Dumbing it down

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Wow! This topic is a lot hotter then I thought it would be.

[davem]

The impression I get from the books is that Boromir & Faramir almost symbolise the two aspects of Aragorn's character. Boromir is his 'warrior' side, the side that seeks to achieve his destiny & rule Gondor & Arnor, while Faramir is his 'spiritual' side.

Its interesting how in the book its only when Boromir dies that Aragorn starts to manifest signs of Kingship - Legolas sees a 'crown' of flame on his brow, etc. The 'Boromir' side of Aragorn seems to have died along with its human 'manifestation'. At this point Faramir appears, almost symbolising the side of Aragorn which will become dominant - his true 'royalty'.

It seems to me that the screenwriters prefer the 'Boromir' side. Aragorn throughout is presented as far more like Boromir & movie Boromir is presented in a far more sympathetic light than book Boromir. They actually make Faramir a kind of 'lesser' Boromir, a Boromir 'wannabee', rather than a character in his own right. Their idea of Faramir seems to be that he is an originally weak character who doesn't know his own mind, one who needs to 'grow up' & become like his brother.

As I said, in the book, its like Boromir & Faramir are 'mirrors' of Aragorn's own inner state. Boromir would be an adequate steward for Aragorn as we first meet him, but Faramir is the kind of steward he needs by the end of his 'journey' because Aragorn is on a 'spiritual' path just as much as Frodo, who also has his two 'mirrors' - Smeagol & Sam...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

A quick note: I've been working through the commentaries for the EE of RotK and there was one very interesting nugget from Phillipa Boyens. When she was discussing the decision to have Frodo send Sam away, she says that one of the reasons she likes this change is that it "shocked fans of the book". She sees that shock as a good thing as it shakes them up and makes them wonder just how this movie is going to turn out.

I have to admit that this got me to thinking -- how much would I really want to see a completely faithful adaptation of the book. I've already read it, I already know it, I already have visuals in my mind of it. With the changes that are there, I was able to enjoy the films -- as films -- insofar as there was still the possiblity of surprise, suspense and reversal for me. I was on the edge of my seat, because while I knew that things were going to turn out all right in the end, I could never be precisely sure of how this was going to happen.

And is that not one of the things that makes the book so wonderful. The only thing we can know for sure is that good will triumph, but the suspense comes in though not knowing how it's going to play itself out, and who is going to be lost or hurt along the way. The book-Faramir, for example, is a sacrifice that is made meaningful by the final accomplishment of the goal: the eucatastrophe of the film's conclusion.

Ahhhh. . .now there's a question: does the film have the same eucatastrophe of the book or not? That's, I think, where this whole discussion is really headed.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Now I don't expect film-makers to turn down fortunes in potential profit, ignore current trends, and make movies that pander to my taste. But that doesn't mean I have to like, or pretend to like, what they produce.

I am most certainly not trying to suggest that you should. But I think that it is important, when discussing the merits of the films (as against the book), to try to understand why the film-makers made the decisions (and the changes) that they did. They did not do so out of a capricious desire to outrage fans of the books. Indeed, Arwen’s intended participation at Helm’s Deep was abandoned precisely because they (and the much maligned Liv Tyler) were concerned to take account of the views of the fans.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

A lot of directors would have done worse. But I think that a few would have done better - and there are a number of specific decisions made by Jackson that I think were mistakes that were not inevitable, and that could just as easily not have been made.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Yet I don't get the sense that PJ is often intentionally patronizing; rather, I think some of the changes made by him and his partners reflect their limitations as filmmakers.

I don’t doubt that the films would have been very different had they been made by another director. Whether any particular director would have made them any better (or indeed worse) is, in my view, very much a subjective issue. For example, I am well aware of the acclaim accorded to Hitchcock as a director, and I can understand why his films are regarded as such classics, but they still don’t do much for me.

And, when it comes down to it, I doubt that there are many other directors with a sufficient combination of skill, flair and interest in and passion for the book to make these films work. Of those who might fall within this category, I would put Jackson fairly near the top of the list, if not at the top.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

LOTR is by far his best movie I think, then Heavenly Creatures is supposedly good but I haven't seen it, everything else is just junk.

Many would class Heavenly Creatures as his best film. Although it is a long time since I have seen it, I do recall that is an excellent piece of film-making. And it certainly puts paid to the myth that Jackson’s style is necessarily heavy-handed and unsubtle. His earlier films are admittedly (low budget) gore-fests, although Braindead is fun and worth a watch if you’re not too squeamish. Nevertheless, I think that he deliberately chose the style in which he made the LotR films (no doubt in consultation with the studio), for the kinds of reasons that I have already outlined.

