“They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk. Tolkien became…devoured by his popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of the time. The gap widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become is beyond me. This level of marketing reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical significance of this work.”
In a sense, the notoriously stuffy son of J.R.R. Tolkien isn’t far off about the popularity of The Lord of the Rings and how it’s own momentum and popularity has inherently changed Tolkien’s creation. The original book(s), and The Hobbit and The Silmarillion, will always exist in their own right, and, for those who choose it, can remain untouched by the explosion of popularity seen by the series over the past 15 years. Would Tolkien approve of all the films and videogames, t-shirts, action figures, bed sheets and director documentaries that are now available, each leaving the footprint of another creator/corporate executive on the soil of Middle Earth? I don’t know, but I’m not surprised that his son isn’t happy about it.
I could write a book on stupid requests that were made to me. Normally, the executors want to promote the work. [For us], the opposite is true. We want to clarify what is not Lord of the Rings.
The beauty of the books still exists, and always will exist, but there is a whole lot of white noise that fans, new and old, have to wade through. Some of it adds to the experience (like, say, The Lord of the Rings Online, a terrific MMORPG that absolutely nails the atmosphere of Tolkien’s world) and some of it is garbage that fits Christopher Tolkien’s grumblings. I’d put the films solidly in the former category.
His criticism falls apart when he begins referring to the films as “action movie[s] for 15-25 year olds.” Yep, film is a different story-telling medium that relies on certain methods of story-telling that are either unnecessary in novels or will weaken a prose story. Yes, Jackson’s versions of the story put more emphasis on the action and the warfare that was present in the novels, at the expense of some of the novel’s quieter moments (I do miss Glorfindel…). But they’re good films. I suppose, somewhere in there is a noble effort to retain his memories of his father, and the stories and worlds the man created for them as children, but it’s all lost in C. Tolkien’s surliness.
One thing I expect C. Tolkien and I would agree on in the whole Paths of the Dead/Baldor shenanigans that Jackson shoe-horned into the films. Gimme Ghân-buri-Ghân any day of the week.
The rest of Tolkien’s interview can be read on Examiner.com. It’s a fascinating read, regardless of what you think of C. Tolkien’s stance on his father’s opus.
Well, things are hotting up nicely. Let’s light up a pipe of ‘Old Toby’and throw some more fuel on the fire .
For those commentators who find the book ‘too long and boring’ and cannot engage with literature unless it is served up between the sesame seed buns of a film adaptation, or put into a blender along with their brains and mixed up into a nice thick gloopy shake . . . “ Mmmm . . . gee Mom this Bilbo Baggins smoothie is just the best) READING a book, as Susan Sontag says, ( look her up) is one of the most exciting things you can do with your mind, ( apart from writing one).
Literature is that which enriches our minds and our lives. When we read a great work, we are personally involved in creating it, we bring to it our imagination, personality, the whole repertoire of our being . . and something extraordinary happens. It is as though there we are, meandering along the highways and byways of our mind, and suddenly an author in a big red Ferrari roars up ( “ Hey, get in kid ! “ ) and VROOM, we’re off, taken on an exhilarating journey of discovery, an entertainment which at the same time resonates and illuminates. It is not a passive experience, but something which is both intimate and demanding, but which rewards us with something which can sustain us for a lifetime.
It is not a question of being against film adaptations of books, or of film as a medium in general. There are many fine adaptations of books – ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ is brilliantly done, the television adaptation of ‘Brideshead Revisited’ is actually better than the book – they are two different mediums and necessarily there will be re-workings and compromises. It is not even about a contest between “ high” and “low” culture ( I personally like Blockbuster movies, Alien trilogy, Bruce Willis in the Die-Hard films, Spiderman – these are high in the canon of entertainment ). What we are talking about is taking something finely wrought, of great beauty and mangling it into a grotesque parody.
By stamping such an indelible hairy footprint on the material, Jackson has ruined for generations the experience of reading these books. Anyone coming from the films to the books has been deprived of the chance of having their imaginative DNA spliced with some of the best creative writing western culture has come up with.
It’s rather like what those “ Epic” films of the 1950s did to the New Testament. Remember John Wayne, standing in his plastic armour on an unrealistic studio knoll, and intoning slack-jawed ‘ Shhuurely this musta bin da son a Gaaad.’ For Chrisopher Tolkein I suspect it was like having a horrible little orc waddle up in a baseball cap and deposit a steaming pile of ordure on his doorstep.
