Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
04-20-2004, 09:40 PM | #1 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bottom of the ocean, discussing philosophy with a giant squid
Posts: 2,254
|
Is all the "magic" gone?
I'm not sure what you'd call it, but there seems to be something missing from the movies somehow. I'm not talking about the obvious gripes, like Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, or the weird mutant hyena things. This seems to be more on a deeper level. There was something that I'm sure most of us felt when we first read the books that didn't quite transfer over to the movies, and I can't really desribe it here.
I hope that actually made some sense to you. What are your thoughts?
__________________
I ♣ baby seals. |
04-21-2004, 04:26 AM | #2 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 43
|
I generally think that no film can be better than book. Nothing can replace your immagination, no matter how good the film was made. Actors have less means to show their thougts and feelings than literate has ( descriptions and explanations in the book are precious). Music, scenography, drama, effects, it' all great, but magic you've felt while reading is yours, and yours only, and it comes from inside.
|
04-21-2004, 07:43 AM | #3 |
Auspicious Wraith
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,859
|
I second those thoughts, Vanya. Films allow a much smaller degree of imagination than books. Also, there are limits to what you can show on film. Case in point; Galadriel. With all due respect to Cate Blanchett (who I think is very attractive) there is no-one alive who can come close to the beauty of Tolkien's Galadriel. Its just a trivial consequence of fantasy.
That's not to say I don't think the films could have been better; I actually think they could have been considerably better, and they could have come closer to Tolkien's magic if some things had been done differently (Pellenor for example, ) So its a bit of both. The magic had limits on film anyway, but I think the limits were higher than what the end result of the movies sugggest.
__________________
Los Ingobernables de Harlond |
04-21-2004, 09:03 AM | #4 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 43
|
Exactly, Eomer. Also, it's not enough that you see events and characters, you have to know all the background. Without it, it's just an good adventure. The whole glorious and darh history of ME is what makes LOTR so spetial - and in film you can only catch a glimps of it.
|
04-21-2004, 10:49 AM | #5 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
A very good way to put it, Menel, aside from the gripes, something was missing.
For me, the first film, FotR, came closest to providing that ineluctable sense of wonder or special creation. The latter two films seemed to rely too much on misplaced pranks and out of place humour and special effects for them to suggest Middle-earth. They remained movies rather than a special place. imho As for Galadriel, I often wonder if an older actress would have accomplished more, one who clearly could have been Elrond's mother in law. Susan Sarandon?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
04-21-2004, 12:55 PM | #6 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bottom of the ocean, discussing philosophy with a giant squid
Posts: 2,254
|
Thanks for all the great replies.
The area that really seemed to be missing that "sense" the most was, in my opinion, Fangorn Forest. The first time I read it, I felt this deep sense of wonder at all the Ents gathering, the meeting with Treebeard, and the march to Isengard. Althoguh the movie did portray it OK, it seemed like something had been lost in making it.
__________________
I ♣ baby seals. |
04-21-2004, 01:40 PM | #7 |
Tears of the Phoenix
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Putting dimes in the jukebox baby.
Posts: 1,453
|
As has been said before, in a movie your imagination is severely limited.
However, everybody has their own imagination that molds the magic of what Tolkien himself wrote. I wouldn't be surprised if each one of us envisioned Galadriel differently, the Shire differently, the wargs differently, the orcs differently, heck, we probably each had our own vision of Gandalf's staff. And when PJ made the movie, he did it according to his own imagination. Therefore, it's his view of Tolkien's magic -- not ours. So that is, in part, why movies based on books do not have that magic.
__________________
I'm sorry it wasn't a unicorn. It would have been nice to have unicorns. |
04-21-2004, 03:08 PM | #8 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Loss of enchantment
I am a confirmed admirer of the films, but I do agree that they do not hold the same "magic" as the books. I think that this is an inevitable consequence of the transformation of the story to the silver screen, not just because of the alterations to the story and characters, but also (primarily?) because (as others have suggested) the "enforced" visualisation (marvellous though it was, in my opinion) robs us of our own opportunity to visualise the events and characters portrayed. Like others, I find it hard to put my finger on it any more than that, but it is perhaps related to the concept of "enchantment" (or loss of it in the film-making process) discussed here.
