New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

[davem]

Couple of interesting things: first, this the first comment I've read from CT about the films. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the family had refused to make any comment at all about them. Second, its also fairly clear from his comment that he has seen the films - or at least the first one.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - if Jackson had gone for a straight action movie aimed at 15 - 25 year olds I think a great deal of the background material (most of the extra material in the extended editions) would have gone by the wayside (I think of Theodred's funeral & the heart-breaking scene between Elrond & Arwen in TT among other things). What Jackson certainly did was create a movie that would prove attractive to 15 -25 year olds as well as older people. There is too much stuff in the movies which wouldn't be there if Jackson had merely done what CT accuses him of.

That said, there are some frankly dumb things in the movies that he ought to be slapped for.

My own dissatisfaction at the movies is simply that they don't 'feel' like Lord of the Rings - something is missing - its in the BBC radio series, which CT played a part in bringing into being, sending tapes of correct pronunciations to the adaptors & corresponding with them - not to mention allowing them to incorporate material from Unfinished Tales into the series. I don't know why the radio version captures the mood & spirit of the book & the movies don't. That said, & if CT thinks PJ has 'trivialised' his father's work, let's imagine what Michael Bey or James Cameron might have gifted us with ...

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT - and certainly not his father given his comments in OFS. Still, Tolkien sold the film rights & made PJ's movie possible. It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

Perhaps he does harbor some resentment toward J.R.R.T for the movie rights' sale, internally. If so, that's his business.
One reason I see for CT's frustrations with the movies might be connected with the fact that before the world of LOTR belonged to this world, it was something the two of them could share. The author was sending the story to CT as it evolved, and perhaps CT bears some possessiveness toward the works that the rest of us cannot fathom. He might see Saentz and Co. not merely as withholders of money owed at least on a moral plane, if not a legal one, but more pointedly as having taken something dear that CT saw as a piece of his father's memory.
I have no idea if that is actually the case, but it seems plausible to me.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by davem

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT - and certainly not his father given his comments in OFS. Still, Tolkien sold the film rights & made PJ's movie possible. It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

Well, it's not like Tolkien was rolling in the money selling the film rights, and at those days commercial merchandise was nowhere near what it would become after Lucas' Star Wars films.

Just my observations here, but it seems at first Christopher Tolkien did not care a great deal about the films. Maybe he did not like them/approve of their making, but for the most part it seemed as if Chistopher's opinion was "Hollywood will do what they want and I don't want any part of it." I can't really fault him for that, because with as much money that was dumped into the films, big showtime Hollywood was going to get the movie they wanted. You can't exactly tell a corporation dumping 100s of millions of dollars into films "Haldir doesn't die, and the only elf at Helm's Deep was Legolas." With the end product, I don't blame Christopher for refusing Jackson's invitation to advise on the films.

The real anger though, I believe, was New Line attempting to cheat the Estate out of their royalties. There really is no excuse for such blatant crookery and it's doubly disgusting that the Estate had to spend years in litigation to get what was their just due from the contract. Even if New Line's part was not Jackson's fault, I think with the product of the films, combined with New Line being crooks, I can see why Christopher Tolkien is far more peeved at the movie-industry then you or me.

[Lalwendë]

CT's attitude reminds me somewhat of what happens when an old home is sold. Whether you feel happy or sad about leaving the place behind, anything the new owners do will upset you, and do something they will. Even if the films had been more faithful it may have been like driving past and seeing new windows in and the trees chopped down. In one respect he should be happy as it was as likely as not they would have razed it to the ground and rebuilt it (John Lennon or John Boorman had some insane ideas for example). Unfortunately, there's not a thing you can do about it.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

I wonder has he ever realised that the books are packed with action? But seriously, this does remind me of the regular griping you see in Guardian film blogs which bemoan the superhero film as being "for young males, a load of tripe". They are, however, great fun and make a lot of money, unlike Lars von Trier films which a certain portion of the mature audience enjoy - only a small one though, as older people have kids and can't go out, which is perhaps why nobody is ever going to make a film of The Archers. Even for me, who would have loved a gentle, lengthy BBC TV serial of Lord of the Rings, there's the realisation that if you need to spend a fortune in special effects and whatnot then you are going to have to do a few things to please the paying public. Though they could have kept in Tom Bombadil, purely to annoy the hoodies

According to the article, which may or may not be true (and I would not vouch for it without referring to a respected biography), Tolkien sold for £100k in the late sixties which was an absolute fortune back then, considering you could buy a nice big house for around £2k.

This though, is nonsense:

This amount was meant to allow the writer's children to pay their future inheritance taxes. Tolkien did it early because these taxes were very high under the Labour government of England of that time.

It wouldn't have helped to pay for death duties at all as they were and are incurred on an estate.

Some things not picked up on from the article...

What about this controversial statement?

First in England, then in France, he reassembled the parts of The Silmarillion, made the whole more coherent, added padding here and there, and published the book in 1977, with some remorse. "Right away I thought that the book was good, but a little false, in the sense that I had had to invent some passages," he explains. At the time, he even had a disagreeable dream. "I was in my father's office at Oxford. He came in and started looking for something in great anxiety. Then I realized in horror that it was The Silmarillion, and I was terrified at the thought that he would discover what I had done."

And how about the journalist being insulting here:

Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising.

Knowing that Alan Lee and John Howe are two ordinary fans like the rest of us who both have incredible respect for Tolkien, I think they may be a tad insulted by this statement. Their 'vision' was actually conceived years before and they were chosen because of their work - it passed muster with Tolkien fans before the film so there is no reason why it should not pass muster afterwards. And is one of the very best things about the films.

[Mithalwen]

I thought it was income tax he needed the cash to pay - I am sure the details have been discussed here before a while back. Sure I ended up digging up the legislation.. not that I am obsessive or anything. Idea that it was on the lines on having to pay a very hight rate of tax before he received the income. 2K wouldn't have bought Tolkien's bungalow in Branksome Chine even though it wasn't very big and was spectacularly ugly. Since selling the rights wouldhave increased the value of the estate I can't see it would help with death duties. I suppose the share of profits might have been hoped to cover them if Tolkien didn't anticipate the films actually being made in his life time... though given the longevity in his family apart friom his parents he perhaps hoped for longer than he got. But what I have read on the issue before implied an immediate need rather than inheritance tax planning.

[Lalwendë]

The Hobbit panel is happening right now at Comic Con and a fan just asked Jackson if he would make a film of the Silmarillion. Jackson said there was "almost no chance" as "the Tolkien estate hold the rights and the Tolkien estate does not like the films".

Very topical.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

My questions about the number of versions of fairy tales were rhetorical. I meant merely to suggest a similarity between the many versions of fairy tales and the many versions of Middle-earth we now have.