Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sauron the White]

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

Who knew more about the powers of the Ring than either or those two in the book?

davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

WCH - I am not dismissing anyones opinion out of hand. What I am saying is that the primary source- the actual text of LOTR is the first place to start and get the most authoritative information. Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What the text itself says is that Faramir did not attempt to take the Ring. "Not if this thing were lying by theside of the road."

You got a problem wid dat?

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry... here are the lyrics to the Prof. Higgins tune from MY FAIR LADY.

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.

If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

Pickering
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?

[dialog]

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
==================================

While I certainly am no expert on this topic, when I saw the film and heard the song I thought the point was to show how foolish it was of Higgins to expect such a thing. Higgins was silly to expect a woman to be more like a man because they are two very different things.

If that is true, doesn't this song work against the element here who wants the films to be more like the books? They also refuse to recognize that the two are very different things.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I am sure it is possible that the same source material can elicit two opposite responses but I do not understand how such a song could be fodder for the purist point of view. Just the opposite actually.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bethberry... here are the lyrics to the Prof. Higgins tune from MY FAIR LADY.

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.

If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

Pickering
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?

[dialog]

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
==================================

While I certainly am no expert on this topic, when I saw the film and heard the song I thought the point was to show how foolish it was of Higgins to expect such a thing. Higgins was silly to expect a woman to be more like a man because they are two very different things.

If that is true, doesn't this song work against the element here who wants the films to be more like the books? They also refuse to recognize that the two are very different things.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I am sure it is possible that the same source material can elicit two opposite responses but I do not understand how such a song could be fodder for the purist point of view. Just the opposite actually.

My good fellow Sauron the White, you apply the allusion far more literally than I ever meant, an interpretation which of course demonstrates your point that there are many ways of taking things.

WCH, I wouldn't say that Bombadil is exactly care-free. He does, after all, save the hobbits twice, from Old Man Willow and from that ghastly Barrow Wight. Interesting that you employ the id allusion, for I would have thought that he is more eros than id, especially given the Goldberry figure, and particularly as he seems contrasted with the thanatos that is the Barrow Wight. (Admittedly this is a bit of a sanitised, Victorian eros, but this is Tolkien we are discussing after all.)

I myself did make the point some eons ago that PJ's Prancing Pony scenes had to be much darker than Tolkien's because the movie missed this first trip into the dark fantastic. Subtly isn't a PJ trait anyway.

[Sauron the White]

If you wanted to see a Pranciny Pony scene that was something out of the Twilight Zone, see the play. They did this rather poor musical dance number which was a cross between "Master of the House" from LES MISERABLES and the cast of DELIVERANCE complete with a few men in coonskin caps no less.

I think Jackson was trying to show the hobbits were out of their element and the darker setting set the stage for the events of that night.

Bethberry - how else could you take the very idea of the Higgins song except to make fun of the singer for being so myopic? I see that as rather obvious. But maybe thats just me.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bethberry - how else could you take the very idea of the Higgins song except to make fun of the singer for being so myopic? I see that as rather obvious. But maybe thats just me.

Sauron the White, it is an abiding temptation in the teaching profession to delight in explanation, explication, expoundification, nay, even pontification. To that end, I find the advice of Laurence Sterne positively invaluable, and so I here call upon him in reply to you:

Originally Posted by The Narrator in The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman

As no one, who knows what he is about in good company, would venture to talk all;--so no author, who understands the just boundaries of decorum and good breeding, would presume to think all: The truest respect which you can pay to the reader's understanding, is to halve this matter amicably, and leave him something to imagine, in his turn, as well as yourself. For my own part, I am eternally paing him compliments of this kind, and do all that lies in my power to keep his imagination as busy as my own.

To my mind, Jackson wanted to add a little dark mystery, a bit of byronic appeal, to Aragorn/Srider, so he made the introduction of Strider dangerous. Appealing to the set who dotes on pirates, I believe.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just informationally, folks: my surname is actually Hicklin; but the B-D software wouldn't let me have another letter, nor apparently can I correct it without starting a new account.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

The Ring corrupts if you take it & claim it as your own. It doesn't corrupt otherwise. Every individual has the absolute freedom to reject the Ring.

davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

Longer than Faramir. In fact, longer than anyone but Sauron, Isildur, Smeagol, Bilbo & Frodo. If the Ring is instantly corrupting, whether the bearer accepts it or not, Sam should have been corrupted by it.

Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

Well, as I've already stated twice, I've used the text to confirm my argument, rather than Shippey.

[Sauron the White]

Davem, thank you for your answers.
I have some follow up questions about the Ring.

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Sam (in the book) rejected the Ring, & only 'withheld' it from Frodo in the Tower out of pity & a desire to share the burden, not out of a desire to own it himself.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

One is always free to reject the Ring. If one bears the Ring as long as Frodo, on such a long, traumatic road which ends at the Sammath Naur, one would be so weakened & vulnerable that one would almost certainly give in to it. But one is never overwhelmed against one's will & must always surrender willingly. Finally Frodo said 'Yes' to the Ring - although by that point it was all but impossible not to due to the extreme torment he had suffered. Anyone will give in to torture eventually, so Frodo is not to be blamed, but he did give in. A 'Yes' is always required.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... thank you for that explaination. Another follow-up question please.

