Lack of respect displayed by Gimli

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, born a commoner

Well, technically true insofar as she was not herself a peer of the realm- but she was an earl's daughter, not a grocer's! She was a 'commoner' in precisely the same sense as Diana Spencer.

[MatthewM]

Sitting in the Steward's chair is still a big deal, even if it's not the vacant chair of the Kings. The Steward's chair is just as important, in my opinion, given its history and rule over Gondor.

By the way --- they do show the vacant throne of the Kings in the films. They never do a direct shot on it, I think, but it is there, above the Steward's throne.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Well, technically true insofar as she was not herself a peer of the realm- but she was an earl's daughter, not a grocer's! She was a 'commoner' in precisely the same sense as Diana Spencer.

Oh, exactly! And both seemed to have a sharper grasp of optics than some of the peers around them.

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Sitting in the Steward's chair is still a big deal, even if it's not the vacant chair of the Kings. The Steward's chair is just as important, in my opinion, given its history and rule over Gondor.

Certainly the Stewards were the de facto rulers and commanded great authority, power, influence, fear, respect--all that goes with ruling.

Yet I wonder, does LotR dismiss the distance between the two seats? Does the Steward's chair mean the same thing in LotR as the Throne?

[davem]

Just posted this as Lal - so have deleted it & am re-posting under my own name.

Humphrey Carpenter gave a talk a long time ago at the Church House bookshop (around the time The Sil was published) & he mentioned writing to Tolkien about a musical play of The Hobbit he planned to put on at a school he was working at. Tolkien replied that 'he thought the whole idea was complete nonsense & a very silly thing to do, but who was he (Tolkien that is) to stop Carpenter doing it? Carpenter later went to meet him & says Tolkien made clear that he 'strongly disapproved' of translating his work into any other medium. Tolkien also expressed disapproval of the changes Carpenter proposed making to TH, but, & this is interesting, he made no attempt to dissuade Carpenter - & even suggested tunes for the songs. According to Carpenter, most of them were in the form of Gregorian Chant. Anyway, Tolkien was persuaded to go along to see the production & afterwards Carpenter asked him what he thought of the adaptation. Tolkien told him, & apparently it took some time - at the end of which Carpenter looked down & noticed that Tolkien had drunk all Carpenter's wine....

So, it would seem that while Tolkien strongly disapproved of adaptations of his work he felt that it was not his place to stop anyone doing it, & was even (if they were sufficiently respectful) happy to help (if you can call the suggestion of Gregorian Chant for the tunes of a school musical 'help').

Btw, a recording of this talk is available, along with one from Priscilla Tolkien & another from Raynor Unwin - they are all absolutely fascinating http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000XTB8Y0. I've just listened to it & it is wonderful. Carpenter & Priscilla were talking just after the Sil was published, & Raynor the day after UT appeared. There's a question & answer session where he's bombarded with questions about future publications & what might appear. He mentions plans for Barbara Strachey's Journeys of Frodo, & that Shippey's Road to Middle-earth would hopefully be appearing soon! Priscilla's reminiscences are wonderful - & if anyone's interested Tolkien's favourite composers were Sibelius & Wagner.
__________________

[Quempel]

Originally Posted by davem

Just posted this as Lal - so have deleted it & am re-posting under my own name.

Humphrey Carpenter gave a talk a long time ago at the Church House bookshop (around the time The Sil was published) & he mentioned writing to Tolkien about a musical play of The Hobbit he planned to put on at a school he was working at. Tolkien replied that 'he thought the whole idea was complete nonsense & a very silly thing to do, but who was he (Tolkien that is) to stop Carpenter doing it? Carpenter later went to meet him & says Tolkien made clear that he 'strongly disapproved' of translating his work into any other medium. Tolkien also expressed disapproval of the changes Carpenter proposed making to TH, but, & this is interesting, he made no attempt to dissuade Carpenter - & even suggested tunes for the songs. According to Carpenter, most of them were in the form of Gregorian Chant. Anyway, Tolkien was persuaded to go along to see the production & afterwards Carpenter asked him what he thought of the adaptation. Tolkien told him, & apparently it took some time - at the end of which Carpenter looked down & noticed that Tolkien had drunk all Carpenter's wine....

