Kris Rhodes
12-24-2001, 03:15 PM
In a minute, I am going to start a thread called "What was *not* wrong with the movie" in which I am going to respond to some of the criticisms that have been leveled at it. I thought it was a *great* movie. And in its own way, I thought it was plenty faithful to the book, though it may have interpreted the book differently than I do on some points. I strongly believe there can be many different ways to be faithful to a book when adapting it to other media - because the transition from media to media *requires* a shift of perspective and a moving and shaking of the elements of the book. It just can't be escaped. If you go for an absolutely literal interpretation, you will be in danger of losing the major themes and the power of the storytelling present in the book you are adapting. Something has to give - and it may be any number of things that give, and in each possible case, equal faithfulness ot the book is being shown though the final products may differ quite a bit.
But here in *this* thread I'll go ahead and explain what I thought was not so great about the movie.
Aside from the silliness of the wizards' duel, and a slight amount of forced emotion (in what I thought was actually generally a very emotionally intense and honest flick), there were two things about the movie which I felt showed that the movie at least to an extent missed the point of what LOTR was all about. That's pretty strong, and I should say this can be attributed to a difference in opinion or interpretation. That said, I must also confess to a strong intuition that in these two cases, I am definitely right about the books and the movie is definitely wrong.
The first thing I thought was bad was the handling of Saruman. In the book, Saruman at least has a rationale, an excuse, for desiring the power of the ring - to bring about the good intentions of the Istari secretly, under the Enemy's nose, using the Ring's power, while nevertheless openly siding with the power behind the ring, the Dark Lord Sauron. In the LOTR mythos, it is this original intent for the good which is twisted by the Ring's power toward the evil, and which eventually unveils Saruman as fully twisted and finally a servant (at first unwilling and unwitting but in the end fully and openly) of Sauron.
Now, that's good stuff. And it gets at one of the points of the whole work - that the power of evil is not that it can *make* you evil but instead that it *twists* the good into the evil. The power of evil is (or can be) subtle and often lies hidden for a long, long time before it is finally unveiled for what it truly is.
It twists you at the level of your very being. If you are overcome by it, you may yet seem to yourself and all others to be a creature of Light for a long time afterwards. Even if the power of evil is defeated in you, the struggle will leave its scars and your life is touched by that struggle forever after. (Bilbo Baggins.)
Unfortunately, in the case of Saruman, the movie missed this point. Interestingly, it seems to have *gotten* the point in the case of some of the other characters (Bilbo, Boromir, perhaps Galadriel) albeit the movie was much less subtle than the book on this point. But by *not* getting the point in the case of Saruman (the most blatant example in the book) the movie tends to hide that point despite itself. In the movie, the Saruman character actually provides a *counterexample* to this point - because rather than being a good creature twisted to evil by a desire for the power to accomplish the good, Saruman is instead shown in the movie to simply *be* a bad guy. There's no question of his allegience - he is a servant of Sauron. (No explanation given in the movie!) There's no question of his desiring to accomplish good aims, he simply seems to think that siding with Sauron is the only way to continue to have power in the world. The movie Saruman thinks *only* in terms of survival and power, and that is not at all how the book Saruman was portreyed. That may be what he became, but the point of the book was to show how and why he became that.
Okay, that was number one. Number two is a little harder to explain.
In my opinion, one of the major themes of Tolkien's work in the Hobbit and the LOTR was the notion that personal and historical greatness comes, not from causing and moving great events, but rather from *being a participant* in great events and being moved *by* them - and in that participation, continuing to act honorably and well. (A very british sentiment one might say! But perhaps a lesson many Americans dearly need to heed.) In other words, the protagonists in Tolkien's books aren't shown to be great persons by the decisions they make and the actions they take to move history - but rather they are shown to be great in that they *find themselves moved by* or *find themselves to be part of* what Samwise called a great, neverending Tale - and in that participation in great events, the characters maintained themselves in an honorable and ethical fashion.
In the three volumes of LOTR, Frodo makes hardly any single decision! And the ones he does make are either basically foregone conclusions, or they do not *really* matter as to the outcome of the whole thing. (Of course, his eventual decision to go it alone is an exception but not as much of one as you might think. Really, he knew it was what he *had* to do - his actual decision was almost foregone, it was simply that he needed to exhibit the compassion and bravery necessary to assent to that necessity.) I think this was Tolkien's intention. It's part of the mythos's notion of Hobbits - that they are hardly to be noticed, making little or no bother and making little or no impression on the world around them, yet they have a world in which they live and in that world, exhibit a central core of integrity and honorability. (Comments similar to those of this paragraph can be made about Bilbo in the Hobbit.)
But Frodo is shown to be, not just a good person, but a *great man* (sorry for the gender-biased term, I couldn't think of a better one) in both the personal and historical sense, not because he moved events along a great course (that was going to happen whether he acted in them or not,) but because in being moved by those events, he exhibited honor, bravery, compassion, and ethical integrity.
I'm not saying his participation made no difference - it is probably *because* of his participation that things turned out so well in the end. But this does not detract from my point - rather it touches on another of Tolkien's themes - a very christian theme which I will call the Mystery of Grace. I won't go into that right now, however.
So anway, the thing is, in the movie, Frodo (and others) kept *deciding* things and *determining* what must be done. I really felt this was outside the spirit of the book. But it is a subtle point and I had to do alot of thinking to understand what it was that bothered me in this respect. And upon even further reflection, I realized that some elements of this theme remained in the movie even as it is - Frodo's decisions are usually of the "knowing what I have to do" sort even in the movie, and so as I commented about his decision to go it alone in the book, these can be understood to be not as much an exception to the theme as they may seem to be. The decision was in a sense already made for him, and his assent to that decision, though a decision in itself, required not a *self-determination* of what must be done, but rather simply the bravery, honor, or whichever trait is relevant to lay hold of that decision which has been *laid out beforehand* for you to make. Makes sense?
But still, I have to kind of search for that kind of meaning in the movie, whereas in the book I felt it was practically laid right open before me, so that is something I thought was a little dissappointing about the movie.
Those are my only two real problems with the movie. They get at the very point of the book, and so I assign some importance to them. Plot details, and yes *even some differing aspects of characterization* I am not concerned about, or at least not as concerned. As long as all "changes" are in the spirit of Tolkien's themes and message and the story he wanted to tell, I am fine with them. But when the movie starts to mess with the actual themes (and hence the real story) I think there are things amiss.
Still a great movie, though. And basically still a great telling of the LOTR story - though I may disagree with the interpretation and I may think reflection was lacking at certain points.
-Kris
But here in *this* thread I'll go ahead and explain what I thought was not so great about the movie.
Aside from the silliness of the wizards' duel, and a slight amount of forced emotion (in what I thought was actually generally a very emotionally intense and honest flick), there were two things about the movie which I felt showed that the movie at least to an extent missed the point of what LOTR was all about. That's pretty strong, and I should say this can be attributed to a difference in opinion or interpretation. That said, I must also confess to a strong intuition that in these two cases, I am definitely right about the books and the movie is definitely wrong.
The first thing I thought was bad was the handling of Saruman. In the book, Saruman at least has a rationale, an excuse, for desiring the power of the ring - to bring about the good intentions of the Istari secretly, under the Enemy's nose, using the Ring's power, while nevertheless openly siding with the power behind the ring, the Dark Lord Sauron. In the LOTR mythos, it is this original intent for the good which is twisted by the Ring's power toward the evil, and which eventually unveils Saruman as fully twisted and finally a servant (at first unwilling and unwitting but in the end fully and openly) of Sauron.
Now, that's good stuff. And it gets at one of the points of the whole work - that the power of evil is not that it can *make* you evil but instead that it *twists* the good into the evil. The power of evil is (or can be) subtle and often lies hidden for a long, long time before it is finally unveiled for what it truly is.
It twists you at the level of your very being. If you are overcome by it, you may yet seem to yourself and all others to be a creature of Light for a long time afterwards. Even if the power of evil is defeated in you, the struggle will leave its scars and your life is touched by that struggle forever after. (Bilbo Baggins.)
Unfortunately, in the case of Saruman, the movie missed this point. Interestingly, it seems to have *gotten* the point in the case of some of the other characters (Bilbo, Boromir, perhaps Galadriel) albeit the movie was much less subtle than the book on this point. But by *not* getting the point in the case of Saruman (the most blatant example in the book) the movie tends to hide that point despite itself. In the movie, the Saruman character actually provides a *counterexample* to this point - because rather than being a good creature twisted to evil by a desire for the power to accomplish the good, Saruman is instead shown in the movie to simply *be* a bad guy. There's no question of his allegience - he is a servant of Sauron. (No explanation given in the movie!) There's no question of his desiring to accomplish good aims, he simply seems to think that siding with Sauron is the only way to continue to have power in the world. The movie Saruman thinks *only* in terms of survival and power, and that is not at all how the book Saruman was portreyed. That may be what he became, but the point of the book was to show how and why he became that.
Okay, that was number one. Number two is a little harder to explain.
In my opinion, one of the major themes of Tolkien's work in the Hobbit and the LOTR was the notion that personal and historical greatness comes, not from causing and moving great events, but rather from *being a participant* in great events and being moved *by* them - and in that participation, continuing to act honorably and well. (A very british sentiment one might say! But perhaps a lesson many Americans dearly need to heed.) In other words, the protagonists in Tolkien's books aren't shown to be great persons by the decisions they make and the actions they take to move history - but rather they are shown to be great in that they *find themselves moved by* or *find themselves to be part of* what Samwise called a great, neverending Tale - and in that participation in great events, the characters maintained themselves in an honorable and ethical fashion.
In the three volumes of LOTR, Frodo makes hardly any single decision! And the ones he does make are either basically foregone conclusions, or they do not *really* matter as to the outcome of the whole thing. (Of course, his eventual decision to go it alone is an exception but not as much of one as you might think. Really, he knew it was what he *had* to do - his actual decision was almost foregone, it was simply that he needed to exhibit the compassion and bravery necessary to assent to that necessity.) I think this was Tolkien's intention. It's part of the mythos's notion of Hobbits - that they are hardly to be noticed, making little or no bother and making little or no impression on the world around them, yet they have a world in which they live and in that world, exhibit a central core of integrity and honorability. (Comments similar to those of this paragraph can be made about Bilbo in the Hobbit.)
But Frodo is shown to be, not just a good person, but a *great man* (sorry for the gender-biased term, I couldn't think of a better one) in both the personal and historical sense, not because he moved events along a great course (that was going to happen whether he acted in them or not,) but because in being moved by those events, he exhibited honor, bravery, compassion, and ethical integrity.
I'm not saying his participation made no difference - it is probably *because* of his participation that things turned out so well in the end. But this does not detract from my point - rather it touches on another of Tolkien's themes - a very christian theme which I will call the Mystery of Grace. I won't go into that right now, however.
So anway, the thing is, in the movie, Frodo (and others) kept *deciding* things and *determining* what must be done. I really felt this was outside the spirit of the book. But it is a subtle point and I had to do alot of thinking to understand what it was that bothered me in this respect. And upon even further reflection, I realized that some elements of this theme remained in the movie even as it is - Frodo's decisions are usually of the "knowing what I have to do" sort even in the movie, and so as I commented about his decision to go it alone in the book, these can be understood to be not as much an exception to the theme as they may seem to be. The decision was in a sense already made for him, and his assent to that decision, though a decision in itself, required not a *self-determination* of what must be done, but rather simply the bravery, honor, or whichever trait is relevant to lay hold of that decision which has been *laid out beforehand* for you to make. Makes sense?
But still, I have to kind of search for that kind of meaning in the movie, whereas in the book I felt it was practically laid right open before me, so that is something I thought was a little dissappointing about the movie.
Those are my only two real problems with the movie. They get at the very point of the book, and so I assign some importance to them. Plot details, and yes *even some differing aspects of characterization* I am not concerned about, or at least not as concerned. As long as all "changes" are in the spirit of Tolkien's themes and message and the story he wanted to tell, I am fine with them. But when the movie starts to mess with the actual themes (and hence the real story) I think there are things amiss.
Still a great movie, though. And basically still a great telling of the LOTR story - though I may disagree with the interpretation and I may think reflection was lacking at certain points.
-Kris