The Children of Hurin - The Film

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As far as your basic premise goes--namely that CoH elicited some very different responses from reviewers than we were used to hearing, and that it would be interesting to see what a faithful adaptation would do along those lines--I think you posit an interesting question... but what I'm trying to say is that it's almost as counterfactual as asking "what if Cecil DeMille had lived long enough to make a LotR movie in the late 1970s--would it have changed people's perceptions of Tolkien?"

Obviously, I think the answer would be yes... but it's entirely too fraught with other things to really be answered at all. I think part of the reason we're so used to thinking of "hobbits, orcs, dragons, middle-earth, good vs. evil" when thinking of Tolkien is because of the movies we've already seen. Obviously, it goes deeper than that, because Tolkien's works have been around for over half a century now. All the same, it is precisely because the movies ignited such a Tolkien-craze in the past decade that CoH received so much attention--critical and otherwise--when it was released, and I daresay those same movies coloured the same critics' previous views of Tolkien to a large extent.

Definitely, certain expectations were created by the films' release, expectations that sometimes had more to do with the movies themselves than with the themes of the novel.

I suppose I'm thinking more along the lines of theme and atmosphere, as opposed to plot elements per se, when considering what a movie CoH, faithfully adapted, might do. I realise it's very hypothetical, and I realise it almost certainly will never happen, but the question interests me precisely because we saw how powerful films could be in spreading certain ideas about the thematic nature of an author's work.

The Lord of the Rings films were phenomenal, in the sense that they were a phenomenon. Much can be said about the many defects inherent in the trilogy, but they did create a market for Tolkien, and furthermore they created particular expectations. CoH, in many respects, and despite the fact that it has "dragons, orcs, good and evil" etc. paints a starkly contrastive picture with LoTR. I agree with you, it is far more character driven that LoTR, in fact far less epic, in a sense. Not to mention Turin is a highly ambivalent character, not always driven by pure desires. For all his flaws, i find him much more amenable than Frodo or Aragorn; in fact I can imagine he would quite enjoy mocking Aragorn's faux heroic pronouncements.

I suppose to really answer this question we need to look at CoH itself, and more narrowly come to see where it contrasts with LoTR, and particularly the filmed version thereof, but I think it is obvious, even from cursory inspection, that the kinds of characters and thematic outcomes audiences were led to expect would be thwarted by a faithful film version. Perhaps there are larger issues at stake here, or at least more general questions. How do adaptations of famous authors work to mould expectations about the texts an author produces? And what happens when these expectations are not met?

Few authors are as famous or as widely read as Tolkien, and I cannot think of another example of a whole trilogy of megablockbuster films adapted from such a comparatively well known novel. Obviously the effects of the film trilogy have been enormous, and this is especially glaring in cases where people assume that some element of the film plot occured in the books. Many, for example, swear that the Army of the Dead really did liberate Minas Tirith, when in fact the Dead's role in the film amounted to a crude deus ex machina poorly executed.

But I digress. An hypothetical CoH film (faithfully executed) has the capacity to shift expectations and widen Tolkien's pop culture appeal, or at least generate a sense of nuance. Conversely, a badly made adaptation has the capacity to cheapen Tolkien and threated to make him even more generic than he is already perceived to be.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I suppose to really answer this question we need to look at CoH itself, and more narrowly come to see where it contrasts with LoTR, and particularly the filmed version thereof, but I think it is obvious, even from cursory inspection, that the kinds of characters and thematic outcomes audiences were led to expect would be thwarted by a faithful film version.

CoH has nothing to do with LotR, really. I don't quite understand why you so strenuously desire to contrast the two. The two stories take place in separate ages altogether. CoH's Age, the First, deals mostly with Elves, with Men as subordinates; whereas, in the 3rd Age plot, LotR is driven primarily by Men (and their miniature genealogical cousins, the Hobbits).

The dynamics are very much different, and the treatment very much darker -- not just in CoH, but in several stories compiled in the Silmarillion: the Kinslayings, Eol's abduction and later murder of Aredhel, the betrayal of Maeglin, the abduction of children by the sons of Feanor, and so on. Dwarves and Elves are at war, Elves are at war against other Elves, Men fight alongside the Elves, Men betray the Elves -- we are dealing with two separate historical entities, even if the historical context is part of a subcreated world.

It's rather like contrasting the 14th century during the plague and WWII. There are certain similarities and corresponding human behaviors, but otherwise we are dealing with totally different mindsets, ethics, codes of morality and political policies. A movie set in the 14th century would be decidedly different than one in the 20th century.

