Forever?

[Son of Númenor]

Peter Jackson didn't 'get' one of the major themes of the books.

Cate Blanchett (narrating): "The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil forever."

He blows it. Cut ahead a few thousand years, to when

...Frodo destroys the Ring. Evil is destroyed forever! Everyone lives happily ever after.

Never mind this insignificant little passage

Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days. (The Silmarillion, "Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath")

or the silly concept of the 'Long Defeat'.

(Unnecessary sarcasm, I know).

At worst, PJ missed this important - some would say defining - part of Tolkien's works altogether. At best, he didn't convey it adequately in Blanchett's aforementioned narration and, more importantly, in the tone of Return of the King's ending.

Your thoughts?

[Rimbaud]

An accurate crticism, SoNo, if not necessarily valid. The movie never could, and to its credit from a certain point of view, never tried to import the gravitas of the books. And neither were the films intended as one strand of a multi-layered mytholology, as with the literary counter-part; rather as an 'open-and-shut', if three-part, cinematic experience. There would be little benefit from a contemporary silver screen perspective of casting doubt on the 'ending' of the evil, and providing the more ambiguous realism of Tolkien's original.

Added to which, in so far as filmic LotR is concerned, there isn't a 'Morgoth', just a Sauron, and we all saw the death-dramatics of the effects at the end of of RotK. So he must be dead.

All this, however, is only if you have the relatively restricted view of 'blockbuster' movies being necessarily simplistic; I'll confess there is merit in argument, having meandered casually to either side fo the fence at various times, but is possibly a less Tolkien-related discussion than strictly warranted.

In the essence of what you say, I do agree: there is a loss of the deep sorrow of the books through the film. As above, that can be construed as necessary, and I would posit perhaps that once you have delineated the two media into distinct pleasures, there is less in the way of qualitative 'detraction' from book to film.

[Son of Númenor]

I understand the politics of big-studio filmmaking, but I still think it's a shame PJ (or New Line) didn't think audiences could stomach a quasi-tragic, bittersweet ending and a little ambiguity about the ultimate fate of evil.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Peter Jackson didn't 'get' one of the major themes of the books.

Ah, but how much does this theme come across in LotR as a stand-alone trilogy of books? Until relatively recently, having only read LotR (aside from a failed attempt at the Silmarillion in my youth) I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Morgoth and the marring of Arda.

Perhaps the idea of enduring evil is explicit in LotR, but surely it is implicit in any event. Although the external "personification" of evil has been defeated, it stands to reason (to my mind at least) that this will not mark an end to the internal evil within the hearts of Men (and the other races). I suppose I really just took this for granted in the books without it having to be made explicit. So doesn't this also apply with regard to the films?

Admittedly, Galadriel's words talk of an end to evil. But don't we automatically interpret this to mean an end to the personification of evil, rather than a complete end to evil itself? Or do you think that people might view Middle-earth at the end of the film as an idyllic realm devoid of evil? It's possible, I suppose.

One further, related, thought. The cinema release does not in fact close with all evil having been defeated since, for all we know, Saruman is still at large, albeit restricted to Orthanc when we last see him. Of course, this "little" detail is to be cleared up in the Extended Edition.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by SpM:
Admittedly, Galadriel's words talk of an end to evil. But don't we automatically interpret this to mean an end to the personification of evil, rather than a complete end to evil itself?

I think most viewers (or well, atleast myself) viewed Galadriel's words as "an end to the ring, or an end to Sauron." Not saying "an end to EVERYTHING evil, forever."

Even viewing at that however, Numenor brings up a valid point. One could view it as Galadriel saying "an end to evil (meaning any type of evil) forever." And indeed we know that will not be true. There will eventually be one person down the line who will get greedy, power hungry, and then cause another "personified evil." Even after the one Ring was destroyed, "evil" in Middle-Earth still existed, hint hint Saruman (oops I forgot PJ didn't add that). That is why I would have to say Numenor's point is valid, because even if we would view it as a Galadriel's evil as being "personified," instead of "all evil," it would still be incorrect because we have Saruman. That is my book thought.

For my movie thought. Saruman is already dead, Sauron is destroyed, so the "personified evil," is gone, and if that's what PJ wanted to say, then so be it.

[davem]

I don't think they felt able to push it too far. How much of the tragedy would audiences accept? The movies have a very quiet ending, & there is a sense of loss. I suspect many movie goers were quite 'shocked' by the ending - most of them were probably expecting a Return of the Jedi type celebration complete with fireworks.

I can't help wondering what the reaction will be once people have seen the extended editions & know that that's it. When there's no more to await maybe something else will hit those who know only the movies - not the sense of enduring evil, but the sense of enduring loss - & perhaps that will affect them much more. Isn't eternal loss harder to ive with than enduring evil?

You could try here: http://www.lordoftheringsresearch.net/ for info on movie goers reactions to the films.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think davem's got it spot on (how many times have I thought that before?). The films as they are are already laced with a hefty order of melancholy, in the eyes of movie-goers. The 'normal folk' surely could not handle any more sadness - so assume the filmmakers.

