The Capturing of Myth

[Imladris]

This may sound like a bookish sort of topic but please bear with me.

C.S Lewis (close friend to Tolkien and fellow Inkling) defined myth as follows:

1. It is extra-literary. In other words, someone can tell you the story line or synopsis of the plot and it affects you even though you have not read it. IE, the way it was written is not what moves you, it is the story in and of itself.

2. We don't get tired of a myth. We always come back to it. Each time we read it it is deeper than before. It doesn't become stale. It draws us. We are never bored with it.

3. We don't get to know characters that well. They are like "shapes moving in another world." We don't really know them. (This one isn't a necessity, but a myth can be like that, the story of Orpheus for example, or it doesn't have to be like that, Chaucer's Troilus).

4. It is fantasy, dealing with events that cannot be explained by nature.

5. It is grave. There may be joy, but ultimately it is grave. There is no such thing (according to Lewis's definition) as a comic myth.

6. It is awe-inspiring,

I'm sure that we can all see how LotR is like this, so I won't go and outline how LotR fits all those categories.

A lot of the threads in the movie forum, in my most humble opinion, complain about how Jackson changed the movie, how he didn't get the Grey Havens right, how he brought elves to Helm's Deep, etc. etc. etc.

So my question is this: How well do you think that Jackson captured the essence of Tolkien's myth outlined above?

Think of the Grey Havens. A lot of people thought it was too long. Others thought it was too bright. The thing is, Tolkien didn't really describe it to us (classic myth right there along the lines of moving shape) so it was left to our imagination. But what did Jackson capture? He captured the face that myth is grave, he captured the themes of doom and fate.

1. We don't have to watch the movie to feel affected by Lord of the Rings.

2. Some like to watch it over and over (of course in a different way than reading the books).

3. In the movie we feel sorry for Frodo and for Sam and for Pippin and for the others. But we also feel sorry that it had to be like that. We feel sorry that the good has left. Naturally, in a movie it was difficult to portray this fact so it's not as clear cut as in the book, but at the end we are still feeling sad. We feel sorry for Frodo but the general atmosphere of the movie is bitter-sweet.

4. Of course the movie is "fantastic" in more ways than one.

5. It is a grave movie. It's a sad movie.

6. I'm not sure if the movie could be awe-inspiring...but the cgi was good. The story was still the same story with adjustmants of course but as I said, it's a movie. It's different.

So do you guys think that Jackson did a good job capturing the general mythic feel, or did he fail abysmally?

Please give well thought out reasons for your opinions. Thank you.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think he failed. I don't think it was nearly grave enough, and it was at times comic and slapstick-riddled.

(by the way, excellent threads Imladris, both of them)

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

I think in a lot of things, Jackson captured the esscence of a myth perfectly, the most clear example, in my personal opinion, is when the Witch-King fully reveals himself to Eowyn, he's holding the mace and the sword, the surroundings seem to shrink around him and the mythology of the Witch-King of Angmar is completely realised in that one glourious moment.

[Bêthberry]

Excellent thread Imladris and very nicely presented. Top notch thesis! (I've already nominated Kransha for Best Post of the Week , but I'm wondering if I'm allowed two nominations? It is *my* thread after all.)

I think there are aspects of the mythological impulse Jackson caught very well and others he did not. I think he captured the geographic panorama of place well: the sweetness of the bucolic Shire, the sweep of Rohan, the marble stolidity of The White City.

For me, what ruins the gravitas of the movies is a comic vein that intrudes at the wrong time. I think there are lots of comic touches in Tolkien, but they are sudden little surprises which give whimsy and emotional relief to the story without destroying the essential seriousness of the Quest. Here, I think, Jackson was influenced by his love of two things: his bookish love of Tolkien and his cinematic love of Lucas' Star Wars. The Star Wars influence shows mainly in the special effects and the similarities of some of the physical characterisations. The comedy i Star Wars, to me, did not ruin the story line, but helped develop it.

I don't think Jackson was as successful as Tolkien or Lucas in handling comedy within the mythological feel. I hated the 'shield boarding' scene at Helm's Deep because I don't think it was properly integrated. Ditto the dwarf tossing lines. Out of place. The drama of the battle was not heightened by these bits of farce, but diminished. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear here, but I do feel there is a difference and I can't quite find the way to explain it.

I have also seen an actor, live on stage, do a superb Gollem--the actor is an accomplished gymnast (if not contortionist!) and not only an actor--and so, despite how interestingly Gollem was done, I was disappointed that he was portrayed by a'cartoonish' form.

Perhaps what I am saying is that Jackson was unable to integrate the two most important influences on his imagination in a way which gave a seemless unity to the movies. And this disjunction ruins the mythological sweep. For me.

[mark12_30]

There were moments of humor (plenty of them) that I think detracted from the gravity of the movies. However, at the moment I'm not sure that disqualifies them from being myth.

Tolkien sought to write a myth that was "High, purged of the gross." Are all myths "High, purged of the gross?" Some are, some aren't. Personally, those which aren't I find harder to be enthused about.

The audience does have more of an impact on that than one might hope. There were "humorous" elements included in the movies (Pippin's "Ooof! That was close!" after the fall from Farmer Maggot's Field, comes to mind) that are definitely disqualified from "High, purged of the gross."

But then, there are things in myths that I find-- well, gross. Zeus' numerous seductions/ abductions of various women always struck me as revolting and un-heroic, and quite destroyed greek myth for me. Zeus is an utter cad. Why would I want to hear stories about him, and about his badly-behaved progeny?

In the Kalevala, the poor girl that ends up as a fish after a lousy life always struck me as very sad, and the behavior on the part of the man/men involved (hazy recall)-- rather gross. Bleah.

I want Tolkien to be higher than all that and I love him because he is.

Jackson slipped to the level of the common denominator-- what would be popular for today's audience. Shield-surfing, trunk-surfing (okay, I cheered too, but still) and dwarf-tossing, do seem out of place.

Were all the battles in the book utterly devoid of humor? There *was* the game between Gimli and Legolas at Helm's Deep. I shall have to pay attention to this as I read Chapter By Chapter...

[The Saucepan Man]

The key to me seems to be that Jackson was not setting out to make a mythical film. His purpose was to adapt a book written with mythical and heroic intentions to the screen for a modern-day audience with Hollywood-backing. Hardly a recipe for myth-making.

Bêthberry's example of the shield-surfing is, for me, one of the most telling examples. It grates terribly with me, as I am sure that it does with most fans of the books. But I can understand why it was included. There are, no doubt, those who regard it as one of their favourite moments of the film.

I think that there are moments in the films that might be described as mythical. Certainly the "feel" of them is (the imagery, particularly). And I think that moments such as Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog, the Ride of the Rohirrim, the scenes at Sammath Naur and the appearance of the Eagles have that sense about them. They certainly raised the hairs on my neck, and got the tear ducts flowing, in a way that no other film has ever done. But, much as I love the films, I think that these moments are a "bi-product" of Tolkien's skill. Had the films been written from scratch (unless by someone with the same skill and purpose) they would have lacked this sense, I am sure.

But what is the bench-mark here? How many films nowadays (or indeed ever) convey such a mythical quality. I do think that these films get about as close as any film that I have ever seen.