New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for posting the English translation of the interview, davem. I had a link to the French but the type was not clear enough for me with my very rusty French.

I have a few questions about the translation, such as when Sedulia defends the right to call Christropher Tolkien a professor, rather than use his correct title of Lecturer or Fellow. It doesn't do to fall back on "but in America we say" when there is a legitimately meaningful difference. I also wonder why--and this is perhaps in the original--much is made of Christopher Tolkien's "upper class" accent. Is that a point which is supposed to influence our understanding of his position?

It is very good to be reminded that the producers used that despicable line about 'not having shown profits yet' as a way to deny the Estate their legitimate profits. It provides a perspective on why the lawyers are being so assiduous about the rights of the Estate. As I recall, that line has also been used by the producers of Jimi Hendrick's music to deny his heirs any money from his estate. There's a culture of legal nitpicking and entitlement these days that amounts to greed and abuse by those in authority who feel empowered over those who may lack power. I'm glad the Estate won their case. Perhaps if The Scouring of the Shire had not been omitted from the films the producers might have understood the squalour of their position.

I often think of the history of medieval texts when I look at how Middle-earth has fed so many different imaginations. This interest is a tribute to Tolkien's desire to write a story that would interest him, and hopefully interest others. The text invites entry into the world; this could well be a quality that other authors have not pursued. But the effect is also an ironic consequence of something Tolkien himself noted in his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"

It ["Sir Gawain"] is one of the masterpieces of fourteenth-century art in England, and of English Literature as a whole. It is one of those greater works which not only bear the trampling of the Schools [Tolkien's capitalisation], endure becoming a text [again, T's italics], indeed (severest test) a set text, but yield more and more under this pressure. For it belongs to that literary kind which has deep roots in the past, deeper even than its author was aware. It is made of tales often told before and elsewhere, and of elements that derive from remote times . . . like Beowulf, or some of Shakespeare's plays, such as King Lear or Hamlet.

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, "Sir Gawain"

His story is not about those old things, but it receives part of its life, its vividness, its tension from them. That is the way with the greater fairy-stories--of which this is one.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

Like Christopher Tolkien, I don't particularly like the movies (although my dislike is milder than his). Yet at the same time I have to wonder if this explosion of versions of Middle-earth isn't in fact a literary phenomenon like the kind seen in medieval stories. It becomes a tribute to Tolkien's writing, both his scholarly and his fictive interests.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

[davem]

Couple of interesting things: first, this the first comment I've read from CT about the films. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the family had refused to make any comment at all about them. Second, its also fairly clear from his comment that he has seen the films - or at least the first one.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - if Jackson had gone for a straight action movie aimed at 15 - 25 year olds I think a great deal of the background material (most of the extra material in the extended editions) would have gone by the wayside (I think of Theodred's funeral & the heart-breaking scene between Elrond & Arwen in TT among other things). What Jackson certainly did was create a movie that would prove attractive to 15 -25 year olds as well as older people. There is too much stuff in the movies which wouldn't be there if Jackson had merely done what CT accuses him of.

That said, there are some frankly dumb things in the movies that he ought to be slapped for.

My own dissatisfaction at the movies is simply that they don't 'feel' like Lord of the Rings - something is missing - its in the BBC radio series, which CT played a part in bringing into being, sending tapes of correct pronunciations to the adaptors & corresponding with them - not to mention allowing them to incorporate material from Unfinished Tales into the series. I don't know why the radio version captures the mood & spirit of the book & the movies don't. That said, & if CT thinks PJ has 'trivialised' his father's work, let's imagine what Michael Bey or James Cameron might have gifted us with ...

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT - and certainly not his father given his comments in OFS. Still, Tolkien sold the film rights & made PJ's movie possible. It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

Perhaps he does harbor some resentment toward J.R.R.T for the movie rights' sale, internally. If so, that's his business.
One reason I see for CT's frustrations with the movies might be connected with the fact that before the world of LOTR belonged to this world, it was something the two of them could share. The author was sending the story to CT as it evolved, and perhaps CT bears some possessiveness toward the works that the rest of us cannot fathom. He might see Saentz and Co. not merely as withholders of money owed at least on a moral plane, if not a legal one, but more pointedly as having taken something dear that CT saw as a piece of his father's memory.
I have no idea if that is actually the case, but it seems plausible to me.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by davem

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT - and certainly not his father given his comments in OFS. Still, Tolkien sold the film rights & made PJ's movie possible. It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

Well, it's not like Tolkien was rolling in the money selling the film rights, and at those days commercial merchandise was nowhere near what it would become after Lucas' Star Wars films.

