Purism - Quixotic?

[Anduril]

Ironically, his films led me to the books. I guess I'm the dog that bit the hand that fed it.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purist#Pur ... ertainment

The Lord of the Rings purists, sometimes known as Tolkienists, were mostly dedicated fans of the novel before the film trilogy adaptation was created, often cite their dislike of at least certain scenes (such as the altered introduction of Arwen into The Fellowship of the Ring). Again, the use of the term varies extremely widely; it is used offensively, in a complimentary way, or neutrally. The definition especially refers to those who adamantly detest the Peter Jackson-directed trilogy for deviating even in minor detail from the original text. The term's definition varies wildly, as many of the book's dedicated fans also enjoy the films. At the very least, the term is meant to delineate direct opposition to "fangirls".

Well, I'm fine with cosmetic changes and even minor story changes... but not major ones. So, yes, it is impractical, if one detests the Peter Jackson-directed trilogy for deviating even in minor detail. But couldn't he have kept the War in the North (Haldir could have died still), maybe Glorfindel chaperoning Arwen, or at least, given Denethor a you-know-what?

However, the trilogy, for all its changes, is rather faithful to the source compared to "Conan the Barbarian" or "The Musketeer". Its perceived fidelity is relative.

[Sunsilver]

There are many moments where PJ's self-indulgences marred the films. Of course, these moments could have been done differently without having to resort to filming the book word-for-word. The three that bothered me the most were Aragorn's plunge off the cliff, Denethor's death plunge, and the whole scene in the Paths of the Dead, including Legolas shooting the pirate captain. (That last was the worst example of self-indulgence by far. Since the target was P.J. himself, I found myself wishing the arrows had been real, not fake!) Others (for me, personally) were forgivable, such as Gollum and Frodo falling over the edge at the Cracks of Doom. P.J. made a very telling point there about the strength of love and friendship finally overcoming the pull of the ring.

When watching the films, I try to focus on what he did right: the lighting of the war beacons, which moved me to tears on first seeing it, the charge of the Rohirrim at Pellenor, the Witch King taking flight from Minas Morgul, the fantastic visuals inside the mines of Moria which took my breath away with their scale. The book has the Witch King riding a horse as he leads the troops to battle. How much more dramatic visually was P.J.'s interpretation of the scene!

The purists can nit-pick all they want over Éowyn's encounter with the Nazgûl, as well as Gandalf's. At the time, I was too caught up in the story to notice the changes. Indeed, I was rejoicing to see the scenes on the screen, capturing the spirit of the book if not the exact word-for-word dialogue.

[Inanna]

I just wanted to add that am essentially grateful the movies came out - the message boards came!!

[solicitr]

But, SS, it's precisely the spirit of the books that PJ so singularly missed. He may have more-or-less followed the plot, and admittedly the visuals are great; but his films occupy a wholly different spiritual universe from Tolkien's. Gone are the grandeur, the nobility, the immense weight of history, the poignant sense of loss; Tolkien's voice replaced by Hollywood cliches.

[Sunsilver]

I disagree, Solicitr. He may not have captured them in exactly the way Tolkien did, but for me, anyway, they WERE there.

Weight of history: Galadriel's voiceover at the start, also Elrond's speech with Gandalf: "I was there 3 1/2 thousand years ago...

Nobility: Aragorn bowing to the hobbits at his coronation. Théoden weeping for his son, talking about the flowers that have always grown on his ancestor's graves. Aragorn telling the young boy at Helm's Deep that he has a good sword, to help allay his fears.

Grandeur: the grand scale of Moria, the gorgeous scenery we see during the lighting of the war beacons, the immense scale of the battles. The city of Gondor and the beauty of Rivendell.

Sense of loss: the people of Gondor throwing flowers at the feet of the troops leaving for Osgilath. Théoden's death scene. The parting at the Havens. The scene where the hobbits see the elves leaving Middle Earth. The poignancy of Arwen's choice, which PJ made all too plain.

If you didn't feel all those things while watching the movies, well, I wonder if we were watching the same movies!

P.S....could you please call me Sunny, if you're going to shorten my name? Like SilverScribe, I really dislike being called S.S. Thank you! (Unlike Scribbles, I won't threaten to run you through with a broadsword if you forget... )

[Pearly Di]

What Sunsilver said.

