MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Bêthberry]

A new day means a new approach . . .

First, let me reiterate my assumption that this question of faithfulness is best discussed in terms of literary adaptation. Certainly StW's complaint against the Downs' community faults their/our recourse to the Book. History is a much broader canvas and as the example of LoA demonstrates, the source material itself--Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom--can be questioned by recourse to other historical documents. History is written largely and mainly by the victors and a little research will turn up a variety of points of view. A book, however, usually has but one author and in the case of film adaptations the adaptation is dependent upon legal right to do so. Such a legal control does not exist with the larger canvas "history", although those who lived any history filmed will of course claim the right to discuss authenticity, fidelity, faithfulness--whatever word they wish to use.

For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand.

As Nerwen points out, definitions of successful movies can vary. And, indeed, change over time. WoO barely made a profit in its initial screenings; indeed, it became the well loved movie it is largely as a result of its anual screening on television. And, as I will show with some of the links following, even appeals to popularity or majority rules will show inconsistent choices.

First of all, The British newspaper The Guardian some two years ago held a vote on Greatest Film Adaptations. Here's an analysis of the results: from paper to celluloid

And here's The Big Fifty readers chose from. Note that LotR did not make the cut to this top fifty. (That exclusion can of course be discussed.)

What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits.

Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith. While the topic can often be described in terms of book purists rightly (or wrongly) bemoaning the loss of what makes the book grand, the subject is open to many more questions, not merely the essentialist one of "a film is different from a book." Indeed, there are studies which categorically reject that argument.

Here's a link to D. Cartmmell's highbrow studyAdaptations: from text to screen, from screen to edit.

Here's a link to StW's favourite source: the Wikipedia on Film Adapation

Here'a a link to Brian McFarlane's Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation.

It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers? But that's just one criterion to consider.

To say that faithfulness to book has nothing to do with popularity or success of a movie is a claim that overlooks many discussions of the issue, especially when even the definition of quality in movies can be so variously argued, as Nerwen again points out. Indeed, the grand thing about the topic of adaptation is that it can be viewed from so many different angles, no one of which is the absolutely correct one.

[Sauron the White]

The idea that adaption of source material to film is a very wide subject with a variety of angles and avenues to be explored is one that I would agree with. When I first posted the thread on LAWRENCE, and again with the OZ thread, I used the term source or source material to describe the original origin of the eventual film. With LAWRENCE we have a combination of both the real life of Col. Lawrence and the events that surround him as well as the book written about him The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I see where other writers such as Lowell Thomas wrote about Lawrence and felt that some of their work crept into the film without acknowledgement or credit or payment.

With WIZARD OF OZ, we have one clear literary source, the book by the same name written by L. Frank Baum.

But in both cases, we have films which were made and based on sources other than the inventions and creations of a screenwriter creating something out of whole cloth. Both were adaptions from source material.

I would like to answer several points raised in the latest post from Bethberry.

For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand.

I understand the point Bethberry makes in saying that my definition of "source material" is too broad and should be limited to literary adaptions alone. And if I were trying to eliminate many of the examples at my opposites disposal, I certainly would take the same tact. By ruling out anything other than pure literary fiction, it certainly limits the playing field and some of my examples go out the window.

With all due respect, I started both threads and I defined the scope of the issue at hand. I decided to discuss "source material" to include the sources from real life for a film like LAWRENCE, the biography used to help create LAWRENCE, and the pure fictional work of Baum for OZ. We could add JRRTolkien and LOTR to that list also since it has been discussed and cited by both sides. So unless someone wants to start another thread severely restricting this debate to literary fiction adapted to screen I will continue with my original purpose.

Mr. Hicklin borrows a wonderful phrase saying that I am comparing "apples and cinder blocks". A beautiful turn of words I must agree. However, I think it over broad since both are true examples of "source material" in that they are not the creations of screen writers working with a blank page and only their imagination.

What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits.