It is not the fault of film, or technology, it is simply BAD writing, BAD characterisation, BAD direction and the wholly crass and impoverished vision of one man – Peter Jackson. I know he employed illustrators like Alan Lee – whose prosaic imagination rarely rises from pedestrian depictions of Saxons, Normans and Vikings – but ultimately the smelly finger of blame points at the fat phiz of one man only.
Sometimes to amuse myself I have little consolatory fantasy of my own : Christopher T and I, sitting side by side, in a couple of comfortable leather armchairs, snug in a Pall Mall club, a bottle of amontillado and a couple of glasses between us, sharing a genial laugh together as we take turns with the club luger to pick the prosthetic ears off a succession of Jacksonian creatures. Come to think of it . . . might make a good video game !
P.S. Hullo Brian, no, I don’t have a problem with technology. Oil painting was at one time a new , sophisticated technology, ( still the best I think), for realising visual images. For all there are some things I wish had never been invented, such as nuclear science, fast food and sports wear.
Will try out the C.S. Lewis book. Have heard it’s very good. I would recommend Alan Garner’s Weirdstone Of Brisingamen and Moon of Gomrath. Beautiful little books. And if you haven’t tried it, a masterpiece every bit the equal of Tolkien, though very different in every respect, Mervy Peake’s Gormenghast books – which containds some of the finest writing in post-war English literature.
P.P.S.
Dear Haley, ( see above) what am I on ? Irony darling – London water’s riddled with it.
Addendum :
Should be Mervyn Peake. Christ, “Shpelling ish sho impotant” as Shagrat might say. Wonder how HE got his name ?
Lori Kisling and Brian Boru: you are both spot on. It’s really beyond me why people are not receptive at all to Christopher Tolkien’s important criticism of the movies . I can only imagine the anguish of the man who spend his entire life working to preserve his beloved father’s legacy and seeing it misappropriated and twisted like this. It really pains me to think about it, honestly. Not to mentions that HE IS the greatest living expert on J.R. R.’s work. I think you both touch upon some of the most important themes that Jackson left out– the choice which profoundly changed the meaning of the original stories he supposedly only “adapted” (to the point that the main “message” or argument of the original is almost unrecognizable, I think…). One of the central problems seems to be that the films, particularly The Hobbit, reek with senseless, fire-lit (literally), cartoonish, gratuitous violence, where the dwarves kill 20 orcs with a single swing of a sword (so unlike the novel, where the dwarves are mostly awkward and actually NEED Bilbo’s skills). On the other hand, those moments of “healing” to which I always really look forward when re-reading the books, and the characters such as Tom Bombadil are not present at all (maybe that’s actually better, though. Bombadil happens to be my favorite Tolkien character and I fear what Peter Jackson might do to him. He managed to completely destroy Radagast , turning him into a senile glue-sniffer.). The beauty of the books is in this bitter-sweet balance, where good people have to go to war and kill and defend themselves by taking the lives of others, but they do not enjoy it and when they get too close to the relishing in revenge others are there to remind them of the power and importance of mercy and kindness. Thus is it the originary and semi-conscious act of kindness– the decision of the invisible Bilbo’s who chooses to spare Gollum’s life– which ultimately opens up a possibility to defeat Sauron. But for the entirety of the novel this act remains largely unacknowledged by Bilbo or anyone else. It is a decision that in the moment looks more like an mere impulse. These moments are the key to Tolkien’s novel’s and are highlighted in the narrative. They are, however, entirely missing from the movies. It is a huge shame and, even worse, I am afraid that this is through the filter of the Jackson’s franchise that the next generation or two will get to know Tolkien. I sincerely hope I am wrong about this.
Also, Reeve– I couldn’t agree with your posts more. I salute you, Good Sir.
