Is all the "magic" gone?

[Meneltarmacil]

I'm not sure what you'd call it, but there seems to be something missing from the movies somehow. I'm not talking about the obvious gripes, like Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, or the weird mutant hyena things. This seems to be more on a deeper level. There was something that I'm sure most of us felt when we first read the books that didn't quite transfer over to the movies, and I can't really desribe it here.

I hope that actually made some sense to you. What are your thoughts?

[Vanya]

I generally think that no film can be better than book. Nothing can replace your immagination, no matter how good the film was made. Actors have less means to show their thougts and feelings than literate has ( descriptions and explanations in the book are precious). Music, scenography, drama, effects, it' all great, but magic you've felt while reading is yours, and yours only, and it comes from inside.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I second those thoughts, Vanya. Films allow a much smaller degree of imagination than books. Also, there are limits to what you can show on film. Case in point; Galadriel. With all due respect to Cate Blanchett (who I think is very attractive) there is no-one alive who can come close to the beauty of Tolkien's Galadriel. Its just a trivial consequence of fantasy.

That's not to say I don't think the films could have been better; I actually think they could have been considerably better, and they could have come closer to Tolkien's magic if some things had been done differently (Pellenor for example, )

So its a bit of both. The magic had limits on film anyway, but I think the limits were higher than what the end result of the movies sugggest.

[Vanya]

Exactly, Eomer. Also, it's not enough that you see events and characters, you have to know all the background. Without it, it's just an good adventure. The whole glorious and darh history of ME is what makes LOTR so spetial - and in film you can only catch a glimps of it.

[Bêthberry]

A very good way to put it, Menel, aside from the gripes, something was missing.

For me, the first film, FotR, came closest to providing that ineluctable sense of wonder or special creation. The latter two films seemed to rely too much on misplaced pranks and out of place humour and special effects for them to suggest Middle-earth. They remained movies rather than a special place. imho

As for Galadriel, I often wonder if an older actress would have accomplished more, one who clearly could have been Elrond's mother in law. Susan Sarandon?

[Meneltarmacil]

Thanks for all the great replies.

The area that really seemed to be missing that "sense" the most was, in my opinion, Fangorn Forest. The first time I read it, I felt this deep sense of wonder at all the Ents gathering, the meeting with Treebeard, and the march to Isengard. Althoguh the movie did portray it OK, it seemed like something had been lost in making it.

[Imladris]

As has been said before, in a movie your imagination is severely limited.

However, everybody has their own imagination that molds the magic of what Tolkien himself wrote. I wouldn't be surprised if each one of us envisioned Galadriel differently, the Shire differently, the wargs differently, the orcs differently, heck, we probably each had our own vision of Gandalf's staff. And when PJ made the movie, he did it according to his own imagination. Therefore, it's his view of Tolkien's magic -- not ours. So that is, in part, why movies based on books do not have that magic.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am a confirmed admirer of the films, but I do agree that they do not hold the same "magic" as the books. I think that this is an inevitable consequence of the transformation of the story to the silver screen, not just because of the alterations to the story and characters, but also (primarily?) because (as others have suggested) the "enforced" visualisation (marvellous though it was, in my opinion) robs us of our own opportunity to visualise the events and characters portrayed. Like others, I find it hard to put my finger on it any more than that, but it is perhaps related to the concept of "enchantment" (or loss of it in the film-making process) discussed here.

I do not, however, believe that seeing the films robs us of our ability to be enchanted by the books. At least it has not for me. Perhaps it might be different for someone who saw the films before reading the books. Anyone care to comment?

[mollecon]

In a way I'm glad I read the books many times long before the movies came. I've noticed than when reading them now, I'm still having the 'old' pictures in my head. Not that PJ's vision of Middle Earth have left them abselutely untouched, but by & large, they're the same. And it's not cos I don't like the movies, I'm a 'confirmed admirer' just as Saucepan Man.

[Essex]

I would have agreed with most of what you guys say above, except for the final film.

This just blew me away. Everytime I see it, it just gets better and better. No way in a million years did I think anyone could pull this job off. When I was growing up, I always had a wish that if I won the pools or inherited millions of pounds I would do one of 2 things. I would a/ take over Arsenal Football Club or b/ make a live action movie of Lord of the Rings.

Mr Jackson beat me to b/, and I'm eternally grateful to him. Not even mentioning the first 2 which were fantastic, but ROTK just seems so RIGHT. The magic IS there. Maybe different to the books, but there all the same. I am still staggered by how well Jackson did it. I cannot put my finger on WHY it is almost perfect. All I can say is that the changes he made I have no problems with (omissions will hopefully be fixed by the EE).

