Is all the "magic" gone?

[Son of Númenor]

I could not agree more, Bêthberry. Although I may be a member of the minority on this, I felt the same way about the Grey Havens. When I read the book, I pictured a grey, misty harbour, the voices of Elves lamenting the end of their stay in Middle-earth in a solemn dirge, & the ship setting sail into a misty horizon. What we got (or at least I personally got - I definitely do not mean to try & speak for everyone) in the movie was a bright, shiny harbour, with everyone smiling sadly- bittersweet, to be sure, but a more 'Disney' ending than the melancholy aura of the book. Though there were tears, they did not feel as deep or meaningful as they did in the books. Like the movie scenes in Lothlórien, I did not really feel what it meant for the Elves to be departing like I did in the books, & like you said Bêth, I did not get the feeling of Galadriel's beauty & 'distance'. I would not say it was a disappointment - I am a big fan of the film trilogy as a whole - but it definitely lost something going from paper to film reel. It lost some of that sense of 'enchantment' that has been so fervently discussed in the 'Canonicity' thread. Luckily for me, I can still find it in the books!

[The Saucepan Man]

I would not say it was a disappointment - I am a big fan of the film trilogy as a whole - but it definitely lost something going from paper to film reel. It lost some of that sense of 'enchantment' that has been so fervently discussed in the 'Canonicity' thread.

My feelings entirely Son of Númenor (welcome to the Downs, by the way ). And I think that Tolkien himself put it very well in his essay 'On Fairy-Stories':

However good in themselves, illustrations do little good to fairy-stories. The radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes one visible form. Literature works from mind to mind and is thus more progenitive.

When we read the books, we are free (subject to the descriptions given) to imagine the characters, places and events portrayed ourselves. We create the vision. And, as the discussion above concerning Galadriel illustrates, every reader creates their own personal vision. But, in any transformation of literature to a visual medium, the vision is created for us. And it seems to me that this restriction of our imagination is bound to lessen the "magic" (or should I say "ensorcelment" ) that we feel. It is not our own vision that we are witnessing, but someone else's.

But, even if we were to film the books ourselves with unlimited resources so that it matched our own visualisation in every respect (and the films certainly lived up to my own visualisation in very many respects), I am still not sure that the feeling would be the same when we watched it back. And that, I think, is because the "enchantment" arises when we use our imaginations as we read (the "progenitive" process as Tolkien put it). So the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves.

[Son of Númenor]

(welcome to the Downs, by the way)

Thanks, I am really enjoying it.

When we read the books, we are free (subject to the descriptions given) to imagine the characters, places and events portrayed ourselves. We create the vision.

Exactly! Like, I even pictured Sauron as a humanoid instead of a big eye.

Sorry, PJ, that was a cheap shot.

But really, I guess I just have to come to grips with the fact that Mr. Jackson's vision isn't exactly the same as my own. I say not exactly the same as my own because actually, in many parts his movies showed me Middle-earth in just the way I had imagined or better. Minas Tirith & Lothlórien, for example, looked exactly how I pictured them, & PJ's Helm's Deep vastly improved on my own rather sketchy image of the battle. In those cases, as well as with the portrayal of characters like Gandalf, Boromir & Samwise, the magic really shined through.

[Gorwingel]

Although I may be a member of the minority on this, I felt the same way about the Grey Havens. When I read the book, I pictured a grey, misty harbour, the voices of Elves lamenting the end of their stay in Middle-earth in a solemn dirge, & the ship setting sail into a misty horizon.

Oh, you are definitely not in the minority (I would think), especially among book fans. The movie Grey Havens definitely didn't meet in any way my version of the Grey Havens. I agree it was definitely much too bright, and not somber enough. But, yes, I most definitely agree that much of the magic was gone from the film. They did a wonderful job, but it is basically impossible to match that same feeling for everyone that you get while reading the book. The book is just so amazing, and really when you read it all the characters become your own, and you in a way go back to when you were younger, and when you spent all of your time creating imaginary worlds of your own. So the world of Middle Earth becomes yours in a way. But I guess that is one of the wonderful things about books... They don't just get served to you like a film, you have to think and work harder to get the full experience.

But, yes, I share many of the same opinions as many of you about the films. I love them... but not as much as the books

[Imladris]

Besides the fact that everyone has there own different view of the magic within the books, the magic simply does not exist and cannot be made to exist. Magic in the literar world is created with fantastic word images that weave the magic. Words are not tangible -- they merely aide you in imagining the magic. The more imaginative you are, the great the enchantment will be.

Film, on the other hand, deals with tangible things. Galadriel is beyond mortals, that's the reason no one can play her with the depth that she deserves. There is simply no woman who can do it because no such woman exists.

That's the same with all the other magic that is lacking. But, as has been said countless times, there is magic in the books and so I won't repeat them.

[The Only Real Estel]

Film, on the other hand, deals with tangible things. Galadriel is beyond mortals, that's the reason no one can play her with the depth that she deserves. There is simply no woman who can do it because no such woman exists.

But even there they did their best, even going to lengths such as having lights reflect in her eyes to give her eyes the 'star' look that the book discribed. I think that the music was quite possibly the most magical part of the trilogy.
(more will be posted tommorrow)

[Bêthberry]

Wow! This thread is hopping!

But, even if we were to film the books ourselves with unlimited resources so that it matched our own visualisation in every respect (and the films certainly lived up to my own visualisation in very many respects), I am still not sure that the feeling would be the same when we watched it back. And that, I think, is because the "enchantment" arises when we use our imaginations as we read (the "progenitive" process as Tolkien put it). So the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves. Mr. SaucepanMan

Interesting indeed. This idea from Tolkien that literature is more "progenitive', ie, stimulates the mind more, seems to support Eomer of the Rohirrim's point that no human actress-no actual representation--could be as successful as the image we create in our own mind from reading.

I'm not completely sold on this idea. It seems to me to be a little too close to the old idea that visual representations are inferior and even suspect. (I'm thinking of how the Puritans, for instance, banned drama and limited pictorial representations in their churches, a very different culture from that Tolkien knew in his Catholic churches.) I wonder what a visual artist would say to this idea that art restricts imagination.

But despite this argument, is it not interesting that Tolkien seems to have inspired a great many visual artists to attempt to depict his vision? Off the top of my head I cannot think of any other fantasy writer who has inspired so many artists. The names are legion; there are 207 artists represented on
Torania's Tolkien page , alone. It seems to me that there is some very compelling, very strong impetus in Tolkien's writing that leads people on to create images of Middle-earth.
Of course, this could be more evidence in support of SpM's point that literature inspires the imagination more than visual representations. Maybe we should see the movies as the latest in a long line of attempts at visual recreations of the printed page.