MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Sauron the White]

Recently, I started another thread, Lawrence of Middle-earth. In it I quoted from Wikipedia on all of the changes that were made when doing the much loved film LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good". For some reason, few people cared to post.

My point is that a good film is not dependent on a faithful adaption from its source. It mattters not and is no real consequence.

I picked LAWRENCE because it is generally heralded as one of the great films of all time. Now, here is yet another. In 1939, MGM gave us THE WIZARD OF OZ. It is based on the book by L. Frank Baum. The film is both highly thought of by the experts (see AFI Top 100 Films of All Time) and the public who have loved it for decades now. However, it was not anything approaching a faithful adaption from its source material.

Here is the information from Wikipedia:

Differences from the original novel
Main article: The Wizard of Oz book to film comparison
The film expands the Kansas section, creating several characters (the farmhands, Miss Gulch, and Professor Marvel) that do not appear in the book. It also interprets the Oz experience as a dream, in which many of the characters that Dorothy meets represent the people from her home life. By contrast, in the book, her adventures in Oz are unambiguously meant to be real.

Nearly all of the Kansas characters have matching counterparts in Oz, and therefore most of the cast playing characters in Kansas play matching characters in Oz. Frank Morgan plays Professor Marvel, the Wizard, and several other people in the land of Oz. Margaret Hamilton plays both Miss Gulch and The Witch of The West (and The Witch of the East, a "cameo" part). Ray Bolger plays Hunk and The Scarecrow. Jack Haley plays Hickory and The Tin Man while Bert Lahr plays Zeke and The Lion.

Though the final film was far more faithful to Baum's original book than many earlier scripts (see below), the movie still had several notable differences. Due to time restraints a number of sub-plots from the book were cut. In the original, Dorothy and friends encounter a "Dainty China Country" where everyone is made of china, fight a gang of odd-looking "Hammer-heads," vicious half-tiger half-bear "Kalidahs" (who are referenced in the film in passing by the Scarecrow), and liberate an animal village from the rule of an evil spider king. None of these episodes appear in the movie, though the china country was invoked in the design of the Emerald City.

Likewise, some characters were merged or simplified for the purposes of the movie's plot. The film's character of Glinda is actually a composite of two book characters, the (nameless) Good Witch of the North and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South, who does not appear in the novel until the very end, and Burke's performance is a combination of the grandmotherly, less powerful Witch of the North and the young-seeming, wise, powerful, and dignified Glinda. In the novel, the Wizard likewise takes on various forms to fool and terrify Dorothy and friends – giant head, winged lady, terrible beast, and ball of fire - but in the film, he only takes the form of the giant head combined with the fire aspect. However, a moment edited out of the film, in which the Carriage Driver at the Emerald City reversed his moustache to become the Guard, implied that the Doorkeeper, the Carriage Driver, and the Guard at the Emerald City were all actually the Wizard in disguise. This implication is given credibility in the film by having all four characters played by Frank Morgan.

In the novel, the Emerald City was a trick created by the Wizard in order to inspire fear and respect - everybody in the city had to wear glasses with green glass which tricked them into believing that the Wizard had turned the city green. In the movie, the city really was green, and nobody needed to wear any glasses.

In contrast, Dorothy's family is given a much larger role in the film than in the novel.

A notable visual change made to the film was the changing of Dorothy's silver shoes to ruby slippers, to make them visually dazzling against the yellow brick road on the Technicolor screens.[3] Baum's original world was made dramatically more colorful overall; in his original story the different areas of Oz only had one color each, with the Munchkin country being entirely blue and the City of Emeralds being entirely green.

The Wicked Witch of the West was much more cowardly in the novel, afraid of the dark, never left her castle, and carried an umbrella rather than a broom, for water would cause her to melt. The witch's skin was pale from lack of blood, but not green. She was also missing an eye, covered with a patch, with the other described "as powerful as a telescope". Her presumably blond hair (based on the original illustrations) was tied in three pigtails.

Perhaps the most severe change is that of Dorothy becoming a damsel in distress figure needing to be rescued by her male friends. In the novel, Dorothy administers the rescue of her friends after she has dispatched the witch. Her behavior toward the witch in the novel is much more aggressive; in the novel, the Silver Shoes can be taken off with no harm, and the witch trips Dorothy in order to be able to do this. Outraged, Dorothy deliberately douses her with the bucket of water, though still unaware that this will cause the Witch to melt.

The famous line that Dorothy repeats in the movie that sends her back to Kansas occurs rather early in the novel. When she is getting acquainted with the Scarecrow, Dorothy explains that she would rather live in Kansas than the Land of Oz because, “There is no place like home.” The line does not recur in the novel.

The final words of the Wicked Witch of the West were also modified. In the movie, the Witch repeats, “Ohhh, look out! Look out! I'm going!” and then a final "Ohhhh....", which fades out. In the novel, her final words are “Look out – here I go!”

There were also some other changes that served to keep the movie flowing. In the novel, it took Dorothy five nights and six days before finally reaching the Emerald City. After reaching the city, it took Dorothy and her friends an additional four days to plead their cases before the Wizard and then they spent one more night before setting out to kill the Wicked Witch of the West. Thus, Dorothy was in her eleventh day in Oz before setting out to kill the Witch. Then, after the Winged Monkeys brought Dorothy to the Witch, Dorothy spent several more days as the Witch’s servant before she was actually able to kill her with the water. In the movie, it is never actually stated how long it takes Dorothy and her friends to reach the Emerald City, nor how long it takes them to get to the Witch's castle. The only reference to the amount of time Dorothy has spent in Oz is at the end, when Dorothy exclaims, "But that's just the trouble Uncle Henry, I did leave you! And I tried to get back for days and days!", to which Aunt Em responds, "There, there , lie quite now. You've just had a bad dream".

------------------------------------------------------------------

Combine this with the lesson of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. A great film does not have to be slavishly faithful to its source material to work on screen and be embraced and loved by the public. Faithfulness means little compared to all of the other things that truly determine the success of a film.

[Finduilas]

As I once saw someone put it...

There is a reason that the Lord of the Rings has been hailed by some as the greatest work of fiction of the last century. There is a reason why it is loved by millions of avid fans world wide. Clearly, Tolkien's story carries it's own weight.

Was Wizard of Oz ever the greatest work of fiction of any century? And Lawrence? I personally hadn't heard of it. And I didn't know that Wizard of Oz was a book untill just a few years ago. What does that tell you?

Okay, so this post is a bit sarcastic, but considering how little I've said lately on this part of the forums I feel I have a small right to be sarcastic.

STW, PJ's lotr made a lot of money. Tons of money. Millions of people like it. Would they have liked it less if PJ had stuck more to the books? I am reasonably sure that 50% of the people on this forum who pick on it so much, would pick on it a ton less if little things had been book worthy. Why did Minas Tirith crumble so easily? Why were the women and children still in Minas Tirith? Why did Denethor run from his death? Why did Theoden flee to Helms Deep? Why did Arwen go instead of Glorfindel? Why did Frodo send Sam away? Why did... Okay, I've ranted long enough.

Don't you see? If PJ had changed less, we would be more forgiving. At least, I would be.

[Sauron the White]

from Findulias

Was Wizard of Oz ever the greatest work of fiction of any century? And Lawrence? I personally hadn't heard of it. And I didn't know that Wizard of Oz was a book untill just a few years ago. What does that tell you?

Oz was a very loved and successful series of books that were very well known before the film was put to screen. As far as the "greatest" who knows and who can say? Not I. What does it tell me that you did not even know Oz was a book until recently? Just that, like all of us including myself, we all have a great deal to learn.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Oz was a very loved and successful series of books that were very well known before the film was put to screen. As far as the "greatest" who knows and who can say? Not I.

