Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[IronParrot]

I beg you to reread The Council of Elrond. Aside from two comments about the elf-dwarf feud, there certainly is no such contretemps as occurs in the film. Indeed, it is quite a civilized gathering. Jackson makes it into a bar-room brawl in order to give Elrond another chance to be "catty" about men in general and Aragorn in particular.

I have been reading that chapter over and over again for the past half an hour. I see where you're getting at in that the book takes it more patiently - but the validity of your argument basically ends there.

The book is allowed to take its time and give characters the room to flesh out their arguments because the Council of Elrond is so bloody long! The film simply doesn't have time for this. There is a further fallacy in your argument that there is complete mutual trust and cooperation between the different races in the book. This is not so.

Gloin, in particular, is rather confrontational. Let's take a look at this excerpt, when he responds to Legolas:

'You were less tender to me,' said Gloin with a flash of his eyes, as old memories were stirred of his imprisonment in the deep places of the Elven-king's halls.

'Now come!' said Gandalf. 'Pray do not interrupt, my good Gloin. That was a regrettable misunderstanding, long set right. If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council.'

And let's look at how he questions the Elves:

'Ah, alas!' cried Gloin. 'When will the day come of our revenge? But still there are the Three. What of the Three Rings of the Elves? Very mighty Rings, it is said. Do not the Elf-lords keep them? Yet they too were made by the Dark Lord long ago. Are they idle? I see Elf-lords here. Will they not say?'

There is a Dwarf-Elf conflict. It does not break out thanks to the mediation that Gandalf offers. Gandalf does not have this opportunity in the film due to the pace of the scene alone. There is no long-winded storytelling going on, so there is no basis for getting everybody to shut up and keep listening, since there's nothing else to listen to. Also, the various arguments of everybody present at the Council are not presented in full, so they don't have a full palette of prior reasoning to work with when deciding what to do with the Ring.

In both cases, the Elf-Dwarf animosity is the same. What differs is the level of restraint. That difference can be attributed to the fact that the scene does not allow everybody to develop their arguments in full, due to time constraints. It is perfectly natural that such a "shouting match" would break out.

There is a big difference between the nature of the Council of Elrond in the book and the film. That difference is that in the film, the scene isn't two hours long. All else follows.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by IronParrot
As I said about a hundred pages ago, yes, defer to Tolkien regarding his written material. Do not defer to Tolkien in the analysis of the filmic material, because a) Tolkien hasn't seen the film or commented on it, since he's dead, and b) Tolkien doesn't know a darn thing about filmmaking.

Whether or not Frodo is the hero in the books has nothing to do with filmic material.

[IronParrot]

That statement you quoted there was a response to a completely tangential argument, regarding the sanctity of Letters and related compilations, and was not made regarding the topic of Frodo's heroism.

[Wayfarer]

It is perfectly natural that such a "shouting match" would break out.

Natural to /WHOM/?

I will not insult you by suggesting that you have no knowledge of Tolkien, as you obviously do. But you seem to miss the way the innate characters of the races have been changed.

In middle earth, Elves do not shout. They do not yell, or lose their temper. Elves to not act 'catty'. They are civilized beings, and even when Feanor and his sons spoke and acted in passion they did not become wild and uncontrolled.

Dwarves, likewise, were said to be long-suffering. They endure hardship easily, and hold fast in friendship and in emnity. They are not brash, they are not violent. They are slow, deliberate, thoughtful.

It is not thematic for either of these races to engage in the kind of pointless bickering that jackson displays. But as with many other instances they are fundamantelly changed in the films.

[Elfhelm]

I don't know, Wayf, I think elves do lose their tempers sometimes. They just don't lose them at little hobbits. So maybe they seem kindly and civilized to Bilbo, who wrote the Red Book. They sure seem to me to lose their tempers in the Silmarillion.

Sure dwarves are brash and violent. At least they seem so in The Hobbit.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
In middle earth, Elves do not shout. They do not yell, or lose their temper. Elves to not act 'catty'. They are civilized beings, and even when Feanor and his sons spoke and acted in passion they did not become wild and uncontrolled.

Maybe this is just me, but I would not describe Legolas's behavior as being wild and uncontrolled. He simply stood up and said, "Have not heard what Master Elrond has said? The ring must be destroyed."

If Legolas had jumped up, sneered at Boromir, shouted a few choice curse words and waved his fists around, then I'd be right there with ya, Wayfarer.

[Elf Girl]

Legolas is an Elf. Elf, singuler. However, Elladen, Elrohir, Galdor, Gildor, Figwit ( ) and all the other Elves stood up and argued heatedly, rising to shouting.

[Elf Girl]

Look.

[Elf Girl]

http://www.quintessentialwebsites.co...c02_scene3.htm

You'll find some heated arguing.

