What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[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.

[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.

[Curufin]

I agree with you there, DPR. I did like the cast. Especially Ian McKellan, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Karl Urban, David Wenham and Cate Blanchett.

I watched most of Wenham's movies when I heard he was going to be Faramir. I was most impressed. It's not his fault his character got gang-banged by PJ.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Hated Cate in this, not that she had much to do.

[Curufin]

See, I liked her. I didn't think her Galadriel was all just wimpy and beautiful, as she could have been.

Artanis is a tough cookie, and I think Cate played her more that way than could have been done.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

The glowing green part sucked but otherwise, she was wonderful. Moreso in the extended edition. I love the gift giving in both the book and film.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*giggles* for someone who's iffy about this movie, you sure know it backwards and forwards. *friendly poke*

[The Gaffer]

I'm going to commit blasphemy and say that I didn't particularly like McKellen as Gandalf. A bit too cozy somehow. He was OK, but he's been much better in other things. Michael Hordern was a better Gandalf, and that was on the radio. Christopher Lee rocked! And might have been a better Gandalf.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Do you think Gandalf needed that much edge?

I thought Lee's Saruman was marvelous, and would have enjoyed more of it, but I thought the avuncular Gandalf was well suited to LOTR.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm going to commit blasphemy and say that I didn't particularly like McKellen as Gandalf. A bit too cozy somehow. He was OK, but he's been much better in other things. Michael Hordern was a better Gandalf, and that was on the radio. Christopher Lee rocked! And might have been a better Gandalf.

Agreed on all points. I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

[Curubethion]

Jon S.: couldn't agree more, that's actually a view of PJ's movies that I hold as well.

[Curufin]

Agreed on all points. I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

I agree with Sis that Lee had a bit too much edge for Saruman. Of course, maybe he could have tempered it, you never know.

[Jon S.]

I have a question regarding Elrond's character and Weaving playing him. I've heard it said that PJ casted a character more akin to Thingol than Elrond, is that a fair assessment? This, unlike the changes to Faramir, did rankle me. In any event, he certainly did seem to have made a point out of emphasizing it was Galadriel who was the "high elf who gave a damn as to the men who remained."

[The Gaffer]

I would agree with that. However, although his personality was totally different to the book, I thought it was OK. They used the change to convey information about the history of Men and Elves and Aragorn's background.

Unfortunately, his subsequent actions didn't make sense; "oh wait, I was wrong, here have a sword". They should have gone the whole hog and had Arwen re-forge Narsil in secret, then sail the White Ship up the Anduin, with Tom Bombadil at the helm, or something

[Curufin]

I would agree with that. However, although his personality was totally different to the book, I thought it was OK. They used the change to convey information about the history of Men and Elves and Aragorn's background.

I think Elrond was entirely the wrong character with which to do this.

Elrond and Elros were the culmination all three races - Maiar, Eldar and Edain. Not only does it seem wrong that Elrond would write off the glory of men (being the descendent of both Beren and Tuor), but it also seems wrong that he would so off-handedly condemn his twin brother as "weak."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Curu, lol.

Where are you going to get ordinary people, who buy tickets to see a movie, up to speed on the ancestry of Elrond?

Elrond loses his daughter. That IS an element in Tolkien's story, and a reasonably important one. It's also something people can relate to. They have families. Most of them do NOT have an historic ancestry that brings the focus of the End of an Age into their personal path.

Most of these purist quibbles would result in there being no movie, at all. Now, I've sat through literally dozens of productions of Midsummer Night's dream. And anytime a word of Bottom's conversation with Titania's sprites is omitted, I wince, and mutter under my breath. But when I walk into a theatre or film with a 2-3 hour playing time, I KNOW something has been left out.

There were an awful lot of pages in LOTR, guys. Too many to film. And trying to drag in any of those other pieces of posthumous work...well, it's flat out impossible.

Now, you may say, "Then don't make the movie." That's a point of view. Personally, my interest in the New Testament falls off sharply when Paul arrives...I liked the earlier characters, better. And, of course, there are people who take no notice of the New Testament at all. But if you assume someone WILL be filming the movie, it comes with the assumption that they'll be cutting some. And if you were filming the New Testament, insisting on a flashback to Daniel in the Lion's Den would be... Well, stupid. Even if it DOES importantly presage the mercy of the appearence of Christ at all.

But I don't ever think you'd make a decent film out of the Sil. It's designed for a grand ballet.