New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[Mithalwen]

It is odd because on the whole it is probably the aspect of the film he minds least. Alan Lee was requested to do the illustrations for the Children of Hurin which was a matter in which CRT presumably had a lot of clout. Noone can know exactly how Tolkien saw his world and he himself was the first to admit that he had not the skill to realise his vision in paint (though the more I read, the more I realise how skilled he was at doing it with words) but it seems that Alan Lee is, at least, the "least worst option" as far as CRT is concerned.

I am no great fan of the films and have never managed to sit through the second two in their entirety since seeing them in the cinema but I did enjoy the prop and costume exhibitions and got the feeling that those who designed and created them really cared about the source material. Where they fell down for me was that characterisation was always sacrificed to endless action scenes and cheap gags. But then I am not the desired demographic.

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

For me one ot the strengths of the Radio version - and indeed the wonderful Bernard Cribbins Jackanory reading that was my introduction to Middle Earth, was that it left more scope for the listener to engage with the work firing one's own imagination rather than dictating. Of course they are a lot more faithful to the original.

[Lalwendë]

I think the opinion on Lee and Howe is that of the journalist, who is a dreadful writer. The article is all background pre-amble and the journo's feelings about the topic, with very scanty input from CT. I would guess he spoke for longer than two minutes so where is the rest of it?

Anyway, here we are, I've found the page where Alan Lee expresses beautifully his feelings about illustrating Middle-earth:

In 1988, Alan was approached by J. R. R. Tolkien's publisher to create fifty new paintings for a lavish new edition of The Lord of the Rings, celebrating the first centenary of Tolkien's birth. This work took the artist two years to create and was published in 1991 — a stunning achievement which beautifully captures the unique magic of Tolkien's world. (More recently, he completed illustrations for The Hobbit, published earlier this year.)

Speaking about this massive undertaking, Alan says: "I first read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit when I was eighteen. It felt as though the author had taken every element I'd ever want in a story and woven them into one huge, seamless narrative; but more important, for me, Tolkien had created a place, a vast, beautiful, awesome landscape, which remained a resource long after the protagonists had finished their battles and gone their separate ways. In illustrating The Lord of the Rings I allowed the landscapes to predominate. In some of the scenes the characters are so small they are barely discernible. This suited my own inclinations and my wish to avoid, as much as possible, interfering with the pictures being built up in the reader's mind, which tends to be more closely focussed on characters and their inter-relationships. I felt my task lay in shadowing the heroes on their epic quest, often at a distance, closing in on them at times of heightened emotion but avoiding trying to re-create the dramatic highpoints of the text.

With The Hobbit, however, it didn't seem appropriate to keep such a distance, particularly from the hero himself. I don't think I've ever seen a drawing of a Hobbit which quite convinced me, and I don't know whether I've gotten any closer myself with my depictions of Bilbo. I'm fairly happy with the picture of him standing outside Bag End, before Gandalf arrives and turns his world upside-down, but I've come to the conclusion that one of the reasons Hobbits are so quiet and elusive is to avoid the prying eyes of illustrators."

{dn: my paras there, to make it easier to read}

Linky to the Endicott Studio which he is part of, a loose group also included Neil Gaiman, Brian Froud and Charles Vess. One of the rare websites which can be called a thing of beauty.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

The question of other visions than PJ's moves me to wonder what CT thought of the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi animated movies.

Personally, even though they are hardly high works of art, nor are they slavishly faithful to the books (to say the least ), I've got a soft spot in my heart for them, and do not harbor the same dislike I have for the live action treatments. I don't know if it's due to the fact that I saw them as a child and never took them seriously to begin with, or if it's more the lingering frustration that PJ got just enough right that his errors were simply that much more magnified and hard to forgive.

Did CT ever give an opinion of the earlier attempts?

[Mithalwen]

It always amuses me that they seem to favour the leather and bare leges Conan the Barbarian type look. Goodness knows what was going on in their psyches but it does seem rather impractical for nothern climes in winter. I know neither Boromir or Aragorn had mothers around for long to tell them they'd catch their death but really.. I suppose I should be grateful at least that Jackson's vision included trousers.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by CT

"My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form. On the other hand, I recognise that this is a debatable and complex question of art"

It is, I think also debatable, whether he or the prof himself would have thought about this differently had they not being tied into their view of the "visual dramatic form" as a theatre piece or a movie that can only last for a certain amount of time, like three to four hours maximum?

What would have Tolkien thought about an HBO/GoT kind of a settlement with something like six seasons fex. (one season to every book) aka. 60 hours of top class drama? Would that kind of possibility, if presented to them, have changed their minds from the LotR being "in principle" unsuited to transform into a visual dramatic form?

[Mithalwen]

If more time meant more fildelity and development I imagine it would be preferable but I don't know whether it would solve the issues say related to depicting the various races of Middle Earth. Not being familiar with GoT I can't say whether they have similar issues to solve.

Elves are the killer really.... meant to be so beautiful, so elegant, graceful, old yet young. Cate Blanchett pulled it off but she has the advantage of being arguably the best actress of her generation as well as having the right physicality. Not many can do it and even though there aren't so many elves in LOTR as would be needed say for any filming of the Silmarillion. But they just get tall skinny slghtly odd looking humans.... doesn't quite work. Not for me anyhow.