Forever?

[Esgallhugwen]

I agree with Saucepan Man, given the fact that Peter Jackson is not one of our fellow BD pupils (or teachers for that matter), I'm sure that if one of us were to make the movie's we would spare no turmoil and no detail no matter how small or intricate.

However that not being the case, I am one to agree that PJ did a fine job, though the omitting of certain scenes did displease me. The movies made me cry and I daresay certain parts of the books did as well (especially the ending). The Trilogy provoked more emotion from me then the movies and I do enjoy both deeply.

Let me remind that if some of us had our way one movie alone would be some 6 hours long, a movie that long would definetly call for an intermission (in this day and age because we no longer have need for intermissions in 3 hour movies). So mainly because of timing and no doubt pressure from the higher ups
some of our most beloved scenes (no doubt some of PJ's most beloved as well)from the book have been omitted or cut from the movies.

Now back to the subject of whether Peter missed the point of Tolkien's work. My opinion is both yes and no. Yes, because I felt he didn't develope the characters as much as he could have, but keeping in the bounds of movie logic he did well enough.

Galadriel's words, to me, did not entail the whole annihilation of evil entirely but simply the evil of Sauron. Morgoth was mentioned by Legolas in the movie, so PJ if he hadn't read the Silm must still know something of him. Also keep in mind, I pay way to close attention to these things and also that I havn't seen RoTK in awhile and heres the grabber I don't even own the theatrical release; I'm waiting for EE.

I might not remember this line exactly so I won't quote it. Gandalf (movie) mentioned something to the fact that peace will last as long as the days of the King last, though a happy thought keep in mind that can't last forever, even when Elessar's Heir rules something could happen to him and if not he will eventually pass from Middle-Earth as well, and so on and so forth.

Evil will eventually grow again in the land, its an ever changing cycle of life, nothing can be totally good nothing so totally evil. As evil resides good will eventually come to destroy it, as good prevails evil will eventually come to crush it.

And a final note, at the Haven's in the movie, though the Elves are all smiles and la dee da, there is still a sadness in their tone and something in their eyes that betrays their smile. In my eyes its not a Fanciful splendour cruise to Neverland, its a bittersweet parting, an end of an age.

Please tell me (politely) if I've gone too far from the mark, its just my opinion, and I'm not nearly as intelligent as the rest of you, whose knowledge and awe inspiring-ness (made up a word there) is something to behold.

[Bêthberry]

This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion. I am quite happy to recognise that many people enjoyed the movies. I don't think, however, that one's response to the movies hinges entirely on whether one is a dedicated Tolkien book reader or just someone who reads 'Tolkien lite.' I am not in particular a big fan of TheSilm. And for me, RotK was disappointing, in part, because it had so many 'concluding' scenes or climaxes. Aesthetically or emotionally, it was, for me, a mishmash. This does not lessen the enjoyment of many others. It merely reflects the different way I have of reading movies. Nor do I presume that there is one essential way of reading LotR, which Jackson missed. He is entitled, as are we all, to have his own particular interpretation.

SaucepanMan's argument is that most people do not read The Silm and so will not understand the theme from that point of view. This derives from Son of Numenor's first point which quotes from The Silm. However, I don't think the argument needs to be referred to The Silm at all. I think the question of the nature of evil can be analysed in LotR alone.

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion.

I am not sure that any of the points made so far hinge on the participants' respective opinions of the films, although opinions have undoubtedly been expressed (not least by me ). My underlying point is that the extent to which Tolkien's themes have been included within the films has necessarily been influenced (and limited) by film-making considerations and the subjective interpretations of the film-makers.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Bb

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

Ack -- this sounds like my English class.

