Why seeing Bakshi makes me love PJ [Archive] - Page 2

joxy

12-15-2002, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by aragil
T does describe the crossing - he calls it wicked with vile results. This is a verbal description, for an example of a cinematic description which conveys the same meaning see PJ's film.
The most spectacular failure of all belonged to Saruman, and showing the orc-men crossing scene goes a long way to explaining this in a film.
Personally I don't see how the muck was gross at all.
T's tools of his trade were words; he was very precise about their meanings as that was a major part of his job. I don't aspire to his level of intellect but I do know what the word "describe" means. I said I was using it about the PROCESS, and maybe the word "depict" would have been better, but my meaning was clear - I meant that T did not give an account of the physical means by which new orcs were produced, and that is a fact. He described the idea, the principle, of producing orcs as wicked, which of course it was. These are two different uses of the word "describe", one to give attributes to an idea, the other to give an account of a process. T does one, PJ does the other.
He doesn't show an orc-man crossing scene; he shows an orc being dug out of mud- as I said, possibly because the poor guy fell in and got stuck. I don't see any way a non-reader would understand the implications you've given the scene, and as a reader I don't think it achieves them at all - I find it hard to believe PJ intended them.
I didn't say the "muck" was gross; I said it's idiotic, which is much nearer its value.

aragil

12-16-2002, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by joxy
He doesn't show an orc-man crossing scene; he shows an orc being dug out of mud- as I said, possibly because the poor guy fell in and got stuck. I don't see any way a non-reader would understand the implications you've given the scene, and as a reader I don't think it achieves them at all - I find it hard to believe PJ intended them.
I didn't say the "muck" was gross; I said it's idiotic, which is much nearer its value. Quothe Gandalf in the movie
His treachery goes deeper than you know. Saruman has crossed orcs with goblin men. He is breeding an army in the caverns of Isengard. An army that can move in sunlight, and travel great distances at speed. Saruman is coming for the ring.
Don't know if this is what you're talking about Joxy, but this seems to give even a non-reader a pretty clear implication of what's going on. That you find it hard to believe that PJ has correctly interpreted anything from the book speaks more about your opinion of PJ than PJ's ability with the book, IMO.

MM- I know you are not suggesting that PJ should show an Orc raping a woman. Talk about a gross movie- this would have never seen the light of a theater. Certainly I don't think what was depicted in the movie was creation- i.e. something from nothing. For me at least it was a twisting of something that was already there. The exact mechanations of how it worked are not explicitly shown, so we really don't know what exactly happened. We know that Saruman is orcs and men from Gandalf's quote. How this is being accomplished via the muck is left up to the viewer, which is a decision I agree with. Of course, as you and Joxy both know well, had PJ shown an Orc being born then the 'internal consistency brigade' would have cried Fowl, as this would mean that the orcs would be far too young to intercept the Fellowship at Parth Galen. It seems that PJ can't win.

Mrs. Maggott

12-16-2002, 05:07 PM

MM- I know you are not suggesting that PJ should show an Orc raping a woman. Talk about a gross movie- this would have never seen the light of a theater. Certainly I don't think what was depicted in the movie was creation- i.e. something from nothing. For me at least it was a twisting of something that was already there. The exact mechanations of how it worked are not explicitly shown, so we really don't know what exactly happened. We know that Saruman is orcs and men from Gandalf's quote. How this is being accomplished via the muck is left up to the viewer, which is a decision I agree with. Of course, as you and Joxy both know well, had PJ shown an Orc being born then the 'internal consistency brigade' would have cried Fowl, as this would mean that the orcs would be far too young to intercept the Fellowship at Parth Galen. It seems that PJ can't win. <quote Aragil>

Gross? Certainly (however, from what I have heard of Mr. Jackson, that does not seem to be a problem for him!)! But accurate, nonetheless. As far as "age" is concerned, we have no idea of how long Saruman has been at his treachery. If he was already corrupted at the time of the Battle of the Five Armies - and his assurance to the White Council that the Ring had rolled down the Anduin and into the sea suggests that is the case - then he has had more than enough time to breed a first generation of such creatures and more besides. Nor do we know how long it takes them to "grow up". Showing Saruman "creating" such creatures - and in their adult form - is not only inconsistent with LOTR, and with The Silmarillion (in which we are told that the forces of evil cannot create, only twist and ruin) but with the forces of nature and biology. Orcs may be many things, but they are biological life forms, not demons.

