Giggles

[Bêthberry]

Eomer began by questioning humour in the movies that didn't exist in the books. And discussion has mainly focussed on movie-Gimli. I wonder if we can look at the question from a different perspective.

Are there any instances where Tolkien used a humorous portrayal in the books that were not carried over into the movies? If so, would this help us expand our consideration of humour and its purpose?

For my part, I have always regarded as funny the small exchange between Frodo and Lindir in the early chapter, "Many Meetings." It seems to me to be a stock joke about the insensitivity of races to other races. And the joke seems to be at the expense of the elves, although the elf in question doesn't think it is at his expense.

'What!' cried Bilbo. 'You can't tell which parts were mine, and which were the Dunadan's?'

'It is not easy for us to tell the difference between two mortals,' said the Elf.

'Nonsense, Lindir,' snorted Bilbo. 'If you can't distinguish between a Man and a Hobbit, your judgement is poorer than I imagined. They're as different as peas and apples.'

'Maybe. To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different.' laughed Lindoir. "Or to shepherds. But Mortals have not been our study. We have other business.'

So, is this Tolkien poking fun at the limitations of elven nature? And, if so, does Jackson ever set the elves up for jokes the way he sets Gimli up for jokes?

Why or why not?

Answer in less than 300 words, please.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Are there any instances where Tolkien used a humorous portrayal in the books that were not carried over into the movies? If so, would this help us expand our consideration of humour and its purpose?

....Answer in less than 300 words, please.

Ouch! That hurt's. But I'll give it a try.

Sometimes the humor is missing because the character or incident that generated the smile has been cut from the script. This can be clearly seen in the early parts of the movie. There is a certain amount of humor in these scenes but most of it has been concentrated on the characters of Pippin and Merry....perhaps excessively so? We also have some of Bilbo's humorous comments about his neighbors. But the actual neghbors have been cut. We no longer have scenes of hobbits digging for gold in the cellars, discussion of the "presents" that Bilbo earmarked for his various relatives, or, perhaps most critically, we are missing the confrontation with Lobelia and her husband, whom I do find both humerous and annoying.

It's interesting. PJ has left us with the pranksterism of Pippin and Merry (and how very different this Merry is than the efficient planner of the book). What we do lose is the layer of sarcastic humor--poking fun not only at hobbits but at ourselves. (An element, incidentally, which modern critics still fail to see.) Some of this gently sarcastic humor is preserved in Bilbo, but a great deal has been simply discarded.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Ouch! That hurt's. But I'll give it a try.

So much for my self-deprecatory humour and the winking smilie I had originally included after that word please!

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Answer in less than 300 words, please.

I have been accused of setting up 'essay' topics and last night in chat Sauce was suggesting he is tired of writing long analyses. If you look at this thread, Child, you will quickly see who are the most verbose posters here. (In fact, this is just your first post here, so I couldn't have been referring to you.)

I guess I will just have to be more clear in making my humour understood!

And I think you are very right that so much of the humour concerning Bilbo and the poking fun at our own foibles has been left out. I wonder if Sauce or someone else can suggest why Jackson took the story more seriously in these points than Tolkien did.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

If you look at this thread, Child, you will quickly see who are the most verbose posters here.

Ouch! In light of that comment, I shall try to keep this brief.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So, is this Tolkien poking fun at the limitations of elven nature? And, if so, does Jackson ever set the elves up for jokes the way he sets Gimli up for jokes?

Jackson does not really have the luxury that Tolkien had in setting up the intricacies of Elvish nature. Such as we see is represented in primarily Elrond and Galadriel and it would have been inappropriate to poke fun at either of them as they are set up as serious characters. Although I do think that, through the much-maligned (film) Gimli, he pokes fun at Elvish pomposity, in the form of Legolas.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And I think you are very right that so much of the humour concerning Bilbo and the poking fun at our own foibles has been left out. I wonder if Sauce or someone else can suggest why Jackson took the story more seriously in these points than Tolkien did.

Tolkien uses the Hobbits to poke fun at the petty and isolationist aspects of human nature. I think that it's a shame that Jackson did not pick up on this. But it would have required precious time to do so.

He does poke fun at human nature in other ways, particularly through Gimli (again). For example, in Gimli's proud boasts which he is not always able to live up to (eg his boasts of Dwarvish endurance as he huffs and puffs behind Aragorn and Legolas on the chase through Rohan and his fearlessness put to the test in the Paths of the Dead). Similarly, the antics of Merry and Pippin, although (as I have said) I would have preferred to see them used less obviously for comedic value and for more distinction to be made between their characters.

But isn't much of this kind of comedy rooted in the observation of the (sometimes) ridiculous nature of the human condition? We find many things funny because we recognise something of ourselves or our own experiences of others in it.

And now I shall sign off - before this post becomes too prolix for Bb's (and my own) tastes.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

For my part, I have always regarded as funny the small exchange between Frodo and Lindir in the early chapter, "Many Meetings." It seems to me to be a stock joke about the insensitivity of races to other races. And the joke seems to be at the expense of the elves, although the elf in question doesn't think it is at his expense.

So, is this Tolkien poking fun at the limitations of elven nature? And, if so, does Jackson ever set the elves up for jokes the way he sets Gimli up for jokes?

Interesting. Never saw that 'scene' as particularly funny, or as meant to be funny. Just thought that it showed that Bilbo could speak such to an Elf (familiarity), and that the Elf (or elves) really didn't care that much about such nonsense.

And Frodo makes a joke regarding elven 'decisiveness' when he meets the traveling group in the Shire ("yes and no"). Think that PJ kept it simple with elves et al as he wanted to make sure that the films would be 'popular' . Elves were wise and aloof, hobbits earthy and amicable, etc.

