Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[davem]

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield). Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way - which is perfectly understandable when you take into account the fact that he had fought on the Somme, seen two out his three closest friends die horribly & possibly even taken German lives himself.

I accept that Jackson didn't included every single incident of action/violence on screen - actually I wish the Warg attack just prior to Moria had been included (one of my favourite episodes) - the problem I had was that every incidence of violence that was included was depicted in the most graphic way imaginable. Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... I do appreciate this exchange and I am appreciating your position more and more. Not agreeing with it - but appreciating what it means to you. I do think that we are placing Jackson into the position of he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. You concede that Jackson did not put in all the action and violence that is written by JRRT. But you find fault with the stylings of how it is depicted. You explain it this way

A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield).

The first half of your objection would apply to any author of any book as compared to any on screen depiction. Obviously what happens in a readers mind in terms of how much detail they want to see can never be captured on screen since the director is forced to make a choice that the viewers can see. It would seem that your criticism there is not directed at Jackson so much as it would be the simple process of filmmaking where things must be shown clearly. Of course, the alternative to that is the type of violence which was depicted in the sanitized Hays Office years of the movies - Thirties and Forties - where blood was hardly ever shown and carnage was invisible. Some feel that that type of depiction of violence is far worse because it gives people an unrealistic view of the consequences of violence. And I would agree.

You saw Legolas surfing down the stair as humorous - as is your right. I believe Jackson was going for "oooh thats cool" reaction from the younger viewers. I do not feel that scene was an attempt to be humorous in the least. So we see that differently.

Regarding Boromirs death - we are tending to repeat our positions here but I felt that it was far more effective on screen than in the book. We see the sacrifice of Boromir in all its dramatic magnitude and we gain a tremendous appreciation for it and for him despite the previous scenes of his less than gallant behavior towards Frodo. Having him dying in this way is an on screen display of personal redemption that seemed to ring true with the viewer. Again, repeating a previous point, but I have seen many posts over the past few years from people indicating that this scene really helped them gain a new respect and love for the character. So it did work on screen.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood.

No, actually; not of his own volition. Weta built the set for that episode, but a sudden flood washed it away so the scene was scratched. So we *do* get a scene of tension and character dynamic- only because PJ was forced by powers beyond his control not to go with his preference, another fight.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - and if PJ wanted that scene in the film they could have rebuilt it and included it. Even on the later pick-ups, it could have been included if Jackson had thought it important for inclusion. BUT HE DID NOT.

Again, some here seem to damn Jackson if he does and if he does not. In this case, he gets no credit for not including a JRRT written scene of more violence and action because you attribute that to the forces of nature ........ or perhaps even some higher power?

WCH - your argument about the style of Tolkien and even being out of sync with his contemporaries only serves to strengthen the hand of those who feel that it simply had to be updated to be marketable to todays audience. By your reasoning, JRRT appears even out of touch with the actual time he was writing in. He was a throwback to previous eras and traditions. The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He was writing for an entirely different generation. Ours is one that expects action and character development and people they can identify with. The movie is meant to appeal to them, therefore it includes these things.

Stuff and nonsense. The English literary world of the time was dominated by the likes of Leavis and Muir and Waugh, who expected all of the above (and castigated Tolkien for defiantly refusing to play ball). Again, intentionally 'appealing' to what an audience 'expects' (especially an audience which, if you are correct, is effectively Neanderthal in its expectations), is pandering and the antithesis of Tolkien's art. His mission, insofar as he saw it, was to reintroduce modern readers to something they had lost or forgotten, the glories of older literature before the rise of the bourgeois novel.

I regret that similar pandering apparently underlies the Zemeckis Beowulf, which from the trailers looks gawdawful- but I'm sure the same audiences whioo flocked to Conan the Barbarian and PJ's flicks will eat it up.

[Sir Kohran]

I had a big post that covered all of davem's points but the bloody internet came up with a 'cannot display' page so I'll have to be short:

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish.

Not really. Tolkien was gory:

Then Pippin stabbed upwards, and the written blade of Westernesse pierced through the hide and went deep into the vitals of the troll, and his black blood came gushing out.