But like many others on the site, I would have liked to have seen a darker tone to the movies. That might sound strange, what with the plot and all (so don't point that out Saucepan ) but Jackson only punched half-heartedly when it came to the tragedy and dejection.

[Bêthberry]

We seem to be explaining the ending of the movie by recourse to "the politics of Box-office movie-making" (I hope I have correctly quoted that from Son of Numemor. This argument assumes that Jackson understood the tragedy of the book but choose to follow the dictates of a different genre.

Is this the case? I don't know enough about what Jackson has said about his work, but does he in fact share a sense that the books are melancolic, even tragic? What is his interpretation of Tolkien and what is his interpretation of the movie genre he is working in? What kind of reasons went into omitting the scouring of the Shire? went into omitting the ends of Saruman and Grima? The elves, in my intrepretation of the book, have failed and their departure over the seas is full of hapless regret. Yet Jackson's scene has more a tone of a happy sea cruise.

I think Son of Numenor is on to something which deserves to be discussed more than simply as an effect of movie making or of some readers' ignorance of TheSilm. Did Jackson miss the big picture?

[Boromir88]

Did Jackson miss the big picture?

Good question Bb. Jackson is often critisized for focusing on death and gore. Now there isn't a lot of gore in LOTR but we'll say a reasonable amount of fighting. I'd have to say that PJ paid too much attention to fighting, and not enough character developement, or character, we'll say "analysis." I think in order to portray the "neverending evil," that evil will always be around, you have to focus in on the characters, the people, their ways, cultures...etc. Something Tolkien had did, and created a message. Where PJ focused on long fight scenes.

On the other side of the spectrum. Maybe PJ was forced to make the movie the way he did. Mr. Jackson studied these books for years, even before making the movies, so I think he has a pretty good idea of Tolkien, now I don't know to what extent, but I wouldn't be shocked if he knows more about it then me. Anyway to the point, another example of how maybe New Line put pressure on him, was the climatic, cheesy hollywood, Frodo hanging by one hand, and then the REACH, and oops, that's my bloody hand, REACH FARTHER, wooo, you did it! Anyway, point being maybe PJ was forced to make the movie like that, and not get into the "indepth Tolkien analysis" part of LOTR.

So, two possibilities. In all of PJ's years of studying he focused on the battles and missed the whole concept of Tolkien's writing. Or, he really did get the concept, but was on a short leash, and was pressured to make the movie more enjoyable for the non-bookies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This argument assumes that Jackson understood the tragedy of the book but choose to follow the dictates of a different genre.

I am sure that Jackson has not spent as much time analysing every detail of the books in the way that some of us do here. I understand, however, that he has been a fan of the book since childhood, so he no doubt has given some thought to what it means to him. And it is clear to me from the films themselves that he understood many of the themes impicit in the books. The same goes for his co-writers, I should imagine. Whether he has read The Silmarillion or not, I cannot tell. But then again, I would speculate that only something like 10% of those who have read LotR have gone on to read Tolkien's other works (The Hobbit aside). Apart from those on this forum (which is a special case, let's face it), of those people that I know who have read LotR and The Hobbit (and there are a fair few), none have read The Silmarillion or any of the other works.

What kind of reasons went into omitting the scouring of the Shire?

Largely for reasons of film pacing, as I understand it. Jackson is on record as having said that this is one of his favourite parts of the book. I too have great affection for this Chapter, but I can see the sense in omitting what would have been, in effect, a mini-story following the main climax.

went into omitting the ends of Saruman and Grima?

This was filmed and originally intended for inclusion in the theatrical release (although at Orthanc, rather than in The Shire), but was omitted for reasons of timing. There are those who would say that it should have been included at the expense of other material, and I would be one of them, but Jackson obviously felt different.

I think Son of Numenor is on to something which deserves to be discussed more than simply as an effect of movie making or of some readers' ignorance of TheSilm. Did Jackson miss the big picture?

Well, there are clearly a great many aspects of the book that were omitted for "film-making" reasons (whether that be timing, pacing, anticipated audience reaction or whatever). And I would be fairly confident in speculating that there are themes that Jackson (and his writing team) were aware of but omitted, either because there was not sufficient time to develop them or because they simply did not resonate with them. I can see the sense in focussing on a limited number of themes, given the time available to develop them. Rightly or wrongly, these films are first and foremost "action" films, and the intricate web of themes that Tolkien was able to weave in the book would have over-complicated them unnecessarily and hindered the action. In light of this, I personally feel that it is to Jackson's credit that he was able to include so many of Tolkien's themes, to capture the "spirit of Tolkien" as Christopher Lee put it (although I am fully aware that there are many who would disagree with me on this).

Did Jackson miss any of the themes of the book? Well, I am sure that he did. But then, so did I before I joined this site (despite having read the book a number of times, and long before the films came out).

As to the theme which is the subject of this thread though, I still think that it really goes without saying that Sauron's destruction will not represent an end to all evil forever, and that Galadriel's words can be interpreted accordingly.