Reeve I didn’t think you had a problem with technology. I would go as far as saying if people like yourself were employed to turn CS Lewis trilogy into a movie/movies it would show up the weaknesses of Jackson’s use of technology in LOTR and Hobbit movies, which affects the story telling. A case in point being The Hobbit movie where I found the 2D version easier to cope with than the 3D version after having seen both. I have a better sense of the story now from seeing it in 2D but still felt it lacked the depth of the book as per Lala’s comment. I too hope that Lala is wrong about the next generation or two only knowing Tolkien through the filter of Jackson’s franchise. Roll on Tolkien Estate in going after the intangibles in their court action over the franchise. I wish they could put an embargo on NZ’s 100% pure Middle-earth campaign. I can already think of a campaign that could replace it, which would reinforce our national identity that would still bring in the tourist dollar without it being constrained by the copyright demands of the franchise and I think that the Tolkien Estate would support it.
Bless you Lala, very sweet of you. It’s heartening to find people who feel the same way. As far as I’m concerned Jackson took a jewel from the crown of English Literature and made a cheeseburger out of it.
And cheers Brian, I had no idea about the court action undertaken by the Tolkien estate. Here’s hoping.
Just spent the last three and a half hours watching The Hobbit. Saw it in 2D, so I could concentrate on the movie as much as possible. Folks, it fails on every single level. It is poor film-making, it is a poor translation of the book into film, and it willfully ignores the original work in any real way. Yes, it weaves in elements from the appendices and other works, but it is extremely superficial and self-serving.
I love action films. I love fantasy. But I also love Tolkien’s work, and if you are going to base movies off of that work, you have to honor it in some way, not just strip it of character names and a few plot points, and shellac it with a heavy coating of amusement park. If you do decide to play to the demos and make a movie that hits the 16-24 crowd, and you make a good movie out of it, you are a talented opportunist and fit perfectly into the modern Hollywood studio system (and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing ’cause you made a good film). If you do that and make a piss-poor movie out of it, you are a hack.
If you take Jackson alone, you get King Kong. Puerile crap.
If you take Jackson adopting Tolkien, you still get puerile crap, but at least you can detect some of Tolkien’s genius reflected, albeit dimly, in the proceedings.
And let’s not use the translation of the books to cinema as the sole reason folks are being critical. Yeah, that translation is a tough row to hoe, but it can be done, and done well (Kubrick comes to mind, 2001, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange). But Jackson fails utterly at it. He doesn’t strip down and simplify in order to quicken the pace, instead he bloats with sidetracks, flashbacks, his own embellishments (Radagast’s enlarged role and portrayal is a crime), and extended brainless fight sequences, and all of those things kill the narrative flow and are but a crude caricature of the original work. Sorry folks, but the arguments being used by the defenders of this slop do not hold water.
I never liked the movies. I am glad I have found CT interview by Le Monde, as well as reading comments from others didn’t like themovies either. Thanks, for years I thought I was the only person in the planet thinking this
I think that a good movie or rather series could be done out of the books. I have no doubt. I hope on day we will be able to see that. Thank you Christopher Tolkien!
The witch king beating up Gandalf ??? How come? Gandalf is a Maiar, similar in power to Sauron, while the witch king is just a servant of the latter.
And why not showing the scene of the tree flag with the ships sailing up the Anduin, instead of showing the ugly scene of the 3 companions jumping off the ship with the dead ( the dead!!!) coming after.
The dialogues! They are really a joke! The Council of Elrond is really bad made, as well as the scene when at the end, they decide to attack on the Black Gate, in order to help Frodo distracting Sauron’s attention. To me, those dialogues are an example of what is going on during all 3 movies.
The tone of the attacks here on people who enjoy the LOTR and Hobbit films is very similar to the tone those in the literary world use to attack people who consider Tolkien’s works to be literature.
[...] The one part about this whole thing that seems a bit off is where the source says that the Tolkien family trusts Warner Bros. with the success of the LOTR series, because I was under the impression that the Tolkien’s didn’t like the movies, and that there is some bitterness, especially after all of the lawsuits. J.R.R. Tolkien’s son Christopher said this in a previous interview, [...]
[...] The one part about this whole thing that seems a bit off is where the source says that the Tolkien family trusts Warner Bros. with the success of the LOTR series, because I was under the impression that the Tolkien’s didn’t like the movies, and that there is some bitterness, especially after all of the lawsuits. J.R.R. Tolkien’s son Christopher said this in a previous interview, [...]
I don’t wish to give Jackson’s idiotic films more of my time than they deserve (I walked out of “Fellowship” on the film’s opening day and never looked back), but Reeve is right on.