I've read The Wizard of Oz. I personally prefered the book to the movie, but then, there are very few book/movie combinations that I couldn't say that about. Reason I don't complain is, why should I? No one is telling me that who ever made the movie had a right to do what ever he pleased. No one is trying to tell me it couldn't have been better. And, Wizard of Oz isn't among my top ten favorite books. Why? It wasn't that great.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good". For some reason, few people cared to post.

.

Ok - who has said, on this forum or anywhere else, that the LotR movies are not very good because they were not faithful to the books? I thought they were ok. There were bits that I found quite impressive - especially on a first viewing. Unfortunately there were also bits that I found annoying, unnecessary & pointless. Now I can't summon up the energy to even care about them. If other people feel differently I don't have any problem with that.

Yes, books & films are different things. Yes, even the most faithful adaptation will inevitably change some things. No-one has ever said any different.

Perhaps the reason so few people cared to post is that the discussion has been had so often on here that no-one has anything to say that they haven't already said three dozen times.....

[skip spence]

You started a thread recently that few people bothered to post on. Dissapointed that few people posted on that thread you then decide to start a new thread just like the previous one, with exactly the same message.

Why?

[Sauron the White]

davem... I was paraphrasing the objections to the films. However, the idea has been expressed here many times that as adaptations, the films were not very faithful - or faithful enough in some eyes - and that is the standard that renders the films not very good in the eyes of some. I will search some past threads to find that for you.

You do not have to go very far to find people evaluating things on the basis of FAITHFULNESS. Here is something written by a rather intelligent and informed member of this board who is praising a different adaption and pointing it out its faithfulness. Apparently, being faithful to the text was something important to this poster and influenced thier high opinion.

And that's the point I'd emphasise - it is possible to produce a brilliant, beautiful, powerful & faithful adaptation of LotR. Its just that PJ didn't manage to do it, whereas Sibley, Bakewell & the BBC did.

This was from the thread - Greatest Sin of Peter Jacksons . In fact, this poster felt that the word FAITHFUL was so important, more so than the other qualities that they cited that they took the trouble to highlight in bold red coloring. Obviously, faithfulness, was rather important to them and how they evaluated adaptions of JRRT into other mediums.

There was an entire thread devoting to complaining how the movies should have been more faithful to the books where posters voiced their opinion on this very subject.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14331

Why Cant Movies be like books? I believe that was the thread title. The presumption being that the simple act of being more like the book somehow, someway would have made the films better just for that one reason. I do not make up this stuff.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

What does it tell me that you did not even know Oz was a book until recently? Just that, like all of us including myself, we all have a great deal to learn.

I just hope LOTR won't end up like that

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I guess I better post in here. . .simply out of fear of which movie STW will chose as an example next time if we do not reply.

Anyways I doubt many people would disagree with you when you say that it is possible to make a good movie that is based on, but not faithfull to a book.

I like LotR movies as they are great intertainment and at times it does take me to that magical universe that Tolkien created, but as a LotR fan I am not pleased with all the changes.

Lets say for an example that I thought that Troy was a fab movie that I absolutely loved and at the same time I was a fan of the Iliad, then I would not put Troy on to watch the Iliad as it is simply not faithfull enough.

What I am trying to say is that there is two sides too this. . .a movie can be a good movie without being a good adaption of the books and as Tolkien fans what most of us wanted when we went to see LotR was a good adaption. I

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I just hope LOTR won't end up like that

Not with my kids.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Recently, I started another thread, Lawrence of Middle-earth. In it I quoted from Wikipedia on all of the changes that were made when doing the much loved film LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good". For some reason, few people cared to post.

My point is that a good film is not dependent on a faithful adaption from its source. It mattters not and is no real consequence.

I picked LAWRENCE because it is generally heralded as one of the great films of all time. Now, here is yet another. In 1939, MGM gave us THE WIZARD OF OZ. It is based on the book by L. Frank Baum. The film is both highly thought of by the experts (see AFI Top 100 Films of All Time) and the public who have loved it for decades now. However, it was not anything approaching a faithful adaption from its source material.

. . .

Combine this with the lesson of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. A great film does not have to be slavishly faithful to its source material to work on screen and be embraced and loved by the public. Faithfulness means little compared to all of the other things that truly determine the success of a film.

I for one don't recall seeing the Lawrence of Middle earth thread, so it must have been posted on one of the many days that I was too busy in RL to check out the Downs and I'm such a slouch that I don't actively search all the new stuff when I return. Aren't you all lucky that I didn't take up that gauntlet.

But in honour of this new testament to your stalwart efforts to defend the films (and I mean that as a positive acknowledgement of your persistence), StW, let me take some time off on this holiday and holy day to provide some thoughts about your dismissal of faithfulness as the significant attribute about movie adaptations of books.

I do so by offerring another example of an adaptation, an example which I hope Rune will forgive: The English Patient. I do so because Ondaatje does what Tolkien does (despite the obvious differences between writers); both give us exquisite visual images and complex themes within chronological leaps.

Many, many people thought Michael Ondaatje's novel of the same name could never be filmed. Yet Anthony Minghella accomplished the near-impossible. He did so with many changes, omissions, distortions, but he did so in order to create a cinematic experience that was faithful to the readerly experience.

And rather than follow my own rambling ideas how this is possible, I'm going to quote from a variety of sources which explore, each in its own way, this tantalizing oxymoron of faithful difference.

First, here's a snippet of what the Director said about his purpose:

Originally Posted by Minghella

In a 1996 interview with The Associated Press, Minghella said the film was the pinnacle of his career at the time: “I feel more naked and more exposed by this piece of work than anything I've ever been involved with.”

He said too many modern films let the audience be passive, as if they were saying, “We're going to rock you and thrill you. We'll do everything for you.”

“This film goes absolutely against that grain,” he said. “It says, ‘I'm sorry, but you're going to have to make some connections. There are some puzzles here. The story will constantly rethread itself and it will be elliptical, but there are enormous rewards in that.”'

Interesting there that Minghella rejects the blockbuster action flick mode in favour of demanding more complex cinematic experience.

Then this bit from Spliced: The Patience of making "The English Patient"

Ondaatje's book has almost a religious following and adapting it to film was an exacting process, Minghella said. Staying true to the book was important, yet the medium of film demands such a vastly different approach.

"It's a book that is so complicated, so fragmented, so persistently narrative and so beautiful that I think a lot of people thought I was bombing to even try to do it. But I just had such a dream of what the film could be like."

His dream has been met with a very positive response from critics and from the author, who was so taken with the film that he accompanied Minghella, Zaentz and some of the actors to the press junket in San Francisco.

Staying true to the book was something always in Minghella's mind, if not to the outright details, to the core experience of the novel.

Ondaatje has some very interesting things to say about the adaptation in this Salon interview: Ondaatje on image and plot.

And, finally, let me quote from an Obituary notice on Minghella. This is from The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, March 19, 2008. I'm not sure this is in any online version.

Originally Posted by Ben Child, "His Oscar for The English Patient brought unaccustomed acclaim"

The project began to take shape even as Mr. Minghella picked up the book for the first time. He read it in one sitting. 'When I put the book down,' he later wrote, 'it was dark, and I had no idea where I was.'

It was the beginning [of] a long and twisting journey. 'I began working on this film because I'd loved a novel I'd read,' he said. [b]'My ambitions didn't go much beyond that. I just wanted to live inside a world I'd inhabited as a reader[/b.]' [my bolding]

. . .

