Microphones in Middle-earth...the BBC Lord of the Rings

[Brian Sibley]

Originally Posted by davem

First, the encounter with Theoden. I'm so glad we got the 'book' version rather than the histrionics of the movie. Its clear that Theoden is not 'possessed' or the victim of any kind of 'magic', but simply worn down by Grima's ill counsel. In short he has lost all hope in the face of what he has been convinced are overwhelming odds. I love how Jack May plays this. Again, I don't know whether he knew the book beforehand, but he captures the character's pshychological state. This Theoden is a warrior who has been convinced there is no point fighting but deep down is just waiting for the slightest glimmer of hope. As soon as Gandalf arrives & shows him that glint he forgets his despair & rallies not simply himself, but his whole people.

It's strange... Looking back (or listening back) at the decisions we took in making the radio series, I am more often pleased than disappointed...

The film interpretation of Théoden's mental thralldom to Saruman is so imbued with comic-book/horror-movie imagery as to be - had it not been done as well as it was - totally risible.

Like so many aspects of the story-on-film, it abandons Tolkien's characterisation in favour of OTT hokum and cinematic trickery. Maybe that was necessary for the average cinema-goer who was not familiar with Tolkien, but what is lost is the subtle, insinuating evil of Sauron's power as shown in the book and, as a result, a lessening of Théoden's humanity...

Jack May was splendid in the role and I especially love his low growling voice in those early scenes...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm sorry I haven't participated much so far - I have the recordings, but the fact that they are cut differently makes it difficult for me to find the right starting and finishing points. As preparation for the Tolkien Seminar has priority at the moment, I'm not taking the time for that complicated selection.

My research for the paper I will be presenting did lead me to a review of the radio production in Brian Rosebury's Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon. Here are a few excerpts for your enjoyment:

The 13-hour BBC radio production is, of course, fundamentally hampered by its inability to suggest the physical and cultural presence of Middle-earth, other than through inevitably rather generalised sound-effects...

That statement is less a criticism than a simple analysation of the shortcomings of the audio medium. Praise is given for the use of narration from Tolkien's text to give glimpses.

Dialogues are praised as well-delivered and skilfully abridged, with special mention of Woodthorpe's Gollum, though abridgements are said to tend to "flatten the text in the direction of an adventure story."

In summary Rosebury writes:

The strength of the BBC version as an adaptation lies in its largely faithful, and nearly complete, realisation of the sequence of events (...): in that sense, if no other, the criterion that as little as possible of the original should be lost is met more closely by this than by the movie versions.

[Brian Sibley]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

I'm sorry I haven't participated much so far - I have the recordings, but the fact that they are cut differently makes it difficult for me to find the right starting and finishing points. As preparation for the Tolkien Seminar has priority at the moment, I'm not taking the time for that complicated selection.

My research for the paper I will be presenting did lead me to a review of the radio production in Brian Rosebury's Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon. Here are a few excerpts for your enjoyment:

"The 13-hour BBC radio production is, of course, fundamentally hampered by its inability to suggest the physical and cultural presence of Middle-earth, other than through inevitably rather generalised sound-effects..."

That statement is less a criticism than a simple analysation of the shortcomings of the audio medium.

If, of course, you accept it as a 'shortcoming' at all. In defence of radio - the closest of all dramatic forms to the oral tradition of storytelling - it might be argued that the absence of visual imagery heightens the listener's ability to create his or her own visuals within the theatre of the mind.

I hope this won't sound too reactionary and oversensitive, but in my experience, the medium of sound is limited only by the imaginative limitations of those who hear it.

Today, we are swamped with Tolkien/Middle-earth imagery: it is interesting that the first readers of Tolkien's story had none other than the Ring/Eye motif on the dust-wrappers, the accompanying maps, the words on the page --- and the pictures in their heads...

[ArathornJax]

Originally Posted by Brian Sibley

Today, we are swamped with Tolkien/Middle-earth imagery: it is interesting that the first readers of Tolkien's story had none other than the Ring/Eye motif on the dust-wrappers, the accompanying maps, the words on the page --- and the pictures in their heads...

I would agree that the auditory allows the listener to visualize what is going on. I read the LOTR back in the mid 1970's and I developed my own image of each character and the scenery. I am an avid hiker and in my youth I did a lot of backpacking (still do some, 1x a year or every other year depending on the back and the knee, middle age is starting to suck!), and I created many images of locations in Middle Earth. This is something I still do. For example, for me this is the Falls of Rauros, North Clear Creek in Colorado:



I was also thinking that next time I read the trilogy, I am going to read along with Bob Inglis on my MP3 or iPod. That will allow me to take in more of the text and catch items I may tend to skim.