Just my observations here, but it seems at first Christopher Tolkien did not care a great deal about the films. Maybe he did not like them/approve of their making, but for the most part it seemed as if Chistopher's opinion was "Hollywood will do what they want and I don't want any part of it." I can't really fault him for that, because with as much money that was dumped into the films, big showtime Hollywood was going to get the movie they wanted. You can't exactly tell a corporation dumping 100s of millions of dollars into films "Haldir doesn't die, and the only elf at Helm's Deep was Legolas." With the end product, I don't blame Christopher for refusing Jackson's invitation to advise on the films.

The real anger though, I believe, was New Line attempting to cheat the Estate out of their royalties. There really is no excuse for such blatant crookery and it's doubly disgusting that the Estate had to spend years in litigation to get what was their just due from the contract. Even if New Line's part was not Jackson's fault, I think with the product of the films, combined with New Line being crooks, I can see why Christopher Tolkien is far more peeved at the movie-industry then you or me.

[Lalwendë]

CT's attitude reminds me somewhat of what happens when an old home is sold. Whether you feel happy or sad about leaving the place behind, anything the new owners do will upset you, and do something they will. Even if the films had been more faithful it may have been like driving past and seeing new windows in and the trees chopped down. In one respect he should be happy as it was as likely as not they would have razed it to the ground and rebuilt it (John Lennon or John Boorman had some insane ideas for example). Unfortunately, there's not a thing you can do about it.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

I wonder has he ever realised that the books are packed with action? But seriously, this does remind me of the regular griping you see in Guardian film blogs which bemoan the superhero film as being "for young males, a load of tripe". They are, however, great fun and make a lot of money, unlike Lars von Trier films which a certain portion of the mature audience enjoy - only a small one though, as older people have kids and can't go out, which is perhaps why nobody is ever going to make a film of The Archers. Even for me, who would have loved a gentle, lengthy BBC TV serial of Lord of the Rings, there's the realisation that if you need to spend a fortune in special effects and whatnot then you are going to have to do a few things to please the paying public. Though they could have kept in Tom Bombadil, purely to annoy the hoodies

According to the article, which may or may not be true (and I would not vouch for it without referring to a respected biography), Tolkien sold for £100k in the late sixties which was an absolute fortune back then, considering you could buy a nice big house for around £2k.

This though, is nonsense:

This amount was meant to allow the writer's children to pay their future inheritance taxes. Tolkien did it early because these taxes were very high under the Labour government of England of that time.

It wouldn't have helped to pay for death duties at all as they were and are incurred on an estate.

Some things not picked up on from the article...

What about this controversial statement?

First in England, then in France, he reassembled the parts of The Silmarillion, made the whole more coherent, added padding here and there, and published the book in 1977, with some remorse. "Right away I thought that the book was good, but a little false, in the sense that I had had to invent some passages," he explains. At the time, he even had a disagreeable dream. "I was in my father's office at Oxford. He came in and started looking for something in great anxiety. Then I realized in horror that it was The Silmarillion, and I was terrified at the thought that he would discover what I had done."

And how about the journalist being insulting here:

Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising.

Knowing that Alan Lee and John Howe are two ordinary fans like the rest of us who both have incredible respect for Tolkien, I think they may be a tad insulted by this statement. Their 'vision' was actually conceived years before and they were chosen because of their work - it passed muster with Tolkien fans before the film so there is no reason why it should not pass muster afterwards. And is one of the very best things about the films.

[Mithalwen]

I thought it was income tax he needed the cash to pay - I am sure the details have been discussed here before a while back. Sure I ended up digging up the legislation.. not that I am obsessive or anything. Idea that it was on the lines on having to pay a very hight rate of tax before he received the income. 2K wouldn't have bought Tolkien's bungalow in Branksome Chine even though it wasn't very big and was spectacularly ugly. Since selling the rights wouldhave increased the value of the estate I can't see it would help with death duties. I suppose the share of profits might have been hoped to cover them if Tolkien didn't anticipate the films actually being made in his life time... though given the longevity in his family apart friom his parents he perhaps hoped for longer than he got. But what I have read on the issue before implied an immediate need rather than inheritance tax planning.