joxy

12-16-2002, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by aragil
<Gandalf: Saruman has crossed orcs with goblin men. He is breeding an army in the caverns of Isengard.> Don't know if this is what you're talking about Joxy, but this seems to give even a non-reader a pretty clear implication of what's going on. That you find it hard to believe that PJ has correctly interpreted anything from the book speaks more about your opinion of PJ than PJ's ability with the book, IMO.
"Goblin men"? What are they, and does T use the expression? Surely goblins are orcs, and men are men?
I was saying I thought non-readers would not automatically and immediately know what the scene of digging a particularly large and very adult orc out of the mud was all about. I didn't know it was supposed to depict the result of the crossing and breeding in G's quotation, and I don't see why anyone should assume, or guess, that - though some obviously have done so.
PJ hasn't interpreted a description of the birth-process resulting from the crossing and breeding at all, because T did NOT give one. He has decided, for some strange reason of his own, to invent a depiction, and I am not alone in thinking that the result is a piece of ludicrous nonsense by any standards. In this case PJ's ability is something apart from, not "with", the book.

Bjarki

12-16-2002, 06:36 PM

Tolkien himself always had a problem with the orcs and how they were created and bred. He vaccillated between them originally having being mutated by Morgoth in some undefined way from elves or from men and eventually came down in some late writings to the conclusion that it must have been from men, even though this seemed to contradict what he had said in the published works. The question of how they actually reproduced or how Saruman bred the Uruk-hai he wisely left to the reader's imagination! There is an interesting discussion of this question in Tom Shippey's "JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century".

Mrs. Maggott

12-16-2002, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Bjarki
Tolkien himself always had a problem with the orcs and how they were created and bred. He vaccillated between them originally having being mutated by Morgoth in some undefined way from elves or from men and eventually came down in some late writings to the conclusion that it must have been from men, even though this seemed to contradict what he had said in the published works. The question of how they actually reproduced or how Saruman bred the Uruk-hai he wisely left to the reader's imagination! There is an interesting discussion of this question in Tom Shippey's "JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century".
I am not surprised that Tolkien inevitably had problems with the orcs. He certainly made them in T.H. and LOTR as irredeemably evil (one may see the same thing in his Fr. Christmas Letters). Later, I suppose he found such an idea to be inconsistent with the understanding that any sentient being (other than the "angelic" beings who "fall") is capable of redemption and therefore had to "rethink" the orcs.

Still, we must not base our understanding of the orcs in LOTR on Tolkien's later recreations since as they stand in the book, they exhibit a "hive-like" behavior pattern which, at the battle before the Black Gates, suggests that they simply wander away to die when their motivating "force" is removed from them. That many not be how Tolkien eventually perceived them, but it certainly is how he appears to perceive them in the story.

joxy

12-16-2002, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Bjarki
The question of how they actually reproduced or how Saruman bred the Uruk-hai he wisely left to the reader's imagination!
And it would have been much better if PJ had left those questions to the viewers' imaginations, rather than imposing on to them his own distinctly odd imagination of the processes.
Of all the many things that are left to the imagination, why did he decide that this particular one needed to be invented and portrayed, and be given valuable screen time? Is it all that important??

aragil

12-17-2002, 01:29 AM

MM- my comments about internal consistency were for the movie. In the movie Saruman is told by Sauron to build an army while Gandalf is being held captive in Orthanc. In the movie he has until the Fellowship reaches Lorien to make this army, therefore making Orc pups the old fashioned way just wouldn't cut it.
As for the books, we do have an idea of when Saruman started the breeding: from UT The Palantiri (footnote 7)
The use, and possibly special breeding, of Orcs was kept secret, and cannot have begun much before 2990 at earliest. The Orc-troops seem never to have been used beyond the territory of Isengard before the attack on Rohan. Had the Council known of this they would, of course, at once have realized that Saruman had become evil.
Appendix A in LotR then gives Uruks in the service of Saruman (which could be different than the Uruk-hai) attacking Rohan in 3005. So the Uruk-hai might be 15 years old when deployed, they might be older (~33).
You must have missed my creation comment in my last post. I think the movie is pretty explicit: "Saruman has crossed orcs with goblin men." It does not say that Saruman created anything, merely that he twisted already existing beings by crossing them.
As for Tolkien's thoughts being with 'hive-orcs', I still say that the conversations of Ugluk-Grishnakh and Gorbag-Shagrat trump the description given in The Field of Cormallen. Orcs were not ants.

Joxy- I've repeatedly given reasons why I thought that the Orc-birthing scene was important. It's more than a little annoying to see you say (how does that work?) "I don't think anybody understood that" and then turn around and ask the question again. It is an important scene because it contrasts Saruman, who is failing in his mission as a wizard, with Gandalf, who eventually succeeds. This is an important part of LotR, IMO. Feel free to ask the question again- at least you know what one answer will be.
Tolkien does repeatedly use the term 'Goblin-men' (see Merry and Aragorn's exchange in Flotsam and Jetsam or several mentions of the squint-eyed Southerner in Bree and likewise favored individuals in the Scouring of the Shire. However I'm pretty sure the reference in the movie is in error- Men and Orcs (or goblins) are what Saruman started with, Goblin-men (or Orc-men) are what he produced.
In any case I don't see how PJ's scene is at odds with Tolkien, since (as you yourself seem bent on pointing out) Tolkien did not describe it in detail. Tolkien left it completely up to the imagination, PJ left it mostly up to the imagination. I think (hope) all of our imaginations are fertile enough to come up with ways that these two scenes are in agreement or at odds. However, before we complain to loudly about the movie scene being at odds with the book scene we should remember that it is our fertile imaginations which have put the scenes at odds in the first place.

Mrs. Maggott

12-17-2002, 02:49 AM

Yes, Jackson's habit of telescoping time makes it difficult to 'develop' much of anything so that it makes sense. I suppose that was the only way Jackson could show this army being developed. Still, it also points out the fact that by making Saruman into a mere appendage of Sauron, you severely limit your options. In the book (sigh....), Saruman was setting up on his own long before he decided to hedge his bets and appear to join with Sauron. That, of course, takes away any opportunity for Saruman to do anything naughty before the scenes with Gandalf - although, in truth, Jackson does not tell us how long it has been since Saruman has changed sides.

joxy

12-17-2002, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by aragil
Joxy- I've repeatedly given reasons why I thought that the Orc-birthing scene was important. It's more than a little annoying to see you say (how does that work?) "I don't think anybody understood that" and then turn around and ask the question again.
It is an important scene because it contrasts Saruman, who is failing in his mission as a wizard, with Gandalf, who eventually succeeds.
However, before we complain too loudly about the movie scene being at odds with the book scene....
I know you have. My latest question "is it all that important?" was addressed not to you, but to another contributor and to anyone else who might have an opinion on the matter and who might wish to add that opinion to this discussion. You were not involved in the question, therefore you have no grounds for annoyance!
I didn't say " I don't think anybody understood that"; I said "non-readers would not automatically and immediately know what the scene...was all about" and I added "I don't see why anyone should assume, or guess, that - though some obviously have done so", thus admitting that some people are as perspicacious in realising what was happening as you are, and I am not.
But, I don't see how a scene depicting a large adult orc being dug out of a heap of mud establishes the point you claim about failure and success. Whatever it is that's happening, S looks smugly satisfied with, perhaps even proud of, the event.
And, my "complaint" is that the book does not have the scene at all; therefore there is no contest, nothing to compare, nothing to be at odds with. As the contributor to whom I did address the importance question pointed out, T left that particular event to the imagination, if anyone thought it was an event even worth imagining; PJ on the contrary insisted on depicting it with all the vividness of his remarkable imagination.

aragil

12-17-2002, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by joxy
PJ on the contrary insisted on depicting it with all the vividness of his remarkable imagination.
If I didn't know any better I'd swear that was a complement, and could be applied to the whole LotR epic.
As for Saruman's smugness- absolutely!! And it is reiterated by his speech to Lurtz:
Do you know how orcs first came into being? They were elves once, taken by the dark powers, tortured, mutilated. A ruined and terrible form of life. And now perfected, my fighting Uruk-Hai. Whom do you serve?
The audience knows that Saruman is part of 'higher' order. To see him exhibit such smug self-satisfaction (there's that alliteration) in his 'perfection' of a 'ruined and terrible' form of life shows to the audience that he has fallen. Just my opinion, anyway.

joxy

12-18-2002, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by aragil
<the vividness of his remarkable imagination>
If I didn't know any better I'd swear that was a compliment, and could be applied to the whole LotR epic.
To see him exhibit such smug self-satisfaction (there's that alliteration) in his 'perfection' of a 'ruined and terrible' form of life shows to the audience that he has fallen. Just my opinion, anyway.
Lol, but, fortunately, it is Tolkien's imagination that shows through most of the film, and it's only occasionally that PJ indulges himself, by putting on to film the imaginings of those curious corners of his mind that are so fond of urine coloured inns, and mud!
I thought S throwing Gandalf around had already established S's fall pretty clearly, so I still don't see the need for the mud to confirm it, but it isn't just one opinion, I'm sure you're right that the orc arising from the mud DOES confirm it.
I still don't get the point though of how it is important because it "contrasts Saruman, who is failing in his mission as a wizard, with Gandalf, who eventually succeeds."

aragil

12-18-2002, 01:28 AM

Naive moviegoers are just going to be disgusted by Saruman mucking around with human/orc DNA- IMO this is worse than beating on Gandalf, so it does add somewhat even to the naive viewing of the movie.

However, for those of us that have read the books, there is an added dimension (and yes, I think PJ et al were aware of it): Gandalf and Saruman are sent to Middle-earth in order to aid the Free Peoples in their struggle against Sauron. Gandalf concerns himself with those very Free Peoples, and loves all of them, especially the 'humble' ones by which the Ring is eventually destroyed and his mission completed. Saruman, on the other hand, concerns himself with the machinations of the enemy (especially 'power'), and eventually falls to the point that the free-peoples are only genetic 'tools' to be used in his 'perfection' of the hideous Uruk-hai. Mrs Maggot has typed out the various reasons why this is so disgusting, so I won't re-type them here. However, it should be sufficient to think that Saruman was supposed to help the Free Peoples, but instead he turns them into Orcs. A different approach than Gandalf's, I should say.

Mrs. Maggott

12-18-2002, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by aragil
Naive moviegoers are just going to be disgusted by Saruman mucking around with human/orc DNA- IMO this is worse than beating on Gandalf, so it does add somewhat even to the naive viewing of the movie.

However, for those of us that have read the books, there is an added dimension (and yes, I think PJ et al were aware of it): Gandalf and Saruman are sent to Middle-earth in order to aid the Free Peoples in their struggle against Sauron. Gandalf concerns himself with those very Free Peoples, and loves all of them, especially the 'humble' ones by which the Ring is eventually destroyed and his mission completed. Saruman, on the other hand, concerns himself with the machinations of the enemy (especially 'power'), and eventually falls to the point that the free-peoples are only genetic 'tools' to be used in his 'perfection' of the hideous Uruk-hai. Mrs Maggot has typed out the various reasons why this is so disgusting, so I won't re-type them here. However, it should be sufficient to think that Saruman was supposed to help the Free Peoples, but instead he turns them into Orcs. A different approach than Gandalf's, I should say.

Heavens, yes! But it has always been so! Those who consider themselves "superior" have no problem "using" the untermenschen as they see fit. First, they dehumanize by calling them by labels that make them seem something other than human and then, when they have finished, they are able to do what they will without a troubled conscience. In this instance, Saruman was in fact a superior being! But that very truth required that he be even more considerate of those whom he was sent to help. To understand this, consider not only Gandalf's years of service in which he was frequently misunderstood and even disliked, but Aragorn's years of service during which he was frequently held in contempt by the very folk for whom he placed his life on the line! Remember, "Strider" was not a title of honor!

aragil

12-18-2002, 10:50 AM

MM- as much as I'd like to argue with you, I think we're agreeing. Hmm. I suppose stranger things have happened.

Mrs. Maggott

12-18-2002, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by aragil
MM- as much as I'd like to argue with you, I think we're agreeing. Hmm. I suppose stranger things have happened.
It's the season! Enjoy!!

God bless and have a blessed Christmas and a healthy, happy and prosperous New Year! ;)

aragil

12-18-2002, 12:14 PM

Well thank you, and returned good wishes to you!

joxy

12-18-2002, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by aragil
Naive moviegoers are just going to be disgusted by Saruman mucking around with human/orc DNA.
Well, whatever is happening could be called disgusting; it's certainly a pretty messy thing that's going on.
But, would those naive, and not so naive, viewers' first thoughts be that it was about S doing anything with any DNA,
doing anything to do with any form of production, or reproduction, of super-orcs?
There is no dialogue to the scene, and it still looks to me as if the poor guy has somehow been buried in mud (maybe by a sort of avalanche of it?!), his pals are busily digging him out with poles, and S is looking on in relief that he has been rescued, and indeed in admiration of the size of him. I'm convinced by those who say it's meant to show S's evil intentions being put into practice by the production of the crossing, but I sure don't see why anyone should automatically know that, and still less, understand it.
It seems to me much more a case that the scene is the ultimate example of PJ's delight in throwing in curious figments of his imagination, unrelated to the books, and then trying to work back to the books to concoct a relevant link.

Mrs. Maggott

12-18-2002, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by joxy
It seems to me much more a case that the scene is the ultimate example of PJ's delight in throwing in curious figments of his imagination, unrelated to the books, and then trying to work back to the books to concoct a relevant link.
In theology, the tendency to seek to "find" relevant "religious" reasons for an already existent situation is called "backfill". It's quite common, actually.

It has been likened to the story of the bride who upon making a ham for her groom, cuts the end off. He asks her why she has cut a portion of perfectly good meat from the ham and she answers, "Because my mother did it!" The following week, the young couple invite the mother to dinner and ask her why she cut the end off the ham. "Because my mother did it!" So, the third week, the couple invite the old grandmother and, after dinner, breathlessly ask her why she cut the end off the ham. The old lady looks up and gives them a toothless smile, "Because my pan was too small!" And that, friends, is how many traditions get started. :rolleyes:

joxy

12-18-2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In theology, the tendency to seek to "find" relevant "religious" reasons for an already existent situation is called "backfill".
Yes, like Tolkien, and yourself, I've been into comparitive religion! I don't want to know of which particular cult PJ is a member!
Happy Christmas, Joyeux Noel, Froehliche Weihnachten, Buon Natale, to you, and all our readers!

Mrs. Maggott

12-19-2002, 04:14 PM

New thought on thread topic:

Having read many of the "reviews" of TTT by Tolkien "fans" in several forums, I notice one theme runs through them rather consistently: LOVE the film, HATE what Jackson did here, here, here etc. (Just to let everyone know, I have yet to see the film but am sufficiently aware of certain things that definitely concern me - such as Jackson's treatment of Faramir.)

We therefore, have a scenario wherein most of those who saw the film loved "the film", but many of them - including avid supporters of the first film - are very unhappy with the changes Jackson made in TTT. Often, the sentiment expressed was that there was "no reason" for many of the changes. Some have even opined (loving the film as they did) that Jackson "murdered" the book.

The question I would like to posit, therefore, is this: Bakshi's film was not critically excellent - or even "good". Yes, it had its "moments", but on the whole, no one truly took it "seriously" as an effort to bring Tolkien's work to the screen and therefore, the "damage" that Bakshi can be said to have done LOTR (the story) was minimal.

On the other hand, so far, both of Jackson's films have been critically acclaimed even by those who were unhappy with his alterations, deviations and variations on the story. Does this mean, therefore, that Jackson has actually done more "damage" to the public's conception of Tolkien's LOTR than Bakshi because more people will see - and believe - that these "excellent" films represent Tolkien's "vision" of the story rather than the Director's? Is this, in fact, a case of "more" being "less" and "better" being "worse"?

Bjarki

12-19-2002, 07:19 PM

Given the quality, fame and enormous readership of Tolkien's original book I find it hard to envisage a situation where the films could seriously be thought likely to "damage" the reputation or perception of either the book or Tolkien himself. Possibly if LOTR was a third rate piece of pulp fiction and the film a masterpiece of the genre, the film would so totally eclipse the book that it would effectively disappear from public consciousness. But given that the book is a masterpiece in its own right, no matter how good the film is, it will not damage LOTR's stature.

After all, Boris Pasternak's "Dr Zhivago" has hardly been damaged by David Lean's film, although the film takes considerable liberties with with the original material. Verdi's "Otello" is an opera of indisputable greatness which is considerably changed from the Shakespeare play on which it is based (cuts, new scenes, altered characters), yet Shakespeare's "Othello" seems to have survived well enough.

Perhaps if the film seriously distorted or falsified the themes of the book, there could be a problem. If, say, the film implied that Tolkien thought that Saruman was an admirable character or that evil ought not to be resisted or something equally diametrically opposed to Tolkien's real belief's, or if the audience left the cinema with the impression that Tolkien was a proto-fascist, a white supremacist or something equally absurd, then I grant you that damage would have been done. But for all the changes that PJ has made to the story and to individual characters, for all the scenes he has cut and new scenes he has added, I cannot believe that viewers of the film (who do not also know the book) will end up with anything worse than a somewhat skewed version of the details of the original story and, possibly, a diluted (but, surely, not an essentially changed) version of the underlying themes of the book.

No, I think that you will find that book and film(s)* will quite happily coexist in future, as masterpieces of their respective genres, just as many originals and their adaptations have done throughout history.

*Assuming that TTT is as good as the reviews say it is (I won't know till Saturday) and that ROTK doesn't let the side down when it finally arrives.

Goro Shimura

12-19-2002, 07:33 PM

Yup.

I think of the movies as being a sort of complex advertisement for the book.

(Does anyone have the sales figures?)

After all... we probably wouldn't be debating Tolkien so fiercly if it wasn't for PJ. I mean... this forum probably would't exist, right? At least not at this level of participation....

Mrs. Maggott

12-19-2002, 07:57 PM

I have not yet seen TTT, so I will refrain from responding to the belief that a vastly changed LOTR that is done well enough for those seeing it who haven't read the books to believe that it does represent them does not create a problem.

I, frankly, am of the belief that a good counterfeit bill is more dangerous that Monopoly money because it confounds and confuses the holder and debases the currency.

aragil

12-19-2002, 08:18 PM

Currency has an extrinsic value. The value of the books to the reader is intrinsic- and as such I should hope that it is beyond the danger of any counterfeit.

In any case, the extent to which TTT deviates from the books is (highly) debatable- I think it deviated less than FotR! Right now I like it less as a movie, because of editing issues and (relatively) small decisions in the course of the plot. But I do think it was as (if not more) successful in conveying the themes of the books. There's still one film defender who draws breath in Moria!

aragil

12-19-2002, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
Originally posted by aragil
Except in the cartoon Bakshi decided to actually show Gandalf walking around- he completely missed the point that Gandalf died and it was his soul that was travelling these roads.And do you honestly think that PJ will also capture this scene? The audience will have more questions than they can ponder should PJ show anything but the idea that Gandalf plain old survived the fight and made his way out where he was carried by Gwahir to Lorien. Much simpler to explain. Nobody even knows that Gandalf is an immortal being. I can see the dialogue in the movie theatre now..

"What? Died? Walking naked along some ethereal road? How can he die and yet come back? Was he resurrected?"
"Yes!" Some Tolkien fanatic whispers in his ear. "Gandalf was a Maia and Eru let him come back!"
"What? Eru who? Come back from where?? What's a Maia? AAAHH! I don't get it!"
"SSHHH! You're missing the numerous changes and deletions that aragil and Talimon will no doubt praise on the Tolkien forum!"
"Talimon who? Aragil, what?? What's a Tolkien forum?"

I can't tell you how smugly satisfied I was with the rendition of this scene in the TT movie, especially given this exchange with Thorin. PJ (or PB or Fran) read this bit in the books, understood it, and wasn't afraid of presenting it as such for the naive movie-goer!! If anyone wants to avoid spoilers on how it was conveyed, I'd be happy to continue this in the TT forum, but I'll just say here that I thought it was great how they pulled this scene off. This is definitely a scene from Bakshi that makes me love PJ!!

Mrs. Maggott

12-19-2002, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by aragil
Currency has an extrinsic value. The value of the books to the reader is intrinsic- and as such I should hope that it is beyond the danger of any counterfeit.
In any case, the extent to which TTT deviates from the books is (highly) debatable- I think it deviated less than FotR! Right now I like it less as a movie, because of editing issues and (relatively) small decisions in the course of the plot. But I do think it was as (if not more) successful in conveying the themes of the books. There's still one film defender who draws breath in Moria!

It is true that currency has an intrinsic value, but when one makes a film entitled "Lord of the Rings", there is bound to be a certain "connection" made between the book and the film by the viewers of the latter. If the film is reasonably true to the book, the problem is non-existent for no one expects a film presentation of any book to be 100% accurate.

However, if the film undermines the moral vision of the book or in any other way "devalues" it (to use the currency analogy), then the better the film is, the worse the damage it is going to do to the book! Hence, my analogy to a "good" counterfeit bill being more dangerous than mere Monopoly money which no one would confuse with the original. Those viewing a "good" film which "appears to be" true to the book - but which isn't in very significant and important ways - are forever going to imply to the book what was implicit in the film. And that - at least to me - is "damaging" to the book even if not one word of text is changed.

Secondly, one hardly needs to "defend" the film unless one is responding to someone making a comparison to the book and finding fault thereby. Other than that, the only thing one might have to defend the film against is criticism of it as film! As I have made done neither in the instant case, it seems rather pointless to "defend" the film in response to any point that I have made.

aragil

12-19-2002, 11:40 PM

I'm still not sure you can do damage to such a classic, even with a diametrically opposed moral vision. For me it is not possible for a film with a 'bad' moral vision to be great- if somethings going to preach to me it better be something that resonates with me, otherwise I won't call it good. This means that if I do think a film adaptation is good, it either kept the good moral values of the source material, or it changed source material that was morrally corrupt into something more palatable for me. In either case, I don't see a 'great' adaptation as being capable of causing any real harm.
To take another tac, how exactly do you invision this damage being realized (where are the books devalued)? Is this accomplished in that the naive viewer receives a 'bad' moral vision? Assuming that it is possible for a good movie to transmit bad morals, then even a morraly corrupt movie that was succesful as a film would still be helping things out by increasing visibility of the (presumably morally sound) source material- the success of the 'bad' movie would lead more people to the 'good' book, and thus a net good would be achieved. In fact, I feel like I'm probably arguing one of your world views- that God (or Eru on these boards) takes things that are evil and outside of his plan, and turns them into things that are good and in harmony with his plan, but in an unanticipated way. Hmm, a Tolkien theme in 'real' life!
Does the damage occur for those who have already absorbed the written word and then are forced to view the counterfeit? For those who have read and loved the books a special bond is formed. Certainly no cleverness on the part of a 'counterfeiter' could ever diminish the books' value to me.

Re. the need for film defenders- these boards are for discussing the works of Tolkien, and for me one of the best ways to discuss these works is through how we interpret them. I think the film is an interpretation, and so discussing where the film's interpretations resonate (or clash) with our own views is one of the most entertaining uses of these boards. I feel that I am defending the film because I think in many cases you (and others) are saying that the film has either missed or (even worse) undermined the themes from the books.

joxy

12-20-2002, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by aragil
....how exactly do you envision this damage being realized (where are the books devalued)? Is this accomplished in that the naive viewer receives a 'bad' moral vision?
....you (and others) are saying that the film has either missed or (even worse) undermined the themes from the books.
I have the feeling that the naive new viewer, indeed the average one, will not be so much concerned with the high moral values, and themes, that are so well discussed here, as with the general "feel" of seeing the film as compared with that of reading the books, which I hope they will be led to do.
Film is a very "immediate" medium, and I am guessing they will find it hard to adapt to the completely different style, and to some extent content, of the books. I prefer my situation, of being throughly au fait with the books first, and feel that the experience of new readers may be lessened, and certainly changed, by their memories of the film.