You may think I'm going over the top, but all year long before rotk came out it was all I could think of. i.e. how good was the movie going to be? Could I dare to think it would be almost perfect? I did, and was rewarded.....

Anyone got a few million spare so I can realise my other wish?

[Vanya]

One of members of the other, Serbian forum that I visit, has this experience:
She didn' read the book befor FOTR and TTT, she was delighted, overwhelmed with films. But, then she did read the book, and did so twice, before ROTK. She said that she was very disappointed by it, that it was full of holes.... but she saw it several times after ffew month pause. The impression was totally different then. She loved it!
I already said that for me, knowledge of the legends, history and great characters of old days, makes the magic of Lotr( book and film). What actor doesn' say, I understand. What the history of some place is (such as Amon Sul or Argonath, for example), that felowshipp passes by, I know and understand it.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I shall agree with Meneltarmacil and say that the Entmoot was a particular area where I felt the magic was lacking. The funny thing is, I went from wonder to disappointment in a very short space of time, because when Treebeard was introduced I was astonished by how good he was, but I thought the gathering of Ents was just badly done.

Essex, I am delighted for you if you enjoyed The Return of the King so much. I, however, am more inclined to side with Bethberry in thinking that The Fellowship of the Ring was the film with the most magic and that, unhappily, it all went downhill from there. I have noted before that my vanishing optimism for the movies probably has much to do with spending so much time on the Downs, and thus hearing some excellent points from the anti-movie camp! These debates have definitely dragged me over from the 'pro-movie' camp to somewhere right in the middle.

[The Saucepan Man]

The magic IS there. Maybe different to the books, but there all the same.

I do agree with you, Essex, that there is magic in the films. And I think that it is slightly different from, and not as strong as, that evoked by the books. I found it to be at its most intense when the films were at their closest to my own personal visualisation of Middle-earth. Two particular aspects of the films stand out in my mind: the appearance of the Eagles and the Sammath Naur scene (and its aftermath). I NEVER cry in films, and yet tears were streaming down my face at these points. For me, these moments were almost perfect.

I am not sure that the films created any "magic" of their own (other than the SFX wizardry ). But, for me, they do at certain points powerfully reflect the "magic" of the books, although it is just a reflection - not the "real thing".

[Essex]

OK, examples of magic in the films (i'll use rotk for now)

aragorn kneeling to the hobbits
the beacons lighting up
pippin lust for the palantir
faramir's 'charge of the light brigade' moment, including pippin's song
the painful, melancholy words Frodo narrates in Bag End when he returns home
the look on the hobbits' faces in the pub at the end of rotk
the moment when the eagles carefully pick up frodo and sam
frodo's tear at 'the end of all things'
the smeagol / deagol scene - wonderful!
the look of the Witch King
the Eagles are coming!
gandalf and pippin riding up the levels of minas tirith

there are countless more from all 3 films. the first view of the Shire. the first laugh between Frodo and Gandalf. Gandalf's Fall. Lothlorien. Frodo's smile at the end of each movie.

The music. The acting. The directing.

These movies were FULL of Magic for me.

I have read LOTR countless times since I was a kid and will never tire of it. I cry every time I read it. The same goes for the films. I will never tire of them. That is 'magic' to me.

[Liriodendron]

When I read the books, the "magic" in my mind is rather "pregnant" with possibility. I conjure up some open ended, exciting visuals and then keep moving on. The possibilities are still hanging, ripe with potential.
When I see the films, the "magic" is encapsulated in scenes, which have an ending. A little too *there it is, that's it, it's done*....you know what I mean?
I still really like the films, but the boundaries on them are a little annoying. There's still lots of potential in my mind's eye.

[mollecon]

Is right! I adore the books just as any 'fan' - but the movies work in their own right!

I'm with you Essex! I've been waiting for twenty years for these movies to be made and I have not been disappointed. The look on Frodo's face when he says he will take the ring to Mordor sends chills up my spine just thinking about it. Also, I never thought I would have cried over the death of Boromir.

[ElberethVarda]

I have to say, I read the books like six times before I saw the first movie, so I wasn't happy with the movies at first. But now I absolutely love them. TTT is still kind of iffy for me, but they have plenty of magic for me.

[mollecon]

Heh - I fell for the movie(s) at once...