One further thought (again). I do think that we are rather lucky to have had the Grey Havens scene, which I do see very much as a bittersweet moment (as far as both the Elves and Frodo are concerned). It is not really necessary in the context of the films, but Jackson nevertheless felt it sufficiently important to include. Of course, its omission would have been an anathema to us Tolkien fans, but I am sure that the films would still have been greatly enjoyed by the majority of those who went to see them, and just as successful, without it. Indeed, it might be argued that "the politics of Box-office movie-making" would dictate the omission of this scene. I have seen a number of reviews of RotK (the film) which criticise it for the length of its ending. As davem suggests, most film-goers would have expected it to end with Aragorn's coronation and the honouring of the Hobbits. That would certainly have been the more traditional "Hollywood" approach.

[Esgallhugwen]

I agree with Saucepan Man, given the fact that Peter Jackson is not one of our fellow BD pupils (or teachers for that matter), I'm sure that if one of us were to make the movie's we would spare no turmoil and no detail no matter how small or intricate.

However that not being the case, I am one to agree that PJ did a fine job, though the omitting of certain scenes did displease me. The movies made me cry and I daresay certain parts of the books did as well (especially the ending). The Trilogy provoked more emotion from me then the movies and I do enjoy both deeply.

Let me remind that if some of us had our way one movie alone would be some 6 hours long, a movie that long would definetly call for an intermission (in this day and age because we no longer have need for intermissions in 3 hour movies). So mainly because of timing and no doubt pressure from the higher ups
some of our most beloved scenes (no doubt some of PJ's most beloved as well)from the book have been omitted or cut from the movies.

Now back to the subject of whether Peter missed the point of Tolkien's work. My opinion is both yes and no. Yes, because I felt he didn't develope the characters as much as he could have, but keeping in the bounds of movie logic he did well enough.

Galadriel's words, to me, did not entail the whole annihilation of evil entirely but simply the evil of Sauron. Morgoth was mentioned by Legolas in the movie, so PJ if he hadn't read the Silm must still know something of him. Also keep in mind, I pay way to close attention to these things and also that I havn't seen RoTK in awhile and heres the grabber I don't even own the theatrical release; I'm waiting for EE.

I might not remember this line exactly so I won't quote it. Gandalf (movie) mentioned something to the fact that peace will last as long as the days of the King last, though a happy thought keep in mind that can't last forever, even when Elessar's Heir rules something could happen to him and if not he will eventually pass from Middle-Earth as well, and so on and so forth.

Evil will eventually grow again in the land, its an ever changing cycle of life, nothing can be totally good nothing so totally evil. As evil resides good will eventually come to destroy it, as good prevails evil will eventually come to crush it.

And a final note, at the Haven's in the movie, though the Elves are all smiles and la dee da, there is still a sadness in their tone and something in their eyes that betrays their smile. In my eyes its not a Fanciful splendour cruise to Neverland, its a bittersweet parting, an end of an age.

Please tell me (politely) if I've gone too far from the mark, its just my opinion, and I'm not nearly as intelligent as the rest of you, whose knowledge and awe inspiring-ness (made up a word there) is something to behold.

[Bêthberry]

This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion. I am quite happy to recognise that many people enjoyed the movies. I don't think, however, that one's response to the movies hinges entirely on whether one is a dedicated Tolkien book reader or just someone who reads 'Tolkien lite.' I am not in particular a big fan of TheSilm. And for me, RotK was disappointing, in part, because it had so many 'concluding' scenes or climaxes. Aesthetically or emotionally, it was, for me, a mishmash. This does not lessen the enjoyment of many others. It merely reflects the different way I have of reading movies. Nor do I presume that there is one essential way of reading LotR, which Jackson missed. He is entitled, as are we all, to have his own particular interpretation.

SaucepanMan's argument is that most people do not read The Silm and so will not understand the theme from that point of view. This derives from Son of Numenor's first point which quotes from The Silm. However, I don't think the argument needs to be referred to The Silm at all. I think the question of the nature of evil can be analysed in LotR alone.

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion.

I am not sure that any of the points made so far hinge on the participants' respective opinions of the films, although opinions have undoubtedly been expressed (not least by me ). My underlying point is that the extent to which Tolkien's themes have been included within the films has necessarily been influenced (and limited) by film-making considerations and the subjective interpretations of the film-makers.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Bb

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

Ack -- this sounds like my English class.

But an interesting question nonetheless. Since it's my favorite chapter, I shall discuss the Scouring of the Shire. The ending of the book, complete with this separate little ending, is much more painful, but in the end it's almost that much rewarding. The hobbits return to their beloved Shire to find it a complete mess, and under the control of "Sharkey" and his ruffians. It's a severe blow for them; I can't find the quote I'm looking for for the life of me, but I believe it's Sam who says that it's the worst thing they've encountered yet (someone please correct me if I am wrong). We see that the evil that has spread can make it anywhere, that there is no entirely safe place -- this is the tragedy of the book's ending. Our small heroes do save their home, making them appreciated by their fellows. They get the respect and honor that they deserve.