An example for me where I think that PJ skipped out on some book humor was the 'Sam as the main conspirator' scene (in Buckland?).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauce

In light of that comment, I shall try to keep this brief.

A loyer and his briefs. May they never be parted! Unless it is to re-tort.

Originally Posted by Sauce

But isn't much of this kind of comedy rooted in the observation of the (sometimes) ridiculous nature of the human condition? We find many things funny because we recognise something of ourselves or our own experiences of others in it.

Originally Posted by alatar

Interesting. Never saw that 'scene' as particularly funny, or as meant to be funny. Just thought that it showed that Bilbo could speak such to an Elf (familiarity), and that the Elf (or elves) really didn't care that much about such nonsense.

Sauce has suggested why I find that scene funny. It reminds me of the old claim about occidental racism concerning orientals. Europeans were said never to be able to tell Chinese apart. When viewing "the other", individuals could never be seen, only the broad difference. It is a manifestation of the elves's parochial nature and self-centeredness to be insensitive to or to lack curiosity about other races. I thought it was a funny way--highlighting a failure of human community--to demonstrate that elves weren't infallible. Whether Tolkien intended this to be funny I don't know. That doesn't stop me from laughing sardonically.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Sauce has suggested why I find that scene funny.

Strangely enough, when I re-read this passage recently, I found it rather offensive. Or rather, it suggested a failing in Lindir's nature (and perhaps Elvish nature in general) which I found dislikeable rather than humorous.

Possibly it is my modern sensitivity to phrases suggesting that all members of a particular race "look the same" to others which precludes me from seeing the comedy in this moment, even when used by, and in reference to, races which exist only in fiction. Of course, social attitudes have changed greatly in the last 50 years or so and certain "humour" which would have seemed harmless even 20 to 30 years ago is now considered to be offensive (for example that used in a number of mainstream UK sitcoms in the '70s).

Having said that, I still find the fun poked at Gimli's size in the LotR films as funny whereas, as Lalwendë pointed out earlier, there is an element of prejudice ("size-ism" if not racism) here. Perhaps that is because the jokes made about Gimli's size are more in the nature of friendly banter in the context of the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli, whereas Lindir's remark to Bilbo comes across (to me at least) as dismissive and unfriendly.

Then again, perhaps I would have found it funnier if Lindir had f**ted in response to Bilbo's poetry.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Strangely enough, when I re-read this passage recently, I found it rather offensive. Or rather, it suggested a failing in Lindir's nature (and perhaps Elvish nature in general) which I found dislikeable rather than humorous.

Actually I've always viewed this exchange as harmless banter between two friends. In light of the knowledge that we have of the true respect that the elves had for Bilbo in Rivendell; it simply seems to me how I would treat a close friend of mine if I wanted to give him a good ribbing. Lindir knew that a good avenue of jest to Bilbo would have been his poetry and song, something that while he took serious, he knew Bilbo wouldn't take personal offense at it.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -

My apologies. The last thing on my mind was criticizing anyone.

As I read your comments about length of post, I was heartily chuckling since I am someone who is eternally guilty of never preferring one word when two will do the trick. I was taking a gentle poke at my own bad habits while smiling at your request. (I'd just come from the party thread where part of my character's personna was good naturedly exposing her own foibles.)

A good topic. Wish I had time to say more. My life has been too hectic to do anything other than simply stay abreast in the Shire.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.....

[Anguirel]

Very possibly I'm in the minority. But I found the Gimli of the books, Galadriel's courtly knight, hilarious, while being articulate and moving. His interaction with Eomer was among the highlights of the books for me. The contrast between his extreme charm and his gruff exterior was in itself far funnier than all the gaseous activity in the world. Perhaps it would have been harder to milk that Jackson's belch jokes. But I would have made much of his pride and prejudice before Lothlorien, used Galadriel's effect on him for tragicomic purposes, and thereafter used him as a proper verbal, as well as physical, foil to Legolas.

All in all, melancholy probably doesn't sell tickets like roistering comedy, but I was saddened by the scarcity of the sadder elements; Legolas' seagull experience being dropped altogether and Gimli's Galadriel experience only alluded to in the EE. These events are the focal points of the Elf and Dwarf, and their characters were threadbare without them, it seemed to me. (Though Gimli got off better than Legolas by virtue of being at least well-acted...Orlando wouldn't know melancholy if it challenged him to a skating contest.)

[Amrod the Hunter]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Very possibly I'm in the minority. But I found the Gimli of the books, Galadriel's courtly knight, hilarious, while being articulate and moving. His interaction with Eomer was among the highlights of the books for me. The contrast between his extreme charm and his gruff exterior was in itself far funnier than all the gaseous activity in the world.

You're not in the minority,Gimli was great in the books,but I like humour so I liked him also in the movie.ACtualy,it was suprising that PJ didn't show what Gimli thought of Galadriel,it is really great when he changes his attitude towards elves when he sees Galadriel.
And about Legolas-he wasn't really talked about so much in the books,and it should have stayed that way.Orlando Bloom maybe was a good chooice for Legolas (I'm saying this because if I say he's a bad acter,I'll probably be beaten to death ) but I don't know....he really isn't the character he was in the books.I liked Boromir more then Legolas in the movie,because Boromir was...well,Boromir,if you know what I mean.And Legolas isn't good because it isn't the real Legolas.It is some charmer that has no regrets,knows no sorrows and so on.And that scene when he can sense that Sauron is focused on their location is just awful.What is he,some special sort of wizard or shaman?So,I liked Gimli in both movies and the books,but I really didn't like Legolas in the movie.They should have read the whole book to get some idea of what's Legolas like.