[Lobelia]

Absolutely spot on, Essex - those moments you mentioned were magical for me too - and there were plenty of magical moments in the earlier films - the Shire, the party at Bag End, Frodo waking up in Rivendell, the journey through Moria, in TTT the ride of the Rohirrim, Edoras...

Someone else suggested Cate Blanchett was too young-looking...? No, I don't think so. Remember, Eomer and Gimli almost came to blows over whether she or her granddaughter was more beautiful. (admittedly, Gimli was besotted because of her kindness to him, but you don't souvenir locks of golden hair just because of that). And she's an Elf - they are supposed to look young and beautiful.

[Bêthberry]

Well, can beauty only mean youthful appearance? Cannot an older woman still be beautiful? I know several who have striking bonelines and wise eyes and radiant skin (not from cosmetics ) and who can walk with presence into a room and turn men's heads.

There are several reasons why I am disappointed with the casting of Blanchett. All of them derive from my reading of Galadriel in the book and in Tolkien's Letters, so bear with me for a bit, okay? And I recognise that Tolkien's ideas about Galadriel changed over the years, as he moved from initial idea of rebellious young elf to a situation which suggests or recalls the veneration of Mary.

Galadriel is a very old elf. In letter #144, to Naomi Mitchison, Tolkien wrote:

Galadriel is as old, or older than Shelob. She is the last remaining of the Great among the High Elves, and 'awoke' in Eldamar beong the Sea, long before Ungoliante came to Middle-earth and produced her broods there....

In terms of the history of the Legendarium, this is thousands upon thousands of years. From the beginning of the First Age to end of the Third Age is approximately 7000 years, and before that, the Years of the Trees covered approximately 14,000 years. Galadriel was born during the Years of the Trees, when Valinor was lit by the light of the Two Trees, before the Simarils were forged and captured the last remant of that light, and when Middle-earth was still in darkness without the sun and moon. This is one very long-lived lady.

This is how Tolkien conceived of her in retrospect (Letter # 348, written in 1973):

Galadriel [the name] .. is in Sindarin form ... and means 'Maiden crowned with gleaming hair'. It is a secondary name given to her in her youth in the far past because she had long hair which glistened like gold but was also shot with silver. She was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats.

Earlier, in 1971, Tolkien wrote (Letter # 32):

I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel ... I think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians). At the end of the First Age she proudly refused forgiveness or permission to return. She was pardoned because of her resistance to the final and overwhelming temptation to take the Ring for herself.

Even granting the contradictory statements which Tolkien makes, as he rewrites her character into the larger framework of the Legendarium, we are still left with a woman of great age, who has 'seen' all the major battles of destruction and wars with Melkor and Sauron. She has grown from fiery, rebellious youth to eminently wise and knowing elder. She rules a people and a land.

For me, all of this translates into an image of at least a middle-aged if not older appearance. I wanted to see some of the wisdom of the ages in her eyes and face, the sad, sorry great grief of the elves.

And elves do age. We are told, in the chapter "The Grey Havens", when the ring bearers arrive at the Havens they are greeted by Cirdan:

Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and he was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars.

Cirdan's dates, to the best of my knowledge (I don't have HoME 10 yet and am going by the summary of it in the Encyclopedia of Arda, which is not always reliable) are lost in time, but he, like Galadriel, was born during the Years of the Trees or possibly awoke at Cuiviénen. They are of the same age.

And Galadriel is Elrond's mother in law. Why or how should she look younger than he? Or are elven females not subject to the same aging process as elven males?

This is not to say that my vision of Galadriel is the correct one or that anyone else's happiness with Blanchett is wrong. I think Peter Jackson clearly was appealing to his audience in his depiction of the women of LOTR. He wanted young, youthful looking women who would appeal to the demographic the movie is pitched at. (This works, also, I think, in the choice of Bloom and the hobbit actors.) He wanted medievalish visions of fair and beautiful ladies. Fair enough.

But I was hoping for a Galadriel whose strength and poise and presence could match that of Gandalf's and still be beautiful. What I got was a fairy princess dressed in delicate lace, a gown symbolisng a kind of perpetual prom night or confirmation or wedding. I wanted to see the Mary who grieves at the cross. I didn't get her.

[Lalaith]

Bethberry, I think Eomer's got it right. Galadriel is an elf, fair beyond the measure of men. Blanchett is a human - a human more beautiful than most, but a human none the less.
Yes, you could have cast a beautiful older woman - Sarandon, as you suggest, or even more venerable: Catherine Deneuve, say, or Jeanne Moreau - but that still wouldn't have matched Tolkien's vision of the beauty of the Firstborn.