Yet the movie depicts the Shire as a place that might be taken over, but only if the quest should fail, as Galadriel says when Frodo sees the mills and chimneys in the Mirror. It puts more at stake on the turnout of one single event, as if all evil and evil influences will simply disappear for a time if the Ring is destroyed. The quest is successful, and the hobbits return back to their picturesque homeland. The tragedy of the movie's ending was that after all they had done and sacrificed, the four hobbits were not recognized whatsoever by those back in the Shire, because no one even knew what was going on. The message here is that sometimes great deeds must go uncelebrated, and just because they are not recognized does not make them any less worthy, or make the heroes any less for it.

[Essex]

Encaitare,

not sure what you mean by

The tragedy of the movie's ending was that after all they had done and sacrificed, the four hobbits were not recognized whatsoever by those back in the Shire, because no one even knew what was going on.

Do you mean you believe PJ got this right, because that's what I think. let me explain.......

the movie showed (via the pumpkin scene) exactly what the book explains to us, that the hobbits were not celebrated in their country for their great deeds.

in the book they expelled saruman and the Men, but this, if anything, is what the Shire (by giving sam the mayorship) thanked the 4 hobbits for. Not for the destruction of the ring. Do we see anywhere in the end of the book where the hobbits even mention what their Quest was for? Frodo only tells the Cottons that Sam was now one of the Greats, and that was because Frodo was putting in a good word for Sam with Rosie!

PS jackson shows us, via a brilliant narration by Frodo in Bag End, the real melancholic feeling of the end of the books. every time I see this scene, I feel pangs of regret for Frodo, and a deep sadness for what he will have to give up. To me, as a movie goer who had read the books, this was clear. I'm not sure how clear this is to a non book reader, but hey, what do I care?????

PPS to me its boyens and walsh who were the real scriptwriters, who reigned back jackson when required, and were the main players behind the plot of the films.

[Encaitare]

I shall try to clarify, Essex.

You're right, either way they're never fully appreciated for what they did, but at least in the book they are considered the saviors of the Shire. That's what I was getting at.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive. That's why for me in watching the movies what happens at the cracks of Doom seems wrong - in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself. When i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it. And in the end he is unable to forgive himself for that reason, & exiles himself almost as a punishment (I know other's don't read it that way). In the movie this doesn't come across. Movie Frodo is simply broken by an overwhelming but purely external force, so it makes little sense to me that he feels he has to leave.

Actually, I still don't get why movie Frodo has to leave at all - where's his guilt? What drives him away? The change the writers make in Frodo's words to Sam 'I tried to save the Shire' to We tried to save the Shire' says it all for me. Either they didn't get the point Tolkien was making at all, or they got it & decided it was too unpalatable a thing for a movie hero to say.

[Lalwendë]

I'm approaching this with the words of non-readers in mind; I have had many (oh so many) conversations about the films with non-readers, and went to see the films with non-readers. One opinion I've heard over and over is that many did not see Sauron as such an enormous threat. I have heard several people say that Saruman was the real 'bad guy' in the films. I have heard, as have so many others, that the films ought to have ended at Mount Doom. This all adds up, to me, to show that in some way PJ did fail to convey something very important in the films. Now, I thoroughly enjoyed the films (not least of all to pick over the 'wrong' bits ), and I am actually loathe to say this, but I feel that PJ somehow failed to portray the absolute villainy of Sauron.

How? And indeed, Why? For one thing, the image of the 'eye' eventually was degraded into being an image of a lighthouse; are not lighthouses a symbol of safety to us? Another reason, and one for which you can hold PJ blameless, is that the power of Sauron was entirely psychological; certainly, the power of the ring works on the mind, and PJ did portray this. But as for Sauron's power beyond the ring itself, it is a difficult thing to portray such a power. And to be added to this is the fact that action was something very much grasped upon, and to portray both, especially in combination with trying to portray all the other multifarious fantastical aspects of Middle Earth, and keep a story going, well, I wouldn't have put money on it being pulled off perfectly.

Now this leads into the Why. A book can be put aside, a reader can turn back a few pages if they start to wonder if they have 'missed' something, and most importantly, a book can be read at your own pace. A film has none of these benefits, and it must be pitched at a middle ground somewhere along the line. It must, essentially, find a correct pace. And to do that, it has had to lose something along the way. I think it was inevitable that some of the essence would be lost.

[Imladris]

It all goes back to how Tolkien and Lewis believed that myth cannot be turned into drama.

Did PJ miss a few things, yes he did...I'm sure that we would have missed points as well.

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive.

Not meaning to be polemic, but how do you portray an internal drive on film?

As for Sauron not being evil: he was an eye for pete's sake. It was the feel of him that was evil. How do you portray intangibility into tangibleness?

The Evil of the movie, as many have said, is different from the book. I think that PJ (necessarily) had to simplify the evil...External force (to borrow davem's wording), verses internal conflict....maybe that is one reason they did not show Sam's temptation. It was a truly internal drive, an internal temptation, that could not have been portrayed on film and if it had been attempted it would have come off as ludicrously ridiculous.

The Nazgul was a failure in my opinion. Black cloaks is not what makes them scary, or their fell beasts.

It is the quality of myth. It is a feeling that cannot be described, that cannot be projected.

Ultimately, PJ was doomed to fail in that sense. We would all fail.

