How We Read Rings of Power

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Yes!!! But not underpowered in the "how many backflips you can do while swinging your sword", but rather all the other power she's supposed to be emanating even at this point already. Becoming more queenly, like you said - being the charismatic leader, playing the political game, exerting her spiritual power Melian-style... That doesn't mean she can't swing a sword - but right now ALL she can do is swing a sword. Where is her charisma? Where is her leadership? At the very least her bit of common sense and tact???

I do believe that is the path her story will eventually lead to. In any dramatic adaptation, your main characters need development. As much as people griped about Aragorn shouldn't be waffly, and should have accepted his right to the throne of Gondor as soon as he meets the hobbits in Bree. The truth is (at least in my opinion) your main characters have to grow and change. It's a difficult task. In an adaptation that relies primarily on visual the story has to be told differently. We need to see how Aragorn changes, not hear about it.

One of the complaints about Galadriel I saw after the first episode is how "she's just oh so awesome and always right, because she's Galadriel." I really didn't get that one, because I had the complete opposite reactions. She is very flawed at the moment. Her independence and willfulness makes her a poor commander. Which is I think how we are supposed to perceive her at the moment. A skilled warrior (Isildur even called her the "scourge of the Orcs"), but someone who is constantly ending up alone because of her independence, making her a poor leader. My criticism would be, I think they're being really heavy-handed with it. It's ok for your main characters to have flaws. For example, someone like Thorin (I thought Richard Armitage's performance was one of the slightly better things about The Hobbit). He played the flawed hero well, but it was still someone you had sympathy for and could react to sadly when he died. You can't hate your main hero. She can have flaws and weaknesses, but we also need to feel sympathy and hope that she grows into her leadership role.

It's sort of the same reason I had a bigger problem with Alfrid than with Tauriel. They obviously tried to make Alfrid the comic relief, but you can't make someone the audience is seriously annoyed by be the comic relief.

[Boromir88]

As a separate thought, that came to me reading Bethberry's response:

"It is far more than mere "baggage". It is one's philosophical predispositions, which can often operate seemingly unconsciously but not necessarily so, that predetermine how one reads a text.".

Please correct me if this is wrong, because I did not study literary criticism, and don't know the lingo. One point you seem to be making is Tolkien was a product of his time. I don't mean that as a negative, but he was still a 20th century author. Yes, he was inspired by historical literary works, classics and mythologies. But to me, he was also clearly a 20th century writer, and also incorporated modern ideas of his time.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambigious.~Foreward to Lord of the Rings

Tolkien definitely deals with modern topics such as industrialism, the destruction of nature, colonialism, the horrors of war (Frodo's post traumatic stress). Again this isn't a criticism, but it's the product of being a 20th century author. You can't remain wholly unaffected by the period you're writing in. It's not surprising to me that Rings of Power is distinctly a product of 21st century writers. I agree that it is more than baggage.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Please correct me if this is wrong, because I did not study literary criticism, and don't know the lingo. One point you seem to be making is Tolkien was a product of his time. I don't mean that as a negative, but he was still a 20th century author. Yes, he was inspired by historical literary works, classics and mythologies. But to me, he was also clearly a 20th century writer, and also incorporated modern ideas of his time.

Tolkien definitely deals with modern topics such as industrialism, the destruction of nature, colonialism, the horrors of war (Frodo's post traumatic stress). Again this isn't a criticism, but it's the product of being a 20th century author. You can't remain wholly unaffected by the period you're writing in. It's not surprising to me that Rings of Power is distinctly a product of 21st century writers. I agree that it is more than baggage.

Oh, no, sorry Boro for being unclear but I was not in any way referring to Tolkien. I was referring to critics, fans, and readers of him and of the various media that derive from his work.

Talking about writers is far more complex than talking about critics. At heart I was taking issue with loremasters who believe they can unreservedly and transparently speak directly about what Tolkien thought and intended, to the detriment of any other possible interpretations by other fans, specifically about RoP.

You are of course correct that Tolkien was a 20th Century writer. There's lots of material about that I can add to your list but that's a topic for another thread. And sorry about the linguistic theory lingo. I was directing my thoughts towards loremasters here who I anticipated would be familiar with it and not general readers. I'll aim to be less opaque in future posts.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh, no, sorry Boro for being unclear but I was not in any way referring to Tolkien. I was referring to critics, fans, and readers of him and of the various media that derive from his work.

Talking about writers is far more complex than talking about critics. At heart I was taking issue with loremasters who believe they can unreservedly and transparently speak directly about what Tolkien thought and intended, to the detriment of any other possible interpretations by other fans, specifically about RoP.

You are of course correct that Tolkien was a 20th Century writer. There's lots of material about that I can add to your list but that's a topic for another thread. And sorry about the linguistic theory lingo. I was directing my thoughts towards loremasters here who I anticipated would be familiar with it and not general readers. I'll aim to be less opaque in future posts.