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

The movie violence is extreme & often gross

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

And anyway, it's realistic - a bunch of fighters with swords and axes hacking into flesh is going to be brutal. What are you suggesting, that the camera cuts away every time we see Aragorn or Gimli swinging at an enemy?

its often presented in a humourous way

I don't agree. Was Boromir's death, grunting as the arrows slammed into him, depicted humorously? Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

What's more powerful and moving - seeing a man sitting next to a tree with some arrows in him, or seeing him fighting an overwhelming enemy desperately and slowly being shot? Also, Boromir's death is only surprising ad shocking on the first read - after that you epxect it. However the movie's death scene remains powerful every time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I actually have little problem at all with Boromir being shot onscreen. I think it's powerful and moving, and follows a very real dictate of cinema: "show, don't tell." What I do have a problem with is what follows immediately, Aragorn's o-so-Hollywood duel with an invented superorc character. Yest even that didn't bug me as much as, not the *acting* or *emotion* of Boromir's death-scene, which were palpable; but the *dialogue*, which was stupid, and reflects the supercession of Tolkien's powerful laconicism for more Aragorn-the-reluctant crap.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

I don't interpret that as humourous.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

I can't answer this.

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Why do you have this strange ability, davem? Can't you think something good about something in the movies for a change? But of course not. [sarcasm]You worship at the altar of Tolkien. You probably consider him a saint.[/sarcasm] Jackson is a heretic, a blasphemer who dares change what doesn't work. You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

It is, even if the humor is unintentional, which is unlikely.

[Folwren]

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have.

[Sir Kohran]

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings.

This sounds overly-sensitive. In movies with multiple battle scenes, how could there not be violence? There was little real bloodshed in the movies at all, and the beheadings are accurate for what would be very brutal battles.

And anyway, it's accurate to what Tolkien wrote - the books have many beheadings too. Aragorn 'cleaves' the head of the Orc-chieftain in Moria, Ugluk beheads two Orcs in Rohan, Gimli beheads two Orcs at Helm's Deep, and the Mordor Orcs behead fallen Gondorian soldiers to launch their heads into Minas Tirith.

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I get the same memories from both the books and the movies.

the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over).

So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15.

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

[Sauron the White]

Folwren asks an interesting question

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have

Based on several of his LETTERS, I think it would be safe to say that there is one very definite aspect of the Jackson films that he would have absolutely loved and would have put a big smile upon his face for some time.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

Yes, he depicted in graphic detail the violence. Shame the moral vision, the philosophy, & the beauty of the books went by the wayside.

I get the same memories from both the books and the movies.

Well, its also possible to read the books as action adventure novels.

So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

The point I was making was that the LotR movies were aimed at a younger audience & so the violence had to be toned down.

No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15.

I concede. I didn't check. That clearly means you're right about everything you've said. I feel totally humilated by your devastating point there. I'll just nip off & shoot meself....

No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

That's a silly point. We're talking about the 'death' of an actor in a movie that had become a complete joke by that point.

So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

Its an expression of relief, of pride in his friend. Its not reducing death to slapstick in order to get a laugh.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Annatar

The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

When I was 17 I would have agreed with you. Thirty years on I find the focus on gore & violence for the sake of it to be juvenile, dull & frankly silly.

You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I'm sorry if the fact that I find the movies dull, overwrought &, frankly, a wasted opportunity bothers you so much. I just don't think much of them. I wanted to like them. I've watched the theatrical & extended versions but in the end I don't care for them. Its personal taste. What do you want - are only positive comments to be allowed? Is it heretical to express a personal opinion about the movies unless your opinion happens to be that they are the greatest movies ever made? I don't like the movies & I've stated why.

This whole 'worshipping at the alter of Tolkien' accusation is frankly silly (not to mention meaningless if you think about it). Tolkien's story came first & is the standard by which I judge the quality of the movies. It is true that some changes are inevitable when translating a book to another medium, but the fact that changes are necessary does not make every single change good - some changes are made for the wrong reason, are mistaken, & some are frankly silly, or worse, pointless.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

Not Victorian; Mediaeval.

Although it is true that even the Victorians and Edwardians still recognized certain ancient virtues as virtues, unlike the ages of Modernism and Postmodernism: in Shippey's eloquent phrasing, "Tolkien was quite clearly... recommending virtues to which most moderns no longer dare aspire: stoicism, nonchalance, piety, fidelity."

PJ caved in to his audience's meaner aspirations and lowered horizons, and his films are the poorer for it.

*****

Incidentally, Peter Weir and his producers didn't shy away from spending millions to recapture the Nelsonian Era complete with its stylings and sensibilities.