|
As I read through this thread it occurs to me that complaints voiced re: PJ's movies usually fall into two categories: 1) diversions from the book and 2) basic ideological differences. For the 1st type of complaint, I agree with many here who have reminded us that PJ was working with FILM, including all its constraints. But wait, you might argue, he made some changes that were totally unnecessary with regards to making the story "work". In these cases, I think we're dealing with complaint type 2. PJ made changes not only because he HAD to, he made changes to support the themes he wished to emphasize in the films.
I'm done with complaining about leaving characters out, etc. because to some extent I understand that PJ could NOT have included everything and he had to keep his average moviegoer's attention. But I think I have a just complaint against some of PJ's undergirding themes. For example, one MASSIVE theme throughout the films is the weakness of humans. This, I consider, as PJ's theme and not actually the main theme of Tolkien for the 3 books. For this reason, the dignity of all human characters are toned down a notch - some far more than a notch. Aragorn, rather than eager to reclaim his kingom, is portrayed as a wandering exile hesitant to receive his proper authority. Faramir we all know about... Theoden, rather than a kindly king who honors his oaths is a griper who consistently complains how Gondor hasn't helped Rohan any (a friend of mine, a non-Tolkienite, commented, "Why bother exorcising him? He's just as unwilling to help after.") and Denethor, rather than a subtle and political mind in dangerous times become a flaming ball flying off the "runway of Minis Tirith" (seriously, the 1st time I saw that part of the city I though: okay, who's going to jump off there?). The reason for these changes, I think, can be related to the ideological environment we're living in. When Tolkien wrote these books, heroes still existed. It was still acceptable to honor a king, to give somebody glory and to have that person accept his full authority. Here, in our cynical postmodern times, we cannot accept a character without some flaws. We don't believe anyone can be THAT noble or good etc. We're skeptical of people who would willingly take on a role of power. PJ is making a film during these times - he's thinking: are people going to like Aragorn if he's going to do all these things to win back his kingship? Hmmm..maybe I should tweak him, maybe people will find his character easier to swallow if he doesn't REALLY want to be king, if he starts out really humble. etc. etc. I think we can apply this kind of thinking to most of our problems with the movies because PJ is simply writing for a different type of audience that Tolkien. For those of us who like the heroism of the books, the movies create a problem: we ask, why does everyone have to be so ridiculous or ignoble? (see Gimli, Faramir, Ents, etc.) and I think this theme issue lies at the heart of the problem.
|