But an interesting question nonetheless. Since it's my favorite chapter, I shall discuss the Scouring of the Shire. The ending of the book, complete with this separate little ending, is much more painful, but in the end it's almost that much rewarding. The hobbits return to their beloved Shire to find it a complete mess, and under the control of "Sharkey" and his ruffians. It's a severe blow for them; I can't find the quote I'm looking for for the life of me, but I believe it's Sam who says that it's the worst thing they've encountered yet (someone please correct me if I am wrong). We see that the evil that has spread can make it anywhere, that there is no entirely safe place -- this is the tragedy of the book's ending. Our small heroes do save their home, making them appreciated by their fellows. They get the respect and honor that they deserve.

Yet the movie depicts the Shire as a place that might be taken over, but only if the quest should fail, as Galadriel says when Frodo sees the mills and chimneys in the Mirror. It puts more at stake on the turnout of one single event, as if all evil and evil influences will simply disappear for a time if the Ring is destroyed. The quest is successful, and the hobbits return back to their picturesque homeland. The tragedy of the movie's ending was that after all they had done and sacrificed, the four hobbits were not recognized whatsoever by those back in the Shire, because no one even knew what was going on. The message here is that sometimes great deeds must go uncelebrated, and just because they are not recognized does not make them any less worthy, or make the heroes any less for it.

[Essex]

Encaitare,

not sure what you mean by

The tragedy of the movie's ending was that after all they had done and sacrificed, the four hobbits were not recognized whatsoever by those back in the Shire, because no one even knew what was going on.

Do you mean you believe PJ got this right, because that's what I think. let me explain.......

the movie showed (via the pumpkin scene) exactly what the book explains to us, that the hobbits were not celebrated in their country for their great deeds.

in the book they expelled saruman and the Men, but this, if anything, is what the Shire (by giving sam the mayorship) thanked the 4 hobbits for. Not for the destruction of the ring. Do we see anywhere in the end of the book where the hobbits even mention what their Quest was for? Frodo only tells the Cottons that Sam was now one of the Greats, and that was because Frodo was putting in a good word for Sam with Rosie!

PS jackson shows us, via a brilliant narration by Frodo in Bag End, the real melancholic feeling of the end of the books. every time I see this scene, I feel pangs of regret for Frodo, and a deep sadness for what he will have to give up. To me, as a movie goer who had read the books, this was clear. I'm not sure how clear this is to a non book reader, but hey, what do I care?????

PPS to me its boyens and walsh who were the real scriptwriters, who reigned back jackson when required, and were the main players behind the plot of the films.

[Encaitare]

I shall try to clarify, Essex.

You're right, either way they're never fully appreciated for what they did, but at least in the book they are considered the saviors of the Shire. That's what I was getting at.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive. That's why for me in watching the movies what happens at the cracks of Doom seems wrong - in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself. When i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it. And in the end he is unable to forgive himself for that reason, & exiles himself almost as a punishment (I know other's don't read it that way). In the movie this doesn't come across. Movie Frodo is simply broken by an overwhelming but purely external force, so it makes little sense to me that he feels he has to leave.

Actually, I still don't get why movie Frodo has to leave at all - where's his guilt? What drives him away? The change the writers make in Frodo's words to Sam 'I tried to save the Shire' to We tried to save the Shire' says it all for me. Either they didn't get the point Tolkien was making at all, or they got it & decided it was too unpalatable a thing for a movie hero to say.

[Lalwendë]

I'm approaching this with the words of non-readers in mind; I have had many (oh so many) conversations about the films with non-readers, and went to see the films with non-readers. One opinion I've heard over and over is that many did not see Sauron as such an enormous threat. I have heard several people say that Saruman was the real 'bad guy' in the films. I have heard, as have so many others, that the films ought to have ended at Mount Doom. This all adds up, to me, to show that in some way PJ did fail to convey something very important in the films. Now, I thoroughly enjoyed the films (not least of all to pick over the 'wrong' bits ), and I am actually loathe to say this, but I feel that PJ somehow failed to portray the absolute villainy of Sauron.

