The Capturing of Myth - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex · 09-26-2004, 01:05 PM

I'm dumbing down this thread by giving my quick views on imladris's 6 points

1/ the film shows 'common man' winning an impossible fight: to 'commen men'
this is always moving - 1 point

2/ how many times have we watched the films?: countless times. We are drawn
back to them time and time again. we can see new nuances almost every time
we look at the films - 1 point

3/ ok, so film wise I believe we get to know most of the characters well.
my wife, who has not read the books, was moved greatly by some of the
characters pain, so probably got to know the characters well. 0 points

4/ hey let's make someone invisible. now what would I give for that!!! - 1 point

5/ there is joy (and yes some misplaced 'comedy') - but the story IS ultimately
grave. I still feel melancholy every time I hear Frodo's narration as he
arrives back home in Bag End. - 1 point

6/ how many times did you look at the screen and go WOW! hundreds of examples,
but an easy example - the ride of the rohirrim.

So, out of a maximum score of 6, PJ's films score 5.

Jackson has captured the myth to me.

Dumbing down finished. Intellectual discussion can now resume.

Lord of Angmar · 09-26-2004, 01:19 PM

I am in agreement with others that the Arda myth - or, specifically, the parts of said myth contained in L.o.t.R - can never be captured in a non-textual medium in a way that Tolkien would have wanted it - or, indeed, in a way that he would have thought acceptable. Myth is the passing on of tales - and, with the tales, wisdom and ancient 'visions' and 'truths'. Film is different; it forces itself on its viewer and demands that the latter accept a specific interpretation and rendition of the story.

09-26-2004, 01:19 PM	#2
Lord of Angmar Tyrannus Incorporalis Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: the North Posts: 833	I am in agreement with others that the Arda myth - or, specifically, the parts of said myth contained in L.o.t.R - can never be captured in a non-textual medium in a way that Tolkien would have wanted it - or, indeed, in a way that he would have thought acceptable. Myth is the passing on of tales - and, with the tales, wisdom and ancient 'visions' and 'truths'. Film is different; it forces itself on its viewer and demands that the latter accept a specific interpretation and rendition of the story. __________________ ...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.

09-26-2004, 01:05 PM	#1
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	I'm dumbing down this thread by giving my quick views on imladris's 6 points 1/ the film shows 'common man' winning an impossible fight: to 'commen men' this is always moving - 1 point 2/ how many times have we watched the films?: countless times. We are drawn back to them time and time again. we can see new nuances almost every time we look at the films - 1 point 3/ ok, so film wise I believe we get to know most of the characters well. my wife, who has not read the books, was moved greatly by some of the characters pain, so probably got to know the characters well. 0 points 4/ hey let's make someone invisible. now what would I give for that!!! - 1 point 5/ there is joy (and yes some misplaced 'comedy') - but the story IS ultimately grave. I still feel melancholy every time I hear Frodo's narration as he arrives back home in Bag End. - 1 point 6/ how many times did you look at the screen and go WOW! hundreds of examples, but an easy example - the ride of the rohirrim. So, out of a maximum score of 6, PJ's films score 5. Jackson has captured the myth to me. Dumbing down finished. Intellectual discussion can now resume.