MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bethberry --- your point about both Dwarven humor and the Wizards duel is taken and agreed with. I certainly would not have done it that way myself. However, despite reading many different people criticize the Galadriel sequence over the years, I have read it and reread it and it seems that it is one of the most word for word copied from the book scenes in the film. Even the special effects transformation is there in the book. Could you explain what you see wrong with what Jackson put on the screen with that scene.

Davem - I enjoyed your post looking back, It certainly is cause to think.

Well, it's been some time since I saw the scene (is today a holiday too, and do I have time to go back and watch it?) but as I recall we are shown something as actual which is yet but a possibility.

When Frodo is injured with the morgul knife at Weathertop, he is actually experiencing the wraith world and the special effects priviledge the viewers to show them his experience--and it is clear that this is his experience which the other hobbits cannot see/share.

But Galadriel doesn't actually put on the ring, she only imagines what will/would happen. But the special effects make it appear to have really happened. It isn't just Galadriel's prediction, or Frodo's special sight as a Ring-bearer, it becomes a done deed. It is a difficulty with expressing interiority in film.

And if you go back to read the book--which you are saying is a no-no to experience the movie--it's clear that the only two people in the book who experienced any special sight--the Eye--are Frodo and Galadriel. Sam clearly says he didn't see Galadriel's ring--he saw starlight shining on her finger, so he would not have seen Galadriel perilous and wonderful and terrible. In the book, too, what Frodo sees is the light of the Ring of Adamant, not this terrible vision. Yet that is what the audience sees. It just doesn't work for me as her prediction.

I should say, too, that it made me think of Gandalf's temptation scene. We were given Gandalf's words and Ian's acting there, but Galadriel's temptation relied on special effects rather than acting, rather than seeing the character work out the consequences of her character with the Ring's power. To my mind this drew attention to the presence of the special effects rather than to the actual experience being played out.

So for me it fails both as a movie scene/character depiction and as a "faithful" adaptation of the book. It is possible to take things word for word and still get 'em wrong.

[Sauron the White]

Would it surprise you if I said I could not disagree more? Probably not.
I only referenced the book since that seems to be the starting point at which most Downers who criticize the films begin. I assumed that if Jackson did the scene as written, that would eliminate any criticism. When I read that page, its pretty much exact as written. I understand your explaination as to why it does not work for you. But sitting in a theater without the text there is no problem at all with what is depicted. You say its all special effects and not acting. I did not see it that way. I looked at it as a proper blend of both that produced a very memorable scene.

And on a purely personal selfish note, I collect all the figures from the film and have to tell you that despite her amazing history, Galadriel is one very dull figure. However, Galadriel Entranced (which is what they call it) is one extremely dramatic and beautiful figure. But that has nothing to do with the film but just my own personal bias.

It is possible to take things word for word and still get 'em wrong.

I wonder how Jackson and company would respond to that? I know if it was me, what my response would be. "Damned if I do and damned if I don't. I do it the way Tolkien wrote it and they savage me. I do it my way and they still savage me. Screw 'em".

But thats just me.

[skip spence]

Is this developing into a resonable debate of how well PJ adapted certain scenes from the book? I certainly hope so.

I have to agree with StW that the Galadriel scene was a faithful (and for me, poignant) adaptation of the very same scene in the book. Had she just told the movie-viewers what might have happened if she took the ring the scene would have lost a lot of its dramatic effect. And Gandalf's temptation scene, as I remember it, was also very faithful to the book IMO.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

But sitting in a theater without the text there is no problem at all with what is depicted. You say its all special effects and not acting. I did not see it that way. I looked at it as a proper blend of both that produced a very memorable scene.

I wonder how Jackson and company would respond to that? I know if it was me, what my response would be. "Damned if I do and damned if I don't. I do it the way Tolkien wrote it and they savage me. I do it my way and they still savage me. Screw 'em".

But thats just me.

One of my points is that they didn't do it the way Tolkien wrote it because they completely missed out on why the scene ends with that little conversation with Sam. If you wish to continue to say that they followed the scene exactly, feel free to reiterate your opinion, as I have reiterated mine here.

The other main point, which apparently I do need to repeat, is that my dissatisfaction with the scene was with the scene as scene and not as book adaptation. It happened as I sat in the darkened cinema experiencing the film the first time. I didn't bring the books with me into the cinema and I wasn't sitting there, finger following line after line, with a pen flashlight, desperately, madly, fiendishly trying to find fault with this upstart New Zealander. I was really, really hoping to be entertained and for the most part for the first film I was. But after that scene, I might have thought what a shame that Peter Jackson didn't paste "WHAM BAM POW" across the screen in case anyone missed the point about how scary and powerful this Ring thing is. Holy fletcaves, Fletgirl!

