Reclaiming Lord of the Rings
Apr. 19th, 2010 10:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drydemSo, I first read Lord of the Rings in 2001, anticipating the movies, having heard the basic story from the radio plays, but wanting an experience of the real thing before the movies. It started slowly, but accelerated. Fellowship took me about a month, The Two towers took me about 2 weeks, the first book of Return of the King passed in about 3 days and the final book in one day.
The details of the book passed a bit from my memory, but when the movies came, I adored them. They were beautiful and inspiring and I took a lot of pleasure from them. But I noticed, even with my vague recollection, that they had taken certain liberties with the text. After rewatching the films, I decided that I would re-read the books and figure out better how I felt about the film versions compared to the book.
Having finished the last chapter, I think I can better express my feelings. In short, there are things to love about both book and film and things that are weak in both book and film. Jackson and Tolkien have their own strengths and weaknesses that come to the fore.
Books-Tolkien wasn't writing a novel, or a film. Tolkien was writing an epic, in the old sense, a tale ranging across a distant history that creates the world as it exists. In this, he writes compelling characters without human motives. There aren't people in Tolkien, there are paragons, ideals and desires made flesh. What Tolkien doesn't do well is write battle scenes. Helm's Deep is a handful of pages. The drama of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an internal drama, but it is also one that is heavily conflicted about war and violence as only a tale written by a WWI veteran can be.
Jackson-Jackson was writing a film and knew it. He shifted the text in ways that make it more palatable. While his visual vocabulary is good for many aspects of the film, creating battles, he seems driven to insert drama into the story, Eomer being sent away, Sam being sent away, Faramir bringing Sam and Frodo to Osgillioth, the Ents originally deciding not to go to war, the Elves coming to Helm's Deep, Pippin lighting the Beacons, all of these changes insert more direct drama into the story, replacing the internal conflicts with more dramatic external conflicts. At times, I think this deeply changes Tolkien's story, often in ways I don't agree with. But what Jackson does well is visualize. He creates a world that is at times beautiful, mythic and often more emotionally stirring than Tolkien.
So, in the end, I think that I will keep both of them. I would not give up Tolkien's story, but I think that in certain ways, the movies act as a sort of textual exegesis, revealing aspects of the stories that I feel strongly about that I didn't realize.
The details of the book passed a bit from my memory, but when the movies came, I adored them. They were beautiful and inspiring and I took a lot of pleasure from them. But I noticed, even with my vague recollection, that they had taken certain liberties with the text. After rewatching the films, I decided that I would re-read the books and figure out better how I felt about the film versions compared to the book.
Having finished the last chapter, I think I can better express my feelings. In short, there are things to love about both book and film and things that are weak in both book and film. Jackson and Tolkien have their own strengths and weaknesses that come to the fore.
Books-Tolkien wasn't writing a novel, or a film. Tolkien was writing an epic, in the old sense, a tale ranging across a distant history that creates the world as it exists. In this, he writes compelling characters without human motives. There aren't people in Tolkien, there are paragons, ideals and desires made flesh. What Tolkien doesn't do well is write battle scenes. Helm's Deep is a handful of pages. The drama of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an internal drama, but it is also one that is heavily conflicted about war and violence as only a tale written by a WWI veteran can be.
Jackson-Jackson was writing a film and knew it. He shifted the text in ways that make it more palatable. While his visual vocabulary is good for many aspects of the film, creating battles, he seems driven to insert drama into the story, Eomer being sent away, Sam being sent away, Faramir bringing Sam and Frodo to Osgillioth, the Ents originally deciding not to go to war, the Elves coming to Helm's Deep, Pippin lighting the Beacons, all of these changes insert more direct drama into the story, replacing the internal conflicts with more dramatic external conflicts. At times, I think this deeply changes Tolkien's story, often in ways I don't agree with. But what Jackson does well is visualize. He creates a world that is at times beautiful, mythic and often more emotionally stirring than Tolkien.
So, in the end, I think that I will keep both of them. I would not give up Tolkien's story, but I think that in certain ways, the movies act as a sort of textual exegesis, revealing aspects of the stories that I feel strongly about that I didn't realize.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 03:21 pm (UTC)That's a loaded comment. Which are the changes that affect the story the deepest and how do those changes affect the story? Which are the changes that you disagree with?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 03:47 pm (UTC)I think the movies make fantasy and possibly this particular story more palatable for those who would otherwise not have thought about reading Tolkien. I think it is more accessible to more people when you "movie-ize" it.