[drigel]

If PJ would have secured film rights to the Silm, and had planned a series of films on the book, there would have been a lot of chances to tie in or hint at that theme, since Sauron was a mere Lieutenant back in the day... sigh, one could only dream...

[Lush]

Well, I just think the original line that Son of Númenor quoted, the whole "destroy evil forever" crap, is just bad. I view it more as an instance of an unfortunate screenwriting decision. It's silly and melodramatic. Later on in the film, Elrond harps on about the Ring in the same fashion, "evil was allowed to endure..." Blah blah blah. Here too is the seeming notion that if you destroy the Ring, you destroy everything evil.

I think if anything the films tend to suffer from a number of unfortunate utterances that periodically break the melancholic spell. They take this notion of evil that Tolkien cultivated in the books, and sap the magic and mystery and terror out of it. Having said that, for me the FotR (from which both the "bad" lines are quoted) worked best as a movie about defeat. It wasn't, a few mis-steps aside, particularly, er, bouncy. The other two didn't do it for me so much on that level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Imladris

It is the quality of myth. It is a feeling that cannot be described, that cannot be projected.

Ultimately, PJ was doomed to fail in that sense. We would all fail.

Well, I wouldn't have 'failed' 'cos I wouldn't have attempted the thing in the first place. Its that very impossibility to convey the inner battle - a central theme of the work - that doomed the whole thing to failure as an adaptation.

I'm not saying the movies don't work as a depiction of the external battle between good & evil - they are a modern Star Wars in that sense (though I have to admit that the inner, moral, battle came across better in Star Wars than in LotR. I'm just saying that while, superficially, they put Tolkien's story on screen, they don't (because they can't) put the whole thing on screen - the most important themes are missed, or substituted by lesser themes which have been done to death by innumerable other movies.

[HerenIstarion]

I seem to agree with everyone on the thread, average, balanced, happily-merri... whoops, I ain't merried. Does not matter, than. What I would like to communicate is that, agreeing with Rimbaud on points that movie is good as a movie, I can't help agreeing with Lush and Sono that omitting such an important thing is simply bad, and, whilst agreeing with Imladris that not all can be 'filmified', I can't help thinking that Gandalf's discourse in the Last Debate chapter of the book could have been pretty easily reproduced in the Council of Elrond part of the movie. I'm talking about the following:

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule

Read it aloud, it won't take more than two minuts. What is two minutes of movie time for the settling the matter of ultimate importance?

This being said, I would further venture to add that there is nothing in the world we can do about it but to film a movie of our own (contrary to davem's intentions not to do it, ever

As for people whom I haven't named as being in agreement with: I omitted your names not consequent to state of disaccord in our opinions, but purely by accident

[Bêthberry]

I think davem is on to something here, something which helps me put into perspective some of his points in the Chapter by Chapter discussion about internal and external battles.

Originally Posted by davem

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive. That's why for me in watching the movies what happens at the cracks of Doom seems wrong - in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself. When i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it. And in the end he is unable to forgive himself for that reason, & exiles himself almost as a punishment (I know other's don't read it that way). In the movie this doesn't come across. Movie Frodo is simply broken by an overwhelming but purely external force, so it makes little sense to me that he feels he has to leave.

Actually, I still don't get why movie Frodo has to leave at all - where's his guilt? What drives him away? The change the writers make in Frodo's words to Sam 'I tried to save the Shire' to We tried to save the Shire' says it all for me. Either they didn't get the point Tolkien was making at all, or they got it & decided it was too un
palatable a thing for a movie hero to say.

Over and over in the book, we see how the Ring's power is that it can pervert even the best of intentions. This is certainly Gandalf's understanding of the Ring and, I would venture to say, the purpose of showing his temptation. It would appeal to Gandalf's best instincts and desires but still lead him into intolerable tyranny. The book plays out in agonizing detail Frodo's slow decline to the Ring. That is, it is not so much Absolute Evil (nor are Morgoth and Sauron, according to Tolkien's Notes on Auden's review of LotR, #183 in the Letters) which, when destroyed, will mean that people never again need fear the rise of tyranny. For Tolkien, evil is something inherent in mankind's nature--well, maybe that is stating it too strongly. Evil is something we are all susceptible to. And the long defeat means that there is never a final victory but that each Age or each generation must be aware of its own susceptibility to tyranny. Tolkien's astonishing position is to show how his hero, the man--halfling--who enabled events to come to the point where the Ring could be destroyed--was himself overcome by the Ring's appeal to him. When even heroes fail in this way, readers, I think, must consider the psychological or mental or spiritual (whichever word one would personally use) state of mankind to be always and ever temptable.

This sense of our human failing it, for me, missing from the movie, for many reasons. Son of Numenor attributes it to the voice over. dave attributes it to the fact that we are not shown Frodo succumbing to the Ring. I don't buy the argument that a movie cannot show tragedy or evil. I can name many movies which do, movies which employ symbolism and not merely realism. This, I think is the point to be considered here on this thread: Does the movie depict evil as some physical force which can through action and battle be removed? Or does the movie depict evil as a condition into which people and cultures can fall? The second perspective of evil will require a very different kind of 'defense' than the first.

