular order, lol :

I evaluate LOTR the movie in the context of LOTR the text.

I see LOTR in a formalist way. If it's not in the text, I don't add it in.

This is for evaluation. As a person, I'm more interested in the potential for interpretation, but I consider that a separate activity. You can say "Gandalf reminds me of my grandfather, he was awesome" in relating to the text. But to say "Gandalf is intended to be the greatest of the Maiar" is begging the question, imo. It's a resort to authority and extra-textual.

[Curufin]

*sigh*

Well, it is.

Jon,

But that wasn't supposed to be Faramir after he had some silly "change-of-heart" after seeing Frodo offer a ring to a Nazgul (or whatever he did, I've only seen that movie a couple of times). That was supposed to be how Faramir was, without prodding.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Curufin

But that wasn't supposed to be Faramir after he had some silly "change-of-heart" after seeing Frodo offer a ring to a Nazgul (or whatever he did, I've only seen that movie a couple of times). That was supposed to be how Faramir was, without prodding.

Right. And you don't really need to read Tolkien's letters to feel that Faramir was dear to Tolkien's heart. It is right there in the text. Faramir is probably the least flawed character of all, the least selfish - so why insert all this crap about him, why isert all these flaws?

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Because of PJ, Boyens, and Walsh's views of Men in general. It was stated several times in the movies from beginning to end. Opening narration: "The hearts of Men are easily corrupted." Elrond: "Men are weak." Aragorn about the Ring: "We can't wield it. No one can." None of these views of men were Tolkien's view, and this is just a small sampling of quotes, nevermind all the other "Elves and Ghosts bail out Men" scenes throughout the movies.

[Jon S.]

This is my take on the situation and it's based entirely on intra-"cannon" sources (I know I've posted on this before but bear with me one more time).

1. The LOTR is expressly based on The Red Book of Westmarch.

2. The Red Book of Westmarch was written by hobbits

3. The hobbits idealized Faramir.

4. The people who write the history control what's in it.

5. The hobbits were motivated, in their version of history, to present Faramir super-nobly and to white-wash any indecision and foibles.

6. The "reality" (such as it is) was different.

7. How different and in what ways is objectively unknown.

8. Just as who rights history gets to control what's in it, who interprets history also controls what's in his own interpretation.

9. PJ interpreted the "history" of Faramir's encounter with the Ring differently from the hobbits who wrote the Red Book of Westmarch and, hence, from the LOTR book.

10. PJ's interpretation is reasonable.

11. People who judge interpretations get to choose their own judgments.

12. You judge the LOTR version to be "better," I the film version (actually, I judge them both equally wonderful BUT I find the PJ version more believable and hence more real.)

Tolkien can say whatever he wants in his letters about Faramir. It's information to consider but not binding in terms of "cannon."

[Jon S.]

Where is Olmert when I need him? He'd probably say we're all wrong and that what really happened was Gandalf put a spell on Faramir to mellow him out about the ring so Elrond and he could continue their enjoyable, never-ending hobbit manipulation.

[Curufin]

You judge the LOTR version to be "better," I the film version (actually, I judge them both equally wonderful BUT I find the PJ version more believable and hence more real.)

You're joking, right?

Because if not, I have to say I'm rather shocked and appalled.

And that I'm not sure what else to say in my state of extreme shock.

[Jon S.]

Well, I did have my OMG moment in earlier in response to you so you're entitled to your shock and may you enjoy it.

Look, seriously, this is not a shock situation. You prefer a more romantic/certain/idealized Faramir, I a more ambiguous/uncertain/imperfect one. Think carefully for a moment as to why you would choose to react with, of all things, shock to this simple, easily articulated difference taste in fiction!

P.S. The above being the case, let's make sure we never discuss something more serious like the Four Gospels (I take their authors about as literally about Jesus as I do Tolkien about Faramir).

[Curufin]

Look, seriously, this is not a shock situation. You prefer a more romantic/certain/idealized Faramir, I a more ambiguous/uncertain/imperfect one.

No, I prefer Tolkien's Faramir. The character as he is supposed to be. The character as he was created.

Think carefully for a moment as to why you would choose to react with, of all things, shock to this simple, easily articulated difference taste in fiction!

I don't have to think - I know. I can't conceive of someone liking PJ's rape of a character better than Tolkien's general conception. But that's just me.

P.S. The above being the case, let's make sure we never discuss something more serious like the Four Gospels (I take their authors about as literally about Jesus as I do Tolkien about Faramir).

*shrugs* I'm Pagan, so I couldn't care less about the bible.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

hum.

*wonders if a person's selection of which Tolkien character was 'suitable' in idealized version corresponds to any other testing instrument for moral compass*

Another thesis paper, darnit.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I don't have to think - I know.

We are indeed different( myself, I have to think to know, I find the latter quite difficult sans the former).

I understand your POV. And I understand and enjoy both Faramir versions, Tolkien's and Jackson's. The latter simply falls within my box and outside yours. These things happen.

[Curufin]

As I said before, whatever freaks your peaches.

We can agree to disagree. It's a healthy thing to be able to do, so let's give ourselves kudos for that.

I think one of my problems is that Faramir is my favorite non-Elven character (which puts him, of course, waaaaaaaaaaay down my list of favorite characters, but still), and I had a very certain way that I wanted to see him portrayed. And I blame PJ completely - I totally have faith that David Wenham could have pulled off Faramir the way he's supposed to be. Wenham's a fantastic actor.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Which reminds me of one positive about the movies: casting. I thought that the cast, in general, was well chosen. Had the direction and screenplay been better, this cast could have pulled off a set of movies I'd have liked more.