I do not, however, believe that seeing the films robs us of our ability to be enchanted by the books. At least it has not for me. Perhaps it might be different for someone who saw the films before reading the books. Anyone care to comment?
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
04-21-2004, 05:44 PM | #9 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 188
|
In a way I'm glad I read the books many times long before the movies came. I've noticed than when reading them now, I'm still having the 'old' pictures in my head. Not that PJ's vision of Middle Earth have left them abselutely untouched, but by & large, they're the same. And it's not cos I don't like the movies, I'm a 'confirmed admirer' just as Saucepan Man.
|
04-22-2004, 03:58 AM | #10 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
|
I would have agreed with most of what you guys say above, except for the final film.
This just blew me away. Everytime I see it, it just gets better and better. No way in a million years did I think anyone could pull this job off. When I was growing up, I always had a wish that if I won the pools or inherited millions of pounds I would do one of 2 things. I would a/ take over Arsenal Football Club or b/ make a live action movie of Lord of the Rings. Mr Jackson beat me to b/, and I'm eternally grateful to him. Not even mentioning the first 2 which were fantastic, but ROTK just seems so RIGHT. The magic IS there. Maybe different to the books, but there all the same. I am still staggered by how well Jackson did it. I cannot put my finger on WHY it is almost perfect. All I can say is that the changes he made I have no problems with (omissions will hopefully be fixed by the EE). You may think I'm going over the top, but all year long before rotk came out it was all I could think of. i.e. how good was the movie going to be? Could I dare to think it would be almost perfect? I did, and was rewarded..... Anyone got a few million spare so I can realise my other wish? |
04-22-2004, 05:48 AM | #11 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 43
|
A fan's experience
One of members of the other, Serbian forum that I visit, has this experience:
She didn' read the book befor FOTR and TTT, she was delighted, overwhelmed with films. But, then she did read the book, and did so twice, before ROTK. She said that she was very disappointed by it, that it was full of holes.... but she saw it several times after ffew month pause. The impression was totally different then. She loved it! I already said that for me, knowledge of the legends, history and great characters of old days, makes the magic of Lotr( book and film). What actor doesn' say, I understand. What the history of some place is (such as Amon Sul or Argonath, for example), that felowshipp passes by, I know and understand it. |
04-22-2004, 06:01 AM | #12 |
Auspicious Wraith
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,859
|
I shall agree with Meneltarmacil and say that the Entmoot was a particular area where I felt the magic was lacking. The funny thing is, I went from wonder to disappointment in a very short space of time, because when Treebeard was introduced I was astonished by how good he was, but I thought the gathering of Ents was just badly done.
Essex, I am delighted for you if you enjoyed The Return of the King so much. I, however, am more inclined to side with Bethberry in thinking that The Fellowship of the Ring was the film with the most magic and that, unhappily, it all went downhill from there. I have noted before that my vanishing optimism for the movies probably has much to do with spending so much time on the Downs, and thus hearing some excellent points from the anti-movie camp! These debates have definitely dragged me over from the 'pro-movie' camp to somewhere right in the middle.
__________________
Los Ingobernables de Harlond |
04-22-2004, 09:53 AM | #13 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Tears of a Saucepan
Quote:
I am not sure that the films created any "magic" of their own (other than the SFX wizardry ). But, for me, they do at certain points powerfully reflect the "magic" of the books, although it is just a reflection - not the "real thing".
