Tolkien letter #210

[squinteyedsoutherner]

This letter dates from 1958, and is Tolkien's response to a film "treatment" of LoTR by someone named Zimmerman. I can't copy all of it, but here are some VERY interesting comments.

Fellowship

"I fail to see why the time scheme should be deliberately contracted it is already rather packed in the original, the main action occurring between Sept 22 and Mar 25 of the following year. The many impossibilities and absurdities which further hurrying produces might, I suppose, be unobserved by an uncritical veiwer; but I do not see why they should be unnecessarily introduced."

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

"Rivendell could not be seen from Weathertop: it was 200 miles away. I can see no pictoral or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography"

"He has cut parts of the story upon which its characteristics and peculiar tone pricipally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the ringbearers."

On Ringwraiths:

"their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have is enormously increased in darkness."

On Weathertop:

"Why has my account been entirely rewritten here? A scene of gloom lit by a small fire, with the wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows-until the moment Frodo puts the ring on, and the king steps forward revealed-would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings"

"Strider does not whip out a sword in the book, his sword was broken. Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly NOT fought with weapons?"

"The Black riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence."

The Two Towers:

"The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action, the ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the company. It is essential that these two branches should each be treated in coherent sequence because they are totally different in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these things"

Some other thoughts:

"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"

"Seasons are carefully regarded in the original. They are pictoral, and should be, and easily could be, made the main means by which the artists indicate time-passage. The main action begins in Autumn and passes through winter to a brilliant spring; this is basic to the purport and tone of the tale."

"If details are to be added to an already crowded picture they should at least fit the world described"

"I should resent perversions of the characters even more than a spoiling of the plot and scenery"

"He has cut out Saruman's proper death, In which case I see no good reason for making him die"

"

[Eglantine Banks]

Unbelievable! How did the Prof. get a chance to read PJ & Co.'s script in 1958!!???? (Was PJ even born in 1958?!) LOL

Wouldn't you loooooove to see the script that these comments WERE based on? And what happened? There was a script written but no movie was made?

Thanks for posting this!

-Eglantine

[Lizra]

Well, I wish he was elvish, and could have lived on and on, and made a film of his perfect story! Thank goodness we got the books! So I guess he wouldn't like the new films!

[Yazad]

This is the basis for one of my biggest complaints about the Jackson films!

Tolkien himself refuted so many of the changes which Mr. Zimmerman made, and then Jackson, Boyens and Walsh, just completely ignored them (his comments), and amazingly did (often) the exact same things. There are others too - like representing Lembas as a "food concentrate" - "one small bite can fill the stomach of a grown man."

The thing is that for 40+ years people have been ridiculing Mr. Zimmerman's treatment (though precious few have actually read it), and then along comes Mr. Jackson with his Hollywood extravaganza, and all the same fans can do is laud it! I'm completely baffled!

One of two things is true:

1. M. G. Zimmerman had his finger on the pulse of what viewers would want to see, and hence should be lauded exactly as Jackson has been.

2. Jackson, Walsh and Boyens are sell-outs just like Zimmerman was and deserve the same ridicule he received.

But there is, imo, one critical difference. In 1959 when Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Ackerman pitched the idea and Z. wrote the treatment, LotR was just a contemporary bit of fiction – it wasn’t even very popular! So, I find it wholly excusable that he made the compromises he did in dealing with the story. It’s like someone taking a Stephen King story (e.g. Lawnmower Man) as a very basic seed for a film. It’s done to tons of books.

But now LotR is a CLASSIC and deserves a tremendous amount of respect. In the first preview we saw (as far as I recall) Jackson was there saying “obviously there’s a tremendous amount of responsibility involved in bringing this to the screen” (emphasis added). What he’s shown, in my book, is irresponsibility.

What’s even more disturbing is that (as is evident if you listen to the commentary track with the screenwriters) that (I believe it was) Ms. Boyens has read the Letter (210) in question and knew, very well Tolkien’s objections (evidence – her discussion of using the Eagles as “Middle Earth Taxi Cabs”), but chose to ignore them. Whether or not they actually did the research they should have and actually read the Zimmerman Treatment (which, incidentally was generously donated by Mr. Zimmerman (now deceased) to Marquette University and can be read there), I don’t know, but I have very good reason to doubt.

I further don’t know if Mr. Bakshi had read the Letter 210 (and supporting material), but I do know that he did not fall into the same pitfalls (though perhaps he did tread into others) as the Jackson squad.

Again, all in all, I don’t think that this means that the Jackson films aren’t worth their while, nor that they’re not good movies. But, I am really sick at the fact that M. G. Zimmerman, and R. Bakshi have been treated so shabbily when P. Jackson is treated with such reverence.

Another thing to note is that Mr. Zimmerman’s production plans were to mix animation, live action and models – uniquely visionary for 1959.

Tolkien, as I understand it, was very fond of a letter which a fan sent him asking that he never allow the Lord of the Rings to be filmed as it would be like “building Disneyland in the Grand Canyon.” He had consented to (and worked with Mr. Zimmerman) largely because he needed the money.

I would be very interested to know Christopher Tolkien’s honest assessment of the Jackson films. Priscilla worked with Bakshi, and even did book signing tours, I believe, after the 1978 film came out.

Yazad

[Falagar]

The movies may not reflect Tolkien's own vision, but they're still good.

I would be very interested to know Christopher Tolkien’s honest assessment of the Jackson films.

