Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[IronParrot]

"And do you have actual proof for this, or am I just to take it for granted?"

I do have actual proof of this. Why not begin with their job descriptions?

Harvey Weinstein took the studio-centric, profit-motivated approach while the contract was still with Miramax: he argued for two films, around 2.5 hours in length each, and threatened to take the rights to another director if Jackson couldn't find another studio to fund the project within a week and a half - even though Jackson was the one who proposed the project to Miramax in the first place. Weinstein is still listed as an executive producer and receives a percentage, despite the fact that after the thing was shipped to New Line, he had absolutely no involvement with the film. Weinstein did not have a single say on the content of LOTR.

Mark Ordesky was the one at New Line who got Jackson off the ground and argued for expanding the thing into three films. To make such a move out of a profit motive is ridiculous, because the production and marketing costs have just spiked by 50%, and if the first film isn't successful, you have two flops coming down the tubes instead of one. Such a move would not make a penny of economic sense if it were done out of profit.

Peter Jackson does not get a huge cut out of all this, other than a standard director's salary and royalties. The biggest benefit of LOTR's success, for him, is that in the future studios will be more likely to fund his other dream projects similarly. Take, for instance, the $200M that he's rumoured to be given to work with King Kong. Most of the more significant changes from book to film can't even be attributed to him directly.

Philippa Boyens, as a reputed Tolkien scholar, was hired by Peter Jackson to help adapt the film. She is responsible for a good number of changes that were made. The amount of profit the film makes has virtually no impact on her monetary income from this.

But let's address your unfounded assumptions about the movie business. So just because a director wants to see a story come to life, like many fans do - and he has the means to do it himself - he's suddenly subject to accusations of doing it for profit? That doesn't make sense, especially considering that directors and production companies (in this case, Wingnut) get a very meagre share of the profit compared to Hollywood distributors.

The "it was done for money" argument is silly and ignorant. Don't use it.

Yes, I thought I said that the studios would be more profit-motivated...

The studio in question is New Line Cinema. They lay down the funding, market and license the movie, and collect most of the profit. The production company that actually makes the movie, Wingnut Films, is a separate entity.

I could cite plenty of examples which have been stated by the Jacksonites to be needed to make the film more popular (which, as a natural result, brings more profit).

Then those other "Jacksonites" should shut up and let me talk instead, because they are obviously ignorant of the aforementioned facts regarding the way the film industry works.

[IronParrot]

Then call me an ignorant moron. I prefer the written word to the moving picture, and don't have the time to learn about both.

That doesn't make you an ignorant moron, but it does make you less than qualified to talk about cinematic considerations.

By all means, no. While I strongly hold that the Lord of the Rings is a story, and is meant mainly (if not entirely) to be so, it also undeniably has some very big themes. The movie also definitely has themes, but they are not as instrinsic and as much of a part of it, in my opinion. I suppose this is the difference between the themes slipping through by accident to manifest themselves in glorious genuinity as opposed to one attempting to place the themes within (which, by the way, is not at all wrong in the least, but indeed commendable. But I think that inserting them can never be as good as them just making their own way in.

I don't see that the film fails to do that. It can be analyzed just as rigourously, and there are a number of hidden, perhaps unintentional motifs to be found everywhere - as is the case with the book. But the very nature of the plot dictates that some themes will ultimately stick out: fall of the Elves and the rise of Men, nature and industry, the lust for power being a source of corruption, and all that stuff. It's intrinsic to the story regardless of what either Tolkien or Jackson intended.

"I don't know that watching more movies is really a necessity. But I have most certainly watched a very large number. And they are not by any stretch of the imagination all really good ones. But very many movies have themes and similar things in them, regardless of quality."

There's a lot more to artistic merit in film than the presence of "themes and similar things".

"I most definitely think that movies can be made very well, and cause people to think. But I also think that having the visual images provided for people tends to cut down on the brainwork and the imagination required. But when films make people think, it is about things more important than visuals. I still think that while it is not necessarily the case, movies do tend to be somewhat less "intellectual" than books."

