[The Saucepan Man]

Fascinating thread. And I’m beginning to get a sense of just why some people are disappointed, irritated or just downright angry over the films in some of the comments that have been made:

Originally Posted by davem

… my feeling has always been that if they didn't want to be as faithful as possible to Tolkien's work they should have written their own story & filmed that. Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Is this that they simply are not perfect or that they do not live up to my expectations given that LotR is something of a sacred text to me? A bit of both, I think …

Originally Posted by lindil

Tolkien created a masterpeice. PJ a bastardized 'hit' … PJ took something refined, morally uplifting, challenging, linguistically subtle and powerful and did something very different and very hollywood with it.

I get the feeling that, as far as many here are concerned, Lalwendë is spot on with her description of LotR as a “sacred text”. The book is, of course important to all of us here and that is clearly what is behind our tendency to analyse the films down to the nth degree. But to some, it has clearly taken on a greater significance to the extent that they feel protective of it and react negatively towards any attempt to reproduce it in a form which they do not believe lives up to Tolkien’s high standards and ideals. I do not criticise this approach, and I think we all share it to some degree or other. I certainly felt uncomfortable (at first, at least) about some of the changes made, particularly in TTT. But, although LotR is a book close to my heart (and has been ever since I first read it many years ago) and one in which I can find ideas and themes applicable to my life, it is not, to me, a “sacred text” in the same way as I think many here regard it. And so my reaction to the films is far less pronounced than others. I can accept them for what they are rather than view them as an imperfect rendition of an invaluable masterpiece.

If you don’t agree, just ask yourself whether you would feel as strongly about a film adaptation of another classic novel, one which you don’t have particularly strong feelings for? Would you see it as a source of irritation? A bastardisation? A failure of a moral duty? Or would it not really bother you, on the basis that the original novel is still there for its aficionados to enjoy? I know what my reaction would be.

And so to that awful phrase, “dumbing down”. What does it mean?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But this is the very essence of dumbing down, that we should automatically assume that some people would be unwilling or unable to grasp, appreciate and enjoy more high-falutin' arts and entertainment.

My main problem with the phrase is that it assumes, by the very nature of the words used, that those for whom things are “dumbed down” are indeed dumb. But I reject that assumption, in the field of arts at least. I do think that the phrase is applicable in the case of news, where it is assumed (perhaps correctly) that news must be simplified in order to be made accessible to everyone. To my mind, if people are not interested in having the news presented to them objectively and in its entirety, then they are dumb. I see the simplification, yes the “dumbing down”, of news as dangerous as it carries with it the risk of misinformation and manipulation.

But it’s different in the field of arts (and I use this term in its broadest sense). There is no danger in presenting people with art (whether it be films, books, theatre, visual art or television) in a format which appeals most strongly to them and with which they therefore feel most comfortable. And people who do not enjoy “high falutin’” art are not necessarily “dumber” than those who do. They simply have different tastes. I am a great fan of many aspects of pop culture. I prefer pop music to classical music. I am a great fan of reality programmes (or was, until they started to wear a bit thin). But I would not regard myself as dumb (no comments please ).

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To me, to dumb down is to render complex things into simplistic things. And all too often, dumbing down consists of removing that which is considered challenging or difficult. It in effect denies people the chance to decide for themselves. To me it does not refer to something which is in its essence different to the 'high-brow', but to media/cultural products which have been altered.

But it seems to me that this is an artificial distinction. If one adapts or translates a work of art in order to meet a (perceived) demand, then one is essentially creating a new work of art. And if it is necessary (or perceived as necessary) to simplify it or make it less challenging in order to meet that demand, because that is what its intended audience wants, then I don’t see a problem with that. But it does not follow that the intended audience is in any way dumb, and so I regard the expression “dumbing down” as entirely inappropriate in this context.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think my working class 'chip' is coming out now; too many years spent under the assumption I am not intelligent enough to grapple with 'big words' has made me a keen defender of our right to learn and use those 'big words'.

Well perhaps I am revealing my middle-class liberal credentials when I say that I thoroughly agree that everyone should have the right to learn and use those “big words”, but that I don’t believe that it is something which should be forced on them. If, despite the accessibility of The Guardian or The Times, they still want to read The Sun, then that’s fine with me. If, despite the availability of Dickens, Orwell and Austen, they still want to read Archer and Collins, then so be it. If, despite there being some arty French film on the other channel, I still want to watch Big Brother, then that is my right.

Clearly, one of the objectives of the films was to appeal to as many people as possible. I do not believe that this was Jackson’s primary motivation, nor the primary motivation of most of those involved in their production. But it was clearly a major consideration, particularly for the studio and those backing the films. I accept that it was not Tolkien’s motivation in writing the book, and I accept that the book has ended up having broad appeal nevertheless. But self-evidently, the films would never have been made, at least not in a form that captured Middle-earth so wonderfully from a visual perspective, had commercial considerations not come into it. And because such considerations did come into it, they had to appeal - and therefore be made relevant and accessible to - as wide an audience as possible. Is that wrong? Does that mean that they should never have been made? Does that make them somehow immoral? I don’t think so for simple reason that they are meeting a demand and, in so doing, bringing pleasure to millions (and, I might add, doing no harm to anyone or anything, least of all Tolkien’s reputation). If they were not, then they would not be so successful.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

The films were dumbed-down; even those who do not like the expression still concede this when we consider the usual accepted definition of the term.

