The assorted finds of Artefact Publishing
David makes the point that changes to a book are necessary in adapting it to film, and implies that this is defence enough for the differences between the movies of The Lord of the Rings and the book. I agree with his point, but not with the implication.
Let’s be specific, to circumvent charges that simply knowing some of what goes on in the film, rather than having actually seen it, are failures in my argument. If my understanding of what happens in the film is wrong, it will be easy to set me straight.
My argument is that Peter Jackson has needlessly changed the content of the books in such a way that the spirit and style of the original work has been damaged or lost, and that therefore even if the movie is a good one, it is not a good adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Note that Peter Jackson has been saying for years that he is a fan of the books and is trying to be faithful to them (within the limits of a transfer to a different medium). I won’t get into whether the film is a bad one per se.
So, examples of changes which cannot be justified as a necessary part of changing the medium of the work, which go against the spirit and style of the book:
An Irish dance and music in the Shire, when Tolkien’s foremost concern was language, and nothing Celtic is a part of his vision for that place.
Merry and Pippin jumping up onto the troll’s head in Moria, and Merry saying that he’s getting the hang of this. Combat and death are serious matters in the book, even for the experienced warriors. This is Peter Jackson making an action movie with one-liners — no bad thing in itself, but it is not the only sort of movie that he might have made, and it is not The Lord of the Rings. Further examples of this abound: Legolas sliding down the stairs on a shield at Helm’s Deep, the shield being thrown and sticking in a tree near Amon Hen, the Nazgûl bursting into flame at Weathertop.
The fight between Gandalf and Saruman. Yes, film is a visual medium, but are there no films which show a confrontation of words, of power veiled?
Gimli’s role as comic relief, with all the dwarf tossing and being set up for a laugh, as in this exchange in Lorien: Gimli ― “I have the eyes of a hawk and the ears of a fox.” Haldir ― “The dwarf breathes so loud, we could have shot him in the dark.”
Surely film does not require that there be comic relief, particularly in so crude a form and so as to diminish a central character?
Elrond saying “Men are weak”. No, Elrond is not angry, at men or anyone else and to have him so is to undermine the wisdom that is the sense of loss, past and future, that is a key part of him and the Elves in general (and in fact the whole work).
Aragorn talking with Frodo before the breaking of the fellowship. This removes the whole moral decision making that he must do in the books. It surely would not have been impossible to have Frodo sneak off and Aragorn be torn for a minute?
Faramir becoming a Boromir clone, when what is important is that he is not like his brother but like his father, only with greater wisdom. The invented trip to Osgiliath.
Aragorn falling off a cliff. Pure invention, and for what? Surely not to establish the grace and might of the returning king.
The new dialogue’s style: “That doesn’t make sense. But, then again, you are very small.”; “Last time I looked Théoden, not Aragorn, was king of Rohan.”; “Together, my lord Sauron, we shall rule this Middle-earth. The old world will burn in the fires of industry. Forests will fall. A new order will rise. We will drive the machine of war with the sword and the spear and the iron fist of the orc.”
These sound modern (and hence inappropriate), and that last quote has all the subtlety of a brick (quite apart from allying Saruman with Sauron; while I understand the need to simplify the plots in the book, to have Saruman deluded as to the ability for two hands to wield the Ring is nonsense). Going through the quotations page at IMDB it is immediately obvious which bits Tolkien wrote. I don’t object to new dialogue, since that is necessary in the adaptation (and yet film is a visual medium and you can’t apparently have lots of words; hmm), but they might have tried harder to match the tone of the original — only I suspect they didn’t want to.
Elves at Helm’s Deep. The Elves are fading, their time has almost passed, they have their own troubles. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men was three thousand years ago, and it was called that for a reason.
I could of course go on and on; these are simply some of the more egregious examples. You’ll note that I have made no mention of what was cut.
By the way, my pick for the best example of a film adaptation of a book is The Princess Bride, which I believe illustrates my point. The content is in places very different, but the style and spirit of the two works are the same.
Posted by jamie on September 5, 2003 10:04+12:00
ok well i will throw this one in Lothlorien
Legolas - 'and they say that you breath so loud that they could shoot you in the dark'
hmm remarkably similar to the film except it is directed at pippin instead of gimli.
