Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Bêthberry]

Here's looking at you, Esty.

Well, I had expected this thread to be about how repeated viewings and time bring a different perspective, rather than a rehash of the same old, same old.

Why do we watch films a second, third, repeated times? With a book, usualy it isthat we wish to contemplate deeper and richer meanings, pull things together with reflection in a way that is not possible on that first read? I don't think we try to recreate that first reading experience. With a movie, isn't that part of the inspiration to rewatch--in hopes of capturing again that visual delight?

So, what happens with Pajama Man's flicks when we rewatch them? Do subsequent viewings keep up our initial experience (whether it was delight or disappointment) or is it true that we can never go back again? Do we "get" things now that we didn't on a first watch--important things and not simply, "Oh yah, I caught that error that the Consistency Girl missed." Do the seams fall apart, with worn threads on hand me down viewings?

After all, if it is true that we live in Tolkien's long defeat, does that mean that it will never be as good (er, or bad) as it was the first time?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

WCH - I cannot speak for Jackson, but my feeling about the Mouth of Sauron scene is that it shows that Aragorn no longer is willing to go through the motions of phony diplomacy - something which Sauron attempts to use only for his own purposes and is not any kind of real negotiation anyways. Aragorn recognizes this and knows that in minutes all hell will break loose so decides to rid Middle-earth of a rather large piece of garbage right there on the spot. Does that make him (in your words) a war criminal? Then we are back to the old internet discussion trap of a definition of terms.

Even assuming that this were an entirely valid viewpoint, what entitled Jackson to completely reverse the way the author wrote the scene? This is not a cut-out-Bombadil or shorten-the-Council alteration, which constraints of time and medium necessitate. This scene uses the same sets, costumes, characters and screentime as the authentic scene- so wherein lay the necessity of changing it?

Setting aside definition-squabbles, it is an inherent part of Tolkien's message that one may not kill unlawfully or without need. Doesn't he emphasize this over and over? By all laws and traditions of war, ancient, modern, and in Middle-earth (as book-Mouth himself insists), heralds and ambassadors are sacrosanct.
But the PJ version is simple Might makes Right: I've got a big sword so I get to play Dirty Harry. How does this not differ from Orc-work? (cf. The New Shadow in HME XII). The authentic scene *emphasizes*, not undermines, the reasons why the Captains are, in fact, the Good Guys, and why Sauron is the Enemy not just politically but morally. It would have been splendid, especially with the acting firepower assembled, to watch the arrogant Mouth wilt beneath Aragorn's contempt: an expression of spiritual rather than physical superiority. This sort of reworking, indeed inversion, *with no cinematic imperative* reinforces the suspicion that PJ Just Doesn't Get It.

Another telling point is where Gandalf describes the 'possession' of Theoden as "an old trick of Saruman's. He's used it before." Oh, really? It seems PJ finds nothing incongruous that the leader of the White Council and the Heren Istarion, who had successfully pretended to be on the side of the angels until a few months previously, openly engaged in forcible possession of Eruhini? This act Tolkien unequivocally categorised as one of the very worst of all crimes, calling it "of Morgoth" and the practice of "Sauron and the necromancers;" yet apparently Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel etc were aware of this 'old trick' and condoned it. Again: Might Makes Right.
What on earth was wrong with Theoden's healing the way it was written? PJ could still have used the nifty age-morph effect, without Gandalf's deep-sea fishing, and the absurd Jackie Chan brawl that precedes it. If the scene needed visual punch, surely the lightning flash that flattens Wormtongue, and concomitant lighting effects (darkness and the ray of sunlight, and Theoden hobbling out into the open air) fills the bill?

It entirely escapes me how the requirements of a different medium mandate that a scene *in which the author made particular use of light and shadow- the essence of film* should be made over in such a radical fashion. Instead the suspicion arises that here as in the Denethor beatdown Hollywoodthink is ascendant: when in doubt, just clobber someone. If you're a Good Guy it's OK.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - you bring up a very good point regarding the Mouth of Sauron death. Had it been filmed the way that Tolkien wrote it in the book, perhaps it would have been great. We will never know (barring another effort someday). Again, I am not Peter Jackson or the writers so I cannot tell you with certainty why they decided to do it this way. I will offer this.