The script, however, was a conscious departure from the novel. Given the book's non-linear plot, Mr. Minghella realized he could never write a traditional three-act film. Instead, he took the novel's basic conceit of four strangers converging on a Tuscan villa in the waning days of the Second World War, and emphasized the story's two main love stories. In the process, Mr. Ondaatje's story was given greater structure and a firmer chronology. While Mr. Minghella was responsible for plucking out the cinematic heart of an impressionistic, non-linear novel, he said Mr. Ondaatje was an indispensable navigator.

. . .

The result, wrote Rock Groen in The Globe, was an almost perfect model for adapting a high-brow book to the commercial screen. 'In whisking Michael Ondaatje's stylish prose off the page and putting it in front of the camera, the picture does for its literary source what few adaptations have--not only straightening the narrative twists into a more accessible line, but actually clarifying the most significant of the novel's recurring images and complex themes.'

There I think we have operational explanations of what faithfulness means. Jackson didn't make Tolkien more meaningful and understandable, he made him more like George Lucas. That's probably faithful to Jackson's own imagination, but it ain't faithful to that core experience Minghella described, of "wanting to live inside a world I'd inhabited as a reader."

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry - I underestand your post about the ENGLISH PATIENT and the thoughts of the director. I accept that without dispute. J.K. Rowling apparently feels that the POTTER films are faithful to her books, after all she has a role in the process and continues to do film after film and seems quite happy about it. So, yes, it can be done.

It is not my contention or position that you cannot make a movie that is more or less reasonably faithful to its source material. My point is that it is irrevelvant and means nothing to the success or quality of the film as both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ show. And I would add the LOTR films to those. Further, it is irrelevant and silly to judge the quality of a film by some imiganary scale of "faithfulness" since the rest of the world cares little about it since it matters not to the final quality of the film.

I am sorry but I cannot due your post justice because I have not read or seen THE ENGLISH PATIENT. I have seen brief snippets of it on cable and - no offense to you - I did not like what I saw very much, and was not inspired to invest any time in it. The infamous SEINFELD episode where Elaine Benis, bored to distraction, screams at the theater crowd watching the film "how can you people watch this stuff" comes to mind. But to each their own.

So please do not take my refusal to join in a discussion of TEP as a sign of disrespect to you or your post. I simply have no idea about it. And it does nothing to impact the point of my post either way.

You did say this in closing

Jackson didn't make Tolkien more meaningful and understandable, he made him more like George Lucas.

I see very little in common with Jackson and George Lucas. Lucas clearly cannot direct human beings in any sort of personal interaction and emotional exchange. He has made one good film that does that - AMERICAN GRAFFITI - and the rest are comic books come to life. (THX had some moments) Jackson goes far beyond that and I think that is one reason why he was rewarded with the Oscar while Lucas has only the rewards of the bank account.

[Nerwen]

Hmmn. Two things: I should say Lucas has been a strong influence on Jackson. When I saw the theatrical release of The Fellowship of the Ring, I was strongly reminded of Star Wars –which I like, so I don't mean that as an insult.

I wouldn't call subtlety the strong point of either. I thought Jackson's films were very good overall– arguably the best fantasy films ever made– but now that you mention it, the characterizations are done in broader strokes than in the original, and I think that does contribute to a Star Wars-esque comic book feel.

But look, StW, you've made this films-and-books-are-different-mediums argument over and over... and to be brutally frank, I think you're using a bit of a "straw-man" tactic– is anyone saying that an adaptation has to be identical to the source?

What people are saying is that they would have preferred Jackson to stick closer to the original story. Some think this would have actually made the films better– others would have liked them to be more faithful anyway. Like it or not, fidelity to the original is something people tend to want in adaptations. It's not unique to this forum.

[Sauron the White]

Nerwen - of course nobody has used the term IDENTICAL. But the idea of a far more faithful adaption has been brought up many times as I hve indicated in quotes and thread links in my post above.

The problem with that is simple. How do you measure such things? Is there a objective scale of agreed upon measurement which pronounces the purity of such changes from one medium to another? Of course not. In the end, this reality will always permit complaining, carping and fault finding with any adaption in the minds of some viewers.

My point is that there is no relationship at all between faithfulness and film quality. So to use faithfulness as a criteria in judgement as to if a film is good or not is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Judge the films as films. There is plenty to praise and also to find fault with just on that basis alone. Judge something by what it is - not what it is not.

Like it or not, fidelity to the original is something people tend to want in adaptations. It's not unique to this forum.

Of course that is true. But it is a demand that cannot be ever measured or clearly identified one way or the other. Its merely another excuse to keep complaining about something which can never be proven or quantified or measured. A book and a film are two different things. Accept that and then judge something on the basis of what it is - not what it is not.

In the end, faithfulness means little or nothing regarding the success, quality or public acceptance of a film. WIZARD OF OZ shows that. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA shows that. The three LOTR films show that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It is not my contention or position that you cannot make a movie that is more or less reasonably faithful to its source material. My point is that it is irrevelvant and means nothing to the success or quality of the film as both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ show. And I would add the LOTR films to those. Further, it is irrelevant and silly to judge the quality of a film by some imiganary scale of "faithfulness" since the rest of the world cares little about it since it matters not to the final quality of the film.

If it is irrelevant, then why do directors and producers (and authors when they are still alive and working with the directors) discuss faithfulness and proclaim it as something they desired to acheive, even with, as The English Patient shows, many changes are essential? Why did Jackson and his writers loudly claim they were being respectful of and faithful to Jackson? Why bother if it is irrelevant?

Further more, there is no evidence that "the rest of the world cares little about it". While many viewers might not have read the original works and might not be aware of the changes, it is entirely possible that "the cinematic heart" is what beats in the two and what makes both so appealing to readers/viewers.

Originally Posted by StW

I am sorry but I cannot due your post justice because I have not read or seen THE ENGLISH PATIENT. I have seen brief snippets of it on cable and - no offense to you - I did not like what I saw very much, and was not inspired to invest any time in it. The infamous SEINFELD episode where Elaine Benis, bored to distraction, screams at the theater crowd watching the film "how can you people watch this stuff" comes to mind. But to each their own.

I haven't seen the film either. Seeing it is irrelevant to the point that in a context where major changes were deemed essential, both director and author strove to explain how those changes were made to accommodate the differences between book and film yet at the same time they sought to be "faithful" to an essential book experience.

Side note to Rune: Your example of Troy brings up the excellent point of translation. Whether from Greek to English or book to film, what is involved is the art and skill of interpreting or translating.

Originally Posted by StW

Jackson goes far beyond that and I think that is one reason why he was rewarded with the Oscar while Lucas has only the rewards of the bank account.

I suppose you have access to the thoughts of the Academy voters?

Originally Posted by StW

The problem with that is simple. How do you measure such things? Is there a objective scale of agreed upon measurement which pronounces the purity of such changes from one medium to another? Of course not. In the end, this reality will always permit complaining, carping and fault finding with any adaption in the minds of some viewers.

It is really a red herring to say that adaptation cannot be measured and so to claim that adaptation cannot be discussed or is not relevant. Art is not measurable on any absolute scale and the reason why people create and have and enjoy art is very different from the reasons why they explore science and philosophy and management accounting. Each book and each movie is unique and every experience of adaptation will have to be accommodated to that uniqueness. Might as well ask Minghella to explain what "cinematic heart" is.

