It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:14 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 3:10 pm
Posts: 93
Looks interesting, as does the book itself. Unfortunately my chances of getting the book are slim. Voronwë does not like it. (link)

Here's some assorted Bratman quotes I found on the web:
Quote:
I give Jackson an A on visuals and props, a B on the films as independent pieces of work divorced from the book, a C on faithfulness to Tolkien's story and detail, and a D (but only because I won't give an F when the student has shown evidence of trying) on faithfulness to Tolkien's spirit and tone. (link)

Quote:
At this point it is necessary to reply to those who claim that films don't affect them, and that anybody except the weak-minded, the weird, or the juvenile can simply will themselves not to think of the film version while reading the book from which it was made. An epic, detailed, captivating film dramatization of a book somehow has no effect whatever on the mental state or image of the reader. Anybody for whom that is true must be one of those rare people who can win at the game whose object is not to think of a purple elephant. Such iron-mindedness is simply not the common [norm?] of humanity. (link)

Quote:
And a movie can bury a book. Fans of L. Frank Baum have been forlornly complaining for over 60 years that his Oz books are quite unlike the famous film. And they're correct. But nobody listens to them. They think they know what Oz is like: they've seen the film. (link)

Quote:
It doesn't matter where the book is, if the film is in the head. (link)


Incidentally Bratman approves of http://arthedain.netfirms.com/ , a criticism site by "philosopher at large" aka "Bellatrys", which I've pointed to before. (link)


Last edited by Anduril on Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:44 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32729
Anduril wrote:
Voronwë does not like it.


That's not quite true. I like some it, and dislike other parts. I think that David goes too far in some of his criticisms of the films, but other points I have come to agree with more over time. The same for Janet Croft's essay. Some of the essays I liked very much.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 3:10 pm
Posts: 93
Whoops, my apologies :oops: Nice to see the films being analyzed by academic fans, instead of just fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 91
Quote:
He also says "Peter Jackson has a nine-year-old's understanding of Tolkien." Burn!


Please, don't insult nine-year-olds. If they have the chops to finish LOTR they already know better than PJ :rage:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 489
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Anduril wrote:
Looks interesting, as does the book itself.


Bratman's is a superb essay, but it's not about the films so much as arguments made by the films' defenders.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:30 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32729
Including one T.A Shippey. 8)

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 489
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Well, as I said in another thread, you're not the only one to (justly) criticize something Shippey's written.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:43 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32729
I knew you were going to say that! :)

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:48 pm 
Offline
Pleasantly Twisted
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 8996
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
I always shake my head when someone claims to have an insight on what, precisely, the "spirit" of a work of literature is. That's a critical weasel word for "the infinitely flexible and ineffable central thing about a work that I (of course) understand perfectly." It's an unfalsifiable. It's the stuff of pointless theological argument.

Everything else there is up for debate. :)

_________________

Resentment is no excuse for baldface stupidity.
-- Garrison Keillor

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 3:10 pm
Posts: 93
I made a mistake in attributing all of the above to Bratman's essay. Only "At this point it is necessary..." is from the essay while others were posted online.

"Peter Jackson has a nine-year-old's understanding of Tolkien." - Harsh much?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:55 pm 
Offline
Aagragaah
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 12835
Location: Out on the banks
Anduril wrote:
I made a mistake in attributing all of the above to Bratman's essay. Only "At this point it is necessary..." is from the essay while others were posted online.

"Peter Jackson has a nine-year-old's understanding of Tolkien." - Harsh much?


Yes. As a parent of a recent nine-year-old, I am incensed. :P

Although at that age, DS did enjoy shield surfing (heck, so did his parents), monsters, and the big noisy battles. But he missed Tom Bombadil, and he prefers book Aragorn, Faramir and Denethor.

_________________
Image
‘There’s no greys, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.’
‘It’s a lot more complicated than that -’
‘No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.’
Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 489
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
axordil wrote:
I always shake my head when someone claims to have an insight on what, precisely, the "spirit" of a work of literature is.

To be fair Bratman does give examples to explain what he means by the "spirit" of Tolkien's work. Amusingly, at one point he cites the exact same quote by Jackson in support of his argument that Kristin Thompson (who reviewed the Tolkien on Film collection quite harshly in Tolkien Studies, by the way) uses in The Frodo Franchise to show that Jackson knew what he was doing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:18 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32729
That's interesting. What was the quote? (I could probably figure it out for myself, but it is easier to ask you!)