Then you haven't watched the right films. Or you have, but they were all less-than-perfectly-faithful adaptations of books.

[IronParrot]

"I think they should be a secondary consideration, though I certainly do agree that it should be able to stand alone. But the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works all their lives, I would think should be thought of first, when making a movie of his works, rather than the "general audience" (I could go into this some more, but I just don't have the time at the moment.)"

"Though I think the most important is that it remains true to Tolkien (by which I do NOT mean a word-for-word filming). However, this is VERY closely followed by the ability to stand alone, which I think is necessary to the movie."

Then we'll have to agree to disagree here.

My take on any adaptation, regardless of how religiously dedicated I was to the source material, is that it has to be a good film first and a good adaptation second.

A good film that isn't a good adaptation is still a good film, and is worth watching.

A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a bad film, and isn't worth watching.

Niether case applies, because for the record, I think LOTR is a pretty darn good adaptation. Though it's a far better film.

"True, true, that's one thing I believe that it could certainly do without. Though I do feel inclined to point out that it seems to have been valid to a degree (as I have spoken with a number who have constantly mixed up Saruman and Sauron)."

(points finger) Pandering to the masses! Pandering to the masses! Sacrilege!

"That is your opinion. Personally, I think that it does. But, evidently, I am wrong, as you present this as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Unless I missed an "I think", "In my opinion" an "I believe", or something along those lines...I wonder what departing so far from the definite truths makes me...but I digress."

It is indeed Absolute Truth that Books-on-Tape are not regarded as distinct artistic entities.

"So then, you know more about Tolkien's works than he did?"

No, but I am certainly free to interpret them whichever way I want, regardless of what something is supposed to be. That's a level of unintentional applicability, which is something about the book you lauded a few paragraphs up.

"There were parts of it that I would not call "well-crafted", but anyway...Whew! Done! I thought I'd never be finished! -collapses-

IP, would I be correct in guessing that you plan in going into the field of film? You certainly know a whole lot about it."

I don't claim that the film is perfect down to the last detail. I have my own set of gripes about LOTR, but they aren't a major dent in the final product.

As for going into film... no comment.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IronParrot
GW:

Tolkien didn't know enough about film to make a qualified decision, and furthermore, LOTR was indeed unfilmable while he was alive. Things have since changed.

But he did know about the story, and what parts of the story were most important. Which is more important: the story, or the film?

And there's something wrong with that? Additionally, they total up to a lot more than "just a few bones". There is an incredible amount of verbatim dialogue that non-fans would not recognize as verbatim. That alone allows those familiar with the book to have an additional layer of appreciation for the material.

I believe I did have you there, thank you very much.

Verbatim dialogue, often quoted at the wrong time, and even sometimes by the wrong person.

I'm not claiming that I (or anybody else) know Tolkien better than he does. Nobody's claimed that - especially the people working on the film itself. As I've said on numerous occasions, they don't know Tolkien better than Tolkien, but they sure as hell know cinema better than Tolkien. And as the film is an independent artistic entity first and an adaptation second, as it rightly should be, this is the right direction.

I wasn't even talking about the film. I was referring to the Tolkien scholars you mentioned who say that the LOTR is allegorical, despite what Tolkien says.

I believe the burden of proof is on you, if you're to make such a statement. All works are subject to analysis. All works worth mentioning, anyhow. If Tolkien didn't mean for us to analyze and dissect his work, let's delete Entmoot to comply with his wishes, why don't we?

Tolkien was an English scholar himself. His theses, particularly regarding Beowulf, were largely founded on the idea of looking at the historical and cultural significance of languages and literature rather than quibbling about trivial details on a microscopic level. Compare this to, say, your approach to the film.

Now, now, don't think you're going to take me in with that. Tolkien was by his own admission a terrible niggler.
BTW, let me congratulate you. You are truly a master of the subtle insult.

The latter case does not exist.

I beg your pardon?

So just because a director wants to see a story come to life, like many fans do - and he has the means to do it himself - he's suddenly subject to accusations of doing it for profit?