Well, I said “If that is "dumbing down", then yes the films were dumbed down”, but I hope that it will be clear from what I have said above that I regard that expression as inappropriate in this context. Yes, it was made more relevant and accessible for modern audiences. Yes, Legolas’ boyish good-looks and acrobatic antics were included to appeal to particular sections of the audience. Yes, the language was simplified and updated. Yes, the characters were changed with the intention of making them more appealing and/or credible to modern audiences (whether you agree or disagree that they succeeded, that was their intention). But I do not believe that anyone who would have been disinclined to see the films as a result of the absence of any one or more of these factors is any more dumb than someone who found them irritating, unnecessary and/or gratuitous. I would not therefore say that they were “dumbed down”, but rather that they were simplified and updated and their appeal was broadened. As I have said above, I do not see anything wrong in that. Whatever may have been lost in the translation from book to screen is still there in the book.

So did this process of “simplifying, updating and broadening the appeal of” the films make them:

1. any better; or
2. any more popular or successful

than they might otherwise have been?

The first question is an easy one. Whether or not they were better is a subjective one, depending on the tastes of the individual. Some will think they were better as a result of this process, while others (and I would probably include myself in this category) will think that they would have been better without at least some aspects of it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If the films had retained the more complex language and concepts then they would not have repelled anybody. Case in point, the well known BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice did not shy away from Austen's wonderful, yet to us somewhat archaic, dialogue and it was an immense success. Tarantino films are linguistically and symbolically complex but this does not prevent hordes of youths from adoring those films, and likewise, the Matrix trilogy got extremely thorny at times, but there was enough action and 'cool' stuff going on to keep the audiences coming through the doors. There is more than enough action in LotR to grip a non-reading audience and so there was simply no need to denegrate so much of the beautiful language from the books.

We can never really know for sure if the films would have been more successful if they had remained more faithful to, and retained more of the original language of, the book. My own sense is that they would have been successful, but less so. They would have been successful in the way that adaptations of the likes of Jane Austen are successful: respectably so but nothing spectacular. Certainly nothing on the scale of the LotR trilogy. A good thing? Perhaps, although they might then never have been made. And even if they had been, many who might otherwise have seen the films would not have seen them. And that would have been a shame for them, particularly as a proportion of such viewers will have discovered the book through the films.

As for Tarantino’s films and the Matrix trilogy, well I would hardly describe them as “high brow”. They are examples of pop culture. And, again, none of these enjoyed the critical or popular success of the LotR trilogy. And, personally, I found the pseudo-intellectual philosophising of the second of the Matrix films so off-putting that I couldn’t be bothered with the third (my opinion, I know).

I should add (in references to the phantom’s point) that individual experiences provide little evidence of a film’s broad popularity (and therefore, relevance and accessibility). Critics’ reviews, awards and, most important of all, audience figures, provide much better evidence. And it seems to me that, on the basis of that evidence, it cannot be denied that they have succeeded in gaining mass appeal. Indeed, the only criticism of the films that I have ever read in media reviews of the films is that they were too long and should have ended with Aragorn’s coronation. Imagine what a furore there would have been here if Frodo had not ended up sailing West!

Finally (do I hear heavy sighs of relief ), with regard to the changes made to the script - and Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh should take most of the credit/criticism (depending on your perspective) here:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The books, as I see them, are intricately constructed, and to remove crucial elements of the story risks failure. Jackson effectively rewrote parts of the story, and he did fail at that.

I agree that it is difficult to remove sections of the story without this having a knock-on effect. And I also agree that there are places where Jackson and co could have handled it better. But that would be asking a lot. It is inevitable, in adapting a book of the complexity and length of LotR to film (even 12 hours’ worth of film), that elements of the story, often quite lengthy and important ones, will have to be left out. I think that, had they been able to achieve this without the (to my mind limited) number of inconsistencies that are present in the films, it would have been an amazing feat. As to the specific example you raise, I do not see film Faramir as succumbing to the Ring. He does not want it for himself, but to prove himself to his father. The fact that he takes the Hobbits by force to Osgiliath and subsequently decides to let them go free is little different to the series of events in the book, when he takes them to force to Henneth Annun and then decides to let them go free. It just takes place over a longer period and wider geography. The incident with Frodo and the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.

But, given the changes that had to be made, a substantial degree of re-writing was necessary. And, as I have said, they were attempting to re-write the lines of a masterful story-teller and linguistic expert extraordinaire. How many of us could have done Tolkien’s lines justice, retained a (broadly) coherent script, and made it appealing to a wide range of the film-going public? In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that the adapted screenplay Oscar was well-deserved.

And quite clearly, to my mind, there are aspects of Tolkien’s writing that would seem strange to modern day sensibilities. It seems to me that Theoden’s line at his son’s burial is a case in point.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

But I also still maintain that this line, while full of truth and resonance to us, in the 21st century - and my especial respect and sympathy to those of my fellow Downers for whom it has personal meaning - is still not the right thing for a king of Rohan to say.

I agree entirely. But wouldn’t it seem strange to modern audiences, and wouldn’t it alienate Theoden to a degree in their eyes, if he did not grieve over the loss of his son in this way? One might ask why modern readers don’t react in this way to the book. I don’t doubt that there are readers who find it peculiar that Theoden hardly grieves for his son. But I also think that it is easier convincingly to portray an entire culture, one quite alien to our own in many ways, in print than it is to do so on celluloid.