Sometimes the orcs win.
It’s amazing how some think that film is a carte blanche to do anything they want to the story, and that box-office returns are an absolution rather than a simple sellout or prostituting of the story, as with any Disney-version of a classic tale replete with abominable silliness and crass humor and crude flattening of the subtlety.
The IQ-deficits of such claimants are abysmal.
The tone of the attacks don’t surprise me at all, that is how literary criticism generally works. The movies will always be seen as merely one interpretation of the books, while the books will always be seen as drawing from older forms of literature, namely Old and Middle English and Old Icelandic as well as things Tolkien derived from Old Welsh and Old Finnish and even Old Hebraic. Meanwhile, Old and Middle English and Old Icelandic literature will always be in conflict with contemporary fiction as Tolkien experienced it at Oxford University as it has always been there and other university English departments around the world. NB When Tolkien sold off the film rights he stipulated that he didn’t want Disney to make movies out of his works because of the way Disney prostituted the works of the Grimms brothers. It appears the same thing is happening with Peter Jackson’s movies hence why the Tolkien estate is going for the franchise.
Okay now it is time to say something more about how the aesthetic and philosophical significance of LOTR and The Hobbit have been overlooked in the movies to date. Tolkien’s legendarium, according to Humphrey Carpenter and other biographers, began with Tolkien writing a poem based on an Old English poem about the star Earendil that was thought to be the OE name for Venus. This poem was later reworked into LOTR where Bilbo sings it in Rivendell on the night of the day that Frodo awakens after being cured by Elrond from the knife wound of the Morgul Blade.
In the poem Earendil is described as a mariner who sails his ship to Valinor to appeal to the Valar to come to the aid of Middle-earth against Morgoth the original Dark Lord, which they duly do setting Earendil to sail with his spouse Elwing permanently in the sky as a star. Earendil and Elwing are both of mixed heritage of both Men and Elves with Elwing in fact descending from Beren the mortal and Luthien the immortal, the latter who is the daughter of Thingol and Melian, while the latter is a Maia or a female equivalent to Gandalf. After setting Earendil and Elwing to set sail in the sky as a star their children are given the choice to choose immortality or mortality, with Elrond choosing the former and Elros the latter. Elrond’s children are also given the same choice with Arwen choosing mortality to be espoused with Aragorn who descends from Elros thus joining the two sundered lines.
The only reference to Earendil in the movies is in Galadriel’s giving to Frodo the star glass, which captures some of the star light of Earendil and later on reveals Shelob to Frodo. In addition, in the extended version of the movies Samwise sees Earendil in the sky the night before he and Frodo ascend Mt Doom to complete their quest. Maybe I shouldn’t be given anyone any ideas but why couldn’t there be an additional trilogy of movies centred around these things, without breach of copyright, with Aragorn’s unrequited love to Arwen and later forbidden love by Elrond after it is requited being the focus. There would surely be movies in Aragorn with the rangers guarding the Shire, then meeting and travelling with Gandalf to other Middle Earth realms, then serving Thengel of Rohan and then Ecthelion of Gondor and then travelling into the lands of Harad and Rhun. This could have a theme like the OE poem The Wanderer until Gandalf reveals to Aragorn that the One Ring could have been found and how they go on the hunt for Gollum and how Aragorn captures Gollum who is interrogated by Gandalf and how this reveals that the One Ring has indeed been found and the possibility that Aragorn could get back his ancestral kingdom, which Elrond stipulates he must do in order to marry Arwen.
I just thought I would put that out there.
As simply as I can put it, the JRRT’s novels, which really should in no case be compared to a film since they are completely different pieces (in one we have a man or woman in his or her underpants at a typewriter or computer alone for 2 years, while the other is a collaboration of often thousands of different people, most of whom are required to shower daily even – apples & orange groves, you might say!), are high school kids books. Jackson’s films combined for 17 Oscars and another 13 nominations. Christopher is a fool! The 15- 25 year old demographic barely watch the most internationally viewed television event in the world annual, The Academy Awards. Does he honestly think the Academy Awards are kids fare??? Is he discounting the entire history of the ceremonies? It sure seems like it given that only Titanic and Ben-Hur garnered an equal number of Oscars (11) as Return of the King!!