What it comes down to it the right of any viewer/reader to have opinions and feelings about a movie or a book, whether those statements are unique and personal or whether they reflect some large commonality with other viewers. That's why people discuss art, for the sake of discussion, to carry on the initial experience, to understand the initial experience, to boldly take that experience where it has not gone before.

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

why do directors and producers (and authors when they are still alive and working with the directors) discuss faithfulness and proclaim it as something they desired to acheive, even with, as The English Patient shows, many changes are essential? Why did Jackson and his writers loudly claim they were being respectful of and faithful to Jackson? Why bother if it is irrelevant?

It may have significance to the creative team behind the movies and an aid in making the movie, although I think much of it is lip service and political correctness to those close to the source material. After all, do you think anybody is going to buy a property and then announce to the world that they intend to change almost everything and they care nothing about the original source? To some extent, this type of public bowing down before the source is like saying "I'll call you" after your business is done with that evenings hot date.

But you miss the point. I have repeatedly stated that how faithful a film is to its original source material is irrelevant to the quality or success of the movie. It means nothing or little. How do we know that and how can I state that so emphatically? I have provided you with links to two of the most successful and beloved films of all time - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ. Both are on many experts all time best list and the prestigious American Film Institute ranks both in its Top Ten of All Time. If you carefully read the Wikipedia articles for both you will see that both films deviated greatly from the source material and were not slavishly faithful to it. The job of both Victor Flemming and David Lean was to make a movie that was as good as they could make it. They did that. That is not my opinion. That is the test of time since both movies have been around and beloved for decades now.

If those examples are not enough for you, just look at the success of the LOTR movies as measured by the standard industry measurement tools, a) box office revenues, b) response of professional film critics, and c) industry awards of excellence. That is how the world and the film industry keeps score of a films success. Nobody uses a scale of faithfulness to the source material.

When I mentioned Jackson winning Oscars for his directorial efforts while Lucas was neglected you wrote

I suppose you have access to the thoughts of the Academy voters?

I do not have to read anyones minds or thoughts. All I have to do is the same as you or anyone else. Simply check the results of their ballotting where they did make their thoughts clear to the world. Motivation means little next to results and the historical record. And that record is quite clear for anyone to see. You can access the official website - or hundreds of others to get Oscar results.

What it comes down to it the right of any viewer/reader to have opinions and feelings about a movie or a book, whether those statements are unique and personal or whether they reflect some large commonality with other viewers. That's why people discuss art, for the sake of discussion, to carry on the initial experience, to understand the initial experience, to boldly take that experience where it has not gone before.

I mostly agree with this statement. Anyone can have any subjective opinion they want to regardless of what it is based on or if it is logical or if it makes any sense compared to objective facts. I never said otherwise. My point is that to first invent a standard which is irrelevant to the way a film is measured, and then applying that standard to something, and pronouncing it wanting for those reasons, is meaningless to anyone other than yourself. It would be prudent to not try to foist it off on the world and claim its significant because the world has spoken loudly and clearly that they simply do not care. The standard which means so much to some, the standard which is impossible to quantify or measure, means next to nothing to the rest of the world.

How do I know that?

The historical record tells me that loudly and clearly in film after film. There is absolutely no relationship between a films success or quality and the faithfulness of the film to its original source material. If there is a relationship, I would love to see evidence of that. I have provided all here with the contrary evidence and used two of the best beloved and critically praised films of all time to illustrate my points.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It may have significance to the creative team behind the movies and an aid in making the movie, although I think much of it is lip service and political correctness to those close to the source material. After all, do you think anybody is going to buy a property and then announce to the world that they intend to change almost everything and they care nothing about the original source? To some extent, this type of public bowing down before the source is like saying "I'll call you" after your business is done with that evenings hot date.

This of course is not evidence in support of your claim but a strawman--er, straw-woman?--arguement. It speaks more to your rhetoric than to the actual topic under discussion.

Originally Posted by StW

But you miss the point.

No. I just don't accept it.

Originally Posted by StW

I have provided you with links to two of the most successful and beloved films of all time - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ . . . .

If those examples are not enough for you, just look at the success of the LOTR

Two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make. And, anyway, LoA and WoO demonstrate what Minghella called "cinematic heart".

Originally Posted by StW

Nobody uses a scale of faithfulness to the source material.

It's you who miss the point here, that objective scales are not of major importance in discussing art.

When I mentioned Jackson winning Oscars for his directorial efforts while Lucas was neglected . . .
I do not have to read anyones minds or thoughts. All I have to do is the same as you or anyone else. Simply check the results of their ballotting where they did make their thoughts clear to the world. Motivation means little next to results and the historical record. And that record is quite clear for anyone to see. You can access the official website - or hundreds of others to get Oscar results. [/quote]

But you were ascribing a motive and now you are saying motive means little. The history of the Oscars is full of anomalies where winners are now ignored and films that were overlooked or not even nominated have come to be more highly regarded. For all we know, at the time of the initial success of SW, the Academy was filled with voters whose dislike of space fantasy and adventure was not yet overruled by the money factor while by the time LotR hit the circuits, voters recognized that blockbusters provide money to finance more films. (And, anyway, the one which won is not largely or generally acknowledged as the best of the three films.) The Oscars are no more an objective standard than any business award. They are little more than a popularity contest amongst people in the business in one country. Nor are they the sole business award. There's a reason why Cannes remains important to the film industry and a reason why independents like Sundance exist.

Originally Posted by StW

My point is that to first invent a standard which is irrelevant to the way a film is measured, and then applying that standard to something, and pronouncing it wanting for those reasons, is meaningless to anyone other than yourself. Don't try to foist it off on the world and claim its significant because the world has spoken loudly and clearly that they simply do not care. The standard which means so much to some, the standard which is impossible to quantify or measure, means next to nothing to the rest of the world.

Gosh, little did I know that when we make comments here on the Barrow Downs we are foisting them on the world. Does this little corner of Middle earth really receive that many hits a day and do we really march off to other sites demanding to be heard by linking to our comments here? No, I think we're just happy to muddle around in our dark barrow watching others fulminating anathemas. It passes the time of day.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I thought Jackson's films were very good overall– arguably the best fantasy films ever made– but now that you mention it, the characterizations are done in broader strokes than in the original, and I think that does contribute to a Star Wars-esque comic book feel.

Yes, I think you've identified one similarity. I think that Lucas, however, was better able to integrate humour with the dramatic elements of the story.

EDIT: Cross posted with StW--or, well, I posted while he edited. Sauron, the discussion here seems to come to this: I don't accept your initial definition or premise of the issue and you don't accept mine.

[Sauron the White]

I don't accept your initial definition or premise of the issue and you don't accept mine.

You do not accept it because you choose not to accept it out of faith or belief or just plain refusal without grounds. My premise is supported by fact and example that is beyond challenge to the facts. Both WIZARD OF OZ and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA are considered great films by a large group of experts including Top Ten ratings by the American Film Institute. Both, were hardly faithful to their source material and changed things tremendously. Despite that, they were successful and much beloved.

Can you disprove my premise with concrete examples showing us that there is a direct relationship between a films success and quality and its faithfulness to its source material? And please explain how examples such as OZ, LAWRENCE and even LOTR are exceptions to the rule.

Two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make. And, anyway, LoA and WoO demonstrate what Minghella called "cinematic heart".

But in the absence of any facts presented by you, I think they go a long way to establishing that rule.

I have no idea what cinematic heart means to anybody but the coiner of that phrase. Its akin to discussing the "spirit" of something. It may have some meaning to the person who uses that phrase, but it is hardly something which has universal meaning, application or is widely understood. It certainly sounds wonderful and I picture a crescendo of violins as the words are uttered. It sounds wonderfully romantic and certainly makes one all pink and glowey. But it means nothing to me.

I have given the specific examples of two great films that were not at all faithful to their source material. Despite that, they are much beloved and are considered great films of high quality. If you take the contrary position, that there is a relationship between a films success and quality when compared to how faithfully it follows its source material, please present your list of films and explain why my examples are exceptions to that rule.

You and anyone else are free to reject the Oscars, Bafta's, Golden Globes or any other award bestowed upon a film. That is your right.

You and anyone else are free to reject box office revenue numbers as evidence of a films success and polularity. That is your right.

You and anyone else are free to reject the overwhelming opinion of professional film critics who highly praise a film. That is your right.

But those are the accepted standards of measurement by which the film industry measures its own product. The people who make film, who live by film, and who understand film best, use these scales of measurement. Faithfulness, whatever that gossamer term may mean to whoever wishes to use it, means little to nothing to a films success or quality.

Like what you want for whatever reasons you want to like it. That is fine.

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry
I want to give you more in response than my dismissive in the post above. You said that

"two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make."

So allow me the opportunity to give you many more. These are four films which did rather well at the box office, and some of which also were critically praised as good films. Two of them even won Best Film of the year awards.

This is taken from a list The Top Ten Historically Inaccurate Films. The commentary is brief but to the point. There has been much written on other sites about the failure of these films to be faithful to thier main source material.

GLADIATOR
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.
(Box office success and award winner.)

300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.
(Big box office success.)


APOLCALYPTO
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs.
-( quality film, good reviews, mediocre box office however)


BRAVEHEART
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.
(Good box office, good reviews, award winner)

If this is not enough, I can provide much more.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You do not accept it because you choose not to accept it out of faith or belief or just plain refusal without grounds.

No. Please stop proffering motivations to me and consider the explanations. Otherwise I might not be able to stop myself from making up Really Silly Reasons.

Originally Posted by StW

My premise is supported by fact and example that is beyond challenge to the facts.

Okay, right, I really cannot stop myself. . . Nobody expects the Spanish, ah, er, challenge. Our chief weapon is faith...faith and belief . . . and refusal ... refusal . . . Our two challenges are faith and belief and rufusal ... ruthless refusal.... Our *three* challenges are faith and belief, and ruthless refusal...and an almost fanatical devotion to Tolkien.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our challenges.... Amongst our propositions...are such elements as .... I'll come in again.

Originally Posted by StW

Can you disprove my premise with concrete examples showing us that there is a direct relationship between a films success and quality and its faithfulness to its source material? And please explain how examples such as OZ, LAWRENCE and even LOTR are exceptions to the rule.

Forgive me, it was a few posts back now, and the sun's well past the yard arm here, but I don't think you proved that their success was due to their unfaithfulness? You simply showed they didn't adhere slavishly to the books which inspired the movies.

Come to think of it, Life of Brian was not terribly faithful to its source book either. But that was part of its point, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by StW

I have no idea what cinematic heart means to anybody but the coiner of that phrase. Its akin to discussing the "spirit" of something. It may have some meaning to the person who uses that phrase, but it is hardly something which has universal meaning, application or is widely understood. It certainly sounds wonderful and I picture a crescendo of violins as the words are uttered. It sounds wonderfully romantic and certainly makes one all pink and glowey. But it means nothing to me.

Funny, the way you describe it, I would expect to hear a raspberry. Metaphors, though, tend not to have 'universal meaning', as they are intended to create new meaning.

Originally Posted by StW

So allow me the opportunity to give you many more. These are four films which did rather well at the box office, and some of which also were critically praised as good films. Two of them even won Best Film of the year awards.

This is taken from a list The Top Ten Historically Inaccurate Films.

GLADIATOR
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.
(Box office success and award winner.)

300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.
(Big box office success.)


APOLCALYPTO
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs.
-( quality film, good reviews, mediocre box office however)


BRAVEHEART
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.
(Good box office, good reviews, award winner)

If this is not enough, I can provide much more.

First you must find... another shrubbery! (dramatic chord) Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here, beside this shrubbery, . . . Ah, dear. Again, forgive me, for the same reasons above, plus it's now much lower over the yard arm . . . but I thought the discussion was about literary adaptations. Examples of films filled with historical inaccuracies are . . . something completely different.

[Sauron the White]

Originally Posted by StW
Can you disprove my premise with concrete examples showing us that there is a direct relationship between a films success and quality and its faithfulness to its source material? And please explain how examples such as OZ, LAWRENCE and even LOTR are exceptions to the rule.

response from Bethberry

Forgive me, it was a few posts back now, and the sun's well past the yard arm here, but I don't think you proved that their success was due to their unfaithfulness? You simply showed they didn't adhere slavishly to the books which inspired the movies.

Where did I say that their success was "due to their unfaithfulness"? Now you are simply making this stuff up as you go along to try to weaken my argument. I never said that. My point was the exact opposite. The success of a film has nothing to do with their faithfulness.... or unfaithfulness for that matter. Its irrelevant since it has nothing to do with either film quality of public support in terms of buying tickets.

And you make crack wise all you want but I have provided factual documentation with concrete examples to support my claim but you have provided nothing on a similar plane. You have neither disproved the use of examples I provided nor have you provided any alternate support for your own ideas. You simply say you reject my idea and want to go on about it.

In poking fun of my list of a few historically inaccurate films you say

but I thought the discussion was about literary adaptations

Again, you attempt to redefine my main point to better suit your response. I never indcated that we were only discussing literary adaptions. We are discussion primary source material that led to being adapted as a film. Go back and look at my thread on LAWRENCE and you will see that.

For your benefit, and to clear the air, I will quote directly from my own post which opens this thread.

My point is that a good film is not dependent on a faithful adaption from its source. It mattters not and is no real consequence.

Please note that I never limited my point to literary sources. The term source or source material can be anything from a persons real life, historical events to anything fictional that provided a basis to make a film.

I am happy to discuss this with you but I only ask that you abstain from attempting to redefine my main points to better suit your arguments. It does neither of us any good and fails to meet the actual issue here.

I respectfully ask you again: I gave you at least two concrete real examples of very beloved and praised films which were not at all faithful to their source material. Why do the examples of OZ and LAWRENCE not show that a films success is not dependent on its adherence to being faithful to its source material?

[Bêthberry]

Dearie me, I am confused, as I am certain that the first post here directed the complaint to various and sundry persons who placed their aesthetic standards on Tolkien's books:

Originally Posted by StW

I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good".

Originally Posted by some mindless twits

Ximinez: Now, old woman -- you are accused of heresy on three counts -- heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. Do you confess?
Wilde: I don't understand what I'm accused of.
Ximinez: Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS!
Biggles: Here they are, lord.
Ximinez: Now, old lady -- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly -- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
Wilde: I don't know what you're talking about.
Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it -- Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!
Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.
Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.”

[Nerwen]

Sauron,

I have said this before and I rather suspect I shall have to say it again: this is a grey area. You insist it's a black and white, either-or situation. It isn't.

Yes, people adapting a book to the screen have to change things. But how faithful to the original should they strive to be? A lot? A little? Not at all? This is a difficult question, and probably one on which there will never be universal agreement.

I don't know the answer myself. Neither do you. I think it's something we can discuss– which you never do, that I've noticed.

Instead you repeat, "Movies are different from books". Then you switch to an appeal to authority and remind us all that the movies were popular and won awards, which according to you is the ultimate stamp of quality.

Now, as I have said, I do like the LotR films– and I'm insulted! As it happens, I formed my own opinion. All by myself. I like some films that are popular, some that are unpopular– some that win awards and some that don't. (And just so you know, I thoroughly disliked "Gladiator".)

You attack people for using faithfulness as a criterion– but how is "majority rules" more valid? Some great films have been popular and/or have won Oscars. So have some not-so-great ones.

And really, how do you expect to sell a bunch of highbrow nerds on the general principle that the majority is automatically right?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I might suggest that history and fiction are apples and cinderblocks.

A history is not a story, it has no inherent form or structure, it is merely events that happened in the way events do. To make a story of it, whether an historical novel or a play or a film, requires considerable messing around. Nobody faults Shakespeare for rewiting history to suit his dramatic ends- but then nobody (with sense) accepts Will's plays as factual either.

[Sauron the White]

Mr. Hicklin
Are you saying that - in your opinion - if one makes a movie from actual real life events, then one need not be faithful to the persons, events, times, and other important factors that impact the narrative?

Are you also saying that - in your opinion - a work of pure fiction deserves a higher standard of faithfulness in its adaption to the screen than an actual real life happening deserves?

[Bêthberry]

A new day means a new approach . . .

First, let me reiterate my assumption that this question of faithfulness is best discussed in terms of literary adaptation. Certainly StW's complaint against the Downs' community faults their/our recourse to the Book. History is a much broader canvas and as the example of LoA demonstrates, the source material itself--Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom--can be questioned by recourse to other historical documents. History is written largely and mainly by the victors and a little research will turn up a variety of points of view. A book, however, usually has but one author and in the case of film adaptations the adaptation is dependent upon legal right to do so. Such a legal control does not exist with the larger canvas "history", although those who lived any history filmed will of course claim the right to discuss authenticity, fidelity, faithfulness--whatever word they wish to use.

For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand.

As Nerwen points out, definitions of successful movies can vary. And, indeed, change over time. WoO barely made a profit in its initial screenings; indeed, it became the well loved movie it is largely as a result of its anual screening on television. And, as I will show with some of the links following, even appeals to popularity or majority rules will show inconsistent choices.

First of all, The British newspaper The Guardian some two years ago held a vote on Greatest Film Adaptations. Here's an analysis of the results: from paper to celluloid

And here's The Big Fifty readers chose from. Note that LotR did not make the cut to this top fifty. (That exclusion can of course be discussed.)

What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits.

Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith. While the topic can often be described in terms of book purists rightly (or wrongly) bemoaning the loss of what makes the book grand, the subject is open to many more questions, not merely the essentialist one of "a film is different from a book." Indeed, there are studies which categorically reject that argument.

Here's a link to D. Cartmmell's highbrow studyAdaptations: from text to screen, from screen to edit.

Here's a link to StW's favourite source: the Wikipedia on Film Adapation

Here'a a link to Brian McFarlane's Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation.

It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers? But that's just one criterion to consider.

To say that faithfulness to book has nothing to do with popularity or success of a movie is a claim that overlooks many discussions of the issue, especially when even the definition of quality in movies can be so variously argued, as Nerwen again points out. Indeed, the grand thing about the topic of adaptation is that it can be viewed from so many different angles, no one of which is the absolutely correct one.

[Sauron the White]

The idea that adaption of source material to film is a very wide subject with a variety of angles and avenues to be explored is one that I would agree with. When I first posted the thread on LAWRENCE, and again with the OZ thread, I used the term source or source material to describe the original origin of the eventual film. With LAWRENCE we have a combination of both the real life of Col. Lawrence and the events that surround him as well as the book written about him The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I see where other writers such as Lowell Thomas wrote about Lawrence and felt that some of their work crept into the film without acknowledgement or credit or payment.

With WIZARD OF OZ, we have one clear literary source, the book by the same name written by L. Frank Baum.

But in both cases, we have films which were made and based on sources other than the inventions and creations of a screenwriter creating something out of whole cloth. Both were adaptions from source material.

I would like to answer several points raised in the latest post from Bethberry.

For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand.

I understand the point Bethberry makes in saying that my definition of "source material" is too broad and should be limited to literary adaptions alone. And if I were trying to eliminate many of the examples at my opposites disposal, I certainly would take the same tact. By ruling out anything other than pure literary fiction, it certainly limits the playing field and some of my examples go out the window.

With all due respect, I started both threads and I defined the scope of the issue at hand. I decided to discuss "source material" to include the sources from real life for a film like LAWRENCE, the biography used to help create LAWRENCE, and the pure fictional work of Baum for OZ. We could add JRRTolkien and LOTR to that list also since it has been discussed and cited by both sides. So unless someone wants to start another thread severely restricting this debate to literary fiction adapted to screen I will continue with my original purpose.

Mr. Hicklin borrows a wonderful phrase saying that I am comparing "apples and cinder blocks". A beautiful turn of words I must agree. However, I think it over broad since both are true examples of "source material" in that they are not the creations of screen writers working with a blank page and only their imagination.

What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits.

I have repeatedly used box office revenues, awards and critical reviews to show the success of LOTR. And you could do the same with many other films including LAWRENCE. But as you pointed out so well, OZ does not fit into that straight-jacket. You rightfully recounted that upon its release in 1939, the film only did so-so business and barely made a respectable profit. It took several releases over the next two decades for the film to be branded as a financial success. And you also wisely pointed out that repeated showings once a year on TV was really put the film into the beloved category in the hearts and minds of so many people.
So in the case of OZ, it was not money, or reviews or awards which made the film loved and successful.

With this in mind, and remembering that OZ was one of the two main films I am using here to support my main point, I would say that it is not altogether fair to say that I use this standard of money,awards and reviews to define a films success.

Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith.

I agree 100%. I am sure that Civil War experts took great issue with the portrayal of Griffith's version of things in BIRTH OF A NATION. I would guess that the OZ book fans found much fault with almost every version of their beloved book including the much praised 1939 version. As great as TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is on screen, I have no doubt that many serious fans of the print version cringed when some of their favorite scenes or lines were cut from the film, characters combined, motivations changed or characters were simply too young,old, tall, fat or just plain wrong.

I never meant to imply that Downs members are alone or distinct in this regard. But I would go one step further. There are many people here who know ten times what I know about the books of JRRT. I marvel at the breadth of knowledge and scholarship that resides here. While I have read the books many times, I have just scratched the surface compared to many others here. And, all that knowledge, all that devotion, all that love of the source material - in this case the print work of JRRT - has proven to be a handicap which prevents some from truly enjoying the films. All the weight of that knowledge has simply denied some the ability to suspend disbelief and go with the flow of the movie. Inside, they wage a fight as an inner voice screams "thats not right".... "it did NOT happen that way" .... "that character did not say that" ..... and so on. The person who views the films without having read the book has no such weight to bear. The person who has read the book once or twice probably has no such weight to bear.

I would say that the JRRT expert on the Downs is in the same boat with the Civil War expert finding fault with Griffiths, or the Baum expert finding fault with MGM's film, or any other such example.

It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers?

First of all, I am still not clear on how anyone can actually define or standardize something as vague as fidelity or faithfulness..... but lets go with the statement as written. I think this is a most interesting observation. Do they want to capture the book readership market or do they want a virgin audience? Or a question not asked - do they want both?

Given the high cost of making a majaor motion picture, most studios would have to go beyond the mere book audience especially for big budget spectaculars such as LOTR or OZ. They need both to make a profit -- and lets face it, that is the prime reason a film gets made.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

And, all that knowledge, all that devotion, all that love of the source material - in this case the print work of JRRT - has proven to be a handicap which prevents some from truly enjoying the films. All the weight of that knowledge has simply denied some the ability to suspend disbelief and go with the flow of the movie. Inside, they wage a fight as an inner voice screams "thats not right".... "it did NOT happen that way" .... "that character did not say that" ..... and so on. The person who views the films without having read the book has no such weight to bear. The person who has read the book once or twice probably has no such weight to bear.

Perfectly true - & an important point. Personally I often wish I could go back to the pre-Sil days. LotR & TH are the books which touched our hearts & I doubt very much whether The Sil in its '77 form, let alone any other Middle-earth writings would have seen the light of day if Hobbits had not come forth. Some days I wish CT had left his father's unpublished stuff well alone. Some days....

I think we've lost as much as we've gained. Middle-earth is in some ways a much bigger place since Tolkien passed, but in other ways it's much smaller, because the 'unexplored vistas' have now become defined limits. We can now argue over the most intricate aspects of Middle-earth because we know so much. And I sometimes think we've crossed the line which divides 'so much' from 'too much'. Some of the magic has departed - in the main because CT's work has deluged us with the manuscripts.

And yet... I suspect that much in the movies would have annoyed me just as much if I had only known LotR & TH. But perhaps I'd have tolerated them more - even liked them maybe - simply because without all the 'secondary works' Tolkien's creation would have been a much smaller part of my life & I'd perhaps have more perspective. I often ask myself whether, if I lost all my Tolkien books I'd bother replacing any other than TH & LotR - & the answer is I honestly don't know.

But, 'There's no real going back', so none of that is really relevant I suppose.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

There are many people here who know ten times what I know about the books of JRRT. I marvel at the breadth of knowledge and scholarship that resides here. While I have read the books many times, I have just scratched the surface compared to many others here. And, all that knowledge, all that devotion, all that love of the source material - in this case the print work of JRRT - has proven to be a handicap which prevents some from truly enjoying the films. All the weight of that knowledge has simply denied some the ability to suspend disbelief and go with the flow of the movie. Inside, they wage a fight as an inner voice screams "thats not right".... "it did NOT happen that way" .... "that character did not say that" ..... and so on. The person who views the films without having read the book has no such weight to bear. The person who has read the book once or twice probably has no such weight to bear.

I would say that the JRRT expert on the Downs is in the same boat with the Civil War expert finding fault with Griffiths, or the Baum expert finding fault with MGM's film, or any other such example.

Originally Posted by davem

Perfectly true - & an important point. Personally I often wish I could go back to the pre-Sil days. LotR & TH are the books which touched our hearts & I doubt very much whether The Sil in its '77 form, let alone any other Middle-earth writings would have seen the light of day if Hobbits had not come forth. Some days I wish CT had left his father's unpublished stuff well alone. Some days....

Well now, I'm going to respectfully disagree with the both of you. Because I think that the power of a work of art will work its wonder on the viewer regardless of what he or she brings or does not bring to the dark screening room. If--and that's a mighty big if--it is a well wrought work of art.


You see, I wasn't offended at Arwen at the Bruinen or the omission of Tom or the shift in timing of Boromir's death. I was not offended by anything because it changed the books. I was instead bored by things which failed to develop the movie trilogy as a consistently conceived, imagined and portrayed work of art. They weren't faithful to the tragic/mythic splendor of vision which they first promised/proclaimed (and which is coincidentally Tolkien's vision). So they offended me not because they violated the books per se but because they muddled the vision of the movies.

Some viewers, no doubt many, were happy simply with a rip-roaring fantasy adventure flick. Good for them. I'm glad they enjoyed watching two wizards break dancing. I'm glad they enjoyed seeing Galadriel effaced by special effects which turned her moment of supreme temptation and victory into a wow event. I'm glad they laughed at Gimli. But the tragic representation of a dwarven culture lost in Moria, well, for me, that figure cannot easily be made the butt of jokes.

Yes, I think Jackson failed to do justice to Tolkien's vision, something far larger and grander than can be encompassed by the omission of a few characters or the inclusion of some invented ones. It was an aesthetic failure because he couldn't or didn't want to hold that vision consistently throughout the movies. So, you see, it isn't simply a case of being unfaithful to the source but of being unable to create a consistent work of art. I suppose I would say that there are more than one cinematic hearts beating in Jackson's movies, and they ain't beating rhythmically or in sync. from my perspective of course.

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry --- your point about both Dwarven humor and the Wizards duel is taken and agreed with. I certainly would not have done it that way myself. However, despite reading many different people criticize the Galadriel sequence over the years, I have read it and reread it and it seems that it is one of the most word for word copied from the book scenes in the film. Even the special effects transformation is there in the book. Could you explain what you see wrong with what Jackson put on the screen with that scene.

Davem - I enjoyed your post looking back, It certainly is cause to think.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bethberry --- your point about both Dwarven humor and the Wizards duel is taken and agreed with. I certainly would not have done it that way myself. However, despite reading many different people criticize the Galadriel sequence over the years, I have read it and reread it and it seems that it is one of the most word for word copied from the book scenes in the film. Even the special effects transformation is there in the book. Could you explain what you see wrong with what Jackson put on the screen with that scene.

Davem - I enjoyed your post looking back, It certainly is cause to think.

Well, it's been some time since I saw the scene (is today a holiday too, and do I have time to go back and watch it?) but as I recall we are shown something as actual which is yet but a possibility.

When Frodo is injured with the morgul knife at Weathertop, he is actually experiencing the wraith world and the special effects priviledge the viewers to show them his experience--and it is clear that this is his experience which the other hobbits cannot see/share.

But Galadriel doesn't actually put on the ring, she only imagines what will/would happen. But the special effects make it appear to have really happened. It isn't just Galadriel's prediction, or Frodo's special sight as a Ring-bearer, it becomes a done deed. It is a difficulty with expressing interiority in film.

And if you go back to read the book--which you are saying is a no-no to experience the movie--it's clear that the only two people in the book who experienced any special sight--the Eye--are Frodo and Galadriel. Sam clearly says he didn't see Galadriel's ring--he saw starlight shining on her finger, so he would not have seen Galadriel perilous and wonderful and terrible. In the book, too, what Frodo sees is the light of the Ring of Adamant, not this terrible vision. Yet that is what the audience sees. It just doesn't work for me as her prediction.

I should say, too, that it made me think of Gandalf's temptation scene. We were given Gandalf's words and Ian's acting there, but Galadriel's temptation relied on special effects rather than acting, rather than seeing the character work out the consequences of her character with the Ring's power. To my mind this drew attention to the presence of the special effects rather than to the actual experience being played out.

So for me it fails both as a movie scene/character depiction and as a "faithful" adaptation of the book. It is possible to take things word for word and still get 'em wrong.

[Sauron the White]

Would it surprise you if I said I could not disagree more? Probably not.
I only referenced the book since that seems to be the starting point at which most Downers who criticize the films begin. I assumed that if Jackson did the scene as written, that would eliminate any criticism. When I read that page, its pretty much exact as written. I understand your explaination as to why it does not work for you. But sitting in a theater without the text there is no problem at all with what is depicted. You say its all special effects and not acting. I did not see it that way. I looked at it as a proper blend of both that produced a very memorable scene.

And on a purely personal selfish note, I collect all the figures from the film and have to tell you that despite her amazing history, Galadriel is one very dull figure. However, Galadriel Entranced (which is what they call it) is one extremely dramatic and beautiful figure. But that has nothing to do with the film but just my own personal bias.

It is possible to take things word for word and still get 'em wrong.

I wonder how Jackson and company would respond to that? I know if it was me, what my response would be. "Damned if I do and damned if I don't. I do it the way Tolkien wrote it and they savage me. I do it my way and they still savage me. Screw 'em".

But thats just me.

[skip spence]

Is this developing into a resonable debate of how well PJ adapted certain scenes from the book? I certainly hope so.

I have to agree with StW that the Galadriel scene was a faithful (and for me, poignant) adaptation of the very same scene in the book. Had she just told the movie-viewers what might have happened if she took the ring the scene would have lost a lot of its dramatic effect. And Gandalf's temptation scene, as I remember it, was also very faithful to the book IMO.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

But sitting in a theater without the text there is no problem at all with what is depicted. You say its all special effects and not acting. I did not see it that way. I looked at it as a proper blend of both that produced a very memorable scene.

I wonder how Jackson and company would respond to that? I know if it was me, what my response would be. "Damned if I do and damned if I don't. I do it the way Tolkien wrote it and they savage me. I do it my way and they still savage me. Screw 'em".

But thats just me.

One of my points is that they didn't do it the way Tolkien wrote it because they completely missed out on why the scene ends with that little conversation with Sam. If you wish to continue to say that they followed the scene exactly, feel free to reiterate your opinion, as I have reiterated mine here.

The other main point, which apparently I do need to repeat, is that my dissatisfaction with the scene was with the scene as scene and not as book adaptation. It happened as I sat in the darkened cinema experiencing the film the first time. I didn't bring the books with me into the cinema and I wasn't sitting there, finger following line after line, with a pen flashlight, desperately, madly, fiendishly trying to find fault with this upstart New Zealander. I was really, really hoping to be entertained and for the most part for the first film I was. But after that scene, I might have thought what a shame that Peter Jackson didn't paste "WHAM BAM POW" across the screen in case anyone missed the point about how scary and powerful this Ring thing is. Holy fletcaves, Fletgirl!

As I said earlier, there are many who are happy with such scenes, and let them be happy, including both StW and skip. But your pleasure with the scene does not mitigate against my displeasure. You obviously got more of your money's worth than me, well done!

[Sauron the White]

Obviously every ticket purchaser decides for themselves if the film worked for them, and then to a lesser degree, if each and every scene, character, and line worked for them. I have been going to films for 50 years and have seen thousands of them one way or another and I have never yet seen a complete film where something could not have been done a bit differently to my tastes. But them I taught high school for 33 years and nobody paid me a penny for my opinion about how to make a better film.

I do think that even though you did not bring the text to the theater and review it with a mini-flashlight line by line as you describe, in a broader way you did. This is something we discussed yesterday, the weight of superior knowledge about LOTR and JRRT and his writings. It is a bit of a handicap compared to someone who goes in cold without that wonderful kwoledge. But that is neither here not there as far as if the scene worked for you.

In the end, a film is judged by me for its totality. Sure, I can fault all the Gimli jokes, the green scrubbing bubbles of the Dead or any other individual scene. Overall, I was more than happy with the totality of it all. I remember in the 70's driving in crowded cars to fantasy conventions and discussing how we wanted the films done. I never expected to get the high quality which I saw on that screen. For me it worked very well.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I remember in the 70's driving in crowded cars to fantasy conventions and discussing how we wanted the films done. I never expected to get the high quality which I saw on that screen. For me it worked very well.

How wonderful for you to have walked into the films prepped and made ready by discussions with fellow fans rather than merely by reading the works of Tolkien. Perhaps, if The Hobbit is ever filmed, you can rehearse some of those early discussions here so the rest of us can view the movies in the accepted frame of mind without being cluttered by thoughts of what Tolkien wrote.

[davem]

Interesting interview with Adam Tolkien here http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/..._Interview.php

His comments on the movies are worth considering:

Q: But, if the novel was almost ready, why did it take thirty-five years after the death of J.R.R. Tolkien to publish it?

Adam Tolkien: Because my father initially worked on The Silmarillion, then on 12 volumes of The History of Middle-earth, according to the will of his father, who had named him as literary executor. Only in 1996 he started to work on The Children of Hurin. But he was not persuaded if he could turn it into a novel. Maybe, because he had become rather tired! Then the three films from Peter Jackson were released, which did not concern us directly.

Q: How that?

Adam Tolkien: My grandfather sold the rights in 1967 and we did not have any right to interfere. The simplest was thus not to worry about it. When the movies were released my father even stopped to work on any Tolkien related material for a long time.

Q: What did you think of films?

Adam Tolkien: My point of view is completely personal: I am not a big fan of these Hollywood adaptations. I very much like Peter Jackson’s early movies, but, considering the immense size of his Lord of the Rings project, I think that he lost the breath and the poetry of Tolkien. The decorations are very beautiful, because they are real, but the special effects were not there yet. You could really see them…
Me, I would have liked to see another thing, an environment like that of The Seventh Seal, of Bergman. It would have been interesting to make a series, which would have made it possible to develop a movie adaptation, without losing the breath.

So, we learn that Adam actually liked PJ's early stuff, but that his LotR adaptations lost some of the essence of the books. I have to agree with him.

What's really interesting to me is his statement that CT stopped working on any Tolkien related material because of the films. It seems that if it hadn't been for the movies we'd have had CoH earlier, & perhaps other stuff as well.

If nothing else I think this puts paid to the idea that Adam is opposed in principle to movies - he just wishes they had been done differently - he even says he would have liked a series of films. For movie fans this may offer some hope - Adam doesn't seem to share his father's view that LotR is unsuitable for visual representation.

[skip spence]

Me, I would have liked to see another thing, an environment like that of The Seventh Seal, of Bergman.

Too bad Bergman passed away, or he'd be a prime candidate to direct the Hobbit. When hell freezes over!

To be honest, I'd love to see a more arty LotR adaptation, with a stronger focus on the darker and more grown-up undercurrents of the work, and this we may yet see at some time in the future. But as it were, there's no way the movies were going to be anything other than spectacular blockbusters (or failed attempts), catering to a huge audience of people who, for the most part, haven't read the books. Like StW I thought they were much better than anticipated, although I too have my gripes.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...interesting conversation. Adaptations are certainly susceptible to criticism based on their flagrant misuse, twisting or abandonment of source material (LotR being a prime example); however, the making of a movie sometimes requires a heightened or altered approach to the original story due to many factors (not the least being a director or leading actor's ego, but time constraints, pacing and monetary considerations also apply). Personally (and I think this discussion can only remain on an opinionated level), I take adaptations on a case by case basis, and make an informed decision on whether I liked the movie, as opposed to having read the book, and whether or not flights of fancy from the source material hurt the production.

For instance, I found the adaptations of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Blade Runner were actually better than the books. I thought that The Name of the Rose and The Exorcist were excellent adaptations, but I liked the books better. I consider Lawrence of Arabia and The Seven Pillars of Wisdom both classics and enjoyed both immensely (but one for the filmmaker's art, and the other in historical context). The recent Narnia movie was very faithful to C.S. Lewis' book, but the movie was actually infused with more humor than the source, and was fleshed out in a manner that enhanced the story. As far as LotR, I was far more upset at PJ Jackson for what he brazenly plopped into the movie, rather than what was omitted from the source material. In a historical context, one could say there is very little factuality or faithfulness in the scripting of many of Errol Flynn's movies, but I have most of them on DVD.

*Shrugs*

P.S. The movie Gladiator seems to be based more on the 1964 film The Fall of the Roman Empire (which also had Commodus die in gladiatorial combat as opposed to being assasinated), rather than on historical records, which are decidely scarce regarding his reign. However, Commodus did often engage in gladiatorial combats in the arena.