And I will add these:

Grandeur
I do honestly have to wonder which films you were watching, solictr. These films are simply the most astounding I've ever seen, in terms of cinematic spectacle that immerses you in the experience, bringing Middle-earth gloriously to life. The soaring pillars of Moria? The majesty of the Misty Mountains? The lighting of the beacons? The muster of the Rohirrim? The sweeping plains around Edoras? The glory of Minas Tirith? The eerie macabre light of Minas Morgul? The haunting beauty of Rivendell, with its Lauterbrunnen-type waterfalls?

???????????????????????

Nobility
Adding to Sunsilver's wonderful list: "For Frodo".

The importance of friendship and loyalty is stressed very strongly in the films.

I would agree that PJ does not emphasise Tolkien's great themes of mercy as much as I would wish (e.g. Aragorn lopping off the Mouth of Sauron's head!!)

Immense weight of history
To be fair, could a movie version really, honestly convey the full weight of history of Tolkien's mythos? I doubt it. PJ does a pretty darned good job! It thrills me to see Moria on screen ... the only surviving reminder of the First Age I am ever likely to see in the cinema.

Poignant sense of loss
One of the most powerful scenes in the entire film trilogy is Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb, a desolate woman in the black of mortal mourning, having forsaken her immortality and finally tasting the bitterness of separation by death. A scene so piercingly beautiful, so sad, so utterly Tolkienesque, that it made me gasp out loud when I first saw it. And then my eyes filled with tears. I don't cry easily in films, and I don't easily cry at books either - LOTR, although it's my very favourite book, has never made me cry. I cried because this scene is just so perfect. I've always found Arwen's lonely death in Lothlórien very sad, and to see her emotional desolation on screen like that was simply incredible. The film brought home to me just how much she had given up.

Hollywood cliches
PJ does sometimes pander to this, e.g. Aragorn's cliff dive. But his film trilogy of LOTR is really far too quirky and original to be tarred with the Hollywood brush. Indeed, I am profoundly grateful that PJ's project was a labour of love and not some studio project. Because if his film trilogy truly had pandered to Hollywood cliche, it would have ended with fireworks over Minas Tirith and a big jolly happy wedding party. Certainly no Grey Havens. What, end on a downer? Nah!

I am also very thankful that Fran and Philippa were on board, because I think they curbed many of PJ's excesses.

[Jnyusa]

The interesting thing brought out by the PvR debates on TORC (and it will come out here too if we get into it) was that two people might agree that there is, for example, 'weight of history' in Tolkien but disagree whether it actually got captured in the movie or not; and two other people might agree that this element was in the book but so unimportant that there was no reason for it to be in the movie; and two other people might disagree that the element appeared in the book at all.

As everyone here knows (I'll bet), my own views about the movie were closest to those expressed by solicitr above. (And I'm going to resist the temptation to elaborate, due to time constraints) But it's obvious that the movies did work for a very large number of people, well enough that they didn't feel violated and did want to watch the movies again and again.

So very much of it just comes down to taste ... what a person gravitated to within the books (which is quite different for lots of people), and what a person loves in a movie (which is also quite different for everyone).

[Crucifer]

To add to Grandeur: The sweeping views of the Golden Hall (exactly as I pictured it.), surrounded by mountains. The first view of Minas Tirith.
And he showed how grandeur, when corrupted, decays: Théoden, and, to a lesser extent, the Steward.

The simplicity of the Shire, though still with the politics and so on. I missed the scouring in the films, I really did, but you can't have everything.

Friendship: 'Tho I think it wasn't in the book, the scene at the end of Fellowship: "I'm going alone" "Of course you are! And I'm coming too!"

The character I missed most was Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.

[Sunsilver]

Excuse me? Lobelia and her husband WERE in the film. They show up at Bilbo's party, and are seen glowering at Gandalf as he goes past with his cartload of fireworks. When Gandalf lets off some fireworks for the kids, Otho laughs, and Lobelia takes him by the earlobe, and hauls him inside!

[yovargas]

If there is anything that can't be justly said against the films, it's that they didn't capture the sense of grandeur! There's grandeur all over the place. Hell, even the Shire has a certain sense of grandeur, nevermind Edoras or Minas Tirith!

[Cerin]

I hope we can all at least agree to disagree about the films, rather than insisting that people who experienced them differently than we did must either have been in the wrong theatre or are missing parts of their brains.