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
04-22-2004, 11:16 AM | #14 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
|
OK, examples of magic in the films (i'll use rotk for now)
aragorn kneeling to the hobbits the beacons lighting up pippin lust for the palantir faramir's 'charge of the light brigade' moment, including pippin's song the painful, melancholy words Frodo narrates in Bag End when he returns home the look on the hobbits' faces in the pub at the end of rotk the moment when the eagles carefully pick up frodo and sam frodo's tear at 'the end of all things' the smeagol / deagol scene - wonderful! the look of the Witch King the Eagles are coming! gandalf and pippin riding up the levels of minas tirith there are countless more from all 3 films. the first view of the Shire. the first laugh between Frodo and Gandalf. Gandalf's Fall. Lothlorien. Frodo's smile at the end of each movie. The music. The acting. The directing. These movies were FULL of Magic for me. I have read LOTR countless times since I was a kid and will never tire of it. I cry every time I read it. The same goes for the films. I will never tire of them. That is 'magic' to me. |
04-22-2004, 03:03 PM | #15 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 527
|
When I read the books, the "magic" in my mind is rather "pregnant" with possibility. I conjure up some open ended, exciting visuals and then keep moving on. The possibilities are still hanging, ripe with potential.
When I see the films, the "magic" is encapsulated in scenes, which have an ending. A little too *there it is, that's it, it's done*....you know what I mean? I still really like the films, but the boundaries on them are a little annoying. There's still lots of potential in my mind's eye.
__________________
http://www.lizmargason.com |
04-22-2004, 08:00 PM | #16 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 188
|
Mr Essex
Is right! I adore the books just as any 'fan' - but the movies work in their own right!
|
05-01-2004, 01:56 AM | #17 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'm with you Essex! I've been waiting for twenty years for these movies to be made and I have not been disappointed. The look on Frodo's face when he says he will take the ring to Mordor sends chills up my spine just thinking about it. Also, I never thought I would have cried over the death of Boromir.
|
05-01-2004, 09:25 AM | #18 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Valinor
Posts: 16
|
I have to say, I read the books like six times before I saw the first movie, so I wasn't happy with the movies at first. But now I absolutely love them. TTT is still kind of iffy for me, but they have plenty of magic for me.
__________________
Yea,
As sure as I have a thought or soul. |
05-01-2004, 08:51 PM | #19 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 188
|
Heh - I fell for the movie(s) at once...
|
05-02-2004, 09:23 PM | #20 |
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
|
Absolutely spot on, Essex - those moments you mentioned were magical for me too - and there were plenty of magical moments in the earlier films - the Shire, the party at Bag End, Frodo waking up in Rivendell, the journey through Moria, in TTT the ride of the Rohirrim, Edoras...
Someone else suggested Cate Blanchett was too young-looking...? No, I don't think so. Remember, Eomer and Gimli almost came to blows over whether she or her granddaughter was more beautiful. (admittedly, Gimli was besotted because of her kindness to him, but you don't souvenir locks of golden hair just because of that). And she's an Elf - they are supposed to look young and beautiful. |
05-04-2004, 09:59 AM | #21 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
Well, can beauty only mean youthful appearance? Cannot an older woman still be beautiful? I know several who have striking bonelines and wise eyes and radiant skin (not from cosmetics ) and who can walk with presence into a room and turn men's heads.
There are several reasons why I am disappointed with the casting of Blanchett. All of them derive from my reading of Galadriel in the book and in Tolkien's Letters, so bear with me for a bit, okay? And I recognise that Tolkien's ideas about Galadriel changed over the years, as he moved from initial idea of rebellious young elf to a situation which suggests or recalls the veneration of Mary. Galadriel is a very old elf. In letter #144, to Naomi Mitchison, Tolkien wrote: Quote:
This is how Tolkien conceived of her in retrospect (Letter # 348, written in 1973): Quote:
Quote:
For me, all of this translates into an image of at least a middle-aged if not older appearance. I wanted to see some of the wisdom of the ages in her eyes and face, the sad, sorry great grief of the elves. And elves do age. We are told, in the chapter "The Grey Havens", when the ring bearers arrive at the Havens they are greeted by Cirdan: Quote:
And Galadriel is Elrond's mother in law. Why or how should she look younger than he? Or are elven females not subject to the same aging process as elven males? This is not to say that my vision of Galadriel is the correct one or that anyone else's happiness with Blanchett is wrong. I think Peter Jackson clearly was appealing to his audience in his depiction of the women of LOTR. He wanted young, youthful looking women who would appeal to the demographic the movie is pitched at. (This works, also, I think, in the choice of Bloom and the hobbit actors.) He wanted medievalish visions of fair and beautiful ladies. Fair enough. But I was hoping for a Galadriel whose strength and poise and presence could match that of Gandalf's and still be beautiful. What I got was a fairy princess dressed in delicate lace, a gown symbolisng a kind of perpetual prom night or confirmation or wedding. I wanted to see the Mary who grieves at the cross. I didn't get her.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 05-04-2004 at 10:09 AM. |
||||
05-04-2004, 10:34 AM | #22 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Bethberry, I think Eomer's got it right. Galadriel is an elf, fair beyond the measure of men. Blanchett is a human - a human more beautiful than most, but a human none the less.