I have repeatedly used box office revenues, awards and critical reviews to show the success of LOTR. And you could do the same with many other films including LAWRENCE. But as you pointed out so well, OZ does not fit into that straight-jacket. You rightfully recounted that upon its release in 1939, the film only did so-so business and barely made a respectable profit. It took several releases over the next two decades for the film to be branded as a financial success. And you also wisely pointed out that repeated showings once a year on TV was really put the film into the beloved category in the hearts and minds of so many people.
So in the case of OZ, it was not money, or reviews or awards which made the film loved and successful.

With this in mind, and remembering that OZ was one of the two main films I am using here to support my main point, I would say that it is not altogether fair to say that I use this standard of money,awards and reviews to define a films success.

Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith.

I agree 100%. I am sure that Civil War experts took great issue with the portrayal of Griffith's version of things in BIRTH OF A NATION. I would guess that the OZ book fans found much fault with almost every version of their beloved book including the much praised 1939 version. As great as TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is on screen, I have no doubt that many serious fans of the print version cringed when some of their favorite scenes or lines were cut from the film, characters combined, motivations changed or characters were simply too young,old, tall, fat or just plain wrong.

I never meant to imply that Downs members are alone or distinct in this regard. But I would go one step further. There are many people here who know ten times what I know about the books of JRRT. I marvel at the breadth of knowledge and scholarship that resides here. While I have read the books many times, I have just scratched the surface compared to many others here. And, all that knowledge, all that devotion, all that love of the source material - in this case the print work of JRRT - has proven to be a handicap which prevents some from truly enjoying the films. All the weight of that knowledge has simply denied some the ability to suspend disbelief and go with the flow of the movie. Inside, they wage a fight as an inner voice screams "thats not right".... "it did NOT happen that way" .... "that character did not say that" ..... and so on. The person who views the films without having read the book has no such weight to bear. The person who has read the book once or twice probably has no such weight to bear.

I would say that the JRRT expert on the Downs is in the same boat with the Civil War expert finding fault with Griffiths, or the Baum expert finding fault with MGM's film, or any other such example.

It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers?

First of all, I am still not clear on how anyone can actually define or standardize something as vague as fidelity or faithfulness..... but lets go with the statement as written. I think this is a most interesting observation. Do they want to capture the book readership market or do they want a virgin audience? Or a question not asked - do they want both?

Given the high cost of making a majaor motion picture, most studios would have to go beyond the mere book audience especially for big budget spectaculars such as LOTR or OZ. They need both to make a profit -- and lets face it, that is the prime reason a film gets made.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

And, all that knowledge, all that devotion, all that love of the source material - in this case the print work of JRRT - has proven to be a handicap which prevents some from truly enjoying the films. All the weight of that knowledge has simply denied some the ability to suspend disbelief and go with the flow of the movie. Inside, they wage a fight as an inner voice screams "thats not right".... "it did NOT happen that way" .... "that character did not say that" ..... and so on. The person who views the films without having read the book has no such weight to bear. The person who has read the book once or twice probably has no such weight to bear.

Perfectly true - & an important point. Personally I often wish I could go back to the pre-Sil days. LotR & TH are the books which touched our hearts & I doubt very much whether The Sil in its '77 form, let alone any other Middle-earth writings would have seen the light of day if Hobbits had not come forth. Some days I wish CT had left his father's unpublished stuff well alone. Some days....

I think we've lost as much as we've gained. Middle-earth is in some ways a much bigger place since Tolkien passed, but in other ways it's much smaller, because the 'unexplored vistas' have now become defined limits. We can now argue over the most intricate aspects of Middle-earth because we know so much. And I sometimes think we've crossed the line which divides 'so much' from 'too much'. Some of the magic has departed - in the main because CT's work has deluged us with the manuscripts.

And yet... I suspect that much in the movies would have annoyed me just as much if I had only known LotR & TH. But perhaps I'd have tolerated them more - even liked them maybe - simply because without all the 'secondary works' Tolkien's creation would have been a much smaller part of my life & I'd perhaps have more perspective. I often ask myself whether, if I lost all my Tolkien books I'd bother replacing any other than TH & LotR - & the answer is I honestly don't know.