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:48 pm 
Offline
Pleasantly Twisted
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 8996
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
N.E. Brigand wrote:
axordil wrote:
I always shake my head when someone claims to have an insight on what, precisely, the "spirit" of a work of literature is.

To be fair Bratman does give examples to explain what he means by the "spirit" of Tolkien's work. Amusingly, at one point he cites the exact same quote by Jackson in support of his argument that Kristin Thompson (who reviewed the Tolkien on Film collection quite harshly in Tolkien Studies, by the way) uses in The Frodo Franchise to show that Jackson knew what he was doing.


Thus the unfalsifiable. :)

_________________

Resentment is no excuse for baldface stupidity.
-- Garrison Keillor

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 489
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
axordil wrote:
N.E. Brigand wrote:
To be fair Bratman does give examples to explain what he means by the "spirit" of Tolkien's work. Amusingly, at one point he cites the exact same quote by Jackson in support of his argument that Kristin Thompson ... uses ... to show that Jackson knew what he was doing.


Thus the unfalsifiable. :)

Well, thus any aesthetic evaluation that goes beyond merely describing the artwork in question.

To V: the quote is the one about why Jackson & co. reworked Faramir's character so that in the film he cannot reject the Ring as easily as he appears to do in the book.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:06 am 
Offline
Pleasantly Twisted
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 8996
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Quote:
Well, thus any aesthetic evaluation that goes beyond merely describing the artwork in question.


Yes and no. If one says "I like this" or "This doesn't work for me" or "This sucks big green rocks" it's a purely aesthetic evaluation. When one says "This succeeds in doing X" or "this fails to do Y" it's a analytic evaluation--unless X and Y are in fact aesthetic terms. That's the weasel part: when one sets up a statement with an analytic framework to conceal an aesthetic evaluation.

_________________

Resentment is no excuse for baldface stupidity.
-- Garrison Keillor

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 3:10 pm
Posts: 93
Stuff about Tolkien on Film is now on Wikipedia.
Quote:
Supporters of the trilogy assert that it is a worthy interpretation of the book and that most of the changes were necessary.[64] ... Boyens once noted that no matter what, it is simply their interpretation of the book. Jackson once said that to simply summarise the story on screen would be a mess, and in his own words, "Sure, it's not really The Lord of the Rings ... but it could still be a pretty damn cool movie."[66][67] Other fans also claim that, despite any changes, the films serve as a tribute to the book, appealing to those who have not yet read it, and even leading some to do so.

In 2005, the Mythopoeic Society published a volume of critical essays about the trilogy and its effects on popular culture called Tolkien on Film: Essays on Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings.

...

David Bratman[75] criticizes several arguments defending the films as adaptations, such as "It’s Jackson’s vision, not Tolkien’s", "But they worked so hard on it!", "It brings new readers to the book", "The perfect film would have been 40 hours long", and "The book is still on the shelf".

:twisted: More about the book:
Quote:
Cathy Akers-Jordan,[71] Jane Chance,[72] Victoria Gaydosik,[73] and Maureen Thum[74] contend that the portrayal of women, especially Arwen, in the films is overall thematically faithful to (or compatible with) Tolkien's writings despite some differences.

Quote:
Dan Timmons[77] writes that the themes and internal logic of the films are undermined by the portrayal of Frodo, who he considers a weakening of Tolkien's original.

Quote:
Kayla McKinney Wiggins[78] opines that the films misread and misinterpret the nature of heroes as understood in Tolkien’s writings and in his source material due to a shift in focus from character evolution to action adventure.

Quote:
Janet Brennan Croft[79] criticizes the films using Tolkien's own terms “anticipation” and “flattening”, which he used in critiquing a proposed film script. She contrasts Tolkien's subtlety with Jackson's tendency to show "too much too soon".[79]


Are these good summaries? The editing history says they were based on the abstracts on the Mythopoeic Society webpage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:00 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32729
The book was published by the Mythopoeic Press, so it is not surprising that there is abstracts on the Mythopoeic Society webpage. That being said, while it has been a while since I have read the book, those sound like reasonably accurate summaries.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group