Purism - Quixotic?

[Frelga]

What is this thread about again?

Whatever we feel like. If we get off track, Voronwë will come and fix it.

[Crucifer]

But he's gone for a while...

[yovargas]

What is this thread about again?

Wasn't it about how awesome the movies are?

[Frelga]

What is this thread about again?

Wasn't it about how awesome the movies are?

Maybe, but every time I look at the thread I read it Prim - Quixotic. So maybe it's about how awesome Prim is.

[yovargas]

Remember that one time Prim was all "If you want him, COME AND CLAIM HIM!"
That was totally badass!!

[Primula Baggins]

To dreeeeeeeam

The imPOSS—ible dreeeeeaaaamm. . . .

[Jnyusa]

"Prim" is an excellent name for a Mother Superior. Excellent enough to satisfy any Purist.

[Frelga]

Oh, definitely Superior.

[Sunsilver]

I watched the first part of FOTR tonight, and I was wrong about that being Otho and Lobelia watching Gandalf set off the fireworks for the children. When Lobelia and Otho come to Bilbo's party, they are different characters completely. Sorry for the mistake...but you only get two very brief glimpses of them, so I'm not surprised I goofed.

The SB's also come knocking on the door of Bag End when Gandalf is there with Bilbo, and Bilbo says 'They've never forgiven me for living this long..."

[Crucifer]

Yeah, but there isn't the bit where L steps in the front door after Frodo sells it (which he doesn't in the movies), with a satisfied look an her face, despite O being dead and gone.

[N.E. Brigand]

Those old comments responding to Hammond at CountingDown are uniformly weak; the comments here are much better: sound reports from both sides. I'm a purist: I wanted a much more faithful film adaptation than we got. But I knew going in that there is no such thing as an exact translation from text to film --it's not just that some things can't be done (how do you film this: "And taking Frodo's hand in his, he left the hill of Cerin Amroth and came there never again as living man"? Do you continue to show Cerin Amroth in split screen for the rest of the movie, so that the audience knows Aragorn never goes back? Do you narrate that line? Who narrates the line?)-- it's that among other things: 1. film is not text; one example: Tolkien might describe a setting once, when the characters reach it, but on film the setting is always there in the background; and 2. every instant of film represents a thousand choices, and all of them will affect the viewer's perception of the scene. From the next page:

Haldir knocked and spoke, and the gates opened soundlessly; but of guards Frodo could see no sign.

What does Haldir say? How long does his remark take? How close is he to the gate? Where is the camera positioned? Is this all in one shot, or cut after the gates open to show Frodo looking for guards, then no sign of guards? How do you convey the absence of guards to the audience? Do the gates, which we only know to be "tall and strong, and hung with many lamps", open in or out, or do they slide? (Similar obstacles have been described for other film adaptations -- Stanley Kauffmann, reviewing the film of James Joyce's "The Dead", noted that in the story, someone is "literally" knocked off her feet: how do you convey the "literally" on film?)

Lots of opportunities there for a filmmaker to disappoint. I was disappointed right from the start of FotR, when like Bakshi, Jackson & co. opted to start with a prologue that explained the Ring's history, rather than focusing on the Shire, as in the book. But of course, where do the book's foreword and prologue fit into this scheme? Anyway, it just didn't work for me, not even as pure film. I probably saw a couple dozen films each year 2001-2003 that I liked more than the LotR films.

[Primula Baggins]

N.E. Brigand, that is a point I have tried to make before about the book-to-film transition (any book to film): in a book the author can make you see only what she wants you to see, notice only what she wants you to notice. In a film you've got to fill the frame with something. You can't use a few well-chosen words to draw the viewer's attention to one particular detail as a writer can; you may have to be less subtle, or settle for the detail getting missed by many. Some (I say some) of PJ's "heavy-handedness" may have been his attempts to get us look in the right direction.

The same for characters. In a book you don't "see" them unless the author wants you to. In the film they're all there on screen, and every one of them has to have some kind of visible reaction to what's happening. The effect might be too intense and "over the top" for some, especially compared to the book, where we don't worry about what each character is doing; it's all covered by "There they wept long, some standing and silent, others cast upon the ground." (from memory)

[Pearly Di]

Very good points, N.E. Brigand.

I do totally disagree with you about the film Prologue. Starting the film in the Shire might have fuelled the suspicions of a non-Tolkien audience that Tolkien is twee. That Silmarillion-style starter was absolutely the right choice. (OMG, Isildur! Gil-galad! Sauron! Mount Doom! That map of Middle-earth! Be still, my beating heart!)

