The assorted finds of Artefact Publishing
I have just discovered (not at all accidentally) a scathing review of the movie The Fellowship of the Ring. I haven’t seen any of the Lord of the Rings films, and have no intention of doing so. Without knowing anything about them, but knowing what film can and cannot handle well, I knew from before they were made that they would not capture what I love and find important in the books. I had read some bits about the films which made me cringe, but this review goes into considerable detail, and I am left at a loss for why anyone might think a Tolkien purist would find them an acceptable adaptation of the books. In fact, I am unable to understand why anyone would find the movies good, based on what I read there.
Note too that the review doesn’t actually touch on the issue of language and culture, except for the egregious dialogue changes and inventions. Elsewhere I read that in the film Shire there are hobbits dancing an Irish jig, which goes to show that there is not only no fidelity to the events of the books, but also no understanding of the nature of the books and what they are describing — Tolkien was meticulous in his use of real world analogues for the various peoples of Middle-earth and the languages they used, and in no way can anything Celtic be ascribed to the Shire. Another review which I read long ago and cannot now find again expressed a similar sentiment when noting that the talk between Gandalf and Frodo (corresponding to the chapter The Shadow of the Past) takes place at night rather than on a beautiful sunny day. Did Peter Jackson not think Tolkien knew what he was doing?
When all is said and done, it is needless to criticise the movies, even for not being what they were advertised as being. I am not lessened by their existence, nor is my Middle-earth. But I am strangely sad that in place of the reprise of Beowulf’s Grendel in the appearance of the arm and shoulder of the troll in Moria, not to mention its hot blood, the film audience is treated to something which has its roots only in Conan.
Posted by jamie on September 3, 2003 22:31+12:00
Piglet’s big adventure? I think I was better off not knowing that. It is bad enough with the Disney drawings of the characters. Which reminds me that I used to have (and perhaps still do) Winnie ille Pu (Winnie-the-Pooh in Latin), with a cover illustration of Pooh and Piglet in Roman army gear, drawn by Ernest Shepard — lovely and amusing.
Posted by: Jamie on September 5, 2003 08:58+12:00
I don't think the characters speaking with American accents was ever part of Milne's "wonderful world of pooh", either.
Posted by: davidr on September 5, 2003 09:39+12:00
Oh Jimjam, I shudder to think how irascible you'd be if they made a Lord of the Rings: the musical.
Posted by: stuart on September 7, 2003 11:17+12:00
Stuart, I think it would be possible to do an excellent musical performance of The Lord of the Rings. Not a musical, perhaps, but poetry with music. Done well that would be quite something, and an example of a very different medium keeping the spirit of the work.
Posted by: Jamie on September 7, 2003 11:25+12:00
you want travesty go no future than A A Milne - i don't think 'piglets big adventure' was ever part of his wonderful world of pooh. and both FOTR and TTT don't do anything quite as sad to tolkiens world
Posted by: studybuddy on September 5, 2003 00:27+12:00