Yes, you could have cast a beautiful older woman - Sarandon, as you suggest, or even more venerable: Catherine Deneuve, say, or Jeanne Moreau - but that still wouldn't have matched Tolkien's vision of the beauty of the Firstborn. Incidentally while the chronology before the years of the moon and sun is a little hazy, I think that Cirdan is considerably older than Galadriel. She was born long after the elves arrived in Aman (given that her mother was of Alqualonde and the Teleri did not settle there for 'a long age') while Cirdan was an elf of the Great Journey. |
05-04-2004, 11:31 AM | #23 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
Lalaith, I must admit I had forgotten Eomer's post when I was replying to Lobelia. His point is a good idea and well spoken. However, ultimately I would reject it on the grounds that such an argument represents a defeatist attitude about art.
The differences between human and elf are far indeed, yet to my mind, a great artist can transcend such differences and provide us with a vision or imagination enough to repair the difference. To say that it cannot be done is to deny the possibility that art can transcend and make us see newly. Sir Ian absolutely assumed or consumed my image of Gandalf the Grey, an Istari. Somewhere I hold out the possibility that an actress exists who could bridge that gap. I have faith in art, in artists, and in actresses. I think the problem, if problem it is, lies in the fact that Jackson did not try to do that. He went for something else. And,yes, I grant the possibility that Cirdan was older than Galadriel, but still that does not negate my point that Galadriel is herself very old, older than Shelob. The elves are fading because their time is passed and they are awash with nostalgia and regret for what was and what will be lost. It is that poignancy I would have liked to have seen and which for me Blanchett did not capture.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
05-04-2004, 10:50 PM | #24 |
Hauntress of the Havens
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IN it, but not OF it
Posts: 2,538
|
Cate Blanchett did a good job of being Galadriel in the movie, but for me it was only as far as LotR. I mean, I didn't see the Galadriel I have read in the Sil...she was only Galadriel in LotR, nothing more.
The movies helped me picture the geography of Middle-Earth, since those things I had difficulty imagining while reading the books. However, I tend to look back on the characters' past (quite unconciously) while reading the books, and for me that adds more to my wonder. The characters I see in the silverscreen seem to be bound by what the movie says of them. |
05-05-2004, 02:31 AM | #25 |
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
|
Bethberry, your post is fascinating, and you make some good points - and everyone has their own image of the characters. I suppose I have a bias for Blanchett because the first time I saw her she was playing Elizabeth I and I thought her a younger Glenda Jackson. She is obviously not 7000 years old, but in my opinion, she is in her prime, old enough to play the role with maturity and dignity. I am old enough to remember when Judi Dench was young and beautiful and she too has played Elizabeth I with grace and dignity. However, I wouldn't give her the role of Galadriel now! Would you?
It could be a lot worse. Did you know that Kylie Minogue applied for the role? I kid you not! Fortunately, PJ told her kindly that she was too short for an Elf. Short, yeah. For what it's worth, a friend of mine decribed CB as a kind of Elle McPherson, which I thought rude of her, but hey, she's entitled! Personally, I think Elves age or don't age according to what Tolkien wanted to say at the time he was creating a character. |
05-05-2004, 06:18 AM | #26 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
|
Sorry Bethberry, I don’t agree that Galadriel should ‘look’ old. My evidence comes from the lotr itself.
Quote:
|
|
05-05-2004, 02:45 PM | #27 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
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.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 05-05-2004 at 03:18 PM. |
05-05-2004, 04:26 PM | #28 |
A Shade of Westernesse
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The last wave over Atalantë
Posts: 515
|
I could not agree more, Bęthberry. 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 Bęth, 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!