Incidentally while the chronology before the years of the moon and sun is a little hazy, I think that Cirdan is considerably older than Galadriel. She was born long after the elves arrived in Aman (given that her mother was of Alqualonde and the Teleri did not settle there for 'a long age') while Cirdan was an elf of the Great Journey.

[Bêthberry]

Lalaith, I must admit I had forgotten Eomer's post when I was replying to Lobelia. His point is a good idea and well spoken. However, ultimately I would reject it on the grounds that such an argument represents a defeatist attitude about art.

The differences between human and elf are far indeed, yet to my mind, a great artist can transcend such differences and provide us with a vision or imagination enough to repair the difference. To say that it cannot be done is to deny the possibility that art can transcend and make us see newly.

Sir Ian absolutely assumed or consumed my image of Gandalf the Grey, an Istari. Somewhere I hold out the possibility that an actress exists who could bridge that gap. I have faith in art, in artists, and in actresses. I think the problem, if problem it is, lies in the fact that Jackson did not try to do that. He went for something else.

And,yes, I grant the possibility that Cirdan was older than Galadriel, but still that does not negate my point that Galadriel is herself very old, older than Shelob. The elves are fading because their time is passed and they are awash with nostalgia and regret for what was and what will be lost. It is that poignancy I would have liked to have seen and which for me Blanchett did not capture.

[Lhunardawen]

Cate Blanchett did a good job of being Galadriel in the movie, but for me it was only as far as LotR. I mean, I didn't see the Galadriel I have read in the Sil...she was only Galadriel in LotR, nothing more.

The movies helped me picture the geography of Middle-Earth, since those things I had difficulty imagining while reading the books. However, I tend to look back on the characters' past (quite unconciously) while reading the books, and for me that adds more to my wonder. The characters I see in the silverscreen seem to be bound by what the movie says of them.

[Lobelia]

Bethberry, your post is fascinating, and you make some good points - and everyone has their own image of the characters. I suppose I have a bias for Blanchett because the first time I saw her she was playing Elizabeth I and I thought her a younger Glenda Jackson. She is obviously not 7000 years old, but in my opinion, she is in her prime, old enough to play the role with maturity and dignity. I am old enough to remember when Judi Dench was young and beautiful and she too has played Elizabeth I with grace and dignity. However, I wouldn't give her the role of Galadriel now! Would you?

It could be a lot worse. Did you know that Kylie Minogue applied for the role? I kid you not! Fortunately, PJ told her kindly that she was too short for an Elf. Short, yeah.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine decribed CB as a kind of Elle McPherson, which I thought rude of her, but hey, she's entitled!


Personally, I think Elves age or don't age according to what Tolkien wanted to say at the time he was creating a character.

[Essex]

Sorry Bethberry, I don’t agree that Galadriel should ‘look’ old. My evidence comes from the lotr itself.

On two chairs beneath the bole of the tree and canopied by a living bough there sat, side by side, Celeborn and Galadriel. They stood up to greet their guests, after the manner of Elves, even those who were accounted mighty kings. Very tall they were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold, and the hair of the Lord Celeborn was of silver long and bright; but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory.

Looking at the ee of lotr, it was explained how the technical guys spent a lot of time working on the reflection in Blanchett’s eyes, and to me this works very well. Miss Blanchett does not look ‘young’ neither does she look old, a perfect rendition of the description above.

[Bêthberry]

Indeed, Essex, I have no quarrel if you are happy with Galadriel's presentation in the movie. Beauty, it is said, and interpretations too, are in the eye of the beholder and I do not write here to persuade others to take my view.

Your quotation is well taken, and I suppose too one could point to the passage in the Lothlorien chapter that in Rivendell there was the memory of ancient things but that in Lothlorien the ancient things still lived on; the last remnant of the elven world was Lothlorien alone and that this was Galadriel's power and doing, so it is fitting that Elrond appear older than she. Perhaps. But I read your quotation in the context of all that Tolkien has to say about Lothlorien in LOTR.

I did not wish to see her a wizened old crone but I had hoped for some of the authority and wisdom in her that Gandalf made me feel. Her perilous terror was missing, too, relegated to the pyrotechnics of the special effects, which said to me "modern movie special effect" rather than "power of the character." When reading of Galadriel, I had a vision of great sense of loss, of the passing of the elven life, which for me Blanchett did not catch. That quotation does indeed say that Galadriel and Celeborn are immune to the passage of time. (To be honest, that line has always reminded me of Dorien Grey's pact--at totally irrelevant remembrance I admit). But the depth of the eyes and the profundity of deep meaning is what I wanted to see and, despite the technical details you mention, that exists not for me.