It is his father who aimed his work at youth. His novels were going around like wildfire when I was in freshman & sophomore years of high school. And even then, I knew that only the LOTR books were worth anything. He’s lucky that Jackson did the films and re-sparked interest in them. Especially now that adults find 50 Shades of Grey, Twilight Saga, etc. to be worth reading – you know, high school kids stuff just like the Tolkien pieces. And I do mean LOTR since The Hobbit and Silly Million are just plain crap!
This is so great! I, too, thought I was alone in finding the movies cringe-inducing. It’s nice to know there are others out there.
Read the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, especially the ones dealing with an early proposed treatment, but the others as well, and you will see how offensive he would have found Jackson’s triology(ies). Check it out. I can’t believe that Jackson did.
I would like to add a couple of complaints to the sizable litany already presented here. The ending to the Council of Elrond, which as I recall degenerates into a brawl in the movie, is much more moving and dramatic in the books, where everyone falls silent and then Frodo quietly says he will go to Mordor, though he does not know the way. The atrocious scene where Frodo believes Gollum’s accusation that the fat hobbit has eaten the Lembas. The literal cliff-hanger at the Cracks of Doom. The excursion to the Shire by Treebeard and Merry and Pippin. The botching of Eowyn’s slaying of the Nazgul, a scene that I had always pictured as being potentially great reduced to the overall general murkiness and confusion that characterize all the battle scenes. I could find more if I had the strength to watch them again, but in general, every deviation from the texts results in a cheapening and a flattening that does not contribute anything to the story. Furthermore, Jackson’s decision to largely jettison all of Tolkien’s dialogue is a palpable fail.
Are they good movies anyway? Don’t ask me; I think Star Wars is crap, and McCabe and Mrs. Miller sublime. But no matter. They certainly could have been a lot better by simply showing more respect for JRRT’s story-telling skills, his mythic imagination, and his language.
As for the argument that film is a different medium necessitating changes, one need only consider the long list of authors both greater and lesser than JRRT who were well served by their adaptors: Fielding, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Alcott, Verne, Conan Doyle, Chandler, Malory, Conrad, Capote, and of course C.S. Lewis. There are many others whose works were tenderly treated, and in some cases even improved, in their transfer to the screen.
why should i give a fuck what he thinks? for all i know, he’s an effing idiot who can’t recognize talent when it’s thrown on his face. there are always people who have to trash things that most people love so they can feel they are better than everyone else, they are losers. obviously having a famous father guarantees nothing
I wouldn’t trash Christopher Tolkien like that, he was consulted so much by JRR Tolkien on virtually every turn of the legendarium that it could be said that he co-authored it especially given that his scholarship at Oxford was the same in Old and Middle English and Old Icelandic as his father’s. This is also why he was appointed by his father to be his literary executor after his death. The view he is expressing is only a reaction to something that he equally loved like his father being trashed by something that does not really understand what it is about because of Hollywood conventions and studio demands.
[...] En realidad la situación es muy simple. Los derechos de El Silmarillion, como los de los Cuentos Inconclusos, Los Hijos de Húrin o los volúmenes de las colecciones Historia de la Tierra Media e Historia de El Señor de los Anillos (es decir, todos los libros publicados tras la muerte de JRR Tolkien) pertenecen a Tolkien Estate. Y Christopher Tolkien siempre se ha negado a vender los derechos, de hecho ni siquiera considera la posibilidad de una negociación. ¿Por qué? Porque literalmente odia las adaptaciones cinematográficas de El Señor de los Anillos y El Hobbit y quiere proteger el legado de su padre. “Destruyeron el libro, haciendo una película de acción para chavales de entre 15 y 25 años. Y parece que El Hobbit será igual”, declaraba Christopher Tolkien en una entrevista concedida a Le Monde de la que se hacían eco en el blog A Dribble of Ink. [...]
Even if the books didn’t exist the films are pure garbage on themselves, full of typical hollywood topics so repeated that tire me out. Stupid obvious and mindless one liners, the poetry and beauty of the story completely destroyed. Childish stuff for a childish public. Yes sorry but Mr. C. Tolkien is completely right he knows the works of his father very well and so do i and i can state that the films are MUCH inferior material than the novels. In the end you are left with just a couple well made scenes and a good technical job (sometimes there’s too much unecessary CGI for example Saruman’s fireball – this is not dungeon and dragons folks- ) The best moments of the film come (as expected) when the scriptwiters stick completely to Tolkien, who is a much better storyteller than them. And no, watching how your most beloved book is destroyed is not fun at all.