[Crucifer]

Excuse me? Lobelia and her husband WERE in the film. They show up at Bilbo's party, and are seen glowering at Gandalf as he goes past with his cartload of fireworks. When Gandalf lets off some fireworks for the kids, Otho laughs, and Lobelia takes him by the earlobe, and hauls him inside!

That was them!? Hmmm...

But still, they didn't have the same role. I missed the present giving aswell. That was hilarious in the book.

[Primula Baggins]

The present-giving is a bit I love, too, Crucifer, but I can understand why they left out a scene that would have really slowed down the opening of the film, and that involved characters who never appeared again.

That's one of the glories of the book (any book), that you can go on at your own pace, savoring and rereading some parts, skimming and skipping others—whereas a film audience is forced to go along at the pace imposed by the filmmaker. So the filmmaker, if he wants his work to be a commercial success, has to pace the story so that he will keep the attention of most people.

Writers of books have a lot more latitude. Or at least, they do if they're not unknowns writing in commercial genres.

[Frelga]

Poignant sense of loss
One of the most powerful scenes in the entire film trilogy is Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb, a desolate woman in the black of mortal mourning, having forsaken her immortality and finally tasting the bitterness of separation by death. A scene so piercingly beautiful, so sad, so utterly Tolkienesque, that it made me gasp out loud when I first saw it.

Beautiful, yes, but without Tolkien's redeeming sense of hope. "In sorrow we go but not in despair" is nowhere to be found, and the viewer can wonder if it was worth it after all. IMO, Tolkien's point on turning his Elven beauties is that love outlasts life, so that by making that poignant choice Lúthien and Arwen were rewarded by being reunited with their beloveds "beyond the circles of the world." Can't imagine how they could capture it on film, though.
[/hijack]

[yovargas]

I find the "Poignant sense of loss" and the "redeeming sense of hope" in the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story very powerful.

[vison]

But, SS, it's precisely the spirit of the books that PJ so singularly missed. He may have more-or-less followed the plot, and admittedly the visuals are great; but his films occupy a wholly different spiritual universe from Tolkien's. Gone are the grandeur, the nobility, the immense weight of history, the poignant sense of loss; Tolkien's voice replaced by Hollywood cliches.

Precisely. Well said.

I always say Peter Jackson could never leave a cliche out if he could possibly fit it in.

And his evident belief that if one CGI thing was good, a million CGI things were a million times better.

Oh, well.


Because of him, I'm here and otherwise, who knows where I'd be?

[Primula Baggins]

I'm pretty grateful for that myself, vison.

Though that's probably about the only point of agreement we'll ever find about PJ's films.

[Athrabeth]

Poignant sense of loss
One of the most powerful scenes in the entire film trilogy is Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb, a desolate woman in the black of mortal mourning, having forsaken her immortality and finally tasting the bitterness of separation by death. A scene so piercingly beautiful, so sad, so utterly Tolkienesque, that it made me gasp out loud when I first saw it.

Beautiful, yes, but without Tolkien's redeeming sense of hope. "In sorrow we go but not in despair" is nowhere to be found, and the viewer can wonder if it was worth it after all. IMO, Tolkien's point on turning his Elven beauties is that love outlasts life, so that by making that poignant choice Lúthien and Arwen were rewarded by being reunited with their beloveds "beyond the circles of the world." Can't imagine how they could capture it on film, though.
[/hijack]

IMO, it was captured, in its essence, in the scene in ROTK when Arwen sees Eldarion and decides to return to face her destiny/death. While it doesn't address the "beyond the circles of the world" idea (which is left purposefully vague in Tolkien's works, and would have been, I think, extremely dodgy to portray more overtly in the film), it does speak of that "redeeming sense of hope" - of trusting that "what should be shall be" despite all the woes and perils of life (and love).

[Pearly Di]

Athrabeth,

Man, I love that scene with Eldarion!!!

When I read Appendix A for the first time, I was pole-axed by Arwen's death, completely pole-axed. I didn't get it that Tolkien meant this as a hopeful thing ... that she and Aragorn might be reunited beyond 'the circles of the world'.

I didn't get round to reading The Silmarillion for years after LOTR.

As far as LOTR is concerned, I did find hope in Frodo's sailing West to be healed in the Undying Lands, although it is also heartbreakingly sad.

But, hopeful.

What is this thread about again?

[Crucifer]

Poignancy...