Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

To chime in in support of Davem's last: Tolkien felt very strongly that Frodo's journey was far more important than the War; and that the most important part of the journey was the Passion of Frodo Baggins, the crossing of Mordor: which PJ chops down to an impossibly short bit of screentime (and, especially in the theatrical cut, the impression is conveyed that Aragorn's march to the Morannon took the same length of time as it took Frodo and Sam to climb down a hill). From Cirith Ungol to Orodruin was ten long, nightmarish days- the sort of "eternal week" paratroopers in Normandy described.

Both Helm's Deep and the Pelennor are lengthy and exciting enough as written- but PJ elected to drag them out (especially the former), and use up even more screen time on fripperies like Tony Legohawk and Eowyn's duel with Mr Potato-head, not to mention the Osgiliation and the Warg attack and other invented action-adventure nonsense, when he could and should have focused on Frodo (and, perhaps, treated Treebeard with the respect Tolkien had for him instead of reducing him to rather dull comic relief).

Compare, since it's been brought up, Lawrence of Arabia- which in its very long running time contains a total of three battle scenes, all of them quite brief; yet it's considered an exciting movie.

[Sauron the White]

WCW - I dearly love LAWRENCE OF ARABIA for many reasons. I remember seeing it at the theater a few weeks after it had won the AA for Best Film of the Year. In those days the big films first opened up in downtown big city theaters and it took months to get out to the burbs where my family lived. I disctinctly remember being 13 years old and going with neighborhood kids on our weekly trip to the theater. We were surprised to see a line around the theater (which also in those days was a single stand alone building with a single screen). When we finally got up to the front of the line we encountered the owner of the theater who was periodically annoncing that he was very sorry but he had to raise the price for this special movie and no childrens tickets would be sold.

The adult price - jacked up for this special movie - was $1.50.

During the film I also remember an usher came down to us and told us quite sharply to shut up of leave since lots of people had paid a lot of money to see it. So we did and enjoyed it greatly.

But that was 1963. Forty-four years is at least two generations perhaps three. For good or bad, it is a far different world with a far different movie going audience. I have my doubts about LAWRENCE going over today as an adventure film that would be described as exciting. I think it would be classified much closer to something like ENGLISH PATIENT.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Could you please provide some evidence of this "former greatness". As someone who has studied and even taught some history courses, I am unaware of such Golden Ages that make them markedly different than our own times. And please give me actual evidence of the real world and not some literary platitudes found in fiction books which idealize and romanticize a life which did not exist except for a very small number of lucky people.

And I do not have the slightest idea what that has to do with JRRT, Middle-earth, the Jackson adaptions of LOTR or anything else on topic. But perhaps you could relate it all for me.

What does this have to do with Tolkien? Everything! Whatever you or I believe, *Tolkien* was firmly convinced that human history is the 'long defeat.' He was defiantly heretical toward the Church of Progress, and was convinced that Man was in his own day becoming smaller and meaner, concerned with nothing beyond material comfort and convenience, and a fixation on 'democracy' as a surrogate for freedom. Although he was of course aware of the downside of the Middle Ages, he nonetheless believed that people of that day aspired to loftier things than their decadent descendants.

He was also aware, being something of an expert, that the average man in medieval England was a far cry from the filthy, famished, oppressed serf beloved of Victorian and then Marx-influenced historians, both of whom had a vested interest in creating a "look how far we've come" narrative. From Tolkien's viewpoint, 'progress' meant Birmingham's Satanic mills and the industrialised carnage of the Western Front and mushroom clouds over Japan. Accordingly, he tried (with indifferent success) to revive something of the old Northern Spirit he loved, and hoped would revive his dying England. I'm sure he wished he could blow Merry's Horn of Rohan and sweep Sarumanism away.

You may disagree with his opinions. But if one is to adapt *Tolkien*, whether in film or any other medium, then one should be attuned to what he was all about. The idea of ameliorating his message to appeal to 'modern' prejudice would be anathema to him.

[Sauron the White]

WCH- thank you for that information. I despised reading books in my English courses only to be told by the profs that what I thought I read was not really what the author wrote. They would then tell you all about the authors life, the authors philosophy, the trials and tribulations the author went through, the social and political history of the times he was writing in and writing about, and that was all before the psycho babbly mumbo jumbo analysis was introduced telling you that a cigar was not really a cigar at all.

Soon tiring of all these books and authors with their hidden messages, meanings, and truths I just said "forget about it". I found books I wanted to read and enjoyed the tales for what they were.

I much prefer to be guided by the great philosopher Robert DeNiro in the classic work THE DEERHUNTER.

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, that could be said of Faramir, or Aragorn: he is he. He isn't someone else. He is he. By DeNiro's Law, it would be incumbent upon an adaptation to present the characters as Tolkien wrote them, not substitute the adaptor's preferences.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I think you greatly misunderstand DeNiro's statement. This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

A book is a book.
A film is a film.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a book.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a series of movies.

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

To apply criteria from one to the other is folly and a violation of the reality of each.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

WCH - I think you greatly misunderstand DeNiro's statement. This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

A book is a book.
A film is a film.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a book.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a series of movies.

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.
.

Yes, but. That being the case one should not use books as raw material for film. If the two media are so totally different that any book 'adapted' for the screen will end up a horse of a totally different colour then there is no point buying the rights, no point trying to make a movie of any book at all. Jackson should simply have written an original script for a fantasy movie.

What you're arguing is that the LotR movies, because they are movies, cannot be the Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien - however hard the director & his team try to make it into that.

Yet Jackson & his team did try & tell Tolkien's story - he carried a copy of LotR around with him. The artists & designers drew on Tolkien's descriptions - even occasionally (when their own 'talent' failed them) using his dialogue. Jackson repeatedly stated that he was trying to remain faithful to Tolkien. According to you this was a complete waste of time on his part, as, however hard he tried, he could never have succeeded.