What did Christopher Tolkien think? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem · 07-23-2006, 11:40 AM

CT put out a statement:

Quote:

In a statement through his solicitors, Tolkien said he thought it would be impossible to translate his father's novels onto the big screen.

"My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form," he said.

"The suggestions that have been made that I 'disapprove' of the films, vent to the extent of thinking ill of those with whom I may differ, are wholly without foundation."

He added that he had never "expressed any such feeling".

More here

As far as I'm aware Christopher has never seen the movies.

ninja91 · 07-23-2006, 01:14 PM

Personally, I think Christopher should give the movies a go. They are the very best.

davem · 07-23-2006, 01:37 PM

Sorry, but I think CT is absolutley right. The books are not suited to visual representation. Tolkien's language is absolutely essential to LotR. That's why the BBC Radio version works so much better than the movies.

I know this isn't a popular view here on the Downs, but it is correct (as is usual with me).

Nogrod · 07-23-2006, 02:20 PM

I'm afraid that this topic has been turned over a hundred times here at the BD, but still I think it worthwhile to bring forward a few points.

"A picture says more than a thousand words" they say. I believe this is quite a widely-spread idiom (with variations). I have been against it for a long time. On occasion a word tells more than any thousand pictures. It depends of the words and pictures involved in the comparison... Think of the words of ancient Greek, like: kalos/n, filia, sophia, logos, whatever - or just plain contemporary expressions like God, love, humanity...

I can't see a way to exhaust these concepts with any pictures, how artistic or highly valued they might be.

Neither could I see Picasso's Guernica (sorry about the trivial example) or any other major work of the "great modernists" I love (Marc, Beckmann, Kandinsky, Rothko...) to be explained away with a mere thousand words... with any words.

Or someone making a film about T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land...

They seem to be incompatible.

But even making a picture of a story, that's somehow tricky too.

A story, when read, takes place in your mind. You may have vivid ideas of how the things look like, but more often than not, they are vague feelings and emotions depicting you the things told in the story. When you take on to filming a story, you will have to take a stance on every detail: how many toes does a Balrog have? Is Frodo's sleeve just an inch or an inch and a half from his wrist? How did Boromir indeed look at lady Galadriel, what were the minute details on his expression (and someone has to act them in reality)? And so on.

Making a film kind of nails things down to something like a reality. Makes them look something actual or being.

I'm not sure what I think of the films by PJ. It was great to see them and there were many beautiful sceneries and finely wrought details that stirred my emotions and made the opus breathe in a new way *, but still... The imagery of PJ somehow shadows now my reading of the LotR, and I'm not sure how good it is...

I can relate to CT when he's being sceptical about transforming his father's world and stories into a film. Maybe the story and the world would be more varied and more personal without the films?

But was all this individuality something J.R.R. craved for? Probably not.

* That is not to say that I didn't disagree with many of the decisions the PJ-team made in adopting the story - or getting their own ideas over the original story... but that is another matter.

MatthewM · 07-23-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

* That is not to say that I didn't disagree with many of the decisions the PJ-team made in adopting the story - or getting their own ideas over the original story... but that is another matter.

This is another matter, and I know what you mean. All of us fans have some issues with some of PJ's decisions. But personally, I think the movies are great and I believe they paint a beautiful picture of Middle-earth. However this too is another topic.

I really think CT should watch the movies, for they got many people really into Tolkien, or got them back into him. And by being "into" Tolkien I mean all things LotR- books, films, Letters, History, etc.

Does anybody know a snail mail address or anything of that sort to write to Christopher Tolkien?

Formendacil · 07-23-2006, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewM

This is another matter, and I know what you mean. All of us fans have some issues with some of PJ's decisions. But personally, I think the movies are great and I believe they paint a beautiful picture of Middle-earth. However this too is another topic.

I really think CT should watch the movies, for they got many people really into Tolkien, or got them back into him. And by being "into" Tolkien I mean all things LotR- books, films, Letters, History, etc.

Does anybody know a snail mail address or anything of that sort to write to Christopher Tolkien?

I think a guy in his early-to-mid 80s can make up his own mind about what movies he wants to see...

Quite frankly, I wish I COULD unwatch the movies.

Yes, I did watch them. And, yes, I thought they were excellent movies- as movies. But as presentations of my most beloved tale?

Paltry.

And, like Nogrod, I find them seeping into my mental picture of the books. And I'd like to be rid of that. I LIKED my mental pictures. They might not have been awesome, but they were MINE.