I don't wish to belabour this point, but to me the aching beauty in the chapters on Lothlorien is the poignancy that this is something soon to be gone from this world, lost, a place of rest and restorative powers which is to be savoured in part because it is not like the rest of Middle-earth. Tolkien gives to Galadriel that line about "the long defeat." For me, the movie lacks the redeemable sense of fairy or sub-created world which hovers over Lothlorien and Galadriel. There is still too much hopeful potential of life still to be, unlived, in Blanchett's performance. She is not "a living vision of that which has already been left far behind by the flowing streams of Time." The seeming contradiction of Tolkien's "present and yet remote" was missing; Blanchett and Jackson's Galadriel was merely very lovely.

In this I likely remain in the minority.

[Son of Númenor]

I could not agree more, Bêthberry. Although I may be a member of the minority on this, I felt the same way about the Grey Havens. When I read the book, I pictured a grey, misty harbour, the voices of Elves lamenting the end of their stay in Middle-earth in a solemn dirge, & the ship setting sail into a misty horizon. What we got (or at least I personally got - I definitely do not mean to try & speak for everyone) in the movie was a bright, shiny harbour, with everyone smiling sadly- bittersweet, to be sure, but a more 'Disney' ending than the melancholy aura of the book. Though there were tears, they did not feel as deep or meaningful as they did in the books. Like the movie scenes in Lothlórien, I did not really feel what it meant for the Elves to be departing like I did in the books, & like you said Bêth, I did not get the feeling of Galadriel's beauty & 'distance'. I would not say it was a disappointment - I am a big fan of the film trilogy as a whole - but it definitely lost something going from paper to film reel. It lost some of that sense of 'enchantment' that has been so fervently discussed in the 'Canonicity' thread. Luckily for me, I can still find it in the books!

[The Saucepan Man]

I would not say it was a disappointment - I am a big fan of the film trilogy as a whole - but it definitely lost something going from paper to film reel. It lost some of that sense of 'enchantment' that has been so fervently discussed in the 'Canonicity' thread.

My feelings entirely Son of Númenor (welcome to the Downs, by the way ). And I think that Tolkien himself put it very well in his essay 'On Fairy-Stories':

However good in themselves, illustrations do little good to fairy-stories. The radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes one visible form. Literature works from mind to mind and is thus more progenitive.

When we read the books, we are free (subject to the descriptions given) to imagine the characters, places and events portrayed ourselves. We create the vision. And, as the discussion above concerning Galadriel illustrates, every reader creates their own personal vision. But, in any transformation of literature to a visual medium, the vision is created for us. And it seems to me that this restriction of our imagination is bound to lessen the "magic" (or should I say "ensorcelment" ) that we feel. It is not our own vision that we are witnessing, but someone else's.

But, even if we were to film the books ourselves with unlimited resources so that it matched our own visualisation in every respect (and the films certainly lived up to my own visualisation in very many respects), I am still not sure that the feeling would be the same when we watched it back. And that, I think, is because the "enchantment" arises when we use our imaginations as we read (the "progenitive" process as Tolkien put it). So the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves.

[Son of Númenor]

(welcome to the Downs, by the way)

Thanks, I am really enjoying it.

When we read the books, we are free (subject to the descriptions given) to imagine the characters, places and events portrayed ourselves. We create the vision.

Exactly! Like, I even pictured Sauron as a humanoid instead of a big eye.

Sorry, PJ, that was a cheap shot.

But really, I guess I just have to come to grips with the fact that Mr. Jackson's vision isn't exactly the same as my own. I say not exactly the same as my own because actually, in many parts his movies showed me Middle-earth in just the way I had imagined or better. Minas Tirith & Lothlórien, for example, looked exactly how I pictured them, & PJ's Helm's Deep vastly improved on my own rather sketchy image of the battle. In those cases, as well as with the portrayal of characters like Gandalf, Boromir & Samwise, the magic really shined through.

[Gorwingel]

Although I may be a member of the minority on this, I felt the same way about the Grey Havens. When I read the book, I pictured a grey, misty harbour, the voices of Elves lamenting the end of their stay in Middle-earth in a solemn dirge, & the ship setting sail into a misty horizon.