As I said earlier, there are many who are happy with such scenes, and let them be happy, including both StW and skip. But your pleasure with the scene does not mitigate against my displeasure. You obviously got more of your money's worth than me, well done!

[Sauron the White]

Obviously every ticket purchaser decides for themselves if the film worked for them, and then to a lesser degree, if each and every scene, character, and line worked for them. I have been going to films for 50 years and have seen thousands of them one way or another and I have never yet seen a complete film where something could not have been done a bit differently to my tastes. But them I taught high school for 33 years and nobody paid me a penny for my opinion about how to make a better film.

I do think that even though you did not bring the text to the theater and review it with a mini-flashlight line by line as you describe, in a broader way you did. This is something we discussed yesterday, the weight of superior knowledge about LOTR and JRRT and his writings. It is a bit of a handicap compared to someone who goes in cold without that wonderful kwoledge. But that is neither here not there as far as if the scene worked for you.

In the end, a film is judged by me for its totality. Sure, I can fault all the Gimli jokes, the green scrubbing bubbles of the Dead or any other individual scene. Overall, I was more than happy with the totality of it all. I remember in the 70's driving in crowded cars to fantasy conventions and discussing how we wanted the films done. I never expected to get the high quality which I saw on that screen. For me it worked very well.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I remember in the 70's driving in crowded cars to fantasy conventions and discussing how we wanted the films done. I never expected to get the high quality which I saw on that screen. For me it worked very well.

How wonderful for you to have walked into the films prepped and made ready by discussions with fellow fans rather than merely by reading the works of Tolkien. Perhaps, if The Hobbit is ever filmed, you can rehearse some of those early discussions here so the rest of us can view the movies in the accepted frame of mind without being cluttered by thoughts of what Tolkien wrote.

[davem]

Interesting interview with Adam Tolkien here http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/..._Interview.php

His comments on the movies are worth considering:

Q: But, if the novel was almost ready, why did it take thirty-five years after the death of J.R.R. Tolkien to publish it?

Adam Tolkien: Because my father initially worked on The Silmarillion, then on 12 volumes of The History of Middle-earth, according to the will of his father, who had named him as literary executor. Only in 1996 he started to work on The Children of Hurin. But he was not persuaded if he could turn it into a novel. Maybe, because he had become rather tired! Then the three films from Peter Jackson were released, which did not concern us directly.

Q: How that?

Adam Tolkien: My grandfather sold the rights in 1967 and we did not have any right to interfere. The simplest was thus not to worry about it. When the movies were released my father even stopped to work on any Tolkien related material for a long time.

Q: What did you think of films?

Adam Tolkien: My point of view is completely personal: I am not a big fan of these Hollywood adaptations. I very much like Peter Jackson’s early movies, but, considering the immense size of his Lord of the Rings project, I think that he lost the breath and the poetry of Tolkien. The decorations are very beautiful, because they are real, but the special effects were not there yet. You could really see them…
Me, I would have liked to see another thing, an environment like that of The Seventh Seal, of Bergman. It would have been interesting to make a series, which would have made it possible to develop a movie adaptation, without losing the breath.

So, we learn that Adam actually liked PJ's early stuff, but that his LotR adaptations lost some of the essence of the books. I have to agree with him.

What's really interesting to me is his statement that CT stopped working on any Tolkien related material because of the films. It seems that if it hadn't been for the movies we'd have had CoH earlier, & perhaps other stuff as well.

If nothing else I think this puts paid to the idea that Adam is opposed in principle to movies - he just wishes they had been done differently - he even says he would have liked a series of films. For movie fans this may offer some hope - Adam doesn't seem to share his father's view that LotR is unsuitable for visual representation.

[skip spence]

Me, I would have liked to see another thing, an environment like that of The Seventh Seal, of Bergman.

Too bad Bergman passed away, or he'd be a prime candidate to direct the Hobbit. When hell freezes over!

To be honest, I'd love to see a more arty LotR adaptation, with a stronger focus on the darker and more grown-up undercurrents of the work, and this we may yet see at some time in the future. But as it were, there's no way the movies were going to be anything other than spectacular blockbusters (or failed attempts), catering to a huge audience of people who, for the most part, haven't read the books. Like StW I thought they were much better than anticipated, although I too have my gripes.