Originally Posted by davem

These movies don't teach us anything ...

Why should they? I regard them as pure entertainment: nothing more and nothing less. Indeed, that is how I have regarded the book throughout much of my life. But the films moreso. Tolkien clearly felt compelled to put across his moral vision in his works. Can we realistically expect Jackson to present that same vision on the big screen? He is not Tolkien. It is not his vision. The best that we can expect is to see his interpretation of that vision, and I think that he did genuinely try to achieve that. But, when it comes down to it, these films were predominantly intended as entertainment.

While I agree with Fordim Hedgethistle that Jackson largely captured the essence of Tolkien’s work, I think it is unrealistic, both for the reasons stated above and due to the constraints of screen time, to expect him to have captured it entirely. As I said, he is not Tolkien. He has own individual beliefs and outlook on life. And he was addressing a predominantly different audience and largely for different purposes.

Finally, as for this “mercy” issue, I am with Essex. The lines addressing this aspect were primarily those written by Tolkien. But Jackson and the other writers would not have included them if they did not feel them important. I was particularly taken with the inclusion, in the Extended Edition of TTT, of Sam’s speech, transposed (appropriately, I feel) to Faramir, on the fallen Southron. I have always liked these lines because they convey a sense of compassion for those Men who have been duped or coerced into fighting under Sauron’s banner. By giving the words to Faramir, one gets the sense that he would offer mercy to his enemies on the field of battle (at least those who are not portrayed - in the books as well as the films - as irredeemably evil).

But, for me, the most important scene in the film, when it comes to the question of mercy, is one that was added. Essex has already mentioned it. It is the scene between Frodo and Gollum following Frodo’s (initial) escape from Shelob. This comes at a stage when it must be clear to (film) Frodo (as it is to the audience) that Gollum has been irretrievably lost to the lure of the Ring. Frodo no longer has any basis for believing that Gollum can be saved. And yet he forgives Gollum and offers him compassion. Frodo could have killed him at this point, but he does not. He is instead fortified in his belief that the Ring must be destroyed. And so the central concept of the Ring being destroyed in consequence of Frodo’s (selfless) mercy is retained.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Fordim

And is that not one of the things that makes the book so wonderful. The only thing we can know for sure is that good will triumph, but the suspense comes in though not knowing how it's going to play itself out, and who is going to be lost or hurt along the way.

Now there's an interesting point. Suspense. Of course, the books will hold no suspense for us now we've read and re-read them, some of us many more times than we can remember. But now the films also hold no suspense for me, as I've watched them many times over. How far can suspense be held to be a good thing? Once you know the story, the element of suspense is gone.

When I first read the books, I did not know that good would triumph, I did not know what was going to happen along the way, and I was thoroughly gripped by the suspense. Alas, this experience can only be had the once, and it was a long long time ago (thankfully I was somehow aware of this and so took my time in reading the books) and it is all too easy to forget that the books are full of suspense and surprise.

For me, I wasn't too bothered about having suspense in the films as I knew the story. Then they altered the story, perhaps to add suspense, but that sensation was short lived and ultimately I'd rather have the more deep satisfaction of seeing the full extent of the story played out in the film medium. The thing with suspense in a film is that once that thrill is done with, there needs to be substance to keep you watching again and again; thankfully the films do have that substance, but the scenes which were added or altered for purposes of suspense then show up all the more starkly as redundant.

The ironic thing is that the greatest moment of suspense in the whole of the three films for me was the opening credits of FotR, as I sat there worried to death about what they might have done with my favourite book.

Originally Posted by davem

Their idea of Faramir seems to be that he is an originally weak character who doesn't know his own mind, one who needs to 'grow up' & become like his brother.

In the films, Faramir comes across as a character who is very much in the shade of his much more successful brother, while book Faramir is a far more independent man, not successful at the more 'public' acts of bravery which Boromir excels in, but in understanding the tactics of successful covert operations. This ties in with his more intuitive, thoughtful character, and in this light the entirely 'right' thing for him to do would be to understand Frodo's mission and to understand his need for secrecy. This was being successfully conveyed until the moment where his men start to beat up Gollum and he decides to leave for Osgiliath. Until that point there was the potential to rescue the scene, maybe with foreshadowing and hence suspense of what horrors were to come for Frodo and Sam in the pass of Cirith Ungol - as Faramir obviously knows something of it.

Originally Posted by SpM

Braindead is fun and worth a watch if you’re not too squeamish

And you'll never look at a Flymo in quite the same way ever again...