Tolkien wrote LOTR during the decade of the Forties. In that, he is much a product of his era. We all, to an extent, are. Even more than that, JRRT was also bound by even older traditions and values that were beginning to fade during his lifetime.
So to some extent, his writings are "out of time" or "out of sync" with post WWII developments in the arts. The rise of the anti-hero comes to mind as both a literary and cinematic trend which is not found in LOTR but which is found in spades in both mediums over the last fifty or more years.

It could be - and this is speculation on my part - that Jackson and company are also products of their times. It could be that the rigid code of the good guys simply appears dated and out of fashion with the code of the 21st century. I imagine an audience raised on Dirty Harry films and Charles Bronson revenge flicks hardly blinked an eye when Aragorn beheaded MoS. And it made Aragorn look like the righteous avenging angel of death who would not take any BS from an 100% evil baddie.

I can see the response coming - and I do not take issue with it. However, it seemed to be a crowd pleasing scene and certainly added to the finality of the Battle Before the Black Gate. After all, you just killed the emassary of Sauron and basically gave the finger to the entire land of Mordor just inches away from their borders. Its pretty much an "in your face" invitation to fight to the last man. That seemed to fit in with the entire sacrificial nature of the military strategy of marching to the Black Gates and is further emphasized as Aragorn leads the charge to certain death with the words "for Frodo".

All the great tales are told and retold through the prism of the generation that tells them and with the confines and realities of the time in history in which they are retold. LOTR is no different.

Regarding the words about Saruman and possession - you have a very good ear for detail. I have seen the films dozens of times and never picked that up as important. The way you explain it, you have a valid point of criticism. I just believe that 99% of the audience thinks nothing about it. Consider yourself ahead of the curve on that one.

[Meriadoc1961]

Well, I started this thread, and it just occurred to me that this was the first year since 1974 that I did not read the books starting in February. However, I did watch the movies in February. Which may mean that at least at a subconscious level I felt that the films were true enough to the books.

I did not mean for this to be a "bash Jackson and the films" thread. Maybe I did not make my own opinion clear enough in the beginning. I do enjoy the films, but I believe my preference is for the books. I believe that Jackson did tinker more with the characters the further on into the three films he went. And I believe that removing myself from the emotion as I saw the Shire and Bag End unveiled in the beginning of FOTR helps me to see the film in a more objective light, although it is practically impossible for me to watch LOTR and NOT get emotional again.

Merry

[Aiwendil]

Why do we watch films a second, third, repeated times? With a book, usualy it isthat we wish to contemplate deeper and richer meanings, pull things together with reflection in a way that is not possible on that first read?

Do we really re-watch films for a fundamentally different reason than that for which for re-read books? Speaking for myself, the motivation is the same in both cases - moreover, the motivation is quite simple: if I enjoy reading a book or watching a movie once, I'll probably enjoy it again. It's true that when I re-read my favorite books, I sometimes discover new layers of meaning, and this in turn motivates further re-readings - but this is also true of my favorite movies. Every re-reading of LotR yields new delights, but so does every re-viewing of 2001, for instance.

As for an attempt to "recapture the original viewing experience" - I'm not sure what this means beyond simply experiencing again the pleasure induced by the movie (which of course is the whole reason to watch it at all). The same surely applies to books.

[Bêthberry]

You could be right that there isn't a substantial difference between re-reading books and re-viewing movies. Yet the habit of revisiting movies is a fairly new ability, short of paying again at theatres. I seem to recall that it was Star Wars which really created this trend as much of its profits arose initially from patrons who returned to the theatre to see it again and again and again. And then of course the new video technology made it possible to treat movies as easily as books. Perhaps for those born post-SW there is no difference.

I also know people who rewatch movies in order to laugh at them the harder. After the first viewing, it seems the "semes" show up more for such viewers. I don't know any readers who reread books in order to make fun of them or find their faults--unless it is critics and academics who rake them over professionally.