Oh good, the Hobbit has revived the thread, so I can get in my jabs at the horror of Peter Jackson’s trilogy (haven’t seen the Hobbit, but I’m guessing I would like it better due to the criticism of it being ‘boring.’)
I wish the LOTR movies would have never been made, as it will probably preclude better versions for the next few decades.
Other than not being true to the books on so many levels, here are my chief gripes at the moment:
1) I hated the soundtrack with a passion. Talk about manipulative sentimental pop neo Celtic tripe to make up for lack of character development. Putred. (I know, I know, everyone loved it.)
2) Boring battles at the expense of character development.
3) Lothlorien filmed in a studio.
4) Galadriel’s gifts to the Nine forgotten. Those gifts are central to the story. Now Galadriel is just some weird beautiful elven witchey thing.
5) Nothing left to the imagination when it came to the evil — show it in full blown CGI and it is diminished. The Ring Wraiths were hardly scary, the Balrog uncloaked just another mediocre monster. Sauron something you blow away at the end of a video game.
6) Gimli reduced to comic relief.
7) Aragorn reduced to a whiner (Viggo could have been perfect).
8) Despite the endless ending, no ravaging of the Shire.
…. ok, painful enough memories. I did like Gandalf and Sauraman and Gollum, and much of the Shire. Frodo and Sam were … pretty good. Other hobbits not much.
I hope someone creates another thread in a year or two to let me vent again.
I have little sympathy for those who find the books too long or boring, but at least they are being honest. Did reread the trilogy in a 24 hour stint, once. Now I guess we brag of playing a video game for 24 hours straight.
So far The Hobbit movies’ production hasn’t had it as good as The Lord of the Rings movies’ production. The first Hobbit movie only got Oscar nominations for boring things like best production design, visual effects and make up and hairstyling none of which it won. This is while the LOTR movies got Oscar nominations for major catergories such as Best Picture three times and Best Director twice securing wins on these in the third movie, which was suggested to be because of the earlier nominations, which Peter Jackson said himself. My guess as to why there is such a gulf of difference is that while Hollywood was made to look bad by its deals with the NZ government to keep the Hobbit production in NZ and the much promoted 3D version didn’t win over all the punters the academy didn’t find it expedient enough to give the first Hobbit movie any awards. Meanwhile, Hollywood was made to look good by the promotion of the LOTR movies by academics such as Professor Tom Shippey, a specialist in Old and Middle English and Old Icelandic, which was Tolkien’s speciality, who was consulted for the movies and appeared in its promotion videos. This was also helped by other academics in this speciality in New Zealand and other parts of the world who gave public lectures on how Tolkien’s scholarship contributed to the creation of his legendarium. The Hobbit movies have become too much about Peter Jackson, the creative artists and the celebrities and too far removed from what Tolkien was all about.
Gotta say I agree with you Mr. Brian Boru on many points and find your perspective compelling. And also I agree with those of you feeling like LOTR/The Hobbit deserved a better telling. I grew up as a LOTR superfan and saw the movies in high school/college where I was, well, largely angered by what I saw. All the haters-on-haters want to say that the fans who have problems with the movie simply expect the movies to be word-for-word interpretations of the book. Wrong! I can hardly imagine a fan that would expect a word-for-word movie. The book, although bolstered by a powerful academic grounding and with a considerably crafted and perfected narrative, ultimately is simply a product of a vast imagination. The adaptation to the screen should follow in that creative pursuit, and yet, in my mind, remain loyal to the book hopefully in a way that bonds the tellers in a unique way. Mr. Boru you illustrate a way that the film producers can follow down Mr. Tolkien’s rabbit-hole to older texts, and certainly I would recommend emphasizing an academic approach to those ends, and yet at the end of the day the creative elements are what draw us to the story and I have no qualms in giving the screen adapter the reins to sculpt his own vision. Although like I said a more committed and loyal approach would have been appreciated to a point. Simply put, Peter Jackson’s screen telling of middle-earth is broad, yet hollow. There is no magic. No profundity. The art direction and music are beautiful but unfortunately squandered by a sprawling and unprincipled script, and as a possible result the cast didn’t hold up to contribute compelling characters (gollum as the exception for me). I casted Daniel-Day Lewis as Aragorn in my head when I was 14 years old well before the movies were filming. Funnily enough, he was offered the role and turned it down, presumably for length-related reasons. It’s unfortunate as I feel like he was the most worthy actor for a Tolkien part based on his unparalleled approach in the method-acting discipline. He also has a commanding screen presence, which the movie had a distinct lack of. Patrick Stewart wasn’t particularly fond of the script in his rationale for turning down the role of Gandalf…
But casting-rant aside the magic/beauty/majesty/whatever-word-you-want-to-use-to-describe-sheer-brilliance, was simply lost and while I’d like to say all LOTR fans that were moved deeply by the books would agree with me, perhaps it’s just in my nature (and certain other fellow fans) that we can’t grasp the beauty in these films. Sigh, first-world problems.