Did not PJ himself say on the DVD that he wanted to do a fantasy movie, and said "Why not do Lord of the Rings?" This doesn't sound like wanting to see it come to life to me, but actually more interested in the popularity of LOTR.

As for the rest of that post, I won't touch it, mainly because I am ignorant of the film-making things discussed there.

[IronParrot]

squinteyedsoutherner:

"1. you asked me to be concrete on the LOTR as history issue. You brought up the Trojan war vs the Iliad. It may be the case that at some point in his life Agamemnon said "I do not want to be king, I have never wanted it" then again maybe he said no such thing. I really don't know. I do, however, know with 100% certainty that Aragorn never said it. That is the difference between history and fiction."

No, you don't know that with 100% certainty. When it comes down to issues of certainty, you can only cite what he did say, not what he didn't. So whenever Tolkien didn't have characters speaking during the timeframe of the book, they were mute? Ambiguity is vastly different from absence. If anything, Aragorn not wanting to be king is a natural extrapolation from how he bides his time before claiming the throne or looking into the Palantir, as well as his lack of any lust for power that would let him be seduced by the Ring.

"2. I did not bring up Helm's Deep to argue that it should have been removed because Tolkien suggested it to Zimmerman. I brought it up to highlight the fact that the very thing Jackson decided to expand into the center-piece of his film was the very thing Tolkien believed expendable. I believe that puts to rest any claim that Jackson understands Tolkien's vision."

Then we're arguing different things.

Tolkien has a certain vision of his book. Tolkien also has a certain vision of a hypothetical film based on his book. His suggestion that Helm's Deep is expendable belongs to the latter category.

My understanding is that we're discussing whether or not Jackson was true to Tolkien's vision of the book, not Tolkien's vision of a hypothetical film. If we're discussing the latter, then there's no debate: of course Jackson wasn't true to Tolkien's vision of the film, because it's his job as a director to have a cinematic vision of it himself. Tolkien wasn't in the director's chair, and wasn't qualified to be anyway.

"3. I brought up Bree to highlight the fact that a significant number of changes made to the film are not due to the particulars of cinema vs literature (and I couldn't agree more with Tolkien that many films are ruined by exaggeration) but are due to the director's love of Horror and darkness. I also wanted to point out that in the commentary Jackson clearly declares that a specific change was made because he didn't like Tolkien's version. I believe that statement to be VERY significant and I suspect that it is the real root of many of the film's changes."

It is due to the particulars of cinema because the creation and juxtaposition of contrasting moods is completely different on a celluloid canvas.

From all indications, Jackson didn't like Tolkien's version - in the context of filming it. The basic argument here is that Tolkien's version would not work in a film, and as a film director, he is qualified to darken the tone accordingly.

Once again, I bring up time constraints as the primary root of the changes. Time compression means a faster-paced film. That means a faster-paced first act. That means the events of Book I, Chapters 1 through 9 can't be as comfortable and easygoing for Frodo and company as they are in the book. If this journey is quickened and less comfortable, the mood of the settings has to be altered in order to match.

"4. Like and /or dislike of ANY film is subjective. A film's importance in history is a different issue. Titanic was a huge cultural moment, but I hated the movie and so did many critics."

There are two components to the quality of a given film: entertainment value and artistic merit. Entertainment value is in the eyes of the beholder; this is the measure of how much you "like" or "dislike" it, and it is indeed subjective. For example, the quality of the adaptation affects the degree to which fans of the source material are entertained.

Artistic merit, however, is inherent. It also refers to the film as an independent entity, so this does not cover anything to do with adapting the source. To sacrifice artistic merit in order to pump up the entertainment value for a specific demographic is a mistake.

It's true that artistic merit is also subject to debate and criticism; however, the focus is still on the intrinsic qualities of a given film, and not how much certain people do or do not like it.