Then again, rereading or re-viewing from the perspective of knowing how it all ends provides a different experience from that of sussing out all the clues together before one knows the 'answer.' All depends I suppose on what one does when one reads/watches.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW:

What you say about the antihero and the modern audience is an interesting point- but it seems to me that Jackson (& Walsh & Boyens) were rather schizophrenic in this case. After all, they spent a very great deal of effort (and screentime) reworking Aragorn as the reluctant nolo regi sort, I would assume because they reckoned modern filmgoing audience would dislike Tolkien's Man of Destiny. But then this approach to the revised character doesn't really square with the badass- it's as if Eastwood's reluctant gunfighter of Unforgiven suddenly morphed into Harry Callaghan.

This I think (in my personal opinion) to have been mistaken. Tolkien's original surge of popularity hit during the late 60's precisely among the same folks who were protesting American 'imperialism' in Vietnam and the like: yet the hippies didn't seem to mind the Returning King as written. And this was a generation raised on Hemingway and Salinger and Faulkner. As Tolkien was at pains to point out, there's nothing wrong with fairy-tales, even for adults; and that includes fairy-tale heroes like Aragorn. We're not expected to identify with him: that's what the hobbits are there for.

******

Another perplexing moral inversion occurred to me- especially perplexing in that the scene and the very dialogue are reprised from the book, but turned on their heads. In the movie, as the Three Hunters in Fangorn become aware of the mysterious old man,

Aragorn: 'We must act quickly, before he can put a spell on us'

whereuopn the three attempt an ambush (naturally unsuccessful).

Compare this to Tolkien's version:

Then suddenly, unable to contain himself longer, [Gimli] burst out: 'Your bow, Legolas! Bend it! Get ready! It is Saruman. Do not let him speak, or put a spell upon us! Shoot first!'

Legolas took his bow and bent it, slowly and as if some other will resisted him. He held an arrow loosely in his hand but did not fit it to the string. Aragorn stood silent; his face was watchful and intent.

'Why are you waiting? What is the matter with you?' said Gimli in a hissing whisper.

'Legolas is right,' said Aragorn quietly. 'We may not shoot an old man so, at unawares and unchallenged, whatever fear or doubt be on us. Watch and wait!'

If there is one single overriding theme of the Lord of the Rings it is that the end never justifies the means- that the moral course is the only course, no matter what self-interest or even the Greater Good might dictate. Anything else is a form, greater or lesser, of Boromirism. The *whole point* of the Ring is that Might never, ever makes Right.

[Sauron the White]

from WilliamCH

Tolkien's original surge of popularity hit during the late 60's precisely among the same folks who were protesting American 'imperialism' in Vietnam and the like: yet the hippies didn't seem to mind the Returning King as written. And this was a generation raised on Hemingway and Salinger and Faulkner.

You are correct in that statement. However, we are discussing the change of things as they happened in the movies. For that it is important to remember two things: 1) the time the books were written by JRRT and the mores and values that he subsribed to as a man of his time, and 2) the films were released in the 21st century - a good two generations removed from the hippie era you refer to. The vast majority of the movie crowd came of age long after the Sixties were dead and gone.

I really do not want to get into a huge sidebar here, but being 58 years old and having lived through this period, the idea that everyone between ages 16 and 29 was running around for several years with shoulder length hair, beads, fringe jackets and smoking dope is a gross misreprentation of the period. It is no more accurate than saying all young male African-Americans today are rappers or gangsta's.

But that is a topic for some other forum.

[Meriadoc1961]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

StW:

If there is one single overriding theme of the Lord of the Rings it is that the end never justifies the means- that the moral course is the only course, no matter what self-interest or even the Greater Good might dictate. Anything else is a form, greater or lesser, of Boromirism. The *whole point* of the Ring is that Might never, ever makes Right.

This is an excellent point, and one in which I am in full agreement. The book form of Faramir, compared to that of the film version, is another example of Jackson and crew missing one of the, if not THE most important, messages of the book, by changing his character. They should not have changed the character of Faramir at all, and neither was it necessary to change the scene when Gandalf first appears to the Three Hunters.

Merry