Archæology

What I suspect you're missing in your fiddly little analysises...es, er, is that while specific details may change, be it for cinematic reasons or sheer egotism, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Tolkein isn't great because of his micromanagement of linguistic issues, or his immense backstory, or his characterisations, but because in coming together they engender within the reader immense feeling. By nitpicking, however warranted you feel it is, you will never know how close the sum of the cinematic parts came to replicating, within the viewer, similar feelings. While you may revel in the details, ultimately it doesn't matter a flying noodle if it's Gandalf's hand or his staff.

You spoke earlier of 'the spirit of the book' but clearly you have no interest in seeing if this spirit can be emulated and passed on - you are, quite literally, not seeing the forest because some of the trees have moved.

Posted by: Giles on October 1, 2003 17:37+12:00

This particular discrepency is not interesting for what it tells me about the film, but rather what it says about the people who wrote the comment of the bit in the trailer. As I understand it, the films get a lot of details right (or, if you prefer, the film and the book are in accord in many details), which makes an exclamation about a single instance odd. Further, to be wrong about the accuracy of that details is ironically amusing, but again this is not saying anything about the film.

About missing the forest for the trees, you have a point. Fidelity to all details is not necessary for keeping the spirit of the work intact in the transition to film. However, I am talking about patterns of difference which betray a view of the spirit of the books on the part the film-makers radically different from my own (and, I believe, from the author’s). The fact that Gimli is consistently used as comic relief is not a detail, it is a big shift that occurs throughout the two films released. Likewise, the modern dialogue is not an isolated incident, but a recurring element that is at odds with the spirit of the book — this is completely independent of the need to have extra dialogue in the films.

Posted by: Jamie on October 1, 2003 18:29+12:00

Well, crikey. Tolkien changes gear dialogue wise himself. The opening stretch is far more like 'the hobbit' than the later sections. Pure expediency on his part. One might even say that the film should get brownie points for consistency lacking in the source material.

While Gimli's use as comic relief might stick in your craw, again, you are missing the context. He is never portrayed as some kind of oompla-loompa - and his dour attributes are not unaddressed. His ongoing nobilisation (an important part of his character arc in the book) is likewise exhibited in the films. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the orc body count (also in the movie) between him and legolas does indeed suggest a somewhat comic role for him in the source text. But until you actually see how it's handled in the movie, you're only interpreting hearsay. I suspect you're holding out more out of stubborness that rationalisation. Eagle eye did some of the graphics - and his work is worth seeing, if nothing else.

Posted by: Giles on October 1, 2003 22:31+12:00

Indeed, Tolkien shifts registers and styles frequently, and there is a marked difference between the style of the first chapter and the rest of the work — the parenthetical intrusions of the narrator disappear and the language becomes, generally, more formal. While this may reflect the origin of the book as a sequel to The Hobbit, Tolkien was meticulous and so it must be regarded as deliberate. The question is then why he kept that style for the first chapter. You say the reason for this is expediency — could you expand on that?

Regardless of the reason, I think you are missing the point. In a work where language is so important, where the author’s word choice is so deliberate, to not try your best to match the tone and style of the original context in any new dialogue seems perverse. I wonder why they choose to do it their way.

It seems strange to me to argue that numerous breaks of tone and style (not just Gimli, but Elrond’s anger, the Elves at Helm’s Deep, Faramir, Treebeard’s stupidity, etc etc) in six hours of film is irrelevant because of a wider context, when the book pays great attention to such details for a thousand pages. Moreover, I ask the question again, why are those changes which are not strictly necessary for translating the book to film made at all? What is Peter Jackson doing, or trying to do? I ask that quite seriously — all I know about his intention is that he wishes to make a faithful adaption of a book that he loves, a rationale which is entirely at odds with his handling of some of the material. Perhaps he has a more important goal which I do not know of.

Posted by: Jamie on October 2, 2003 07:53+12:00

Perhaps you should go to see the movies to find out what Jackson's vision is all about. I think you'll find your immortal soul isn't in any great peril.

For example, lots of artists have “interpreted” the Bible stories. In many ways they make what are quite radical changes to what the text says (respecting Tolkien's words and style is all very well, but these guys were messing with the Word of God). But that doesn't mean that these artists didn't succeed in creating works of art. In the same way, Jackson has used the LotR source material to make a piece of art. The best way of assessing its worth as such is by seeing it.

Posted by: michael on October 2, 2003 12:33+12:00

Ah, that’s the thing — what Peter Jackson has created may well be magnificent, as an independent work. That is something I am unable to judge for myself without seeing the movies. However, I don’t think I could see them without the book looming large in my mind, and I would much rather see a fantasy film which led me somewhere new than one which led me imperfectly to something already known.

Yes, this is purely my own bias and/or failing, and I have no doubt that there are aspects of the films that are marvellous, from all that people have said about them. However, for the above reason (and some others), I don’t imagine I will.

Since this will probably prompt people to wonder why I made the parent post at all, I refer readers both to the title of said entry and point out again that I was remarking not on the films themselves, but some fans’ attitudes towards/conceptions of them.