How? And indeed, Why? For one thing, the image of the 'eye' eventually was degraded into being an image of a lighthouse; are not lighthouses a symbol of safety to us? Another reason, and one for which you can hold PJ blameless, is that the power of Sauron was entirely psychological; certainly, the power of the ring works on the mind, and PJ did portray this. But as for Sauron's power beyond the ring itself, it is a difficult thing to portray such a power. And to be added to this is the fact that action was something very much grasped upon, and to portray both, especially in combination with trying to portray all the other multifarious fantastical aspects of Middle Earth, and keep a story going, well, I wouldn't have put money on it being pulled off perfectly.

Now this leads into the Why. A book can be put aside, a reader can turn back a few pages if they start to wonder if they have 'missed' something, and most importantly, a book can be read at your own pace. A film has none of these benefits, and it must be pitched at a middle ground somewhere along the line. It must, essentially, find a correct pace. And to do that, it has had to lose something along the way. I think it was inevitable that some of the essence would be lost.

[Bêthberry]

I think davem is on to something here, something which helps me put into perspective some of his points in the Chapter by Chapter discussion about internal and external battles.

Originally Posted by davem

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive. That's why for me in watching the movies what happens at the cracks of Doom seems wrong - in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself. When i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it. And in the end he is unable to forgive himself for that reason, & exiles himself almost as a punishment (I know other's don't read it that way). In the movie this doesn't come across. Movie Frodo is simply broken by an overwhelming but purely external force, so it makes little sense to me that he feels he has to leave.

Actually, I still don't get why movie Frodo has to leave at all - where's his guilt? What drives him away? The change the writers make in Frodo's words to Sam 'I tried to save the Shire' to We tried to save the Shire' says it all for me. Either they didn't get the point Tolkien was making at all, or they got it & decided it was too un
palatable a thing for a movie hero to say.

Over and over in the book, we see how the Ring's power is that it can pervert even the best of intentions. This is certainly Gandalf's understanding of the Ring and, I would venture to say, the purpose of showing his temptation. It would appeal to Gandalf's best instincts and desires but still lead him into intolerable tyranny. The book plays out in agonizing detail Frodo's slow decline to the Ring. That is, it is not so much Absolute Evil (nor are Morgoth and Sauron, according to Tolkien's Notes on Auden's review of LotR, #183 in the Letters) which, when destroyed, will mean that people never again need fear the rise of tyranny. For Tolkien, evil is something inherent in mankind's nature--well, maybe that is stating it too strongly. Evil is something we are all susceptible to. And the long defeat means that there is never a final victory but that each Age or each generation must be aware of its own susceptibility to tyranny. Tolkien's astonishing position is to show how his hero, the man--halfling--who enabled events to come to the point where the Ring could be destroyed--was himself overcome by the Ring's appeal to him. When even heroes fail in this way, readers, I think, must consider the psychological or mental or spiritual (whichever word one would personally use) state of mankind to be always and ever temptable.

This sense of our human failing it, for me, missing from the movie, for many reasons. Son of Numenor attributes it to the voice over. dave attributes it to the fact that we are not shown Frodo succumbing to the Ring. I don't buy the argument that a movie cannot show tragedy or evil. I can name many movies which do, movies which employ symbolism and not merely realism. This, I think is the point to be considered here on this thread: Does the movie depict evil as some physical force which can through action and battle be removed? Or does the movie depict evil as a condition into which people and cultures can fall? The second perspective of evil will require a very different kind of 'defense' than the first.

Evil for Tolkien was intimtely connected with the human desire for Power, Domination, and control over one's own creation. (Letter #131 in particular discusses this.) This is a psychological appreciation of evil as something we are all capable of feeling or succumbing to. It is not a bad guy or bad object which, when once removed from the scene, will lead to our liberation.

I think I've rambled on long enough. I hope this makes sense.

Oh, and HI, it is not by accident that I have not named anyone else here. It was deliberate. I know you can have only so much patience for long posts from me.