Evil for Tolkien was intimtely connected with the human desire for Power, Domination, and control over one's own creation. (Letter #131 in particular discusses this.) This is a psychological appreciation of evil as something we are all capable of feeling or succumbing to. It is not a bad guy or bad object which, when once removed from the scene, will lead to our liberation.

I think I've rambled on long enough. I hope this makes sense.

Oh, and HI, it is not by accident that I have not named anyone else here. It was deliberate. I know you can have only so much patience for long posts from me.

[Rimbaud]

Beebonic,

evil is something inherent in mankind's nature--well, maybe that is stating it too strongly

Not sure if it is, really. What we would see as a reasonable desire for dominion, control, resides happily within all of us. We want control, quite naturally, over our thoughts, our physical selves, our 'personal space', our homes, our lifestyles, our friendships...the bubble expands to varying degrees. Pushing the envelope too far, as encouraged by Tolkien's device, is the true folly. Not the 'evil' desire itself, but the failure to moderate and temper it.

More cinematically, I’m not sure any but one or two of the actors had anything close to the talent required to display what some posters wanted to see. McKellan showed flashes of insight, but as with most of the better elements of the film, they are swiftly washed away in a maelstrom of FX laden set-pieces.

Don’t misunderstand your humble correspondent, I would have enjoyed a thoughtful film more dependant on the internalised struggle as well, but it would have simply been an entirely different experience, and not the choice made either by the studio or the director. Not to harp on the same point, but the film made the choice to be what was considered to be the easier sell.

Absolutely, trivialising the evil is a sad failure to explore the theme of the book, but neither could it have been displayed effectively in its true guise (internal, everlasting, the strand of sorrow that stems forth from it), in my opinion - and certainly not with that cast.

Basically, some want cake, and they got it. Some wanted an altogether more difficult-to-bake sort of biscuit - and they have that too, it's just on the page, not the screen.

[HerenIstarion]

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive

On personal level he may have seen it otherwise, we don't know, but when the medium is basically 'visual', without sort of subtitles as to depict characters thoughts and emotions, it should be so. And even if, as my previous post shows, I believe there were means of putting a hint of it into the movie, there is not much one would be well-advised to expect from form of art which usually depicts 'will' as clenching of one's fists and teeth, manly chin and resolute stare .

movies which employ symbolism and not merely realism

Unfortunately, not in this case. Seems we have 'GDI first, else over it' situation here.

BTW, Boethian vs Manichaean view, anyone?

PS (or disclaimer) Slightly sarcastic flavour of my few recent posts must be due to overwork and cold I've caught yesterday. So it is not deliberately aimed at anyone, just a mood, I hope)

cheers

[HerenIstarion]

Basically, some want cake, and they got it. Some wanted an altogether more difficult-to-bake sort of biscuit - and they have that too, it's just on the page, not the screen.

Men may long remember your words, Iore... I mean, Rimbaud . Actually, it was a cross-poster up there, so let it stand as it is, else, seing these first, I would consider not posting at all

cheers

[drigel]

ill pick up on another one of Davem's good points - the Star Wars series

If you read the plot lines for the final trilogy of the series (and im not sure how valid they are - being spy reports and such), you can see (although formulaic) how Lucas is relaying that theme. While there are peaks and valleys, victories and defeats, the struggle continues. While admittedly the final movie sees the end of the dark side of the force, Lucas does a decent job with portraying in movie format the endless struggle.

[Rimbaud]

Well, I'm not sure about that either. If you are familiar with a wider SW universe, then sure, the fact that the struggle endures is apparent. From the films alone, however, you'd be hard pressed from the exuberance of the finale of RotJ not to think it was all over. As indeed with the LotR films.

[drigel]

aaahhh that is until the lights go down, and Episode 7 The Fallen Hero begins to play

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Its that very impossibility to convey the inner battle - a central theme of the work - that doomed the whole thing to failure as an adaptation.

Woah! Hold up. I cannot let this pass.

The LotR films are not just about the external struggle, although that is undoubtedly their major focus. But there are internal struggles going on too.

This is perhaps most apparent in Jackson’s theme of “the weakness of Men”: a different emphasis perhaps than Tolkien’s theme, but it is there nevertheless. And what is this weakness, but an inherent (and therefore internal) vulnerability to succumb to evil.

Take the temptations of Boromir and Faramir. They are not only struggling with the external evil of the Ring, but also with weaknesses within themselves. The Ring is playing on their internal desires. In Boromir’s case, this is (as in the book) his desire for the power to defend his land. In Faramir’s case (and this clearly is a change from the book), it is his desire to prove himself to his father. In both cases, the external influence of the Ring produces an inner conflict. (It is, in many ways, a shame that the film missed the opportunity to convey Denethor’s struggle with despair. The Denethor that we meet in the films is way past the struggling stage, and is portrayed as little more than an obstructive villain. However, it would have taken a significant amount of additional film time to develop this aspect of his character.)