[Lalwendë]

The Hobbit panel is happening right now at Comic Con and a fan just asked Jackson if he would make a film of the Silmarillion. Jackson said there was "almost no chance" as "the Tolkien estate hold the rights and the Tolkien estate does not like the films".

Very topical.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

My questions about the number of versions of fairy tales were rhetorical. I meant merely to suggest a similarity between the many versions of fairy tales and the many versions of Middle-earth we now have.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thanks for posting the English translation of the interview, davem. I had a link to the French but the type was not clear enough for me with my very rusty French.

I have a few questions about the translation, such as when Sedulia defends the right to call Christropher Tolkien a professor, rather than use his correct title of Lecturer or Fellow. It doesn't do to fall back on "but in America we say"

The original calls him professeur. Which can be anything from a Secondary school teacher up but there is often a modifier... Maitre de conference might be the most accurate equivalent it is a long time since I worked in a French University as a "Lecteur" (which is a foreign language assistant rather than the lofty heights of Reader in an UK university) and I can't quite remember the fine details but IIRC French University lecturers are civil servants and tend to have to sit competitive exams to get their posts. So with different systems it is hard to give an exact equivalent. Given how much wider the meaning of professeur is in French compared to professor in English, and that it is factual rather than literary I might have elided the issue by saying he taught Old English... not ideal ,,is lecturer really not understood the other side of the pond?

As for the accent... the original is "Un Anglais distingué, doté d'un accent très upper class" I don't know that is making much of it, Doté is a bit stronger than with. It literally has the sense of endowed with. From the Silmarillion recordings, Christopher does have a very upper class accent.... though not suprising for someone of his age and schooling, especially an expat. If you use a different language for a lot of day to day life it can keep your native language in a time warp. It seems a pretty good translation really though I have been using French more recently it isn't back to what it was by a long chalk.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

is lecturer really not understood the other side of the pond?

Not here in North North America!

As for the accent... the original is "Un Anglais distingué, doté d'un accent très upper class" I don't know that is making much of it, Doté is a bit stronger than with. It literally has the sense of endowed with. From the Silmarillion recordings, Christopher does have a very upper class accent.... though not suprising for someone of his age and schooling, especially an expat. If you use a different language for a lot of day to day life it can keep your native language in a time warp.

Given that there's no class lines in any of our few regional accents here, accents are not a significant issue here. I had to wonder what was so very relevant about CT's accent--just a bit of character expose or was the interviewer trying to suggest some kind of elitism or snobbishness on CT's part? Not quite the same as "upper class twit" but a bit of shading of the man.

It seems a pretty good translation really though I have been using French more recently it isn't back to what it was by a long chalk.

Thanks! I'm sure your French is still much better than mine, which gets some of the rust rubbed off on the ocasional (and rare) trips to Montreal.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Given that there's no class lines in any of our few regional accents here, accents are not a significant issue here. I had to wonder what was so very relevant about CT's accent--just a bit of character expose or was the interviewer trying to suggest some kind of elitism or snobbishness on CT's part? Not quite the same as "upper class twit" but a bit of shading of the man.

.

I don't get that impression. And Le Monde, which regards itself as the Rolls Royce of papers is unlikely to have an issue with elitism. I think it is a simple description. The writer uses dote in the same article in relation to JRRT's imagination so I don't get a negative connotation. I don't think the French have the reverse snobbery regarding accents either. In some ways the French are egalitarian but they won't compromise standards. It used to be that if you passed the Baccalaureat, whichever subjects you had taken you could be admitted to any degree course but the first year exams were notoriously tough so there was a high fall out rate. In French secondary schools if you didn't pass the year you had to take it again whereas here other in exceptional circumstances you stay with your year group regardless which means you could have secondary school pupils way in to their twenties!

[dreeness]

Please, do not use the Constitution as a crutch for your ignorant drivel. It's embarrassing.

(Please post more of your atavistic grunting. It's a hoot!)

Maybe you could just stop the vicious name-calling.

("Vicious"? Do you know that Zaentz tried to financially destroy John Fogerty?)

Smiley emoticons

(On an internet posting board?! The horror, the horror...)

an apparent lack of courtesy

(That's rich.)

If it is your intention to alienate yourself from the rest of us, then congratulations, you are well on your way to pariah status.

