[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I also hesitate to assign to fantasy qualities or affects which make it radically unlike any other form of literature or set it aside as opperating under different conditions. This no doubt derives from your belief that fantasy comes from something other, but it is not a belief I share.

Drama has, of its nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute, magic: the visible & audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasi-magical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much.

Actually, I think Tolkien's point does apply to fantasy alone. Its a matter of how much an audience can 'believe'. Everyone has limits! Essex has given an example of where Jackson has 'succeeded' - for me it didn't work, because I simply couldn't believe in Denethor - he was too much of a pantomime villain, so the whole effect was destroyed (bit like the 'inquisitor' at the end of Braveheart).

But take another example - the Balrog - to show the Balrog fully, & particularly in long shot, destroys the impact, & the sense of terror & overwhelming power is completely lost - we see a Balrog of Morgoth a few inches high. The mythic dimension is too easily lost when translated into other media.

As for sound effects, well, perhaps I should refer you to Mr. Underhill for his understanding of how sound effects people can hear things newly and persuade us of that new vision.

You simply cannot communicate all the connotations of 'doom-boom' in any other from than the literary. Language is essential to the communication of myth & fairy story. Literature, for its power, relies on either detailed back story, which cannot be translated into drama, or with myth & fairy story, on what the reader/hearer brings to the experience in terms of the imagery. So, realistic fiction can be translated into drama, because we are seeing something close to our own lives, our everyday experience. Or if we take modern dress productions of Shakespeare we see that the producers feel the need to enable the audience to bring their everday experience to the play.

What's interesting in traditional folk tales is the way they are adapted to the audience's experiences - even fairy palaces are described as being like large versions of the houses the people knew - this is especially clear when you read Campbell's Popular Tales of the West Highlands, but what we see in this is a movement away from myth towards realistic fiction. Drama has to present the story in a way, a form, the audience can relate to, & the more 'popular' it seeks to be, the more it will have to play down the magic - hence Jackson's approach to LotR - but the more that is done, the further away from myth we move.

Myth is probably the artistic form furthest from drama. I'm not here speaking of a native people's presentation of its myths in dramatic form, which grew out of ritual & worship practices, & has a religious dimension/purpose.