Throughout the three films, Aragorn struggles with self-doubt, and this produces within him a reluctance to fulfil his destiny. This is an aspect of his character which is expanded from a small section in the book (the self-doubt following Gandalf’s fall) to form a major theme of the films. And it is not an external struggle with evil, as embodied in Sauron or the Ring, but an internal struggle, playing out within Aragorn himself, against an inherent weakness within him.

As for Frodo, well he is clearly struggling to resist giving into the Ring throughout the film trilogy. But is he fighting a desire within himself, or is he struggling with the external evil of the Ring? It’s difficult to tell, but then I think that the book is ambiguous on this. We never get to learn what it offers to Frodo in return for his submission to it. In the book, we learn more about the nature of the Ring, and the internal weaknesses which it preys upon, in its effect on other characters - but cannot this be said about the films also?

A final example of internal struggle may, I think, be seen in the character of Saruman. In this case we see the consequences of one who has lost his inner struggle. In the films, there is, in my view, sufficient in the dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman to suggest that he has succumbed to the evil within himself rather than any external force.

I make no comment (for now at least) on how well these struggles were depicted, either in comparison with their depiction in the book or as stand-alone themes. But I would dispute that they are not present at all.

Having said all that, I would agree that the films focus primarily on the external struggle with evil, as represented by Sauron and the Ring – and of course Saruman. That is a necessary consequence of their formulation as “action films”. As I said earlier, that is what they are first and foremost, rightly or wrongly.
In this sense, I don’t think that Jackson and his team “overlooked” the inner struggle with evil, or that they somehow failed to depict it. It is simply that this was not what they were trying to achieve. Should they have been, as adaptations of a book which is very much concerned with this theme? I don’t think so, necessarily. I see no sin in aiming to produce an enjoyable, spectacular, action-packed and intensely moving fantasy film based on the events, characters and some of the themes of the book. Some may say that Jackson failed even in that. Personally, I don’t think that he did at all.

I composed this post before I saw Rimbaud's comment:

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

Don’t misunderstand your humble correspondent, I would have enjoyed a thoughtful film more dependant on the internalised struggle as well, but it would have simply been an entirely different experience, and not the choice made either by the studio or the director. Not to harp on the same point, but the film made the choice to be what was considered to be the easier sell ...

Basically, some want cake, and they got it. Some wanted an altogether more difficult-to-bake sort of biscuit - and they have that too, it's just on the page, not the screen.

For me, this is right on the mark - only I get to enjoy both the cake and the biscuit.

[drigel]

I concur with you Davem. For me, the CGI was anticipated, yet it surpassed expectations. But PJ's focus on the character development was a pleasant surprise that - yes strayed somewhat from the books, but provoked (to me) much thought on the internal struggle. That is hard to pull off. If the internal struggle was the primary theme of a film, one would wind up making a movie with people standing around voicing their internal thoughts to the viewer - a 'la Dune

[Rimbaud]

Both are good, Saucepan.

[Bêthberry]

Really, Rim-tim-tim,

From the films alone, however, you'd be hard pressed from the exuberance of the finale of RotJ not to think it was all over.

What a point that J/K difference makes.

[Rimbaud]

Beeberescent,

I meant Jedi, if that's what you're asking.

~Rimi Tiki Tavi

[drigel]

and biscuits are made with buttermilk

[Lalwendë]

Throughout the three films, Aragorn struggles with self-doubt, and this produces within him a reluctance to fulfil his destiny. This is an aspect of his character which is expanded from a small section in the book (the self-doubt following Gandalf’s fall) to form a major theme of the films. And it is not an external struggle with evil, as embodied in Sauron or the Ring, but an internal struggle, playing out within Aragorn himself, against an inherent weakness within him

Saucepan - now you have raised this one, I can see that there clearly was portrayal of internal struggle in the films, so I'm pleased you posted those points. However, in the case of Aragorn, I think PJ made a big mistake. This is something I often sound off about to my pals, so bear with me, I will be reasoned. One thing I always get from the books is how Aragorn is 99% of the time very sure of his purpose in Middle Earth; for the 1% of the time that he is not, we see how he masters his doubts. This, for me, is part of the very essence of Aragorn as a man who inspires others to follow him.

Having discussed the role of Aragorn with non-book fans, they tell me "why didn't they show Aragorn as an inspiring leader, and have them win the Battle of the Pelennor Fields through their bravery and his leadership? It looked like the Deadmen did everything in the battle". This horrified me quite a bit. It seems that Aragorn was somewhat diminished by portraying him in this way. After all, he takes up Anduril early on in the book, i.e. takes up his role and accepts his destiny, for good or bad, with dignity. In the film, he is reluctant to take up his destined role.

Since the films came out this has been one aspect that has always made me bristle a bit, as I always admired Aragorn's inspiring leadership, which in the books is coupled with touching moments of doubt. So, yes, there was internal struggle portrayed, but in this case, in the wrong place. Why did PJ do this? Just to have an inspiring scene where Elrond sweeps a mighty sword out of the darkness? It certainly looked very grand, but it was still not right.

That's my mini-rant over, and now I must find some slippers and a jumper before looking any further, as there is thick snow on the ground in Sheffield and I'm nithering.

[davem]

I take on board everything SpM says about the inner conflicts of the characters in the movie, but I still think Bethberry is on to something, & I suppose its something like 'original sin'.