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author.

(Obvious twaddle. You better "move the goalposts", and hope nobody notices...)

If you have an actual example of such extraordinary documentation, research and editing of unpublished works of an author compiled by a single person, I'd like to hear it.

(And you did move the goalposts! Well done, padawan! If you hadn't done that, I might've said "What about Fargnoli's work on Joyce?", and then you would've said "Joyce who?" and chaos would surely reign.)

welch on the contract

(Yay, ethnic stereotypes!)

I'm a civil servant and a leftie and our Government is a bunch of neo-cons. I'm not about to give up my job though, as I need to feed the family

(Well yeah, but thats "survival vs utter ruin", not "tons of money vs tons more money".)

And no, I don't worship at the altar of Christopher Tolkien

(Well, apparently that makes you a Thought Criminal.)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by dreeness

("Vicious"? Do you know that Zaentz tried to financially destroy John Fogerty?)

I see no association with the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(On an internet posting board?! The horror, the horror...)

It isn't the mere use of emoticons that is the problem. The context in which you use them is inconsistent with the words around them.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(That's rich.)

I would posit you're the only one here who thinks so.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

Again with the discourtesy. I don't know what other forums you've lurked at, but here civil discourse and respect for others is highly valued.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Yay, ethnic stereotypes!)

She said "welch". Not quite the same as "welsh", and in any case, a common expression.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Well yeah, but thats "survival vs utter ruin", not "tons of money vs tons more money"

So you think the Estate is not entitled to proceeds from the movies, then? Do you have a reason, besides saying "CT was against the movies, so he shouldn't accept any of the profits from them?"

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Well, apparently that makes you a Thought Criminal.)

Once again, it isn't your opinion that is bothersome, it is the manner in which you express it.

[Lalwendë]

Please all calm down before davem's interesting thread gets closed.

Ta.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

I get the distinct impression that you would be a marvelous resource when we discuss the "Roast Mutton" chapter of The Hobbit.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(And you did move the goalposts! Well done, padawan! If you hadn't done that, I might've said "What about Fargnoli's work on Joyce?", and then you would've said "Joyce who?" and chaos would surely reign.)

Actually, I am aware of Fargnoli, as I am a fan of Joyce. But then, in your rush to cheap sarcasm, you have undercut any chance of sounding reasonable or serious in your replies.

I do have a copy of Fargnoli's James Joyce A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Life and Writings. It is well written, and a worthwhile reference book. It is not as enjoyable and irascible as Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, but definitely a book I have used. Yet I don't believe the "A to Z" or his other few thin volumes - much of it critiques and analyses of the works Joyce published within his lifetime - equates to an all-encompassing retrospective of the size and scope I was referring to, particularly in regards to unpublished material. Not even remotely close. In addition, nearly all of his work is co-authored by various other academics. But since it seems you are more interested in insults and imputations, you probably had little time to actually research your posts.

But please, try again.

[Legolas]

Thanks to those keeping it civil, and those reminders of proper forum conduct.

You may wish to review a couple of our policies and guidelines.

Accept the fact that others have different opinions. If you don’t agree, just state your own opinion; you don’t have to correct everyone else or argue until they agree with you.

Violators will be entombed.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thanks for the analysis, Mith. I've always thought it a bit ironic that Tolkien's son moved to France, given Tolkien Sr.'s thoughts about the French.

Since you said this, of course, we've been fortunate enough to see Verlyn Flieger's talk at Return of the Ring, which calls into question that very aspect of Tolkien Senior's personality. I've been meaning ever since to start a thread to discuss my thoughts on that issue, but for now just a quick thought.

