high, purged of the gross: the movies

[mark12_30]

In his letters, Tolkien spoke of Middle-Earth in elegant and lofty terms. Here's a quote from letter 131.

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story-the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and, while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry. I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.

Now that the entire Trilogy is out on film:

Generally, were the movies successful in conveying Tolkien's intentions? Why or why not?

Specifically, what parts do you think were successful and what parts failed?

Similar thread on Tolkien fandom in general.

[Gorwingel]

Whoa! Those are a lot of very poetic terms which for me are quite hard to understand. I hope were he talks about the "great tales being told in fuliness" he means that the main parts of the story should emphasized, and others should be minimized. Which if he does mean that, I do think that they achieved that in the films.
Also, in addition, it does sound like that he is talking about the backgrounds and sets in the first part (Was this his opinion on what he would like to see in a film version?). Which I think they very much did a spectacular job on.

I have to go, but I will think about this

[Saraphim]

Yes. I do think that the movies conveyed Middle-Earth very well. Despite all of the problems I have with the way that PJ chose to interpret some things, I love the way they were presented.

I can look over blatant innacuracies ( such as: "Let's hunt some orc!" and the total dropout of Glorfindel) and instead concentrate on the bigger picture, one that is beutiful and oftentimes incredibly detailed, down to the last wind-blown statue.

Yes, I could be better, but PJ did qiute well, I think.

[Essex]

Saraphim,

Slightly off tangent, but "Let's hunt some orc" wasn't a blatant innacuracy inasmuch as Jackson borrowed most of the line from Aragorn's speech to Eomer a few days (and a movie) later.

'I am called Strider,' answered Aragorn. 'I came out of the North. I am hunting Orcs.'

Aragorn also states, just before going after Merry and Pippin, 'I will follow the Orcs'.

It just doesn't quite have the ring of a last line for Aragorn does it? Let us hunt some orc sounds a bit better! Although I would have loved to have heard "We will make such a chase as shall be accounted a marvel among the Three Kindreds : Elves. Dwarves, and Men. Forth the Three Hunters!"

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think Tolkien would have been horrified with the infamous 'Denethor-eats' scene. The opposite of high.

[Saraphim]

Essex,

"Let's hunt some orc" is an innacuracy because no one in Tolkien's Middle-Earth spoke like that. Not because it is different from the book. It is simply too modern. Sorry, I should have been more clear.