Is all the "magic" gone?

[Essex]

Sorry Bethberry, I don’t agree that Galadriel should ‘look’ old. My evidence comes from the lotr itself.

On two chairs beneath the bole of the tree and canopied by a living bough there sat, side by side, Celeborn and Galadriel. They stood up to greet their guests, after the manner of Elves, even those who were accounted mighty kings. Very tall they were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold, and the hair of the Lord Celeborn was of silver long and bright; but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory.

Looking at the ee of lotr, it was explained how the technical guys spent a lot of time working on the reflection in Blanchett’s eyes, and to me this works very well. Miss Blanchett does not look ‘young’ neither does she look old, a perfect rendition of the description above.

[Bêthberry]

Indeed, Essex, I have no quarrel if you are happy with Galadriel's presentation in the movie. Beauty, it is said, and interpretations too, are in the eye of the beholder and I do not write here to persuade others to take my view.

Your quotation is well taken, and I suppose too one could point to the passage in the Lothlorien chapter that in Rivendell there was the memory of ancient things but that in Lothlorien the ancient things still lived on; the last remnant of the elven world was Lothlorien alone and that this was Galadriel's power and doing, so it is fitting that Elrond appear older than she. Perhaps. But I read your quotation in the context of all that Tolkien has to say about Lothlorien in LOTR.

I did not wish to see her a wizened old crone but I had hoped for some of the authority and wisdom in her that Gandalf made me feel. Her perilous terror was missing, too, relegated to the pyrotechnics of the special effects, which said to me "modern movie special effect" rather than "power of the character." When reading of Galadriel, I had a vision of great sense of loss, of the passing of the elven life, which for me Blanchett did not catch. That quotation does indeed say that Galadriel and Celeborn are immune to the passage of time. (To be honest, that line has always reminded me of Dorien Grey's pact--at totally irrelevant remembrance I admit). But the depth of the eyes and the profundity of deep meaning is what I wanted to see and, despite the technical details you mention, that exists not for me.

I don't wish to belabour this point, but to me the aching beauty in the chapters on Lothlorien is the poignancy that this is something soon to be gone from this world, lost, a place of rest and restorative powers which is to be savoured in part because it is not like the rest of Middle-earth. Tolkien gives to Galadriel that line about "the long defeat." For me, the movie lacks the redeemable sense of fairy or sub-created world which hovers over Lothlorien and Galadriel. There is still too much hopeful potential of life still to be, unlived, in Blanchett's performance. She is not "a living vision of that which has already been left far behind by the flowing streams of Time." The seeming contradiction of Tolkien's "present and yet remote" was missing; Blanchett and Jackson's Galadriel was merely very lovely.

In this I likely remain in the minority.

[Son of Númenor]

I could not agree more, Bêthberry. Although I may be a member of the minority on this, I felt the same way about the Grey Havens. When I read the book, I pictured a grey, misty harbour, the voices of Elves lamenting the end of their stay in Middle-earth in a solemn dirge, & the ship setting sail into a misty horizon. What we got (or at least I personally got - I definitely do not mean to try & speak for everyone) in the movie was a bright, shiny harbour, with everyone smiling sadly- bittersweet, to be sure, but a more 'Disney' ending than the melancholy aura of the book. Though there were tears, they did not feel as deep or meaningful as they did in the books. Like the movie scenes in Lothlórien, I did not really feel what it meant for the Elves to be departing like I did in the books, & like you said Bêth, I did not get the feeling of Galadriel's beauty & 'distance'. I would not say it was a disappointment - I am a big fan of the film trilogy as a whole - but it definitely lost something going from paper to film reel. It lost some of that sense of 'enchantment' that has been so fervently discussed in the 'Canonicity' thread. Luckily for me, I can still find it in the books!

[The Saucepan Man]

I would not say it was a disappointment - I am a big fan of the film trilogy as a whole - but it definitely lost something going from paper to film reel. It lost some of that sense of 'enchantment' that has been so fervently discussed in the 'Canonicity' thread.

My feelings entirely Son of Númenor (welcome to the Downs, by the way ). And I think that Tolkien himself put it very well in his essay 'On Fairy-Stories':

However good in themselves, illustrations do little good to fairy-stories. The radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes one visible form. Literature works from mind to mind and is thus more progenitive.

When we read the books, we are free (subject to the descriptions given) to imagine the characters, places and events portrayed ourselves. We create the vision. And, as the discussion above concerning Galadriel illustrates, every reader creates their own personal vision. But, in any transformation of literature to a visual medium, the vision is created for us. And it seems to me that this restriction of our imagination is bound to lessen the "magic" (or should I say "ensorcelment" ) that we feel. It is not our own vision that we are witnessing, but someone else's.

But, even if we were to film the books ourselves with unlimited resources so that it matched our own visualisation in every respect (and the films certainly lived up to my own visualisation in very many respects), I am still not sure that the feeling would be the same when we watched it back. And that, I think, is because the "enchantment" arises when we use our imaginations as we read (the "progenitive" process as Tolkien put it). So the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves.

[Son of Númenor]

(welcome to the Downs, by the way)

Thanks, I am really enjoying it.

When we read the books, we are free (subject to the descriptions given) to imagine the characters, places and events portrayed ourselves. We create the vision.

Exactly! Like, I even pictured Sauron as a humanoid instead of a big eye.

Sorry, PJ, that was a cheap shot.

But really, I guess I just have to come to grips with the fact that Mr. Jackson's vision isn't exactly the same as my own. I say not exactly the same as my own because actually, in many parts his movies showed me Middle-earth in just the way I had imagined or better. Minas Tirith & Lothlórien, for example, looked exactly how I pictured them, & PJ's Helm's Deep vastly improved on my own rather sketchy image of the battle. In those cases, as well as with the portrayal of characters like Gandalf, Boromir & Samwise, the magic really shined through.

[Gorwingel]

Although I may be a member of the minority on this, I felt the same way about the Grey Havens. When I read the book, I pictured a grey, misty harbour, the voices of Elves lamenting the end of their stay in Middle-earth in a solemn dirge, & the ship setting sail into a misty horizon.

Oh, you are definitely not in the minority (I would think), especially among book fans. The movie Grey Havens definitely didn't meet in any way my version of the Grey Havens. I agree it was definitely much too bright, and not somber enough. But, yes, I most definitely agree that much of the magic was gone from the film. They did a wonderful job, but it is basically impossible to match that same feeling for everyone that you get while reading the book. The book is just so amazing, and really when you read it all the characters become your own, and you in a way go back to when you were younger, and when you spent all of your time creating imaginary worlds of your own. So the world of Middle Earth becomes yours in a way. But I guess that is one of the wonderful things about books... They don't just get served to you like a film, you have to think and work harder to get the full experience.

But, yes, I share many of the same opinions as many of you about the films. I love them... but not as much as the books

[Imladris]

Besides the fact that everyone has there own different view of the magic within the books, the magic simply does not exist and cannot be made to exist. Magic in the literar world is created with fantastic word images that weave the magic. Words are not tangible -- they merely aide you in imagining the magic. The more imaginative you are, the great the enchantment will be.

Film, on the other hand, deals with tangible things. Galadriel is beyond mortals, that's the reason no one can play her with the depth that she deserves. There is simply no woman who can do it because no such woman exists.

That's the same with all the other magic that is lacking. But, as has been said countless times, there is magic in the books and so I won't repeat them.