Oh, you are definitely not in the minority (I would think), especially among book fans. The movie Grey Havens definitely didn't meet in any way my version of the Grey Havens. I agree it was definitely much too bright, and not somber enough. But, yes, I most definitely agree that much of the magic was gone from the film. They did a wonderful job, but it is basically impossible to match that same feeling for everyone that you get while reading the book. The book is just so amazing, and really when you read it all the characters become your own, and you in a way go back to when you were younger, and when you spent all of your time creating imaginary worlds of your own. So the world of Middle Earth becomes yours in a way. But I guess that is one of the wonderful things about books... They don't just get served to you like a film, you have to think and work harder to get the full experience.

But, yes, I share many of the same opinions as many of you about the films. I love them... but not as much as the books

[Imladris]

Besides the fact that everyone has there own different view of the magic within the books, the magic simply does not exist and cannot be made to exist. Magic in the literar world is created with fantastic word images that weave the magic. Words are not tangible -- they merely aide you in imagining the magic. The more imaginative you are, the great the enchantment will be.

Film, on the other hand, deals with tangible things. Galadriel is beyond mortals, that's the reason no one can play her with the depth that she deserves. There is simply no woman who can do it because no such woman exists.

That's the same with all the other magic that is lacking. But, as has been said countless times, there is magic in the books and so I won't repeat them.

[The Only Real Estel]

Film, on the other hand, deals with tangible things. Galadriel is beyond mortals, that's the reason no one can play her with the depth that she deserves. There is simply no woman who can do it because no such woman exists.

But even there they did their best, even going to lengths such as having lights reflect in her eyes to give her eyes the 'star' look that the book discribed. I think that the music was quite possibly the most magical part of the trilogy.
(more will be posted tommorrow)

[Bêthberry]

Wow! This thread is hopping!

But, even if we were to film the books ourselves with unlimited resources so that it matched our own visualisation in every respect (and the films certainly lived up to my own visualisation in very many respects), I am still not sure that the feeling would be the same when we watched it back. And that, I think, is because the "enchantment" arises when we use our imaginations as we read (the "progenitive" process as Tolkien put it). So the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves. Mr. SaucepanMan

Interesting indeed. This idea from Tolkien that literature is more "progenitive', ie, stimulates the mind more, seems to support Eomer of the Rohirrim's point that no human actress-no actual representation--could be as successful as the image we create in our own mind from reading.

I'm not completely sold on this idea. It seems to me to be a little too close to the old idea that visual representations are inferior and even suspect. (I'm thinking of how the Puritans, for instance, banned drama and limited pictorial representations in their churches, a very different culture from that Tolkien knew in his Catholic churches.) I wonder what a visual artist would say to this idea that art restricts imagination.

But despite this argument, is it not interesting that Tolkien seems to have inspired a great many visual artists to attempt to depict his vision? Off the top of my head I cannot think of any other fantasy writer who has inspired so many artists. The names are legion; there are 207 artists represented on
Torania's Tolkien page , alone. It seems to me that there is some very compelling, very strong impetus in Tolkien's writing that leads people on to create images of Middle-earth.
Of course, this could be more evidence in support of SpM's point that literature inspires the imagination more than visual representations. Maybe we should see the movies as the latest in a long line of attempts at visual recreations of the printed page.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Maybe we should see the movies as the latest in a long line of attempts at visual recreations of the printed page.

Bethberry -

Yes, and no. If I could experience the films purely as a visual event, there are very few thing with which I would feel uncomfortable. Peter Jackson did an amazing job recreating the visual fabric of Middle-earth. Yes, there were things here and there that I thought could be improved on: a too young Frodo, a Lorien that needed more light and faerie (Oops! There's that word again!), the need for a Grey Havens which reflected what was happening to the Elves. But overall, I was impressed with how PJ handled this part of the retelling.

My problem with the movie did not lie in its visual depiction of Middle-earth, but in its treatment of character and plot. And again I would say that, for the most part, I could enjoy the movie while I was seeing it. The comparisons and wishing for more came after I walked out of the theater.

Tolkien: However good in themselves, illustrations do little good to fairy-stories.

Methink the author doth protest too much! And also SPM!

SPM: So the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves.

Are you sure about that SPM? I am not. This may be a classic example of Tolkien saying one thing and, shortly thereafter, saying or doing another. Take a close look at Hammond's book on Tolkien as artist and illustrator. The author spent endless hours immersing himself in the chore of visualization, not merely in terms of LotR but the Legendarium as a whole. Tolkien wasn't much on drawing the human body, but he was quite good at landscapes. I don't think he would have made such a effort unless the task held more than casual interest for him, and this would have included the desire to convey some sense of the meaning in the books, the enchantment which draws us in. (That word seems to be popping up everywhere!)