Thank you Mike. I posted the following conversation on my facebook status. It does kind of reveal what can be lost when you adapt something to screen.
Questioner: ‘Who is your favourite character in The Lord of the Rings?’
Me: ‘Widfara.’
Questioner: ‘Who is that’?
Me: ‘He was a character that followed Théoden to Minas Tirith. His home was in the Wold, the wild grasslands of Rohan’s northern border, and in these northern lands he had acquired a special weather-sense. It was he who first reported a change in the wind during the long ride, a change that augured the end of Sauron’s looming darkness. He only appears in the story to tell Theoden this.’
Questioner: ‘Why emphasise him then?’
Me: ‘Because his name means ‘far, wide traveller’ from Old English and for a king like Theoden to trust a character like that at that point demonstrates how far the West have come in unifying against the East, thanks to Gandalf, whose name happens to mean ‘Wandering Elf’ from Old Icelandic, which is given to him by the people of the West when Mithrandir or ‘Grey Wanderer’ from Sindarin, which is also given to him from the people of the West, is in fact more accurate for him (though I am not that keen on Tolkien’s made up languages). But that is not the real reason why Widfara is my favourite character.’
Questioner: ‘Then what is the real reason why?’
Me: ‘Because the naming of him prevents him from being a flat character, while the emphasis on the shift from being less in Frodo’s head after the Fellowship breaks and more in the other Hobbits’ heads, particularly in Sam’s head as Frodo and Sam travel onwards to Mordor, makes it harder to portray Frodo as the main character in the story. This means Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings is undermining the catergories that make up Contemporary Fiction, which often has the proponents of such literature in the English Departments in the Universities want to have Old and Middle English and Old Icelandic Literature dumped from the English programme.’
Also, at the same time this could be adapted to screen say if you have Widfara see the Orcs and Uruk-hai coming out of the Emyn Muil and then later being seen meeting up with Eomer outside Edoras and Grima Wormtongue saying something like: “You can’t trust anybody with a name like Widfara’, which Eomer chooses to ignore . It could also set up why Gandalf et al are challenged by Grima Wormtongue later on when they came to Edoras.
How could you not love The Lord Of The Rings? The movies are great and the books are awesome. Can not wait for the next Hobbit movie to come out.
The language and story of LotR & the Silmarillion as written works are only “boring” to those whose brains have been turned to stimulus-addled mush thanks to television, TiVo and Twitter.
The majesty and poetry of JRR Tolkien’s books can (to those who are willing to make the requisite effort of sitting down in a quiet place and READING them) be SO much more rewarding on SO many more levels than PJ’s films (which I found to be a mildly entertaining but miserable failure at conveying the story).
Seems to me that George RR Martin had the right idea when optioning his Song of Ice and Fire series: give each book at least 10 hours, and serialize it. HBO’s Game of Thrones seems much more true to its source material than PJ’s efforts… And yes, Jackson’s Hobbit is beyond dreadful.
[...] questo proposito, Christopher Tolkien ha recentemente criticato la trilogia di Peter Jackson. Lei crede che apprezzerebbe maggiormente il suo [...]
Good Lord (of the Rings),
Nerds will argue about anything. Superman’s crotch is too bumpy. Gandalf’s beard is too long. Maybe nerds and stuffy English guys are just pissed at life and can’t even begin to understand how to enjoy something, whether it is the penultimate version or not.
