The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Fordim Hedgethistle · 10-02-2004, 04:41 AM

How does this idea of LotR as adopting/adapting folkloric motifs (rather than 'being' myth) impact on the discussion of its translation into film? I would suggest that insofar as the book seeks to include a number of different elements from folklore (and it is thus 'mythic') I think it would be hard to draw a definite line between book and film in this regard, insofar as the film not only uses many of the same elements introduced by Tolkien, but even introduces a few of its own (e.g. the films greatly expand upon Arwen's role, and with the death and 'resurrection' scene of Aragorn in TT it lends him an Arthurian aura of the King who will 'come again' -- not sure from which folklore we get shield-surfing Elves, which I still think was entirely cool).

I imagine that for many people the book is preferable to the film in its presentation of these elements for many entirely valid reasons: they prefer textuality to visuality, there is a more coherent moral 'purpose' to the book, the book is what they are more familiar with, the text allows a more nuanced thematic apprehension than in film, the movie -- as a film -- is having to work through the 'veil' of Hollywood action-film tropes and expectations, etc. . .but these reasons, good as they may be, are all subjective and personal. Which would seem to buttress my point that the apprehension of the 'mythic' in book or film is simply a subjective attribution made by the reader on the basis of which experience was more meaningful for him or her -- and if it is subjective, then there really can't be any objective reality to this idea of the 'mythic' in these works.

Oh, how I love a syllogism!

A good comparison is to the Star Wars movies. Those films were quite consciously made to reflect mythic 'archetypes' -- Lucas went so far as to have Joseph Campbell comment on the script of each film and offer pointers for the heroes' journey! For millions of people, there is a magic and, yes, a mythic feel to the films that is lost when they are translated into other media (I am one of those: I adore the films, but the books, the few that I have read, leave me utterly cold). This is the same process we are speaking of in regard to Tolkien, but in reverse. For LotR, the 'feel' of the book is more mythic than the 'feel' of the movie (for most readers/viewers); for Star Wars, the 'feel' of the movie is more mythic than the 'feel' of the books. So apparently that sense of myth can survive in either media, it's just that the first time we encounter it in each is different - textually or visually. It's not the medium that makes it mythic, but the memory of our first time reading or watching it.

10-02-2004, 04:41 AM	#5
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	Getting back to the point How does this idea of LotR as adopting/adapting folkloric motifs (rather than 'being' myth) impact on the discussion of its translation into film? I would suggest that insofar as the book seeks to include a number of different elements from folklore (and it is thus 'mythic') I think it would be hard to draw a definite line between book and film in this regard, insofar as the film not only uses many of the same elements introduced by Tolkien, but even introduces a few of its own (e.g. the films greatly expand upon Arwen's role, and with the death and 'resurrection' scene of Aragorn in TT it lends him an Arthurian aura of the King who will 'come again' -- not sure from which folklore we get shield-surfing Elves, which I still think was entirely cool). I imagine that for many people the book is preferable to the film in its presentation of these elements for many entirely valid reasons: they prefer textuality to visuality, there is a more coherent moral 'purpose' to the book, the book is what they are more familiar with, the text allows a more nuanced thematic apprehension than in film, the movie -- as a film -- is having to work through the 'veil' of Hollywood action-film tropes and expectations, etc. . .but these reasons, good as they may be, are all subjective and personal. Which would seem to buttress my point that the apprehension of the 'mythic' in book or film is simply a subjective attribution made by the reader on the basis of which experience was more meaningful for him or her -- and if it is subjective, then there really can't be any objective reality to this idea of the 'mythic' in these works. Oh, how I love a syllogism! A good comparison is to the Star Wars movies. Those films were quite consciously made to reflect mythic 'archetypes' -- Lucas went so far as to have Joseph Campbell comment on the script of each film and offer pointers for the heroes' journey! For millions of people, there is a magic and, yes, a mythic feel to the films that is lost when they are translated into other media (I am one of those: I adore the films, but the books, the few that I have read, leave me utterly cold). This is the same process we are speaking of in regard to Tolkien, but in reverse. For LotR, the 'feel' of the book is more mythic than the 'feel' of the movie (for most readers/viewers); for Star Wars, the 'feel' of the movie is more mythic than the 'feel' of the books. So apparently that sense of myth can survive in either media, it's just that the first time we encounter it in each is different - textually or visually. It's not the medium that makes it mythic, but the memory of our first time reading or watching it. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.