So, it would seem that while Tolkien strongly disapproved of adaptations of his work he felt that it was not his place to stop anyone doing it, & was even (if they were sufficiently respectful) happy to help (if you can call the suggestion of Gregorian Chant for the tunes of a school musical 'help').

Btw, a recording of this talk is available, along with one from Priscilla Tolkien & another from Raynor Unwin - they are all absolutely fascinating http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000XTB8Y0. I've just listened to it & it is wonderful. Carpenter & Priscilla were talking just after the Sil was published, & Raynor the day after UT appeared. There's a question & answer session where he's bombarded with questions about future publications & what might appear. He mentions plans for Barbara Strachey's Journeys of Frodo, & that Shippey's Road to Middle-earth would hopefully be appearing soon! Priscilla's reminiscences are wonderful - & if anyone's interested Tolkien's favourite composers were Sibelius & Wagner.
__________________

I have to agree with STW on one issue...even if Tolkien, his children or his estate disapproved of adaptations of LoTR, it's too bad. He had no rights, his children have no rights and his estate has no rights to those changes. none. He sold those rights and thus sold all creative input on how the story was to be interpreted and changed. So if Tolkien was alive and did not like that Gimli sat in the stewards chair, he had no right to force PJ to make it his way. He freely sold those rights. Once he sold those rights, the story was no longer his, it belonged to the persons he sold the rights too. We may complain about how Tolkien would have hated Gimli sitting on the stewards chair, but that's all he could do was complain.

And I don't have a problem with Gimli sitting on the chair. I would guess in real life that yes many others have sat in the Speakers Chair in the House of Commons...it just doesn't get written about. I would guess that many have sat in the Presidents chair in the oval office, and it just doesn't get written about. I would dare say if QEII walked into the House of Commons and wanted to sit in the speakers chair the speaker would say no. To harp on if it's proper or not is pretending that the real behind the scenes of government is what the public sees, when it is not. The pomp and circumstance is what the public expects, it is what is shown. The real nitty gritty of real government is done in just the way it was shown in the movie, very much everyone grab a chair lets discuss this, and often times it is only the end results with the whole properness is what the public sees. This is the way I see the Gimli scene, very much an inpromtu scene to discuss the survival of all the free peoples of ME, and if I was a member of that society I would be really mad if the war conference on how to save me was held up because the Steward was mad some Dwarf sat in his chair.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Quempel

I have to agree with STW on one issue...even if Tolkien, his children or his estate disapproved of adaptations of LoTR, it's too bad. He had no rights, his children have no rights and his estate has no rights to those changes. none. He sold those rights and thus sold all creative input on how the story was to be interpreted and changed. So if Tolkien was alive and did not like that Gimli sat in the stewards chair, he had no right to force PJ to make it his way. He freely sold those rights. Once he sold those rights, the story was no longer his, it belonged to the persons he sold the rights too. We may complain about how Tolkien would have hated Gimli sitting on the stewards chair, but that's all he could do was complain.

.

Which is to completely miss the point of my post - which was that EVEN THOUGH Tolkien 'strongly disapproved' of adaptations of his work into other media he was still willing not only to assist the adaptors, but also to go along to see said adaptations & Carpenter notes that he saw Tolkien smile with approval as well as frown at some aspects of the adaptation.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Quempel

We may complain about how Tolkien would have hated Gimli sitting on the stewards chair, but that's all he could do was complain.

Of course... but I don't recall anyone arguing that the changes to Gimli's character were illegal, do you?

I'd also guess that most people here do realize that a completely faithful adaptation would have been impossible.

Surely the question is not whether Jackson et al had a legal right to alter the story, but whether particular decisions they made were good or bad?