But, 'There's no real going back', so none of that is really relevant I suppose.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

There are many people here who know ten times what I know about the books of JRRT. I marvel at the breadth of knowledge and scholarship that resides here. While I have read the books many times, I have just scratched the surface compared to many others here. And, all that knowledge, all that devotion, all that love of the source material - in this case the print work of JRRT - has proven to be a handicap which prevents some from truly enjoying the films. All the weight of that knowledge has simply denied some the ability to suspend disbelief and go with the flow of the movie. Inside, they wage a fight as an inner voice screams "thats not right".... "it did NOT happen that way" .... "that character did not say that" ..... and so on. The person who views the films without having read the book has no such weight to bear. The person who has read the book once or twice probably has no such weight to bear.

I would say that the JRRT expert on the Downs is in the same boat with the Civil War expert finding fault with Griffiths, or the Baum expert finding fault with MGM's film, or any other such example.

Originally Posted by davem

Perfectly true - & an important point. Personally I often wish I could go back to the pre-Sil days. LotR & TH are the books which touched our hearts & I doubt very much whether The Sil in its '77 form, let alone any other Middle-earth writings would have seen the light of day if Hobbits had not come forth. Some days I wish CT had left his father's unpublished stuff well alone. Some days....

Well now, I'm going to respectfully disagree with the both of you. Because I think that the power of a work of art will work its wonder on the viewer regardless of what he or she brings or does not bring to the dark screening room. If--and that's a mighty big if--it is a well wrought work of art.


You see, I wasn't offended at Arwen at the Bruinen or the omission of Tom or the shift in timing of Boromir's death. I was not offended by anything because it changed the books. I was instead bored by things which failed to develop the movie trilogy as a consistently conceived, imagined and portrayed work of art. They weren't faithful to the tragic/mythic splendor of vision which they first promised/proclaimed (and which is coincidentally Tolkien's vision). So they offended me not because they violated the books per se but because they muddled the vision of the movies.

Some viewers, no doubt many, were happy simply with a rip-roaring fantasy adventure flick. Good for them. I'm glad they enjoyed watching two wizards break dancing. I'm glad they enjoyed seeing Galadriel effaced by special effects which turned her moment of supreme temptation and victory into a wow event. I'm glad they laughed at Gimli. But the tragic representation of a dwarven culture lost in Moria, well, for me, that figure cannot easily be made the butt of jokes.

Yes, I think Jackson failed to do justice to Tolkien's vision, something far larger and grander than can be encompassed by the omission of a few characters or the inclusion of some invented ones. It was an aesthetic failure because he couldn't or didn't want to hold that vision consistently throughout the movies. So, you see, it isn't simply a case of being unfaithful to the source but of being unable to create a consistent work of art. I suppose I would say that there are more than one cinematic hearts beating in Jackson's movies, and they ain't beating rhythmically or in sync. from my perspective of course.

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry --- your point about both Dwarven humor and the Wizards duel is taken and agreed with. I certainly would not have done it that way myself. However, despite reading many different people criticize the Galadriel sequence over the years, I have read it and reread it and it seems that it is one of the most word for word copied from the book scenes in the film. Even the special effects transformation is there in the book. Could you explain what you see wrong with what Jackson put on the screen with that scene.

Davem - I enjoyed your post looking back, It certainly is cause to think.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bethberry --- your point about both Dwarven humor and the Wizards duel is taken and agreed with. I certainly would not have done it that way myself. However, despite reading many different people criticize the Galadriel sequence over the years, I have read it and reread it and it seems that it is one of the most word for word copied from the book scenes in the film. Even the special effects transformation is there in the book. Could you explain what you see wrong with what Jackson put on the screen with that scene.

Davem - I enjoyed your post looking back, It certainly is cause to think.

Well, it's been some time since I saw the scene (is today a holiday too, and do I have time to go back and watch it?) but as I recall we are shown something as actual which is yet but a possibility.

When Frodo is injured with the morgul knife at Weathertop, he is actually experiencing the wraith world and the special effects priviledge the viewers to show them his experience--and it is clear that this is his experience which the other hobbits cannot see/share.