The best films, of course, have a high degree of both entertainment value and artistic merit. As the former will never apply to everybody, it might as well apply to as many people as possible, as long as it is not at the expense of the latter.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IronParrot
[B]

I don't see that the film fails to do that. It can be analyzed just as rigourously, and there are a number of hidden, perhaps unintentional motifs to be found everywhere - as is the case with the book. But the very nature of the plot dictates that some themes will ultimately stick out: fall of the Elves and the rise of Men, nature and industry, the lust for power being a source of corruption, and all that stuff. It's intrinsic to the story regardless of what either Tolkien or Jackson intended.

It just seems to me to not come off as well as Tolkien's book in that regard. Maybe because Tolkien's stories and mythology were the work of most of his adult life. While Jackson certainly did a lot of work on this, he didn't spend nearly as long as Tolkien did.

There's a lot more to artistic merit in film than the presence of "themes and similar things".

Yes, I said that they were in many movies, regardless of quality.

Then you haven't watched the right films. Or you have, but they were all less-than-perfectly-faithful adaptations of books.

Then I suppose I'm totally ignorant in the way of films. Just curious: Could you quickly give a few examples of "the right films"?



[QUOTE]A good film that isn't a good adaptation is still a good film, and is worth watching.


A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a bad film, and isn't worth watching.[QUOTE]

Just wanted to point out that if you flip it over:

A good film that is a bad adaptation is still a bad adaptation, and does not stick to the story.

A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a good adaptation, and remains true to the story.

A bad film that is a bad adaptation is a complete waste of time. (NOTE: None of these were intended to portray PJ's Movies, and were nothing but a sidetrack from my feeble mind.)

Just for the record, I think that a bad film that was a good adaptation would be worth watching, if I were familiar with the source material. But as I freely admit, I'm ignorant on the matter of film. -shrugs- And as a natural result thereof, my opinion doesn't count.

P. S. Have you seen the BBC Narnia productions? Would you qualify them as bad films?

(points finger) Pandering to the masses! Pandering to the masses! Sacrilege!

Heh-heh. No comment, as it could turn into something full-blown, and I just have neither the time nor the energy for that.

It is indeed Absolute Truth that Books-on-Tape are not regarded as distinct artistic entities.

I did not mean that, but rather the last sentence:

If it's not a distinguishable standalone work of art, a filmic adaptation isn't even worth talking about, let alone watching.

But that gets into the "adaptation vs. film" thing again, on which we agree to disagree.

No, but I am certainly free to interpret them whichever way I want, regardless of what something is supposed to be. That's a level of unintentional applicability, which is something about the book you lauded a few paragraphs up.

Now that I look it over, I think I misread you. I was thinking his interpretation of his story and his characters, not the themes etc. therein. Or was that what you meant?

[IronParrot]

GW:

"Verbatim dialogue, often quoted at the wrong time, and even sometimes by the wrong person."

Only "wrong" in relation to the context in the book. Besides, I only brought up verbatim dialogue as an example of something that only fans would recognize as being from the book, whereas non-fans wouldn't know that. So this argument is bunk.

"I wasn't even talking about the film. I was referring to the Tolkien scholars you mentioned who say that the LOTR is allegorical, despite what Tolkien says."

Hold on a sec.

"In the 'Foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote: 'I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence'. As with the denial of any link between rabbits and hobbits (see chapter 1), the evidence is rather against Tolkien here. He was perfectly capable of using allegory himself, and did so several times in his academic works, usually with devastating effect. In his 1936 lecture on Beowulf, for instance, Tolkien offered the British Academy audience 'yet another allegory' (it was not the first in the lecture)..." (etc.)
- Tom Shippey, J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, Chapter 4

I'm not going to quote all eight pages of the thing about allegory. But you get the idea. It's actually a very interesting read.

"Now, now, don't think you're going to take me in with that. Tolkien was by his own admission a terrible niggler.
"

Indeed he was. So if he could read his own work so critically (and he certainly does), as his audience, why can't we?

"I beg your pardon?"

What I'm saying is that any of Tolkien's claims of what things are are exactly the same as what he meant them to be. The absolution of the former does not exist. I stand by that firmly.