And JRRT obviously gave serious thought to his ilustrators. Witness his intense dislike for Remington and his open admiration for Pauline Baynes. You get the feeling he thought Baynes "saw" Middle-earth in a very special way and was able to convey that to us. This sounds like more than merely a commercial interest.

Incidentally, I agree with the author on how special Baynes was. The slim little editions she illustrated -- Tom Bombadil, Farmer Giles, Smith, Bilbo's Song -- are among my favorites in my bookshelves. Bilbo's Song with its double pages -- one showing the old journey of The Hobbit and the facing one the new journey to the West -- let's us visualize the whole concept of life as a journey and the idea of the open road.

So I think you can have a successful visual expression of Middle-earth. And I would say that visually PJ himself came very close to that ideal. I did, for example, find his depiction of the Shire quite enchanting. I only wish the Grey Havens would have lived up to that. (Sometimes I wonder if PJ actually understood the ending of the book....)

[The Saucepan Man]

Bêthberry

It seems to me to be a little too close to the old idea that visual representations are inferior and even suspect.

I wouldn't say that visual representations are necessarily inferior to works of literature. They each have a different effect. Visual images stimulate the senses more than they do the imagination, while written works stimulate the imagination more than they do the senses.

I wonder what a visual artist would say to this idea that art restricts imagination.

But surely it's axiomatic that it does. A piece of writing and a visual rendering of that piece of writing will both stimulate the imagination of the reader/observer, but only the reader of the written piece will be using their imagination to create the visual image itself.

Maybe we should see the movies as the latest in a long line of attempts at visual recreations of the printed page.

Yes, I think that is a fair way of looking at them although, as moving images, they of course differ from illustrations in that they visually recreate the action as well as the characters and places.

Child

If I could experience the films purely as a visual event, there are very few thing with which I would feel uncomfortable. Peter Jackson did an amazing job recreating the visual fabric of Middle-earth.

I thoroughly agree. But even so, I think that there is something missing in the visual experience that is present in the reading experience. And, although it's part of it, I don't think that this is just down to the plot and character changes. I think that even if we lived in an ideal world where the films portrayed the characters, conversations and events exactly as they are in the book, something would still be missing. And that "something", I think, is the sense of enchantment that we get from creating the images ourselves while we read. Perhaps this is why (in my experience at least), this "enchantment" is at its most intense when we read the book for the first time.

Are you sure about that SPM? I am not. This may be a classic example of Tolkien saying one thing and, shortly thereafter, saying or doing another.

I don't think that Tolkien was saying that illustrations have no value in themselves. The point he was making, I think, is that, in the case of a "fairy-story", they will have less of an effect in stimulating the imagination than the text itself and that, for that reason, they are unlikely to enhance it. Funnily enough, I came across that extract from "On Faerie Stories" in a note to one of Tolkien's Letters to Pauline Baynes concerning the illustrations that she was doing for "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil". I think that he referred to it to it when agreeing to a point that she had made (although I can't recall the exact point and haven't got the Letters to hand).

I agree that Tolkien highly rated Pauline Baynes' ability to capture the essence of his works. However, I get the sense from his Letters that, where illustrations were included in his published works, this was at the insistence (or at least recommendation) of his publishers. I suspect that, left to his own devices, he would have done away with illustrations altogether (in his Middle-earth tales at least), and that he was only prepared to compromise because the illustrations used (his own and those of Pauline Baynes) were in line with his own vision.

So I think you can have a successful visual expression of Middle-earth.

I agree. In my view, the films are an example of just that, and I would include many among the multitude of artists inspired by Tolkien's works. But I would say that they are successful only as far as they can go. They will never capture entirely the enchantment that the reading experience brings us. So I stand by my statement:

... the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves.

[Bêthberry]

Fair enough I suppose, Mr. SaucepanMan, to posit a difference between appealing to the senses and appealing to the imagination, although there was a time in European culture when images and symbolic representations stood in place of reading and I wonder if that more sensual experience involved less imagination. I am thinking particularly of my (limited) experience of European cathedrals--the Gothic use of light. Certainly Verseilles the palace requires reading as a narrative. (Well, maybe that is more like joining the dots. ) And modern performance art in my experience places great demands on what I would call my imagination, although what is going on there likely would fall into the category of 'making meaning' rather than 'forming images in one's mind'.