But Galadriel doesn't actually put on the ring, she only imagines what will/would happen. But the special effects make it appear to have really happened. It isn't just Galadriel's prediction, or Frodo's special sight as a Ring-bearer, it becomes a done deed. It is a difficulty with expressing interiority in film.

And if you go back to read the book--which you are saying is a no-no to experience the movie--it's clear that the only two people in the book who experienced any special sight--the Eye--are Frodo and Galadriel. Sam clearly says he didn't see Galadriel's ring--he saw starlight shining on her finger, so he would not have seen Galadriel perilous and wonderful and terrible. In the book, too, what Frodo sees is the light of the Ring of Adamant, not this terrible vision. Yet that is what the audience sees. It just doesn't work for me as her prediction.

I should say, too, that it made me think of Gandalf's temptation scene. We were given Gandalf's words and Ian's acting there, but Galadriel's temptation relied on special effects rather than acting, rather than seeing the character work out the consequences of her character with the Ring's power. To my mind this drew attention to the presence of the special effects rather than to the actual experience being played out.

So for me it fails both as a movie scene/character depiction and as a "faithful" adaptation of the book. It is possible to take things word for word and still get 'em wrong.

[Sauron the White]

Would it surprise you if I said I could not disagree more? Probably not.
I only referenced the book since that seems to be the starting point at which most Downers who criticize the films begin. I assumed that if Jackson did the scene as written, that would eliminate any criticism. When I read that page, its pretty much exact as written. I understand your explaination as to why it does not work for you. But sitting in a theater without the text there is no problem at all with what is depicted. You say its all special effects and not acting. I did not see it that way. I looked at it as a proper blend of both that produced a very memorable scene.

And on a purely personal selfish note, I collect all the figures from the film and have to tell you that despite her amazing history, Galadriel is one very dull figure. However, Galadriel Entranced (which is what they call it) is one extremely dramatic and beautiful figure. But that has nothing to do with the film but just my own personal bias.

It is possible to take things word for word and still get 'em wrong.

I wonder how Jackson and company would respond to that? I know if it was me, what my response would be. "Damned if I do and damned if I don't. I do it the way Tolkien wrote it and they savage me. I do it my way and they still savage me. Screw 'em".

But thats just me.

[skip spence]

Is this developing into a resonable debate of how well PJ adapted certain scenes from the book? I certainly hope so.

I have to agree with StW that the Galadriel scene was a faithful (and for me, poignant) adaptation of the very same scene in the book. Had she just told the movie-viewers what might have happened if she took the ring the scene would have lost a lot of its dramatic effect. And Gandalf's temptation scene, as I remember it, was also very faithful to the book IMO.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

But sitting in a theater without the text there is no problem at all with what is depicted. You say its all special effects and not acting. I did not see it that way. I looked at it as a proper blend of both that produced a very memorable scene.

I wonder how Jackson and company would respond to that? I know if it was me, what my response would be. "Damned if I do and damned if I don't. I do it the way Tolkien wrote it and they savage me. I do it my way and they still savage me. Screw 'em".

But thats just me.

One of my points is that they didn't do it the way Tolkien wrote it because they completely missed out on why the scene ends with that little conversation with Sam. If you wish to continue to say that they followed the scene exactly, feel free to reiterate your opinion, as I have reiterated mine here.

The other main point, which apparently I do need to repeat, is that my dissatisfaction with the scene was with the scene as scene and not as book adaptation. It happened as I sat in the darkened cinema experiencing the film the first time. I didn't bring the books with me into the cinema and I wasn't sitting there, finger following line after line, with a pen flashlight, desperately, madly, fiendishly trying to find fault with this upstart New Zealander. I was really, really hoping to be entertained and for the most part for the first film I was. But after that scene, I might have thought what a shame that Peter Jackson didn't paste "WHAM BAM POW" across the screen in case anyone missed the point about how scary and powerful this Ring thing is. Holy fletcaves, Fletgirl!

As I said earlier, there are many who are happy with such scenes, and let them be happy, including both StW and skip. But your pleasure with the scene does not mitigate against my displeasure. You obviously got more of your money's worth than me, well done!