[Nerwen]

Nicely put, Morth, and I think you may have got at the heart of the problem. That CoH is very different story from LotR is not in dispute. That it is an "anti-LotR" (or a counterpoint, or a repudiation, or an authorial self-deconstruction, or whatever other colourful terms anyone feels like coming up with) ...no, I just don't see it. Surely the two would mirror each other more directly, or at least have many clear links to one another? I think the "contrast" is largely an illusion created by the fact the CoH happens to be the only other story to be published as a full-length adult novel. In fact, I suspect a lot of the "startled" critics had only read The Lord of the Rings before, and had no idea how complex and diverse Tolkien's fictional creation actually was.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Perhaps there are larger issues at stake here, or at least more general questions. How do adaptations of famous authors work to mould expectations about the texts an author produces? And what happens when these expectations are not met?

Oh, well, what usually happens is that quite a lot of people who go on to read the book either don't like it, or mentally re-write it to fit the film they've seen, as in your own example:

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Many, for example, swear that the Army of the Dead really did liberate Minas Tirith, when in fact the Dead's role in the film amounted to a crude deus ex machina poorly executed.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

An hypothetical CoH film (faithfully executed) has the capacity to shift expectations and widen Tolkien's pop culture appeal, or at least generate a sense of nuance. Conversely, a badly made adaptation has the capacity to cheapen Tolkien and threated to make him even more generic than he is already perceived to be.

Indeed; I'm sure that's something we can all agree with. I think what's puzzling everyone is why you've chosen such an elaborate way of posing a question that can't really be given a direct answer beyond "yes" or "no". As you might put it yourself, there's little there we can "engage with". Basically, you're asking, "if a certain series of very unlikely events took place, might they have a certain minor effect on pop culture?" Now, you can call this a thought experiment, if you like, but those tend to have a bit more point to them.

I have to say, though, tumhalad– at the risk of offending you– that my experience has been that people who go to a great deal of trouble to pose more-or-less dead-end (or unanswerable) questions are often really trying to argue something else entirely. I say this because my feeling is that there is a purpose to your asking this "hypothetical question" that you haven't yet stated as such. Is that right?

[tumhalad2]

No, I'm intersted in the question I posited at the beginning of the thread. However, I would like to make my whole thesis a little clearer.

The Children of Hurin fails to mirror the metaphysical world that is built throughout the text of The Lord of the Rings. That is my basic thesis; my basic point. I contend that this holds true regardless of whether or not one considers the story as a standalone work, or as a part of The Silmarillion as a whole. Whether Tolkien intended it to be or not, the Children of Hurin certainly forms a ‘counterpoint’ to LoTR, if not a ‘repudiation’. CoH differs in certain central thematic ways from its cousin, LoTR, and I find this to be an interesting area for exploration.

The dynamics are very much different, and the treatment very much darker -- not just in CoH, but in several stories compiled in the Silmarillion: the Kinslayings, Eol's abduction and later murder of Aredhel, the betrayal of Maeglin, the abduction of children by the sons of Feanor, and so on. Dwarves and Elves are at war, Elves are at war against other Elves, Men fight alongside the Elves, Men betray the Elves -- we are dealing with two separate historical entities, even if the historical context is part of a subcreated world.

I am not merely arguing about the “treatment” of certain events. I am suggesting that there is an unresolved tension that Tolkien sets up, deliberately or not, between the metaphysics of CoH on the one hand and LoTR on the other. We should bear in mind that Tolkien’s mythology was ever evolving, changing and growing. Tolkien, the author, changed throughout his lifetime; at various epochs of his life he displays particular piousness, at others, his letters betray a fervent intellectual curiosity that transcends his adherence to dogma. Why should the varied attitudes and changing perspectives of an author not be mirrored in his or her work?

In the case of CoH, I think it can be seen that Tolkien’s later (1950s) extrapolation of the story became far more novelistic in its treatment of character, its thematic depth and its emotional resonance than the version in The Silmarillion (Indeed, I understand that Christopher Tolkien extrapolated The Silmarillion version from the longer Narn; so in actual fact we have in CoH a far fuller rendition of the story). It thereby attains a poignancy and ambivalence that is not present in The Lord of the Rings, and unlike its more famous predecessor The Children of Hurin does not take for granted a providential, meaningful world. In point of fact, the novel begins on a dark note, with the death of Turin’s sister, Lalaith. Turin is perplexed; why should the children of the Elves have certainty about their fate, and yet the children of Men should be denied such knowledge? Turin, as a young boy, posits the question to Sador. “Then Lalaith will not come back?” Sador’s only response consists of honesty: “She will not come back...But where she has gone no man knows, or I do not.” Sador does not reply with dogmatic platitudes: he genuinely has no idea, and no one else seems to either. This is world where ‘faith’ in the religious sense – the conviction that life is purposeful and inherently meaningful – has little or no meaning. This is a heartbreaking realisation for the young Turin, who in the next paragraph can do no more than affirm the “rightness” of his father’s cause, a cause that Sador his himself ambivalent about, or at least wary of.