Last edited by Son of Númenor; 05-13-2004 at 02:42 PM. |
05-05-2004, 05:15 PM | #29 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Enforced visualisation
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
05-05-2004, 06:12 PM | #30 | ||
A Shade of Westernesse
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The last wave over Atalantë
Posts: 515
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
05-05-2004, 08:45 PM | #31 | |
Beholder of the Mists
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somewhere in the Northwest... for now
Posts: 1,419
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Wanted - Wonderfully witty quote that consists of pure brilliance |
|
05-05-2004, 08:58 PM | #32 |
Tears of the Phoenix
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Putting dimes in the jukebox baby.
Posts: 1,453
|
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. |
05-05-2004, 09:04 PM | #33 | |
Raffish Rapscallion
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-(
Posts: 2,835
|
Quote:
(more will be posted tommorrow) |
|
05-05-2004, 10:48 PM | #34 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
Wow! This thread is hopping!
Quote:
I'm not completely sold on this idea. It seems to me to be a little too close to the old idea that visual representations are inferior and even suspect. (I'm thinking of how the Puritans, for instance, banned drama and limited pictorial representations in their churches, a very different culture from that Tolkien knew in his Catholic churches.) I wonder what a visual artist would say to this idea that art restricts imagination. But despite this argument, is it not interesting that Tolkien seems to have inspired a great many visual artists to attempt to depict his vision? Off the top of my head I cannot think of any other fantasy writer who has inspired so many artists. The names are legion; there are 207 artists represented on Torania's Tolkien page , alone. It seems to me that there is some very compelling, very strong impetus in Tolkien's writing that leads people on to create images of Middle-earth. Of course, this could be more evidence in support of SpM's point that literature inspires the imagination more than visual representations. Maybe we should see the movies as the latest in a long line of attempts at visual recreations of the printed page.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
05-06-2004, 02:38 AM | #35 | |||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Quote:
Yes, and no. If I could experience the films purely as a visual event, there are very few thing with which I would feel uncomfortable. Peter Jackson did an amazing job recreating the visual fabric of Middle-earth. Yes, there were things here and there that I thought could be improved on: a too young Frodo, a Lorien that needed more light and faerie (Oops! There's that word again!), the need for a Grey Havens which reflected what was happening to the Elves. But overall, I was impressed with how PJ handled this part of the retelling. My problem with the movie did not lie in its visual depiction of Middle-earth, but in its treatment of character and plot. And again I would say that, for the most part, I could enjoy the movie while I was seeing it. The comparisons and wishing for more came after I walked out of the theater. Quote:
Quote:
And JRRT obviously gave serious thought to his ilustrators. Witness his intense dislike for Remington and his open admiration for Pauline Baynes. You get the feeling he thought Baynes "saw" Middle-earth in a very special way and was able to convey that to us. This sounds like more than merely a commercial interest. Incidentally, I agree with the author on how special Baynes was. The slim little editions she illustrated -- Tom Bombadil, Farmer Giles, Smith, Bilbo's Song -- are among my favorites in my bookshelves. Bilbo's Song with its double pages -- one showing the old journey of The Hobbit and the facing one the new journey to the West -- let's us visualize the whole concept of life as a journey and the idea of the open road. So I think you can have a successful visual expression of Middle-earth. And I would say that visually PJ himself came very close to that ideal. I did, for example, find his depiction of the Shire quite enchanting. I only wish the Grey Havens would have lived up to that. (Sometimes I wonder if PJ actually understood the ending of the book....)
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|||
05-06-2004, 07:39 AM | #36 | |||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Picture this ...
Bęthberry
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Child Quote:
Quote:
I agree that Tolkien highly rated Pauline Baynes' ability to capture the essence of his works. However, I get the sense from his Letters that, where illustrations were included in his published works, this was at the insistence (or at least recommendation) of his publishers. I suspect that, left to his own devices, he would have done away with illustrations altogether (in his Middle-earth tales at least), and that he was only prepared to compromise because the illustrations used (his own and those of Pauline Baynes) were in line with his own vision. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||||||
05-06-2004, 10:23 AM | #37 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
Worth a thousand words?