And if I, who am 19 and a world (time and space) away from Tolkien... how much would Tolkien's own (80-something) son have his own mental image? It's clearly been satisfactory for 60 years- why let someone else's image spoil the view?

Lalwendë · 07-24-2006, 02:31 AM

Matthew M - if you want to write to CT, the usual way is to send a letter via the publishers.

Anyway, I be surprised if CT had managed to avoid the films so far, even if he's only taken a sneaky peak at them. And the marketing images are pretty strong and pervasive so he cannot have avoided those - least of all if he had to 'approve' them in any way.

Really, why should a film cloud our imaginations any more than paintings and illustrations would? Yes, certain things from the films creep into our internal vision, but can anyone here deny that John Howe's Gandalf has not also influenced them? There's a long history of Tolkien art - including by Tolkien himself - and I'm sure I'm not the only one to be influenced by it.

I suppose some of the film images will fade over time, but not all will (e.g. the image of Frodo with the Ring, and the Gollum they created), and they will form part of that collective idea of what Middle-earth looks like. Even then readers will still form their own view despite what they are told or shown - otherwise why would I still persist in seeing a grey, bearded Elrond?

07-23-2006, 02:20 PM	#4
Nogrod Flame of the Ainulindalë Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Wearing rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves in a field behaving as the wind behaves Posts: 9,308	I'm afraid that this topic has been turned over a hundred times here at the BD, but still I think it worthwhile to bring forward a few points. "A picture says more than a thousand words" they say. I believe this is quite a widely-spread idiom (with variations). I have been against it for a long time. On occasion a word tells more than any thousand pictures. It depends of the words and pictures involved in the comparison... Think of the words of ancient Greek, like: kalos/n, filia, sophia, logos, whatever - or just plain contemporary expressions like God, love, humanity... I can't see a way to exhaust these concepts with any pictures, how artistic or highly valued they might be. Neither could I see Picasso's Guernica (sorry about the trivial example) or any other major work of the "great modernists" I love (Marc, Beckmann, Kandinsky, Rothko...) to be explained away with a mere thousand words... with any words. Or someone making a film about T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land... They seem to be incompatible. But even making a picture of a story, that's somehow tricky too. A story, when read, takes place in your mind. You may have vivid ideas of how the things look like, but more often than not, they are vague feelings and emotions depicting you the things told in the story. When you take on to filming a story, you will have to take a stance on every detail: how many toes does a Balrog have? Is Frodo's sleeve just an inch or an inch and a half from his wrist? How did Boromir indeed look at lady Galadriel, what were the minute details on his expression (and someone has to act them in reality)? And so on. Making a film kind of nails things down to something like a reality. Makes them look something actual or being. I'm not sure what I think of the films by PJ. It was great to see them and there were many beautiful sceneries and finely wrought details that stirred my emotions and made the opus breathe in a new way , but still... The imagery of PJ somehow shadows now my reading of the LotR, and I'm not sure how good it is... I can relate to CT when he's being sceptical about transforming his father's world and stories into a film. Maybe the story and the world would be more varied and more personal without the films? But was all this individuality something J.R.R. craved for? Probably not. That is not to say that I didn't disagree with many of the decisions the PJ-team made in adopting the story - or getting their own ideas over the original story... but that is another matter. __________________ Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet...

07-24-2006, 02:31 AM	#7
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Matthew M - if you want to write to CT, the usual way is to send a letter via the publishers. Anyway, I be surprised if CT had managed to avoid the films so far, even if he's only taken a sneaky peak at them. And the marketing images are pretty strong and pervasive so he cannot have avoided those - least of all if he had to 'approve' them in any way. Really, why should a film cloud our imaginations any more than paintings and illustrations would? Yes, certain things from the films creep into our internal vision, but can anyone here deny that John Howe's Gandalf has not also influenced them? There's a long history of Tolkien art - including by Tolkien himself - and I'm sure I'm not the only one to be influenced by it. I suppose some of the film images will fade over time, but not all will (e.g. the image of Frodo with the Ring, and the Gollum they created), and they will form part of that collective idea of what Middle-earth looks like. Even then readers will still form their own view despite what they are told or shown - otherwise why would I still persist in seeing a grey, bearded Elrond? __________________ Gordon's alive!

07-23-2006, 01:37 PM	#3
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	Sorry, but I think CT is absolutley right. The books are not suited to visual representation. Tolkien's language is absolutely essential to LotR. That's why the BBC Radio version works so much better than the movies. I know this isn't a popular view here on the Downs, but it is correct (as is usual with me).