There's another, more general question here, too: if you adapt a book for the screen, are you obliged to remain faithful to the original at all? In a moral and artistic sense (and a please-the-fans sense), I believe you are– in most cases. After all, you're working with someone else's creation. I'm saying this not because I'm one of those who think Jackson totally butchered the story, but because STW has stated the opposite view, i.e. that a film version should be treated as entirely separate from the source material.

[Boromir88]

The real nitty gritty of real government is done in just the way it was shown in the movie, very much everyone grab a chair lets discuss this, and often times it is only the end results with the whole properness is what the public sees.~Quempel

Actually, customs, traditions, symbols, and minor "nice-ities" are very important to abide by when visiting foreign countries; just ask Richard Nixon. Being "proper" may seem trivial, and insignificant, but it's common courtesy to respect the laws, symbols...etc of other nations.

In one account, Saladin and the Fall of Jerusalem (something that is also portrayed in the movie The Kingdom of Heaven). When King Guy and Reginald of Chatillon are captured and brought before Saladin, Saladin hands a cup of water iced in snow to Guy. Guy hands the cup to Reginald, and Reginald drinks. This is an insult to Saladin who says "Tell the King, it was he, not I, that gave that man drink." and he slew Reginald. Another version of the story is Reginald was killed by Saladin's guards after leaving the tent. Either way, to insult the traditions, laws, symbols of a person in power, is an insult to the person in power and something you don't want to do.

Let us not forget that within LOTR, Aragorn offers parley with Saruman's Uruk-hai, and also lets the Mouth of Sauron deliver Sauron's "terms." Or how about when Hama asks the 4 travellers to fork over their weapons before entering Theoden's hall (because those are Theoden's orders) and Aragorn tries to overrule Theoden's orders? Hama, and the other guards, did not like that challenge to their King's authority and were ready to cut down Aragorn et all if they did not hand over their weapons.

So, even when dealing with horrible, evil, characters such as Saruman and Sauron, there is a certain "properness," "courtesy," "etiquette,"...whatever you want to call it that everyone follows. It is a sign of respect, an acknowledgement towards the people's customs, sovereignty, laws...and so on. It may seem contradictory, but there are also "Rules of War," and it being a "wartime" is not an excuse to do whatever you want.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Quempel

And I don't have a problem with Gimli sitting on the chair. I would guess in real life that yes many others have sat in the Speakers Chair in the House of Commons...it just doesn't get written about. I would guess that many have sat in the Presidents chair in the oval office, and it just doesn't get written about. I would dare say if QEII walked into the House of Commons and wanted to sit in the speakers chair the speaker would say no. To harp on if it's proper or not is pretending that the real behind the scenes of government is what the public sees, when it is not. The pomp and circumstance is what the public expects, it is what is shown. The real nitty gritty of real government is done in just the way it was shown in the movie, very much everyone grab a chair lets discuss this, and often times it is only the end results with the whole properness is what the public sees. This is the way I see the Gimli scene, very much an inpromtu scene to discuss the survival of all the free peoples of ME, and if I was a member of that society I would be really mad if the war conference on how to save me was held up because the Steward was mad some Dwarf sat in his chair.

Speaking as someone who works at the heart of Government, "everyone grab a chair" may happen in everyday team meetings but it most certainly does not happen in formal situations or when meeting someone several ranks above and especially not when meeting a Minister. Of course, if they request that a casual attitude is to be taken then you comply, but it's still a very 'stiff' kind of relaxation

I'd actually venture to say that they try to portray a friendly and casual attitude (the open necked shirts on MPs and whatnot) but behind the scenes, ideas of rank and propriety are still observed. And certainly where I work, you simply do not sit at someone else's desk until you have asked permission, woe betide you dare to fiddle with the settings on someone's chair

And in Tolkien's world things were even more formal. The Oxford colleges are bastions of the Establishment with their 'High Tables', JCRs, SCRs, Dean's Gardens, etc etc...

This is why Monty Python with it's Ministry Of Silly Walks and so on is all so deliciously funny