As far as format, I like going over each episode and reviewing them. I would hope we continue along that lines. I just wanted to make sure that we were a go for the next episode so I could listen to it today (which I will do). As far as posters, I meant since we last discussed the current episode.

Cheers,

AJ

[davem]

Originally Posted by Brian Sibley

If, of course, you accept it as a 'shortcoming' at all. In defence of radio - the closest of all dramatic forms to the oral tradition of storytelling - it might be argued that the absence of visual imagery heightens the listener's ability to create his or her own visuals within the theatre of the mind.

I think this is another reason this adaptation feels so close to the book - not simply because it uses so much of Tolkien's text/dialogue, but also because it doesn't impose someone else's images on you. That's the unavoidable problem with any visual presentation of any story, & it doesn't matter how much love & effort the designers put into it - it will always fail to match with the mental images of anyone who knows the story & worse to my mind it will fix their vision in the mind of any one who comes to the book later.

Of course, we live in a time when there is an assumption that every popular book will automatically be adapted for the screen, & there is an expectation that a movie or tv series will follow quickly on publication. In short, I agree absolutely with Brian's point about the oral tradition. LotR comes out of the oral tradition in a very real sense, & is a work that works best when 'heard' - either when read by a skilled storyteller or in your own head as you read. JRRT can tell you that Arwen was the most beautiful of the Children of Illuvatar after Luthien, but how many of us think Liv Tyler fits that bill? Not to say she isn't attractive, but is she beautiful enough to be a convincing Arwen? Or more simply - is she your Arwen? And that could be applied to any of the characters of course - my overwhelming feeling while watching the movies was that so much of what I was seeing was just 'off', it was (to paraphrase Douglas Adams) almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Middle-earth....

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Rosebury's comment is in the context of comparing the movie versions with the radio production (favorably for the BBC, at that!), so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at his kind of expectation there. As far as my personal experience goes, I love both reading aloud to others and being read to, with all of the imaginative possibilities that come with it. I remember the first calendar images I saw back in the 70s - I really disliked them, as they didn't seem to fit in with my concept of LotR characters at all.

[Brian Sibley]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Rosebury's comment is in the context of comparing the movie versions with the radio production (favorably for the BBC, at that!), so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at his kind of expectation there.

Yes, well, it's always a tricky issue: comparing chalk and cheese!

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

As far as my personal experience goes, I love both reading aloud to others and being read to, with all of the imaginative possibilities that come with it. I remember the first calendar images I saw back in the 70s - I really disliked them, as they didn't seem to fit in with my concept of LotR characters at all.

I agree. Even artists whom I admire, like Alan Lee and John Howe, are often a long way off the mark as far as the pictures in my head are concerned and most fan-art leaves me feeling deeply depressed - especially since so much of it is now 'inspired' by (or derived from) Jackson.

Our response to all such things is, of course, totally subjective. You might be amused to know that someone wrote to me when the radio series was first broadcast and complained that Robert Stephens simply didn't sound like Aragorn! Funnily enough, I know what the person meant...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Very true! So the audio version even has one disadvantage over the simple reading experience - voices may not fit my mental imagination. I remember that being the case in the German radio dramatisation; I'll have to listen again to see which voice it was - Gandalf or Aragorn, IIRC.

[Mithalwen]

Sorry for my lateness in replying - started a new work assignment at short notice which broke my chain of thought!!!

Three words sum up this episode for me transition, tension and tantilising... I am no chess player but it feels like the players are moving in to position for the endgame.

It is a very dark episode because although the Ents are roused and Theoden healed - both vital for the eventual victory - as Gandalf says they win through one
challenge to face the next... also as has been pointed out there is Frodo's resignation to his fate. The burden is getting heavier but he is still coping. For me one of the great triumphs of the adaptation is the handling of the Frodo, Sam, Gollum part of the story which is not my favourite part of the book.

The casting is perfect and I think it works very well on radio. Holm's voice conveys so well the horror of the Dead Marshes - and I liked the fact that the same music was used for the Dead Marshes as the Paths of the Dead - then there is the fine balance of the relationships between the three which reminds me at times of Sartre's "Huis clos". Gollum is teetering between the animal and the human and so fine poised is the balance that it starts to seem tragic that Gollum overhears Sam's "Dratted Creature! " but not the "poor wretch!".