But this is to belabour a point which takes us away from the issue here of the nature of the enchantment in the movies and the books. I'm not sure, though, that I would agree that the enchantment works best on a first read. Tolkien said that it was war and the experience of war which brought him closer to his idea of Fairie. I can say that a rereading twenty years or so after my first, at a dying person's bedside, made me experience in far greater poignancy many of the passages in LOTR. Perhaps this takes us into definition of 'reading', 'meaning', 'creating.' Or perhaps it suggests I was a lousy first time reader of Tolkien

Child, I would agree with your point that Jackson's great accomplishment is his visual recreation of Middle-earth. Can we generalise that this applies more to his use of landscape than character? I would agree that his depictions of The Shire, of Rohan, of the plight of the refugees, of Gondor are very satisfying (and of the Grey Havens is less so). I am, however, on the whole less satisfied with the visual depictions of characters. (Perhaps this harkens to your point that you are most dissastified with character and plot in the movies.) Gandalf and Sam seem to me to capture an essence I feel in the reading and Boromir I think is better done in the film than the books because he is placed differently in the narrative. But the aching agony of Frodo and Sam (I would call this magic) which I feel when I read the the book was missing in the movie and as the movies progressed I felt less and less I was seeing the Frodo I had imagined. Seeing the representations of the orcs and oliphants--generally the villains--was bothersome to me--and this was in the watching, not afterwards. I wonder if this suggests something about Jackson's own imagination and powers as a film-maker or if it tells us something more about the nature of the enchantment Tolkien created.

I only wish the Grey Havens would have lived up to that. (Sometimes I wonder if PJ actually understood the ending of the book....) Child

Do I hear a tiny bell ringing the possibility of a thread? Or at least, to discuss the varieties of interpretation.

[Lalaith]

Interesting discussion about visualisation. One of the reasons I enjoyed the films so much was that they visualised for me things that I hadn't really been able to conjure up in detail in my imagination - the physical surroundings and settings of the book. I had strong and definite ideas about Tolkien's people, but not so much about his places, and the way that these places came to life on film actually enhanced the 'magic' for me, as far as that went.

My complaints are more to do with characterisation. Tolkien used the terse, non-psychological writing style of heroic/mediaeval literature. Motives and inner dialogue are NOT spelt out, part of the magic is speculating for yourself what is going on beneath the surface of action. Having motivation either discussed on screen, or simply fabricated in an attempt to give the characters more 'texture' to appeal to a generation reared on psychobabble, did rather dispel the magic for me.

[The Only Real Estel]

Interesting discussion about visualisation. One of the reasons I enjoyed the films so much was that they visualised for me things that I hadn't really been able to conjure up in detail in my imagination

Exactly the way it is with me, places in the movies like Rivendell & the Shire really aided my imagination, sometimes I have a little trouble straightening out what I think things look like . Characters too, I was a little bit iffy on Aragorn, but as soon as I saw Viggo playing the part, I knew that's the way I'd always imagined him. Of course, as has already been pointed out, the movie will probably restrict your imagination in some ways, but for me it aided mine easily as much as it restricted it, quite possibly more.

[Lobelia]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

My complaints are more to do with characterisation. Tolkien used the terse, non-psychological writing style of heroic/mediaeval literature. Motives and inner dialogue are NOT spelt out, part of the magic is speculating for yourself what is going on beneath the surface of action. Having motivation either discussed on screen, or simply fabricated in an attempt to give the characters more 'texture' to appeal to a generation reared on psychobabble, did rather dispel the magic for me.

I think we have to understand, here, that film and novel are two different experiences. A film that had everyone acting like the heros of a Nordic mediaeval saga would fall flat. We have to care about the characters - and I should add that one of the things I loved best about the novel is that I did care deeply about them, admittedly the hobbits being easiest to care about, but all of them, yes.

Think of the film as an interpretation, like a piece of music or a painting or sculpture. It might or might not work for you, but it's valid. Now, me, I wouldn't have pictured Viggo M as Aragorn, who is not, to my way of thinking, meant to be a hunk (though there was the case of the woman whose husband wrote an annoyed letter to Tolkien basically complaining he was having to compete with a fictional character... [g]). But once I saw him and heard that melodious voice, watched his interpretation, I accepted him - he has become Aragorn for me.

And I also think that while it's fair enough to say, "Cate Blanchett's Galadriel didn't work for me", there's no point in blaming the poor woman for not being like a genuine Elf! Sorry, we don't actually HAVE any Elves to act in our films, or I'm sure PJ would have hired some. In the end, it's just going to be a matter of how we see them ourselves, in our minds, and I think, guys, we will all have to agree to disagree.