If it's not explicitly stated in the body of the text itself, it's open to analysis, no matter how the author intended it. Tolkien probably didn't intend most of the things we noticed about his work, and his intentions-to-possible-analysis ratio is almost as low as the likes of Shakespeare or Moses.

"Did not PJ himself say on the DVD that he wanted to do a fantasy movie, and said "Why not do Lord of the Rings?" This doesn't sound like wanting to see it come to life to me, but actually more interested in the popularity of LOTR."

Maybe you should listen to the entirety of his comments instead of the segment you want to hear. Just because he decided to do LOTR doesn't imply that he did it because it was popular. He goes on to talk about how he did LOTR because it's the mother of all fantasy, so if you're going to make a fantasy movie, you might as well do it based on the best fantasy story of all time. That sounds like reverence for the book to me.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's late, don't have time to say much, but I will say that I don't really know how you're defining "reverence". That sounds like respect yes, but that is not what I am talking about.

[IronParrot]

"Just curious: Could you quickly give a few examples of "the right films"?"

The Lord of the Rings.

No, but seriously, some of the content in films both original (Citizen Kane, Casablanca) and adapted (The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia) have enough under-the-surface matter in them to fill a couple of doctoral theses. In my graduating year in high school, on the English exam, I wrote an impromptu essay on Casablanca instead of talking about any of the works I studied in class. I fell just short of 100% because I forgot the names of two of the three screenwriters.

"A good film that is a bad adaptation is still a bad adaptation, and does not stick to the story.

A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a good adaptation, and remains true to the story."

That's true enough. To me, it doesn't matter. To you, it obviously does. My set of priorities appear to match Peter Jackson's. Yours is probably a lot closer to Tolkien's. But who's directing the movie?

"Just for the record, I think that a bad film that was a good adaptation would be worth watching, if I were familiar with the source material. But as I freely admit, I'm ignorant on the matter of film. -shrugs- And as a natural result thereof, my opinion doesn't count.

P. S. Have you seen the BBC Narnia productions? Would you qualify them as bad films?"

I've seen the production of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It's a decent television re-enactment, but I never actually thought of it as a film. As far as I'm concerned, an actual Narnia movie has never been made, though the current project that was recently greenlighted looks very promising.

Compare the similar BBC productions of Shakespeare to, say, the Franco Zefferelli Romeo and Juliet. The latter is a film. The former is a rendition of the stage play in a soundstage with cameras rolling.

As for whether or not a film is worth watching: Well, I keep picking on Harry Potter, and that's probably not fair. It's a pretty decent film in itself, though a lot of its flaws can be attributed to sticking too close to the source, despite what else has been trimmed. They practically wrote a four-hour screenplay for it, shot most of it, and ended up cutting so much out that some transitions don't make as much sense as they should.

One of the things that actually always annoyed me about The Fellowship of the Ring (theatrical version) is that Galadriel says her staple line, "I will diminish into the West, and remain Galadriel" - but at that point, the name Galadriel has never been mentioned in the movie, so the line makes no sense. But it's a beautiful line and I'd be up in arms if it weren't there (and I'm sure you would too), so they could have at least mentioned her name earlier. This was fixed in the DVD, thankfully.

The Wizard of Oz is, of course, my favourite example of a wonderful movie that is, at the same time, a horrible adaptation. The latter does not bug me when I watch the film, because I recognize it as a distinct entity.

"Now that I look it over, I think I misread you. I was thinking his interpretation of his story and his characters, not the themes etc. therein. Or was that what you meant?"

Now I'm really confused. I think I misread you and responded accordingly. Then you misread me and... oh, whatever.

"It's late, don't have time to say much, but I will say that I don't really know how you're defining "reverence". That sounds like respect yes, but that is not what I am talking about."

I say that Jackson filmed LOTR out of reverence for the book, in the sense that Jackson thought, "it's such an amazing story, it deserves to be put on film (and the Bakshi version doesn't count)." In that way, he had a great deal of passion for and appreciation of the material he was dealing with. You'll note from the interviews and documentaries that he was reading passages of LOTR every single day for a few years. Some directors of movie adaptations never even read the books they are working on until they are hired for the project.