Posted by: Jamie on October 2, 2003 15:36+12:00

For what it's worth, I thought Two Towers wasn't nearly as good as Fellowship, which I would rate as highly as Empire Strikes Back in terms of "genre" (urk) films. Two Towers deviated far more heavily from the book than Fellowship, and you'd probably be insulted personally with the liberties taken with the character of Faramir as well as Frodo offering the Ring to a winged Nazgul at Osgiliath.

There's also a none-too-subtle voice over from Saruman which starts "the old world will burn in the fires of industry," which may be out of the book for all I remember but it seemed so hastily inserted that I laughed and pegged it to trying to keep the running time down.

Posted by: davidr on October 2, 2003 19:54+12:00

"Tolkien was meticulous and so it must be regarded as deliberate"

Bollocks (and I mean that in a nice way). He was making it up as he went along and is on record as saying so - The fact he didn't know who 'Strider' was when they met him at Bree is the classic example.

Posted by: giles on October 3, 2003 11:37+12:00

Giles, that’s a really silly objection. You cannot seriously be saying that only when an author has everything perfectly planned in their head before setting pen to paper can they be considered meticulous. There is such a thing as editing, which twelve volumes of the History of Middle-earth series would attest to Tolkien doing a lot of. A case in point is the amount of fiddling he did in order to get the phases of the moon correctly aligned between the two threads of the story after the breaking of the fellowship.

Posted by: Jamie on October 3, 2003 11:46+12:00

No. But when a character first turns up in a novel ultimately named 'The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return on the King' and the author doesn't know that it's the king who just appeared, I'd say it was plain silly to call it 'meticulous'. Later edited for consistancy, perhaps. YMMV. Perhaps that's it...you enjoy his minutiae, and I enjoyed the story. In the film the story ultimately remains the same (so far) whereas the details are not so spic and span. I'll agree to differ on that point.

Posted by: Giles on October 6, 2003 21:53+13:00

Also, I suspect the History of Middle Earth series attests to editing undoubtedly, but far more to Christopher Tolkien's efforts than John's.

Posted by: Giles on October 6, 2003 22:02+13:00

I believe you would find that, while there is surely later editing for consistency (and other things, such as the names of characters), that Tolkien was revising also as he went — the Lord of the Rings was not written as a mess and then revised afterwards. I just still don’t buy the argument that an evolving conception of a work necessarily rules out any meticulous approach to that work. Drafts and editing aside, the final work does show an extreme level of care about the details.

There are also slips, of course, such as Glorfindel and the use of the word Moria on the gates of Moria.

Here’s a random editorial comment from Christopher Tolkien from The Lost road and other writings, volume five of the History of Middle-earth (page 220):

The relation between the manuscript and the typescript texts here becomes quite different, in that the manuscript (in which this is not a separate chapter or in any way marked off from what precedes, see p.211) was scarcely emended at all, while the typescript has, already as typed, a great many changes from it.

There are several versions of much of what Tolkien wrote; Christopher Tolkien’s work in the series is to provide the text (which involves a certain amount of interpretation of illegible handwriting) and evidence and theories of their relationships.

I enjoy both the story and the details, and I think the latter greatly enhances the former. There is also a point at which the details are the story — is the differing treatment of Faramir in the film merely a change of detail, or does it change the story? To my mind that change causes changes to a number of other important elements (regarding the family of Denethor and Denethor's behaviour towards Faramir; the nature of the ring and how one can treat it; the decline of Men; the relationship between Men and Elves; etc) which are part of the story. On the gross level, would you not agree that going off to Osgiliath and encountering a Nazgûl and offering the ring to it is a change in the story?

Posted by: Jamie on October 7, 2003 09:58+13:00

Yes - I'd agree. And I don't think it was the finest decision Mr Jackson ever made, and it soured the second movie for me somewhat as I felt it jarred - possibly because I had preconceptions, possibly because it could have been handled differently. But it wasn't awful - It did show the increasing weariness of the ringbearer visually better than Frodo whinging about how tired he was. It was one slightly offkey passage out of two (the wizard battle being the first) in a six hour (so far) symphony, which is no mean feat. Perfection belongs only to allah after all :-) That said - I wish to reserve final judgement until I see the extended version, which greatly enhanced the first film in my opinion. That, and it may transpire that the osgiliath set-up has an unexpected payoff later on. I'll let you know in december

Posted by: Giles on October 7, 2003 12:54+13:00

Yes indeed, the Faramir/Osgiliath change seems to be the thing that people most complain of about the film, with anything else being considered much less significant. As you say, that’s pretty good going.

I would certainly be interested in hearing about how it’s used in the rest of the story.

Posted by: Jamie on October 7, 2003 15:10+13:00

As Giles points out, the Extended Edition of Fellowship worked well for the first film, and I understand there are scenes being added into the longer release of Two Towers showing the strained family dynamic between Denethor, Boromir and Faramir, which should reflect better on Faramir's decision to bring the ring home. But we'll see.

Posted by: davidr on October 7, 2003 17:11+13:00