I don't mean that in the usual sense of sex, but in the sense that we are all born 'sinful', ie with a tendency towards evil. There is a drive towards power, control, domination of others, wanton destruction, etc. There is a 'war' going on within us constantly. This is not a war merely inspired by an external force. Even if there were no 'Rings of Power', if there were no evil 'out there' we would still face evil because it exists within us & must be overcome or it will overcome us.

In the movie the 'good' characters may face dilemmas (sp?) but they are basically good people struggling to discover what the 'right' course of action should be. Tolkien presents us with a much more disturbing idea - 'good' people may not actually desire 'good' - they may actually desire 'evil'. In the movie all the good characters are shown wanting to bring about the Good but not knowing what constitutes that Good. Boromir's 'logical' arguments & justifications in the book are all over the place, & its clear that he's really trying to find excuses to give in to his own 'dark side', & justify his desires.

In Boromir, Saruman & finally in Frodo the evil wins out - yet this is a more complex matter than it may at first appear, because on Amon Hen we're told that Frodo 'awakened' to the realisation that he was 'neither the Voice nor the Eye'. There is a rational soul floating around in there who makes a choice between the two aspect of himself as well as between the two external forces. That rational soul must choose one or the other, so its not really a Manichean split, its a Boethian choice.

In short, the movie offers us a Manichean universe, where good individuals struggle to do their best to do the right thing. There isn't a sense that they may actually want to do the wrong thing, in full knowlege that it is wrong.

Book Boromir doesn't simply want 'the strength to defend his people. He wants power & control, dominance - he wants to replace Sauron. So did Galadriel at some point- or at least she had fantasised about it. Both had faced the evil within them - he had submitted & made excuses (& worse than that he had expected, demanded that Frodo go along with him), she had faced her own evil & rejected it.

Perhaps that was necessary in a popular action fantasy movie, but LotR is not a popular action fantasy book. It is a moral tale, specifically a Christian tale, & it is grounded is the idea of original sin, & the individual's battle with it.

[drigel]

Beth and Davem great points. The movies dont exactly examine this aspect. The books hint at the fact that walking among mortals are elves, who represent man in his "unfallen" state. Quite a contrast

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

However, in the case of Aragorn, I think PJ made a big mistake.

There is no doubt that film Aragorn is a significantly different character than book Aragorn (as is the case with many other cherished characters). Was that a mistake on Jackson's part? Well, undoubtedly so for many who have read the books. But not necessarily in the context of what Jackson was trying to achieve.

There seems to be held a commonly-held view that, in modern films, the principal characters should have what I believe is known as a "development arc". In other words they should show a marked development in their character throughout the film (or in this case three films) as a result of the experiences that they go undergo on screen. Whether that really is a necessary requirement of a "mass appeal" film, I do not know. But I should imagine that those responsible for producing and financing these kinds of films (or, more accurately, people on their behalf) do a lot of research into this sort of thing, so perhaps there is something in it.

Book Aragorn develops outwardly and those around him notice it. He becomes more noble and kingly as the book progresses. But, inside, he is the same character from when we meet him in the Prancing Pony through to his coronation. Save for his brief moments of self-doubt from Gandalf's fall through to the departure of Frodo and Sam, there is very little variation in his character. Film Aragorn, on the other hand, develops markedly in confidence and assurance throughout the three films.

I also think that there is an element of the film-makers wnating to present us with a more vulnerable, more "human", Aragorn. One who has flaws with which we can identify, but which he overcomes to claim his rightful inheritance. And, in this regard, I have to say that I have a sneaking admiration for film Aragorn. I risk been pelted heavily with rotten fruit here, but the more that I read the book, the more I find myself unable to identify with Aragorn. He is, for the most part, just too perfect for me, and too flat a character. Now, I recognise that there are very good arguments as to why this should be so in the context of the book. But I can also see why the film-makers might have wanted to present an Aragorn with whom they felt that a greater majority of (non-LotR reading) film audiences might identify.

... as there is thick snow on the ground in Sheffield and I'm nithering.

Snow! How delightful. Think yourself lucky. All we get here in London is cold, windy rain.

Tolkien presents us with a much more disturbing idea - 'good' people may not actually desire 'good' - they may actually desire 'evil'.

Fair point, and I don't disagree with Tolkien's premise. But, had the films delved any deeper into this (and admittedly they did not delve very deep at all), they would have been very much darker films, and most probably significantly less successful (in terms of mass appeal). There are of course films that explore this theme, some very successfully so. But I am not sure that the public at large is quite ready for it to be explored in a film populated by Elves, Dwarves and Magic Rings. In fact, I would say that many who read the book, perhaps even the majority, do not pick up on this theme (or at least do not reflect upon it to any great degree). I didn't until relatively recently.

Perhaps that was necessary in a popular action fantasy movie, but LotR is not a popular action fantasy book. It is a moral tale, specifically a Christian tale, & it is grounded is the idea of original sin, & the individual's battle with it.

Again, I do not disagree. But I think it tells us more about the nature of the respective media that about Jackson's own interpretation of the book.