There is little Gandalf-esque Providence. “Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the ringmaker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker”. Such mysterious, providential forces are not to be found in the pages of CoH, and no character at any time hints at, or claims knowledge of, forces that they cannot immediately experience. Turin’s worldview is determinedly pragmatic; his quest is not divine, nor his life afforded divine protections. He is not defined by, nor compelled on by, unseen spiritual forces. Morgoth’s curse manifests itself in the wily machinations of Glaurung the dragon, or the cruel twists of ironic fate. Never does it seem that there are unknown, though beneficial, forces at work against this, or that Turin’s merely putting “faith” in the Valar would alleviate the curse.

This is all to note that in many respects the “metaphysics” of the two novels cannot be reconciled, and that the differences between them are more than merely superficial, or down to the nature of the publishing history of CoH.

Given all that, I was interested in the reception a film version may receive. Evidently, however, there are too many disagreements about the nature of CoH itself to allow for a productive discussion along the lines I originally proposed. I feel, at least, as though I have articulated my own position more clearly.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Such mysterious, providential forces are not to be found in the pages of CoH, and no character at any time hints at, or claims knowledge of, forces that they cannot immediately experience. Turin’s worldview is determinedly pragmatic; his quest is not divine, nor his life afforded divine protections. He is not defined by, nor compelled on by, unseen spiritual forces. Morgoth’s curse manifests itself in the wily machinations of Glaurung the dragon, or the cruel twists of ironic fate. Never does it seem that there are unknown, though beneficial, forces at work against this, or that Turin’s merely putting “faith” in the Valar would alleviate the curse.

What then do you make of the warning from Ulmo that Gelmir and Arminas delivered to Orodreth? If it had but been heeded, Nargothrond would have been preserved, Finduilas would have lived, and Túrin might never have come under Glaurung's spell in the first place. Wouldn't you call that a beneficial divine force at work?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The Children of Hurin fails to mirror the metaphysical world that is built throughout the text of The Lord of the Rings. That is my basic thesis; my basic point. I contend that this holds true regardless of whether or not one considers the story as a standalone work, or as a part of The Silmarillion as a whole. Whether Tolkien intended it to be or not, the Children of Hurin certainly forms a ‘counterpoint’ to LoTR, if not a ‘repudiation’. CoH differs in certain central thematic ways from its cousin, LoTR, and I find this to be an interesting area for exploration.

I knew you were going to get back to this -- inexorably, like the returning waters of a tidal basin. That is your thesis? Then I disagree, like during the last several reiterations of this same argument.

CoH has the same elements of Greek tragedy that suffuse many separate stories in Tolkien's canon, expect for one major difference. Many aspects of Turin's life are directly lifted from the Kalevala, from unintended incest with his sister, right down to the talking sword ending his life. There also is no eucatastrophe at the end if the tale, but then things didn't work out so swell for Eol's family either. Or Feanor's family (right down through another age and a 2nd generation). Is CoH bitter? Certainly. Is it unprecedented in Tolkien's canon? Not necessarily.

Speaking theoretically, if Tolkien had managed to write the Feanorian saga from the point of view of his family, then I am sure you would be saying it repudiates LotR, and you'd be equally wrong. Look at the events surrounding that family and their irrevocable oath: rejection of the Valar, kinslaying, deception, internicine war among Elves, kidnapping, infanticide, rejection of redemption, suicide. There is no eucatastophic event that saves the sons of Feanor, the eucatastrophe that occurs eludes them altogether. It is a Greek tragedy with reversals of fortune, hamartia, recognition of fate or doom, and ensuing pathos. Just like CoH.

From a different standpoint, CoH, like most of the stories in the Silmarillion (including the Akallabeth), are Old Testament Tolkien as opposed to LotR being New Testament Tolkien. Even the tenor, syntax and presentation of the disparate Ages are highly distinct. But I don't see the story as a "repudiation" of anything. You insist on looking at things in a microcosm, and that's you prerogative; however, your argument is rather like the old adage "Not seeing the forest from the trees."

I'm out of this circumlocutionary debate. Chasing one's tail may be enjoyable momentarily, but in the end one gets a headache.