Where was Superman mentioned and Gandalf’s beard in this comment trail? And the only nerds I know are film nerds and they don’t enjoy The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit movies. They just enjoy idolising Peter Jackson and the celebrities and only value the movies for how it will bring other Hollywood movie productions into New Zealand. I also don’t know any stuffy English English guys.
“Nerds” is just a name for people who are more intelligent, more thoughtful and more tuned up to what art is all about than the dumb bunnies who have no sense and no ability to descriminate between one thing and another. Let you Middle brows call names and argue with ad homonims all you want – we got A LOT more out of the book than you did. A LOT more. Your loss, Ass hole.
In recent times I have got a lot more out of looking at the Old and Middle English and Old Icelandic sources that the books drew from, which have also been drawn on to develop the movies by the experts in those literatures employed by the productions. I can now understand more clearly why there were experts in those literatures in Tolkien’s time who derided him for even writing the books and why classmates of mine have the same derision and more so to the movies. I wonder what ad homonim would be used to apply of me for saying that.
Here are some examples of what I have got out of those sources:
1. ‘Hobbit’ comes from the combination of ‘hott’, the Old Icelandic for ‘small’, and the ‘byt’ in ‘holbytla’, the Old English for ‘hole-dweller/builder’. Hott also happens to be a small character in an Old Icelandic saga whose parents live in what appears to be a house built in a hole in the ground.
2. ‘Gollum’ comes from the plural of ‘gull’, the Old Icelandic for ‘precious treasure’, and the origin of the word ‘gold’.
3. ‘Middle-earth’ comes from the Middle English ‘middel-erde’, which, in turn, comes from the Old English ‘middan-geard’ and is related to the Old Icelandic ‘Midgard’. It also refers to how the Anglo-Saxons viewed their land in relationship to the seas surrounding it and the heavens roofing it.
4. ‘Bilbo Baggins’ comes from both the combination of the Middle English words ‘bilt’ for ‘dwell’, ‘bo’ for ‘dweller’, ‘baggi’ for ‘bag’ and ‘inne’ for ‘in’ and the combination of the Old English words ‘bil’ for ‘sword’, ‘bua’ for ‘dweller’, ‘bagge’ for ‘bag’ and ‘anum’ plural for ‘one’. Hence Bilbo is the ‘dweller that dwells in a bag’ who becomes the ‘sword dweller from the ones in a bag’, which refers to his parentage, which is crucial for a warrior’s identity in Anglo Saxon society.
5. ‘Gandalf’ comes from the list of Dwarf names in the Old Icelandic poem ‘Voluspa’ that Tolkien got nearly all his Dwarf names from, ‘Voluspa’ being the poem that describes the rise and fall of Midgard/Middle-earth and the rising of a new Middle-earth. It means ‘Elf with a wand’, which suggests that Dwarves are the dark Elves referred to in Old Icelandic literature, which had Tolkien carefully avoid giving his Dwarves Elf sounding names. The ‘gand’ can also come from ‘ganga’ the Old Icelandic word for ‘to go’ or ‘to wander’. Hence ‘Gandalf’ could mean ‘Wandering Elf’ and is of course not his real name but one given to him by the people of Middle-earth who think that he is an Elf because there are only five wizards in Middle-earth.
6. ‘Smaug’ comes from ‘smygel’, the Old English word for ‘burrowing’, which is also the origin of the name ‘Smeagol’ and for ‘smial’, or ‘burrow’, the Hobbits’ name for their houses.
7. ‘Mirkwood’ originated from the forest separating the gods and giants in Old Icelandic literature.
8. ‘Tolkien’ comes from the germanic ‘tollkühn for ‘fool-hardy’ and is the origin of the oxymoron ‘dull-keen’. The word Old English ‘tuk’ for ‘fool’ comes from that as does the name ‘Took’ the name of the family which all the Hobbits except Samwise descend from. ‘Samwis’ is Old English for ‘half-wise’, while ‘frod’ is Old English for ‘wise by experience’. The Old Took is therefore an old fool and the expression ‘fool of a Took’ said by Gandalf of Pippin is intended to be a philogical joke like the opening sentence of The Hobbit ‘In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit’ if taking ‘hobbit’ to being the wearing down of ‘holbytla’.