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?

This whole Faramir thing to me seems a bit of a misrepresentation. It seems that all who actually posessed the Ring for enough time for it to work its evil. Faramir was exposed to the Ring briefly and while it was owned and worn by someone else. I think it was very noble of Faramir to act as he did.... but, I would not go as far as to say he rejected the ring. He never had it to reject. Of course, the same could be said of Gandalf and Galadriel but they did so with a great deal more information and expertise at their disposal. Faramirs act was the slightest bit naive. Somewhat like an seventh grade student signing a pledge to abstain from sex. Yes, its nice and all , but ........

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, you're on the right track with regard to Faramir. Since he didn't desire the Ring or the power it represented in the first place, being in its vicinity was not going to change his personality or 'corrupt' him.* Jackson singularly failed to appreciate this point, and invented the whole Osgiliation based on the notion that any Man (besides Aragorn) would be on it like a duck on a June bug, no matter what his previous character or moral stature.

Boromir did desire it- from the moment he saw it at the Council he coveted the Ring, or the strength he believed it would bring him (Sam says as much to his brother). Combined with spending many weeks in its vicinity,** the desire would eventually overthrow his will, even to the point of oathbreaking and betrayal.

Denethor shared this weakness, which is why Gandalf tells him that "Nonetheless I do not trust you. Had I done so, I could have sent this thing hither to your keeping and spared myself and others much anguish. And now hearing you speak, I trust you less, no more than Boromir." It is specifically Denethor he doesn't trust: not any Man or any Steward, but this particular one.

* PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.

** I do think that the Ring can work without physical contact: but it has to have something to work on in the first place. It would have burned Denethor's mind away, we are told, even were it buried beneath Mindolluin: but that's because Denethor wanted it so. The Ring can only seduce the lustful.

[Sauron the White]

It sounds like you have nothing to worry about if you are pure of heart and harbor no negativity of any kind.

But who does that? There is nobody 100% pure of heart without a negative or selfish thought at some point. Thus the Ring could work on anyone given enough time and awaiting the proper allignment of luck and circumstances. Except Tom Bombadil. Remember him? He was the being that the Ring had no power over but then JRRT does nothing with that incongruity. I think that is how we got to talking about all this in the first place.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

* PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.

And there's the rub. One of the main reasons why films and books cannot be the same. Now putting aside my view of what you say here (I'm not sure I agree with it 100%) - how CAN a director show that the Bilbo's look is something that only Frodo 'sees' and not what actually 'happened'. without a narrator to tell us this detail it can;t work.

Yes, you're on the right track with regard to Faramir. Since he didn't desire the Ring or the power it represented in the first place, being in its vicinity was not going to change his personality or 'corrupt' him.

People seem to forget that Faramir WAS tempted by the Ring. One of the reasons he stoped himself taking it was he tied himself to his word, as Faramir himself tells Frodo. But HE WAS TEMPTED. He fought internally with himself and did not take the Ring. Therefore, to me, I see the trip to Osgiliath as a Detour. I didn't like it - but in the long run it did not make any difference.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?

Well, you have an increase in the power of the Ring as the Hobbits approach Orodruin, but you also have a decrease in Frodo's will & inner strength. Whether Sam would have succumbed to the influence of the Ring is a bit more difficult. If it was to save Frodo he might have used it, or to save the Shire possibly, but he has already rejected its temptation in the Pass. The Ring can only tempt one by offering what one really desires, so if one does not desire what it offers one is not going to be tempted by it.I'm not sure its a question of being 'pure of heart' though. Faramir does have desires - to see Gondor restored to what it was in past days & a King on the throne again - but what he realises is that the Ring cannot bring that about. Faramir is a Numenorean at heart & would never put any trust in Sauron or his works. Faramir would not succumb & claim the Ring, because he does not want Gondor to go the way of Numenor.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren ..... I do enjoy discussing these issues with you but I do not really know what I did to both anger and disgust you. My comment about the abstinence pledge was NOT to say anything negative about them. I was comparing it to Faramir not wanting the Ring. He really has very little knowledge about the Ring, has never had it, has never used it and is rather naive about it. Thus, it was easier for him not to pursue it. I compared this to a seventh grader taking a pledge of sexual abstinence in that the child has not yet participated in this activity (hopefully), has limited information and does not know what he/she would be missing except from misinformation. Thats all.

You say Bombadil was a perfect being. You may be right. I don't know. I find that concept a difficult one for me to comprehend - the idea of a perfect being living with the rest of the flawed beings. Heaven, maybe.

My problem with Bombadil is that he does nothing to advance the story or resolve it despite the amazing incongruity that he seems alone in being completely beyond the power of the Ring. What does Tolkien do with this amazing creature and the dilemma of the Ring? Nothing? It seems pointless to even introduce him into this tale. Save him for something else or keep him to his own little book.

WCH - so after todays exchange, it seems by earlier statement is not so incorrect after all. You and davem took exception to it

Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

If I had added the qualifying word EVENTUALLY after the statement "how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it..." it seems that would be correct.

Davem... do you then agree with the last postings of both Folwren and William Cloud Hickli that eventually, given the right conditions, everyone would succumb to the Ring?

And to all.... I have so enjoyed our exchanges today. Very civilized.