The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Fordim Hedgethistle · 03-02-2005, 11:33 AM

Perhaps another analogy would be useful at this point:

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

Yes, the film is based on the book, but it is not the book itself. The differences between the two mediums is simply too great to make comparison possible except upon lines that are only and can ever be purely subjective: "I like this about the book but not this about the movie"; "I think this could have been done better in the movie"; "I enjoyed the book more." OK, wonderful opinions, but that's all they are and can ever be: these do not constitue some kind of objective means whereby we can establish whether or not the film is "successful" in any way beyond it's "success" in evoking (or not) these same subjective responses.

But to my analogy:

I adore Hamlet. It is a wonderful play. One of the things that I like most about it is its infinite variety (to quote another Shakey play. . .) It is such a rich text that there is just no way to do "all" of it in any one production or version -- the "definitive" performance of Hamlet is just not possible as there is too much, well, potential in the text for any single performance to bring out. That is why it is such a successful play in theatre history -- well, one of the reasons. Every Hamlet is different, and every one brings out different elements of the text. I like some productions and not others; some I think are brilliant and others are appallingly bad, but I never make the mistake of conflating the performance of the play to the text: they are different. Nor do I make the mistake of claiming that a performance of the text necessarily "dumbs it down" -- in the written version, all the potential and possible Hamlets are there, but for it to work on stage, there can only be one Hamlet. This is the nature of drama.

PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not. The 'distance' between the text and the performance in the case of Tolkien's work is vastly greater than with anything by Shakespeare, which does even more to short-circuit any attempt to meaningfully or objectifiably compare them to one another in any way other than, again, through the purely subjective.

In a perfect world, there would be a dozen other film makers out there with the money, time and vision necessary to make their own versions of LotR. As has been happening with Hamlet for 400 years now, these different versions would bring out different views and aspects of the text, develop its different potentials, and slowly a dynamic, fuller view of it would be available in performative/dramatic form, but none of them would be in any way definitive or complete. To attempt such a thing is hubris. To demand such a thing of a performance is naive. To condemn a performance for not accomplishing it is unfair and entirely misled.

03-02-2005, 11:33 AM	#11
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	Perhaps another analogy would be useful at this point: I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange. Yes, the film is based on the book, but it is not the book itself. The differences between the two mediums is simply too great to make comparison possible except upon lines that are only and can ever be purely subjective: "I like this about the book but not this about the movie"; "I think this could have been done better in the movie"; "I enjoyed the book more." OK, wonderful opinions, but that's all they are and can ever be: these do not constitue some kind of objective means whereby we can establish whether or not the film is "successful" in any way beyond it's "success" in evoking (or not) these same subjective responses. But to my analogy: I adore Hamlet. It is a wonderful play. One of the things that I like most about it is its infinite variety (to quote another Shakey play. . .) It is such a rich text that there is just no way to do "all" of it in any one production or version -- the "definitive" performance of Hamlet is just not possible as there is too much, well, potential in the text for any single performance to bring out. That is why it is such a successful play in theatre history -- well, one of the reasons. Every Hamlet is different, and every one brings out different elements of the text. I like some productions and not others; some I think are brilliant and others are appallingly bad, but I never make the mistake of conflating the performance of the play to the text: they are different. Nor do I make the mistake of claiming that a performance of the text necessarily "dumbs it down" -- in the written version, all the potential and possible Hamlets are there, but for it to work on stage, there can only be one Hamlet. This is the nature of drama. PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not. The 'distance' between the text and the performance in the case of Tolkien's work is vastly greater than with anything by Shakespeare, which does even more to short-circuit any attempt to meaningfully or objectifiably compare them to one another in any way other than, again, through the purely subjective. In a perfect world, there would be a dozen other film makers out there with the money, time and vision necessary to make their own versions of LotR. As has been happening with Hamlet for 400 years now, these different versions would bring out different views and aspects of the text, develop its different potentials, and slowly a dynamic, fuller view of it would be available in performative/dramatic form, but none of them would be in any way definitive or complete. To attempt such a thing is hubris. To demand such a thing of a performance is naive. To condemn a performance for not accomplishing it is unfair and entirely misled. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.