Yes only one teeny tiny istance - but consider this - could you ever turn a 3 volume epic faithfully into film? - no. Of course stuff would be let out or altered. But is the film true to the spirit, and does it inspire people to read the books?
Posted by: studybuddy on September 5, 2003 12:38+12:00
True enough about the elves fighting elsewhere — I was going to mention this myself, but figured that it was clear that they were doing so because their realms (Lorien and Thranduil’s part of Mirkwood) were attacked, and not out of any great connection with Men. Underlying this is, as I said, the sense that the Elves have their own concerns, and for good or ill their time on Middle-earth is almost over; the age of Men is at hand.
Thank you for the correction on who said what in Moria.
To be fair, the course is about mediæval literature in relation to Tolkien, and has little to do with my feelings on the films (which may be better films than the review I linked to make them out to be; that much at least I cannot argue without seeing them). But to characterise the books as “glorified Dungeons and Dragons” would seem to me to be indicative of the same understanding of the work that underly the films. I don’t mean that in a snarky way, though it perhaps sounds it, but rather as a comment on how the films were put forward as being faithful when they should have been titled The Sword of Shannara (as it were).
Posted by: Jamie on September 5, 2003 12:55+12:00
The Lorien example is telling because they have taken a statement that establishes not only the ability of the Elves but also their attitude towards strangers and made it do neither of those things but instead make Gimli look a buffoon. You cannot tell me that that is an instance of a change made necessary by translating the book for the screen.
Like I said, I totally agree that changes, omissions and additions are going to be required in any shift from text to film, unless you have a bad book or want a bad film. But, no matter how amazing the effects, no matter the wonder of the created environment (and everyone seems to agree that these elements are excellent), the spirit of the book, what is important in the book, does not seem to have come across.
Posted by: Jamie on September 5, 2003 13:04+12:00
About the dancing: gigs are NOT specifically Irish. The jig, aka gigue, aka giga, etc, is a dance form found throughout old Europe, as is the triple metre AABB melodic form that usually accompanies it.
The Irish have preserved this particular folkway better than other Europeans, but there is nothing intrinsically Celtic about jigs. (Or reels or polkas, for that matter). Even if there were, I cannot think what specifially AngloSaxon forms would be both comparably evocative of rural innocence and familiar to the average punter.
Posted by: stephen on September 5, 2003 14:12+12:00
To follow on from a conversation last night. Would it be less awful if they had been described as "An epic adventure, battle and romance series inspired by the Lord of the Rings"?
Posted by: Anita on September 5, 2003 16:59+12:00
Anita, absolutely it would make a difference. That’s what I’m getting at with the Sword of Shannara jibe.
Stephen, I concede the jig example. I don’t know if there is anything in the music and dance used in the film which is specifically Celtic, where the general form is not.
Posted by: Jamie on September 5, 2003 17:08+12:00
Jamie, I have to disagree with you on the worth of the film as an adaptation of LotR.
I share with you some disappointment with parts of the film - the modern-sounding dialogue, Gimli as comic relief being the two main offenders - but I feel that the films did capture "the spirit of the book, what is important in the book".
Ultimately this discussion is about what *is* important about Tolkien's works on Middle Earth, Lord of the Rings in particular.
Therefore, could you identify what you see as "the spirit of the book, what is important in the book"? It would help me get a better sense of your concerns.
morgue
Posted by: morgue on September 5, 2003 22:01+12:00
Morgue, here’s a short list, which repeats some of what is in the post:
Posted by: Jamie on September 6, 2003 09:21+12:00
I think you'll find The Sword of Shannara contains all those in tasteful abundance.
Posted by: davidr on September 8, 2003 14:54+12:00
I wish I could find the discussion about Elves at Helm's Deep in some FAQ-or-other. It basically said that, no, there were no Elves at the Battle of the Hornburg (bar Legolas), but there's evidence indicating they were fighting armies of Sauron elsewhere at the time.
Also, it's Sam who says "I think I'm getting the hang of this" after pranging a Moria Orc in the face with his frying-pan. It's pure comedy gold (perhaps not).
I'm going to stop now. I see little point in bickering (and, yes, it is bickering) about glorified Dungeons and Dragons. You crazy kids nowadays studying Tolkien at university. What else are you majoring in -- Playstation, perhaps?
Posted by: davidr on September 5, 2003 12:29+12:00