And then the camera zooms from the Misty Mountains to Frodo sitting under his tree (in the theatrical edition, the opening of which I prefer) ... fabulous.

[Crucifer]

I loved the opening. If I wasn't already looking forward to seeing one of my Favourite books on screen, it certainly got me hooked.

[N.E. Brigand]

I do totally disagree with you about the film Prologue. Starting the film in the Shire might have fuelled the suspicions of a non-Tolkien audience that Tolkien is twee. That Silmarillion-style starter was absolutely the right choice.

While granting that text and film are not the same thing, I think that if the "twee" opening hasn't been a problem to millions of fans of Tolkien's book, then it needn't have been a problem on film -- bucolic comedy can certainly work onscreen, and in fact the film had it, but only after reassuring the mass audience that there would indeed be battles forthcoming -- a concession I disliked. I love how the book opens like a flower, expanding from the hobbit hole to a wide world, then contracting again after Mount Doom (filmic comparison: Henry V by Olivier). But tastes differ.

[Primula Baggins]

N.E. Brigand, I'd say that tastes do differ, and the audience PJ needed to appeal to was a whole lot bigger than the fans of the book. Over the course of its theatrical run in just North America, well under a year, Fellowship probably sold more than 60 million tickets. As much as I treasure and love the book, I doubt anything close to that many North Americans have ever even tried to read it.

From 1965 to 2001, thirty-six years, Ballantine sold 32 million copies of LotR, or fewer than a million a year. (Link) Phenomenal for a book, but it would be deadly for a film. And even if all 32 million copies produced lifelong fans who would never miss the movie, that's still only half the ticket sales.

And of course the numbers would almost certainly have been far lower. Fans who had no interest in the movies, fans who were dead, fans who . . . well, never became fans; presumably some of those copies never got read or, once read, weren't liked.

[Pearly Di]

While granting that text and film are not the same thing, I think that if the "twee" opening hasn't been a problem to millions of fans of Tolkien's book, then it needn't have been a problem on film -- bucolic comedy can certainly work onscreen, and in fact the film had it, but only after reassuring the mass audience that there would indeed be battles forthcoming -- a concession I disliked.

How is that a concession? The battles are part of the story! Was including battle scenes in the trailers for the LOTR films a concession? Actually, the final trailer for FOTR did begin with a bucolic scene, Gandalf in the cart with Frodo rolling into Hobbiton ... with some wonderfully ominous horn notes. Brilliant!

I love how the book opens like a flower, expanding from the hobbit hole to a wide world, then contracting again after Mount Doom (filmic comparison: Henry V by Olivier). But tastes differ.

Yes, I like the movement of the book too ... but strictly speaking, the Tale actually starts with the Prologue and a whole dollop of history.

Actually, I think a bucolic opening for the film proper could have worked very well ... as long as you get onto the more ominous stuff fairly quickly. Tolkien does. He starts casting shadows pretty early on.

He was, after all, criticised by his friends for including too much "hobbit talk" in the first chapter. I love the hobbit-talk, and I'm glad he ignored the critics on this one.

But, yes, the shadows start pressing in soon enough.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I'm enjoying this discussion.
My attempts at a serial were an attempt to show that a reasonably but not rigidly faithful or 'purist' rendition of the text might be entertaining. I had read many dismissals in the past saying that it would be impossibly long and tedious and I didn't think that was the case and wanted to prove the point. The serial format has allowed a decent cliff-hanger or psychological moment to round off all the episodes (IMVHO of course). For all the reasons that Brigand has quoted it can't of course be exact.

but strictly speaking, the Tale actually starts with the Prologue and a whole dollop of history.

I remember having this discussion two years ago with a purist. I intended to start my treatment with Sauron's secret return to Mordor and the subsequent White Council where Saruman convinced the others to do nothing but the consensus thought the story should start from the safety of the Shire and move outwards into danger. A perfectly justifiable choice of narrative approach but not the only purist one.

[yovargas]

I missed NE's posts and just wanted to say those are excellent points.

[N.E. Brigand]

From 1965 to 2001, thirty-six years, Ballantine sold 32 million copies of LotR, or fewer than a million a year... Phenomenal for a book, but it would be deadly for a film. And even if all 32 million copies produced lifelong fans who would never miss the movie, that's still only half the ticket sales.

Given that LotR is one of the most popular books ever, doesn't your comparison of figures suggest that no book has sufficient intrinsic appeal to work when faithfully adapted as a film?