Thank you for the explanation, Bethberry. And while you did not want to dive into what influences a writer, it did spark a few thoughts related to your questions.

I think as fans of Tolkien we all acknowledge he had a variety of influences. As all art reflects the experiences of its creator. I don't think adaptations should be an exception. What I mean is the people adapting Tolkien (Jackson, Bakshi, Payne/McKay...etc) were clearly influenced by him (hence creating an adaptation) but Tolkien isn't their only influence. As fans of Tolkien, we all know he had many influences in his writing. As readers and critics of the people who adapt Tolkien, I don't know if I'd call it a trap, but I think we get into a single-track mind. We (or at least I do) go in thinking if it's not the way Tolkien described it/wrote it then obviously the adapter doesn't know what they're doing, doesn't understand Tolkien...etc, etc. I think it's important to acknowledge that adapters of Tolkien, will also have a variety of experiences and other influences, just as Tolkien had a multitude of them.

[Bêthberry]

I posted this on Huinesoron's thread on the first episode but that thread likely will be falling by the wayside as new episodes appear, so perhaps this comparison might more fruitfully be posted here where folks are generally discussing Galadriel and what we bring to interpreting her. I must thank the Downer formerly known as Lush for bringing the painting to my attention. She said that when she saw the painting in the State Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow she shivered and felt the floor boards creak under her, the painting was that moving.

Galadriel with the elven helmets from RoP.



And this painting by the Russian artist Vasily Vereshchagin, "The Apotheosis of War". The 19th C painting is famous for complaints made that it criticismed the Russian military; it and a second painting by Vereshchagin were not allowed in a Moscow exhibit.




I leave comments to any who might wish to interpret the similarities. Also, I fixed the sizing.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

....As readers and critics of the people who adapt Tolkien, I don't know if I'd call it a trap, but I think we get into a single-track mind. We (or at least I do) go in thinking if it's not the way Tolkien described it/wrote it then obviously the adapter doesn't know what they're doing, doesn't understand Tolkien...etc, etc. I think it's important to acknowledge that adapters of Tolkien, will also have a variety of experiences and other influences, just as Tolkien had a multitude of them.

Good point, Boro. I've done some sleuthing to see which films and film-makers Jackson has said influenced him.

1. First of all, the animator Ray Harryhausen.
   Films:
   1958 Dracula
   Jason and the Argonauts
   The 7th Voyage of Sinbad
   Dawn of the Dead
   1933 King Kong
   Hammer Horror films
   Thunderbirds tv show
   Ridley Scott's Legend
   Croneberg's The Fly

I'm sure there must be others. But I certainly now would like to learn more about Ray Harryhausen. I know only two of these well and have vague memories of the original King Kong, so I really can't discuss how these might have influence PJ's film-making.

For folks who are interested in this topic there is the biography written by Brian Sibley (yes, a fellow Downer!), Peter Jackson: A Film-maker's Journey

[Lalwendë]

I grew up watching those Ray Harryhausen films based on the Greek myths, standard UK telly filler for kids in the school holidays, and also great nightmare material, along with the non-canon Doctor Who films and slightly creepy folksy stories imported from the 'Eastern Bloc'. Marvellous stuff, apart from that horrific Cyclops

Jackson deliberately chose to use a lot of physical SFX due to his love of Harryhausen and you can even see that creepy, jerky effect during the scenes with Warg attacks.

Anyway, I'm now waiting for Bethberry to elaborate on that comment about Tolkien being a 20th century writer and make a thread. It's been a bugbear of mine for, oh, decades now that some people see him as a pastiche medieval writer when he really is not. His work is thoroughly modern, the product of a man who saw some of the worst of the 20th century, and filled with that same sense of loss that his contemporaries also filled their writing, music, art, and architecture with.

[Boromir88]

Thanks for the information about Ray Harryhausen Bethberry and Lal. I remember watching Jackson's King Kong part way but never being able to get all the way through it. It felt way too long. I did watch Heavenly Creatures once, which is probably his best movie besides the LOTR films.

Before Lord of the Rings, Jackson was primarily known for his low-budget horror films and gore. Those never really interested me to watch, but what I did like about his experience in those films (and why I think Fellowship of the Ring is the best movie he's done) is he knows how to work with a limited special effects budget. So, with the Fellowship, I don't know quite the words I'm searching for, it looked grittier, more real. He relied on clever camera tricks and props to change the scale and make the hobbit actors appear smaller than Gandalf. Making the tallest actor, John Rhys-Davies look like one of the shortest characters. But as we get into TTT and ROTK, and definitely all The Hobbit films, he relied more and more on CGI and you can tell a big difference in the quality of the films.