Is all the "magic" gone?

[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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Maybe we should see the movies as the latest in a long line of attempts at visual recreations of the printed page.

Bethberry -

Yes, and no. If I could experience the films purely as a visual event, there are very few thing with which I would feel uncomfortable. Peter Jackson did an amazing job recreating the visual fabric of Middle-earth. Yes, there were things here and there that I thought could be improved on: a too young Frodo, a Lorien that needed more light and faerie (Oops! There's that word again!), the need for a Grey Havens which reflected what was happening to the Elves. But overall, I was impressed with how PJ handled this part of the retelling.

My problem with the movie did not lie in its visual depiction of Middle-earth, but in its treatment of character and plot. And again I would say that, for the most part, I could enjoy the movie while I was seeing it. The comparisons and wishing for more came after I walked out of the theater.

Tolkien: However good in themselves, illustrations do little good to fairy-stories.

Methink the author doth protest too much! And also SPM!

SPM: So the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves.

Are you sure about that SPM? I am not. This may be a classic example of Tolkien saying one thing and, shortly thereafter, saying or doing another. Take a close look at Hammond's book on Tolkien as artist and illustrator. The author spent endless hours immersing himself in the chore of visualization, not merely in terms of LotR but the Legendarium as a whole. Tolkien wasn't much on drawing the human body, but he was quite good at landscapes. I don't think he would have made such a effort unless the task held more than casual interest for him, and this would have included the desire to convey some sense of the meaning in the books, the enchantment which draws us in. (That word seems to be popping up everywhere!)

And JRRT obviously gave serious thought to his ilustrators. Witness his intense dislike for Remington and his open admiration for Pauline Baynes. You get the feeling he thought Baynes "saw" Middle-earth in a very special way and was able to convey that to us. This sounds like more than merely a commercial interest.

Incidentally, I agree with the author on how special Baynes was. The slim little editions she illustrated -- Tom Bombadil, Farmer Giles, Smith, Bilbo's Song -- are among my favorites in my bookshelves. Bilbo's Song with its double pages -- one showing the old journey of The Hobbit and the facing one the new journey to the West -- let's us visualize the whole concept of life as a journey and the idea of the open road.

So I think you can have a successful visual expression of Middle-earth. And I would say that visually PJ himself came very close to that ideal. I did, for example, find his depiction of the Shire quite enchanting. I only wish the Grey Havens would have lived up to that. (Sometimes I wonder if PJ actually understood the ending of the book....)

[The Saucepan Man]

Bêthberry

It seems to me to be a little too close to the old idea that visual representations are inferior and even suspect.

I wouldn't say that visual representations are necessarily inferior to works of literature. They each have a different effect. Visual images stimulate the senses more than they do the imagination, while written works stimulate the imagination more than they do the senses.

I wonder what a visual artist would say to this idea that art restricts imagination.

But surely it's axiomatic that it does. A piece of writing and a visual rendering of that piece of writing will both stimulate the imagination of the reader/observer, but only the reader of the written piece will be using their imagination to create the visual image itself.

Maybe we should see the movies as the latest in a long line of attempts at visual recreations of the printed page.

Yes, I think that is a fair way of looking at them although, as moving images, they of course differ from illustrations in that they visually recreate the action as well as the characters and places.

Child

If I could experience the films purely as a visual event, there are very few thing with which I would feel uncomfortable. Peter Jackson did an amazing job recreating the visual fabric of Middle-earth.

I thoroughly agree. But even so, I think that there is something missing in the visual experience that is present in the reading experience. And, although it's part of it, I don't think that this is just down to the plot and character changes. I think that even if we lived in an ideal world where the films portrayed the characters, conversations and events exactly as they are in the book, something would still be missing. And that "something", I think, is the sense of enchantment that we get from creating the images ourselves while we read. Perhaps this is why (in my experience at least), this "enchantment" is at its most intense when we read the book for the first time.

Are you sure about that SPM? I am not. This may be a classic example of Tolkien saying one thing and, shortly thereafter, saying or doing another.

I don't think that Tolkien was saying that illustrations have no value in themselves. The point he was making, I think, is that, in the case of a "fairy-story", they will have less of an effect in stimulating the imagination than the text itself and that, for that reason, they are unlikely to enhance it. Funnily enough, I came across that extract from "On Faerie Stories" in a note to one of Tolkien's Letters to Pauline Baynes concerning the illustrations that she was doing for "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil". I think that he referred to it to it when agreeing to a point that she had made (although I can't recall the exact point and haven't got the Letters to hand).

I agree that Tolkien highly rated Pauline Baynes' ability to capture the essence of his works. However, I get the sense from his Letters that, where illustrations were included in his published works, this was at the insistence (or at least recommendation) of his publishers. I suspect that, left to his own devices, he would have done away with illustrations altogether (in his Middle-earth tales at least), and that he was only prepared to compromise because the illustrations used (his own and those of Pauline Baynes) were in line with his own vision.

So I think you can have a successful visual expression of Middle-earth.

I agree. In my view, the films are an example of just that, and I would include many among the multitude of artists inspired by Tolkien's works. But I would say that they are successful only as far as they can go. They will never capture entirely the enchantment that the reading experience brings us. So I stand by my statement:

... the visualisation of the books can never hold the same enchantment for us as the books themselves.