[Elfhelm]

Whereas Fëanor's body was consumed by flame after his death because he was such a placid philosophical soul?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He was most definitely a fiery and passionate Elf, I doubt any-one would disagree with that. Especially if they knew the meaning of his name (which if I remember was imparted by prophetic insight from his mother Miriel). He spoke with passion to the Noldor (but I don't think shouted), and he drew his blade on both Fingolfin and Olwe. But Feanor was undoubtedly one of a kind. How many other Elves were consumed from within upon their deaths? Also, the Elves seem as a whole to be more composed during the latter years. There seem to be quite a few records of Elves acting "brash", or getting swept away by their passion in the Elder Days, but afterwards I don't remember much.

The Dwarves in the Hobbit did not strike me as very brash or violent. Proud, most certainly, and no doubt somewhat brash or violent, but I can see them arguing, most certainly. Dwarves would not take well to insults, methinks.

By the way, Elf Girl, I'm pretty sure that Erestor actually sat calmly during the shouting match.

[Elf Girl]

Fine. Scratch Erestor.

[Black Breathalizer]

The critical comments about the elves' behavior in the Council of Elrond would be valid if we are taking about a normal situation.

It is clear in the film version that the ring is affecting the council members' actions. It appears that only Frodo and Elrond are immune and aware of what's really going on. So even if you believe the elves standing up and arguing with the dwarves is out of character for them, the scene is still completely logical given the ring's power to corrupt all around it.

[Elf Girl]

*comes in very quietly* I agree with BB on that.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I agree with BB on that.

[Elf Girl]

Aargh! Must you expose my failing!

[Black Breathalizer]

I was thinking when I started this thread that we'd be discussing things such as Jackson's cinematic sensitivity to Tolkien's love of nature and disgust with the way the industrial age was ruining the environment. But instead, my Purist counterpoints continually point to so-called "problems" with the film character portrayals as a major "theme" flaw.

I think it's clear to all readers here that IronParrot and I have completely destroyed the Purist arguements regarding the "weak" Frodo. But I still hear some snide remarks about Gimli, Pippin, and Merry. But frankly, after watching both movies numerous times, I can't see where PJ missed the mark on them except that he gave all three of them some funny lines to say. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that all three of them showed a playful sense of humor in the books as well.

The problem, as I see it, is that Purists look at one early film scene and then make broad, sweeping statements about the "changed" character based on it without noticing or appreciating a zillion other examples of how the character GREW since that one scene. Both Pippin and Merry are great examples of film characters that got dumped on big time by the Purists after FOTR but then (surprise, surprise...just like the books) developed in TTT and will develop even more in ROTK.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I think it's clear to all readers here that IronParrot and I have completely destroyed the Purist arguements regarding the "weak" Frodo.

Silly.

The problem, as I see it, is that Purists look at one early film scene and then make broad, sweeping statements about the "changed" character based on it without noticing or appreciating a zillion other examples of how the character GREW since that one scene. Both Pippin and Merry are great examples of film characters that got dumped on big time by the Purists after FOTR but then (surprise, surprise...just like the books) developed in TTT and will develop even more in ROTK.

Pippin was portrayed as a dolt in the movie, right up to the point when Merry said "There won't be a Shire". At which point, he suddenly grew clever and brilliant enough to fool an ancient, wise being, the Eldest of the Living Creatures. This seems like too much, too soon to me.

As for Merry, I don't have that much of a problem with him. He didn't seem Merry to me, I remembered him being more responsible, but he wasn't bad. I think he just gets grouped with Pippin.

As for Gimli...um...I won't touch this.

It appears that only Frodo and Elrond are immune and aware of what's really going on.

Tut, tut, BB. How many times have you watched the movie, and yet you missed Erestor?

[Melko Belcha]

As I have said before the characters make the story, if the characters are changed then it changes the story for me. And no I do not think you have proven that Frodo is not weak in the movie, after viewing FotR and TT I feel Frodo is very weak compared to the Frodo in the book. The #1 reason I have reread LotR so many times is because of the characters, the #1 reason I have watched the movie so few times is because of the characters. You act like the characters are only a small part to the story but to me they are the main part of the story and PJ failed badly at bringing those characters to the screen. I can handle the changes in the storyline, but I will never accept some of the characters in the movie (Elrond, Aragorn, and Faramir are at the top of that list).

[Black Breathalizer]

If you don't see the book characters in the films, that's your problem, Melko Belcha. Please don't go around whining that PJ's version is bad simply because you don't get it. The characters were thoughtfully researched and brought to life with great care and concern for getting it right by the individual actors and their director.

Most fans of the books I know have been blown away by the film performances and appreciate the way the film version has expanded our appreciation of the characters we've all grown up to love from the books. I'm sorry for you that you didn't have the same experience.