Fair enough I suppose, Mr. SaucepanMan, to posit a difference between appealing to the senses and appealing to the imagination, although there was a time in European culture when images and symbolic representations stood in place of reading and I wonder if that more sensual experience involved less imagination. I am thinking particularly of my (limited) experience of European cathedrals--the Gothic use of light. Certainly Verseilles the palace requires reading as a narrative. (Well, maybe that is more like joining the dots. ) And modern performance art in my experience places great demands on what I would call my imagination, although what is going on there likely would fall into the category of 'making meaning' rather than 'forming images in one's mind'.
But this is to belabour a point which takes us away from the issue here of the nature of the enchantment in the movies and the books. I'm not sure, though, that I would agree that the enchantment works best on a first read. Tolkien said that it was war and the experience of war which brought him closer to his idea of Fairie. I can say that a rereading twenty years or so after my first, at a dying person's bedside, made me experience in far greater poignancy many of the passages in LOTR. Perhaps this takes us into definition of 'reading', 'meaning', 'creating.' Or perhaps it suggests I was a lousy first time reader of Tolkien Child, I would agree with your point that Jackson's great accomplishment is his visual recreation of Middle-earth. Can we generalise that this applies more to his use of landscape than character? I would agree that his depictions of The Shire, of Rohan, of the plight of the refugees, of Gondor are very satisfying (and of the Grey Havens is less so). I am, however, on the whole less satisfied with the visual depictions of characters. (Perhaps this harkens to your point that you are most dissastified with character and plot in the movies.) Gandalf and Sam seem to me to capture an essence I feel in the reading and Boromir I think is better done in the film than the books because he is placed differently in the narrative. But the aching agony of Frodo and Sam (I would call this magic) which I feel when I read the the book was missing in the movie and as the movies progressed I felt less and less I was seeing the Frodo I had imagined. Seeing the representations of the orcs and oliphants--generally the villains--was bothersome to me--and this was in the watching, not afterwards. I wonder if this suggests something about Jackson's own imagination and powers as a film-maker or if it tells us something more about the nature of the enchantment Tolkien created. Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
05-07-2004, 03:08 AM | #38 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Interesting discussion about visualisation. One of the reasons I enjoyed the films so much was that they visualised for me things that I hadn't really been able to conjure up in detail in my imagination - the physical surroundings and settings of the book. I had strong and definite ideas about Tolkien's people, but not so much about his places, and the way that these places came to life on film actually enhanced the 'magic' for me, as far as that went.
My complaints are more to do with characterisation. Tolkien used the terse, non-psychological writing style of heroic/mediaeval literature. Motives and inner dialogue are NOT spelt out, part of the magic is speculating for yourself what is going on beneath the surface of action. Having motivation either discussed on screen, or simply fabricated in an attempt to give the characters more 'texture' to appeal to a generation reared on psychobabble, did rather dispel the magic for me. |
05-07-2004, 06:51 PM | #39 | |
Raffish Rapscallion
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-(
Posts: 2,835
|
Quote:
|
|
05-08-2004, 10:25 PM | #40 | |
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
|
Quote:
Think of the film as an interpretation, like a piece of music or a painting or sculpture. It might or might not work for you, but it's valid. Now, me, I wouldn't have pictured Viggo M as Aragorn, who is not, to my way of thinking, meant to be a hunk (though there was the case of the woman whose husband wrote an annoyed letter to Tolkien basically complaining he was having to compete with a fictional character... [g]). But once I saw him and heard that melodious voice, watched his interpretation, I accepted him - he has become Aragorn for me. And I also think that while it's fair enough to say, "Cate Blanchett's Galadriel didn't work for me", there's no point in blaming the poor woman for not being like a genuine Elf! Sorry, we don't actually HAVE any Elves to act in our films, or I'm sure PJ would have hired some. In the end, it's just going to be a matter of how we see them ourselves, in our minds, and I think, guys, we will all have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|