Which brings me to another subjekt: Where is Christoffer? What is he doing? I began to think he was dead, since he didn't have anything to do with the movies, and haven't said anything about it either.

[Coney]

Which brings me to another subjekt: Where is Christoffer? What is he doing? I began to think he was dead, since he didn't have anything to do with the movies, and haven't said anything about it either.

The surviving members of Tolkiens direct family have kept a low profile for quite a while........Tolkiens eldest son was accused of some rather horrible things, and since then many members of the family have protected their privacy.

[Falagar]

What was he accused for? (I'm not sure I wanna know...but I ask anyway )

[Coney]

Spoiler added for those who don't want to know -

peadophilia

[Falagar]

I was right. I didn't really wanna know

Anyway, I still want his opinion. Are there any pictures of him anywhere?

[Elf Girl]

Someone should write him a letter and ask him if his father ever mentioned if Balrogs have wings.

[Falagar]

Why not us?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Here is Tolkien's response to Zimmerman's 'food concentrate' take on Lembas.

"We are not exploring the moon or any other improbable region. No analysis in any Laboratory would discover chemical properties of lembas that made it superior to other cakes of wheat-meal."

With regard to Helm's deep and the bigger battle of the Pelennor fields in RoTK

"If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor."

[Starr Polish]

Oh, how I laughed when I first read this, about five months ago.

"Ridiculously long sandwiches"....

[Yazad]

I had not heard that John Tolkien had been accused of anything. I did hear a delightful story about him buying a boar to help drive annoying fans out of his yard! He's like 85 now.

Christopher Tolkien has always been the most vocal of the bunch and, of course, the most involved in his father's works.

An interesting article:

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainme...X7QCO0PHC.html

which actually mentions a lot of the points.

I seem to recall that there was a fake quote from Christopher about disliking the movie, which he later debunked, though I don't think he ever offered an actual opinion. Seem to recall that on theonering.net

In an earlier article I heard that they're perpetually bothered by people who think that the Lord of the Rings is a true story! While I'm amazed at that, I think it would be easy enough to deal with such annoyances: Just use The One Ring against them!

Yazad

[Elfhelm]

But now LotR is a CLASSIC and deserves a tremendous amount of respect.

You know, I agree but ... yeah there's always a "but" or why would I have clicked [Reply]...

As I said before, what about Great Expectation, Moby Dick, A Christmas Carol, Swiss Family Robinson? They are classics, too, and they get changed in the movie version, too. Either every screenwriter should be ridiculed, or not. In my opinion, the best we can hope is that they don't screw it up so bad that people won't read the books. And from the way the books are selling, that has not happened.

[Falagar]

Thank you very much for that link! But I still want to see a picture of Christoffer...

[Elfhelm]

The 50 million copies number was revised to about 100 million before the first movie, so if it reaches 200 million by the time the last movie comes out in its extended edition, will you people who hate it maybe acknowledge that some good has come out of it?

[Yazad]

Let's see if I can a picture of him...

Nope! Grrrr...

He's an interesting looking chap. I've seen several British documentaries where he appears. He has also read sections of "The Silmarillion" which were released on an earlier vinyl edition and are now available on the "The J. R. R. Tolkien Audio Collection". He's got a very cool voice and does a phenominal job with the material.

All in all I think he seems like a really cool guy. What a trip it must be to spend so much of your professional life digging through your father's writings, and trying to reveal his thoughts.

Yazad

[Yazad]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The 50 million copies number was revised to about 100 million before the first movie, so if it reaches 200 million by the time the last movie comes out in its extended edition, will you people who hate it maybe acknowledge that some good has come out of it?

Hee hee! Check out this link:

http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movi..._0000/429.html

You certainly do have a point, though, Elfhelm that liberties are taken all the time. I can definitely respect that, but I don't like (as I said) that others who deviated were trashed and also that this necessarily has to be the de-facto way of making movies.

Jackson repeatedly says in his commentary that in a movie you can't X, Y or Z because you need to maintain the tension, or move things along, or have a big resolution or whatever - to which I say "FEH!" Sure that's true if you're working in a conventional Hollywood template (I'm not even saying that Hollywood scripts suck or anything - sometimes they're just what's needed), but I think a story of this magnitude can be dealt with in a way that defies convention. As you say, there's 100,000,000 copies in print, that means you've got a pretty serious dedicated fan network that's going to go watch the movie regardless - and that gives one a little leeway to damn the torpedoes and fly in the face of typical movie fare.

So in the end, I think the best we can say of Jackson's movies is that they're "good typical movie fare". It sure would have been nice to be able to say, "They're great and glorious works of art".

Just my opinion, of course!

Yazad

[Elfhelm]

LOL! That must be humor! hehehe... "Once every household has a copy there will be noone to sell it to." So far everything I've seen about the family or the publisher or book sales is pre-PJ-movie. Whenever I go into ANY bookstore now I am inundated with LotR editions. The words don't change between the editions, so I'll stick with the one I have.

They must be selling or the booksellers wouldn't waste so much space displaying them so prominently for over a year now. And that has to be a good thing.

I tend to agree with the Prof that the book is unfilmable, so I just try to enjoy what's there. For one thing, you can't plausibly have Gandalf tell Frodo the problem of the Ring and then have him sit around hald a year. You can't form a Fellowship and then sit around another half a year. Not in a drama. Take Julius Caesar. Brutus and Cassius didn't throw themselves on their swords until two years after the assassination. But that doesn't make good theatre.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse.