Purism - Quixotic?

[Anduril]

- First, an old article:

Tolkien scholar stings 'Rings' films

Found at http://www.countingdown.com/movies/4565 ... 4&folder=0

- Reaction found there:

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

xxx:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

THATS SO G_!!!!! WHY WOULD HE BE SO RETARTDED!!! DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!! GOLLUM WAS AMAZING!! HE WAS PERFECT!!!!! RRRRRRRRRRRRRGGG!! THE SCRIPT WAS FANTASTIC AND I LOVED ALL THE CHARACTERS HES JUST STUPID AND I HATE HIM!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you've seen part of Hammond's thoughts on Wikpedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_o ... m_the_book

...While I agree with him about the changes (not everything else) I think like-minded complaints were/are just all in vain in the long run. The films have made their mark on Tolkien, his works and his fans, for better or for worse (IMO: better, exposure-wise and worse, story and character-wise When will the majority realize that?) While some of us would like to see an adaptation as faithful as possible, it just isn't done that way, or when it is, probably not very often. Besides, not all of us read the book the same way: one may see black where the other sees white....

At least the real stuff remains unchanged, on paper. By the way, I haven't watched the films for at least two years, probably more. Sorry if this seems like rambling.

[Primula Baggins]

Besides, not all of us read the book the same way: one may see black where the other sees white....

This is the point that I kept coming back to in the discussions I participated in, when I was in the Movies forum on TORC. I do like the movies, very much (though I share your relief that the books are still there unchanged). But I noticed that many who strongly disliked the films did so because the characters and events that mattered most to them were not adapted in the way they'd hoped. And we all seemed to have different ideas of which characters and themes and events were crucial.

In time I came to suspect that I might also have had much greater problems with the films, if it weren't for the fact that what is to me the heart of LotR, the story of Frodo and Sam, was filmed in a way that I (mostly) admired and enjoyed. If that had been done badly by my lights, it would have colored my attitude toward everything else.

[Pearly Di]

Heh. This feels, briefly, like 2001 all over again.

I do think there is a certain type of purism which is indeed quixotic, Anduril.

I like faithful adaptations of my favourite books and a really excellent adaptation is sometimes hard to find. Even excellent adaptations take liberties with their source material - yes, they always do, including the wonderful BBC 1995 Pride and Prejudice and the recent equally wonderful BBC Jane Eyre, which I adored in spades.

So, yes, I want an adaptation to be faithful. Of course I do. And it can be done.

But I have little patience with the kind of nit-picky purism which insists that no liberties at all be taken with the source material, because that is a totally unrealistic and yes, quixotic expectation of the demands, difficulties and constraints that are placed on an adaptor when translating from one powerful medium (the written word) to another powerful medium (the cinema screen or the stage).

Do I have criticisms of PJ's treatment of Tolkien in various places? Sure I do. Don't get me started on Osgiliath. Just don't. Or the 'damsel in distress' characterisation (in places) of Frodo. No, don't get me started. Please.

But I still think those films rock. And they have been FANTASTIC promotion for Tolkien's work.

The films did great work in pushing our beloved Professor's stories off those back shelves, straight into mainstream culture, where they belong, in my opinion. Tolkien has always deserved to be as famous as Jane Austen or Charles Dickens and not relegated to a fantasy backwater.

PS. You know, I had no idea that ROTK is the second most successful film of all time. Really. I didn't. I knew the film trilogy is among the top 10 or 20, and certainly I saw each film about 15 times but I really didn't know that.

[yovargas]

quix·ot·ic
–adjective
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) resembling or befitting Don Quixote.
2. extravagantly chivalrous or romantic; visionary, impractical, or impracticable.
3. impulsive and often rashly unpredictable.

I'll stick with just calling purists 'silly'.


eta - though this one ain't bad:

quix·ot·ic
adj.

1. Caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality.

I repeat:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have a lot of respect for Wayne Hammond's extensive knowledge about Tolkien and his works (although I find his books difficult to read), but he really puts himself in a bad light here, in my opinion. If he limited himself to commenting on his dissatisfaction with the films' fidelity to the books, I would have no problem with his comments, even if I don't fully agree with them. But he makes such sweeping judgments about things that he obviously knows very little about, that it makes it difficult to take his comments any more seriously than those of the children that posted responses to his comments.

And Di, the Nazgûl over Osgiliath was the best non-purist moment in all the films.

[yovargas]

And Di, the Nazgûl over Osgiliath was the best non-purist moment in all the films.

Even better than the skull avalanche!?????






(ps - I agree)

[Pearly Di]

And Di, the Nazgûl over Osgiliath was the best non-purist moment in all the films.

Oh, visually, V-Man, it is fantastic.

I am also somewhat reconciled to the fight that Frodo has with Sam afterwards, which is no worse, I suppose, than the verbal violence Frodo unleashes on Sam when he thinks Sam wants the Ring for himself, in Cirith Ungol - and of course PJ didn't show THAT in the film.

I just read some of the comments in response to Hammond's letter. They're priceless. My favourite being this one:

THATS SO GAY!!!!!! WHY WOULD HE BE SO RETARTDED!!! DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!! GOLLUM WAS AMAZING!! HE WAS PERFECT!!!!! RRRRRRRRRRRRRGGG!! THE SCRIPT WAS FANTASTIC AND I LOVED ALL THE CHARACTERS HES JUST STUPID AND I HATE HIM!!!!!!!!



Awesome, dude. Just awesome. You'd have fitted so well into the austere intellectual heights of the LOTR discussion at TORC.

-edit-

Even better than the skull avalanche!?????

Oh, dear Eru. My memory had consigned the skull avalanche to the merciful oblivion of the Void.

Thanks for the reminder, Yov.

[Tyrhael]

Um ... I agree with what Mr. Hammond said in that article, EXCEPT the part about Ents, Gollum, and Orcs. *is in a minority*

[Frelga]

And Di, the Nazgûl over Osgiliath was the best non-purist moment in all the films.

Well, yes, compared to the banishment of Sam, Demented Denethor Flambe, the improbable collapsing staircase, burping Gimli, grumpy Gandalf the White bopping people with his staff, easily tricked Ents, Aragorn falling off a high cliff into the pebbly-bottomed river that was only about three inches deep and not even limping afterwards... yes, I grant you Osgiliath was not so bad.

I did like the wargs.

It took me a few viewings but I realized that much of what I loved about the movies actually was not in the movies. I back-filled PJ's creation with what I knew about Tolkien-verse, even if it wasn't there. So I saw Aragorn the leader of the Dúnedain who was fostered in Rivendell and spent his life quietly preparing for the kingship, I saw Denethor the noble, stern ruler who waged desperate battle against the Dark Lord, and many other things that were never in the movies. The movies were fun, though.

[Teremia]

I think the best deviation from the books was the actual portrayal of Boromir's death -- the focus on Boromir -- at the end of Fellowship of the Ring. What an incredible scene that was!

[Frelga]

I think the best deviation from the books was the actual portrayal of Boromir's death -- the focus on Boromir -- at the end of Fellowship of the Ring. What an incredible scene that was!

I think Boromir was the best-realized character in the movies, and my favorite non-book scene was the one where he teaches hobbits to fence. It was all invention, but true to what I thought the spirit of the Fellowship was like.

Although he did take a durned long time to die.

[Crucifer]

I always (and still do) picture the Wargs as big wolves with cloven tails. (Don't ask me where the cloven tails came from. I was 9)

PJ faithfully brought across the sentiment of the book in his adaptation. We all know that if he had adapted it 100% faithfully, it would have been several months long...

[vison]

I agree that Boromir was the best-realized character. But then, sadly and horribly, he was portrayed by Sean Bean.

As if there weren't a million British actors as good as Sean Bean and not so gag-inducing. He just, like, totally creeps me out. He always has.

[yovargas]

She's hopeless.

[Inanna]

Even better than the skull avalanche!?????

Oh, dear Eru. My memory had consigned the skull avalanche to the merciful oblivion of the Void.

Thanks for the reminder, Yov.

I still don't remember, am glad.

And I thought Pearly Di was referring to our poster Eru... brief moments of confusion, till light dawned.

I understand that some changes have to be made in adaptations, which is why they are called so. It is a different medium, and needs different effects. HOWEVER, some changes were just so unnecessary. The exchange between the Ents and Merry & Pippin. It diminished Ents - the wise, old creatures - it diminished them. And that hurt me. LOTR to me is also a story of how every race did their little bit to fight evil. How the actions of each person matters... and that somehow got killed.

[Crucifer]

Good point, Mahima. The Ents became, in a sense, anti-trolls. They weren't so much wise as just old and set in their ways, and at points, comical. Not very entish, if you get my drift.

[Andreth]

I've been listening to LOTR on CD during my walks. I always pleasantly surprised when I hear dialogue from the book that made it into the movies. Alot was used. Many times it was from a different character or different part of the story but Tolkien's words were used.

There are parts of the movies that just make me cringe. Osgiliath and Cirith Ungol for two of the most exgregious examples.

But you can not deny the power of the Horse and Rider scene with Bernard Hill and Bruce Hopkins. That poem is recited by Aragorn while on the way to Edoras in the book. No emotional punch whatsoever. There were certain things that I wanted to see done right, Hobbiton, Edoras, the charge at Pellenor Fields for example. And for the most part they were done the way I had pictured them. The beacon scene is a brillant piece of film art.

To counterpoint on the ent scenes. While the ents didn't come across very well, the speech Merry gives about the fires of Isengard is a powerful monlogue. And the subtle change that comes over Billy Boyd's face as his character realizes how serious things really are.

I love the books and the movies. Each gives me a chance to escape into ME in a different way. I respect those who can't stand the movies. But I do not appreciate being considered less than a true Tolkien fan because I enjoy the movies.

[Primula Baggins]

Neither do I, Andreth. Some people feel the movies have harmed Tolkien's legacy by giving people an incorrect idea of what Tolkien wrote. But I believe—heck, I know—that overall people now have a much more accurate idea of LotR, and it's because of the movies.

A lot of people who never heard of Tolkien, or who had heard of him but dismissed the book as "elf and fairy stuff," now know pretty well what the story is about, and surely many of them have tried the book because of that. Maybe some of them are discovering that they love the book more.

I think it's easy for those of us who loved the book long before the movies came out to forget that most people in those times had never read it—some because of really incorrect and silly notions of what it was like. Notions the movies could correct.

[Crucifer]

I love the films, because when I tried to get people to read the book, they refused, but when the film came out, they wanted to read the book anyway.

[Cerin]

I do think purism is quixotic, because it is utterly impractical except in the setting of a book of limited scope to film.

Having said that, I agree with Mr. Hammond almost to a word. I think you can summarize the films in this way: for every instance where Mr. Jackson might have curbed his self-indulgence in altering the story and rather chosen to follow it more closely, the movies would have been improved. When you then consider cumulatively the instances where this might have been done and consequently what the movies might have been ... well, it just hardly bears thinking of, especially knowing that this is most likely the one and only chance in most of our lifetimes to see it attempted.

Ah, well. The movies engendered great good will and brought lots of people together who wouldn't otherwise have known each other. This is what I remind myself whenever certain adaptational excesses come to mind. Or what my husband says to calm me down when he is watching one of the movies:

'Well ... the scenery and music are nice.'