Eomer and Aragorn having started the episode as beggar and "outlaw" are very much kings in waiting by the end. I do understand that it must have made sense not to have Galadriel go to Minas Tirith for the wedding but it does mean that we lose one of those fab Eomer / Gimli exchanges... but nevermind. However we do get the orc slaying contest - which does help with the battle scene but I never understand how and elf archer could possibly lose given that A first rate English archer, who, in a single minute was unable to draw and discharge his bow 12 times, with a range of 240 yards, and who in these twelve shots once missed his man, was very lightly esteemed. Legolas should have made Gimli's score within five minutes but that is not the fault of the adaptation!

It was only when I saw the musical (which combines Gondor and Rohan) that I fully appreciated the parralels between the two - both have an aging ruler under a malign influence, the heir has been lost and the "spare" is estranged to a degree - Eomer is seen in the light of a traitor as Faramir will be accused of being a wizard's pupil.

Eowyn is the only major character introduced and while she says nothing of significance we learn that she is brave and loved by her people as well as her kin.

Gah sorry about this I will try and tidy it later ...

[davem]

Transcript: http://www.tolkienradio.com/vos.html

This episode covers a lot of ground. We start out in the aftermath of the Battle of Helm's Deep & wnd with the Fellowship once more broken - but even more fractured than previously. By the close Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli have set forth for Dunharrow & thence the Paths of the Dead, Gandalf & Pippin are approaching Minas Tirith, Merry, in the service of Theoden is also heading towards Dunharrow, & Frodo & Sam have finally met Faramir in the glades of Ithilien.

First though, there is a series of reunions - Gimli with Legolas & Aragorn after his night in the Glittering Caves with Eomer, Gandalf with the survivors of the battle & then finally all four with Merry & Pippin at Orthanc.

The highlight of this episode for me is the confrontation with Saruman. And here I must praise Peter Howell's performance. The way he switches from charming councellor to venomous monster with such alacrity actually rivals (to my mind) Woodthorpe's Gollum. Howell is another player who never seems to get the praise he is due. As with Grout's Butterbur this is a performance to be relished. As I listen to this Saruman I'm never actually certain (as with book Saruman) whether he actually believes he is the injured party. You really get the sense that he sees himself as the victim, & that he really believes that he is working for the best of all concerned & simply doesn't understand what everyone's problem is. Michael Hordern's performance as Gandalf carries just the right combination of righteous anger & sheer frustration, mixed with sadness & compassion for the loss of his fellow Maiar.

I'm still not sure about the Palantir incident - maybe its because I'm so familiar with the way it happens in the book, but to have Pippin looking into the stone while they're still in the ruins of Isengard seems a bit 'wrong'. I suppose this was done purely for reasons of time, but the events seem compressed - as if the adaptor (don't know if it was Brian or Michael) wanted to get everyone up & moving as quickly as possible. Certainly the sudden appearance of the Nazgul while the party are still in Isengard seems not to get the serious response it deserves! And I'm definitely not sure about Pippin's expressed desire to have a Palantir of his own to see what Frodo & Sam are up to at that moment - its a nice linking device, but I honestly doubt that at that point Pippin would really want anything to do with Palantiri ever again

Other things?

I'm grateful for the appearance of Halbarad & the Rangers (though sad for the absence of Elladan & Elrohir ) Like Imrahil they are very minor players who do very little but for some reason you miss them. Oddly I think I miss them more than I miss Bombadil.....

I'm glad we got the encounter between Aragorn & Sauron - an invention but one I think is brilliantly done. Listening to Robert Stephen's performance sent shivers down my spine. If I was Sauron I'd have been a bit nervous....

'What's taters, precious?' Perfect. Tolkien's beautiful little scene played to perfection by Bill Nighy & Peter Woodthorpe. Once again I was left wondering why the movie scriptwriters thought they could improve on Tolkien's dialogue. All the Frodo/Sam/Gollum scenes are wonderfully done, subtle & informed performances by all concerned. Ian Holm's Frodo, at once driven & resigned, Nighy's frustrated & narky Sam & Woodthorpe's cunning, infuriated, frightened Gollum in the scene before the Black Gate are wonderful.

Anyway..