An incredible number of people who worked on LOTR - from screenwriters like Philippa Boyens all the way down to the Maya modellers in Weta Digital's CG labs - were already familiar with the book prior to being hired for the film. Peter Jackson wouldn't have taken the effort to hunt down John Howe and Alan Lee, his still-painting Tolkien-visualization equivalents, if he didn't want the film to be as best a representation of Tolkien as possible - even if he has to make logistically-motivated sacrifices.

On the subject of definitions, it looks like "respect" is being defined as "do what Tolkien says", something with which I wouldn't necessarily agree.

[Black Breathalizer]

Whooweee...it takes a long time for those of us in the "ignorant movie-going masses" category to read through all this point/counterpoint stuff.

Speaking of definitions, let me give you my own working definition of "Tolkien's vision." For me it means, "does the work capture the key themes and emotional tugs of the story?" as opposed to "is it a scene-by-scene mirror of the books?"

So this is why I look at "inventions" of Jackson's, such as his decision to have Merry and Pippin distract the orcs at Amon Hen and lead them away from Frodo as a brilliant big screen vehicle for streamlining the plot AND effectively communicating one of Tolkien's most important themes.

Is it "in the book,"? Nope. But does it capture the very essence of Tolkien's work? Yep. And if you people think the importance of self-sacrificing friendship IS NOT part of Tolkien's vision for the tale, then I give up.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Whooweee...it takes a long time for those of us in the "ignorant movie-going masses" category to read through all this point/counterpoint stuff.

[BeardofPants]

Can I join you, GW?

...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Certainly.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

.............and let me add my own to your arguements Iron Parrot, you truely are on another planet. Aragorn is a fictious character created by Tolkien. He begins and ENDS with Tolkien. He does not exist in some 4th dimension of infinite possibility where he might have said "I don't want to be king" - where he may wear pink leg warmers and hang out at gay bars in Bree - where he may be taking tap dance lessons in his spare time. Your arguements are laughable, and if you truely believe them, then I can understand why the film's changes don't bother you, afterall, just think of the possibilites.

[Elf Girl]

I think I'll join you, GW, BoP and Squinty.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...his decision to have Merry and Pippin distract the orcs at Amon Hen and lead them away from Frodo as a brilliant big screen vehicle for streamlining the plot AND effectively communicating one of Tolkien's most important themes.

If it was really that important to one of Tolkien's most important themes, don't you think he would have put it in the books?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
If it was really that important to one of Tolkien's most important themes, don't you think he would have put it in the books?

Tolkien wasn't infallible. Perhaps...{drumroll} ...he didn't think of it.

This is the reason why Arwen and Aragorn's romance is resigned to the appendix. Tolkien thought of it after he was ready to crown his king and wasn't willing to rewrite his earlier stuff (yet again) to include it in the same way Jackson has.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Tolkien spent over a decade writing and rewriting and editting and rewriting.

Also, Black Breatheliser, don't pretend we're stupid. He said that it was relegated to the appendices because it did not fit in with the rest of the Lord of the Rings.

[Black Breathalizer]

We keep going around and around but I've yet to have any of you book purists really address the central question of this thread:

What central themes of the books did Jackson supposedly mess up on?

And pleeeeeeze don't give me yet another "geez, Gimli was comic-relief" examples. Let's talk THEMES!

[Elf Girl]

Are you saying that the developing deep friendship and loyalty between two individuals who at first thought themselves enemies isn't part of the theme of friendship you cite so often?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

We keep going around and around but I've yet to have any of you book purists really address the central question of this thread:

Translation: Uh-oh, better change the subject!

And CHARACTERS. Tolkien himself said that that was one of the most important things. And it was about HOBBITS. Both of these are poorly adapted.

Seriously, BB, why do you feel the terrible urge to make everyone think the same way you do?

I also noted you left the challenge to your "PJ was truer to Tolkien than Tolkien was" coment untouched...