I haven't consulted my library yet, but it seems to me that the only aspects of French culture to which JRRT expressed any antipathy were specifically those which have been imposed on the English, either by the Normans (Woden's curse be upon them) or the aptly French-named bourgeoisie (in other words, precisely those people represented by the Sackville-Bagginses). It's easy to see how a product of industrial, no-nonsense Birmingham society might well heap a certain amount of disdain on the gratuitous and unnecessary use of French where a perfectly adequate English term exists, or the unjustifiable privilege given to French culture among the would-be arbiters of taste in this country. It's possible that Humphrey Carpenter overstated the case a little or misinterpreted what he discovered. In any case, I think CRT has earned the right to be cut a little slack by his father's ghost, having got such a hard time about military aircraft when he joined the R.A.F. I'm afraid I can't agree with JRRT about Spitfires.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't get that impression. And Le Monde, which regards itself as the Rolls Royce of papers is unlikely to have an issue with elitism. I think it is a simple description. The writer uses dote in the same article in relation to JRRT's imagination so I don't get a negative connotation. I don't think the French have the reverse snobbery regarding accents either. In some ways the French are egalitarian but they won't compromise standards. It used to be that if you passed the Baccalaureat, whichever subjects you had taken you could be admitted to any degree course but the first year exams were notoriously tough so there was a high fall out rate. In French secondary schools if you didn't pass the year you had to take it again whereas here other in exceptional circumstances you stay with your year group regardless which means you could have secondary school pupils way in to their twenties!

Thanks for the analysis, Mith. I've always thought it a bit ironic that Tolkien's son moved to France, given Tolkien Sr.'s thoughts about the French.

Perhaps a reminder about the kind of etiquette followed here, from the Mod, Estelyn Telcontar, would be helpful:

Posting Guidelines

No flaming, no personal attacks. Please attempt to expand or develop the topic.

[Mithalwen]

Prejudices aren't always hereditary!!! And it isn't an insult to call someone an intellectual in France - and there is the warmth and the wine and the stringent privacy laws.. and just an hour's flight away from the UK. Not an unprecedented choice for wealthy Brits, retiring to the South of France...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

and just an hour's flight away from the UK. Not an unprecedented choice for wealthy Brits, retiring to the South of France...

I've often wondered if Mick Jagger might be a neighbour.

Ted Nasmith was also initially asked to be part of the movies but unfortunately at the time he faced some difficult family problems and couldn't participate.

I think, though, even with Lee's and Howe's work, there are still aspects of Nasmith's work in the movies.

[davem]

This is a bit interesting in the context of CT's attitude to the movies - a statement he made immediately prior to the release of FotR http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tolki...0-6335205.html

He said: "My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form. On the other hand, I recognise that this is a debatable and complex question of art, and the suggestions that have been made that I 'disapprove' of the films, whatever their cinematic quality, event to the extent of thinking ill of those with whom I may differ, are wholly without foundation. I have never expressed or entertained any such feeling, which I would think altogether inappropriate and wrong-headed."

Of course, this was before he saw the movie(s??) but its interesting nonetheless. Odd to state that he believes the work to be "peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" but then gets annoyed at the movies not being up to his requirements - if they are unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form then I assume that he would have been dissatisfied with them whatever. Which means his real issue is with the fact they were made at all rather than with what Jackson made of them.

[Boromir88]

And another very well-written article linked below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4...iry-tales.html

Scroll to the end for the comments regarding the films, but my suggestion (particularly to dreeness) would be to read the entire article to understand the context and point I'm making.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this was before he saw the movie(s??) but its interesting nonetheless. Odd to state that he believes the work to be "peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" but then gets annoyed at the movies not being up to his requirements - if they are unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form then I assume that he would have been dissatisfied with them whatever. Which means his real issue is with the fact they were made at all rather than with what Jackson made of them.

Sometimes I suspect he's the oldest Hipster in town - "Tolkien films are so over."

But, he probably didn't think they would make good films even before they were made, either because (like a lot of us) he didn't realise just what modern SFX are capable of or he had an extremely fixed and strong vision in his own mind. Likely the latter. And thirteen years later, he is probably negatively affected by all of the hype surrounding them and the court case.

Anyone going through a court case like that is bound to hate those films, it's not a case of someone saying they hate them but secretly quite enjoying them. CT hates them, full stop. However, given all the hype and marketing, even if there had been no court case I think he would still hate the films.

Some of the hype I dislike, but overall, I think it's unfair to blame Alan Lee and John Howe for the visual images they created. It's as beautiful and thoughtful a vision that could have been created, seeing as they chose the two very best Tolkien visual artists to lead it, and they are two artists who took immense care over what they made. Blame Jackson for some bad script choices, yes, but not the artists.

I come back again to what the journalist said, and I think he/she is likely unaware of the work of these two men and the respect they did and still do show to Tolkien's work as fans themselves. It's really not fair to blame them if marketeers used their imagery afterwards for some of the cheesier products - better this than something lurid by the Hildebrant Brothers

Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising.