Fantasy is best left to words...

[Goro Shimura]

"In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it.

"...Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy.

"...Drama has, of its very nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute magic: the visible and audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasi-mechanical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much. To make such a thing may be impossible."

-- J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy-Stories

[Aldanil]

Goroshimura the Wise puts the Master's finger right on the point (again). Since we're here in the Pickin' on PJ Forum, let me hasten to agree with the most forceful implications of that apt citation: "the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it." This in a nutshell, as Hamlet sez, is the veritable nub of The Movie Problem (which should perhaps more properly be attributed to that confluence of screenwriting evil, the Walsh/Boyens/Jackson Axis): the apparently irresistible temptation to first insert and then inflate scene after scene after overwrought scene, not because the story requires it or because the emotional impact of the narrative is enhanced as a result, but primarily or even entirely because some bravura special effect is possible. "Can it be done?" too readily supersedes the question "Need it be done?" How else can we explain the technically impressive and totally unnecessary descent of them rickety brick stairs in Moria, or Lurtz the Uruk's arising all covered with slime, or Saruman spinning Gandalf around on the floor by his eyebrows in Orthanc, or any of another half-dozen "cinematic sequences" whose ruthless deletion (and utter conceptual extirpation) would only benefit the film considerably? I'm askin'!

[Talimon]

All this goes to say is that either 1) Fantasy by deffinition cannot be dramatically expressed, or 2) Tolkien had never seen it successfully expressed. Neither deminishes nor degrades PJ's film. If it is the former then it must be accepted that any attempt would have failed, and if it's the latter then we cannot blame Tolkien for the limitations of film during his time.

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it.

Tolkien was a man of words, and so one can only expect him to make such statements. I forget where he says it, but there is a very specific quote from Tolkien saying how he encouraged his fans to express his tale through art, paint, music, and drama. I've never heard these quotes you are presenting before, but I have to assume that it was a long time before/after he said the other quote. To take this quote at face value would in my opinion be degrading art in general. The visual presentation of fantasy (in film, for instance) is a direct result of certain artists mind. That is to say, perhaps the audience is not given the freedom (or challenge) to interact with the story mentally, but the story-teller is being challenged to not only imagine these images and sounds, but make them a reality. I have used the word "tribute" quite often when reffering to PJ's film/s. They don't replace the books, and they don't attempt to.


"...Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy.

Again, by you quoting this I feel that you want me to simply take this at face value. But the fact is, Tolkiens complaint here is a large generlization. Note that he says "hardly ever", not "never". At the time of his death there is absolutely no way he could have known about the possibility of a film being as visually engrossing as PJ's. Star Wars, the first film to successfully use special effects to tell a tale of substance, was made 4 years after his death. "Men dressed up as talking animals" is quite different from what we see in PJ's film. Of course, Tolkien might be making the point that no mimicry can ever match ones thoughts. With this I agree, but I do not believe this in any way deminishes the artistic merit of film/drama. How could we ever enjoy a play by Shakespeare without suspending our belief? Does the fact that the events aren't "real" lessen thier worth?

[aragil]

Originally posted by Talimon
I forget where he says it, but there is a very specific quote from Tolkien saying how he encouraged his fans to express his tale through art, paint, music, and drama. From Letter 131 To Milton Waldman ["The letter... is not dated, but was probably written late in 1951]
Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story-the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and, while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry. I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.
On Fairy Stories was published in 1947. Perhaps the good professor changed his mind before the end.

[Aldanil]

"O Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood!"

(and a hearty A-men to that, saith Goroshimura)



In the hope then that my meaning may not be lost or misconstrued, let me once again, as I did in the ancient age of last December, freely assent that PJ & Company did indeed make a really rather good movie (out of a very great book -- "ay, there's the rub!" As Hamlet has it, "What a falling off was there!") and do further assert my principled and firm disagreement with Tolkien's decidedly dim view of the power of "the visible presentation of the fantastic image" to evoke the wonder of Faerie: Arthur Rackham and Edmund Dulac and Kay Nielsen put the kibosh on any such over-narrow evaluation, and all from within the pages of a single old thin Ballantine volume, The Fantastic Kingdom. Yea, verily, some of Neilsen's "visible presentations" from East of the Sun, West of the Moon (1914) might almost have been drawn expressly for The Silmarillion, which began to take form in just another two years. For that matter, farther along the tangent of demur from the opinions of our dear John Ronald, no lesser light than the famous translator of Beowulf Burton Raffel argues, in an otherwise warmly appreciative, laudatory, and illuminating essay, that The Lord of the Rings, despite its numerous merits, should not be classified as "true literature" at all! (Not that I'm so persuaded, mind you; just showing off my steam-driven catholicity of perspective and scholarly reference.....quarter past three in the AM now is it? Yikes!)

The Particulars as to Why It Is I'm So PO'd With PJ entail no such carping quibble about the Brave New World of CGI, nor any lack of Talimonic faith in the Force of the "visually engrossing"; quite the contrary. My deep and abiding grudge and grievance against that Wellington Wingnut WETA-backed mob (or as it might be phrased otherwise, my Beef Wellington -- would you care for a slice?) is bedrocked on the bromide that Nature Abhors Bad Writing. A better script makes everything else in a movie better; there is no more important element in the ultimate quality of any film than the quality of its screenplay; a much better script and screenplay (and a very much better, I aver) for this movie could have been had than the hash that finally got cobbled together.

Although I'm not even sure if one really can cobble hash, in the last analysis. Perhaps it's better then, that here for the moment I rest my brief case; not in the legally conclusive sense of that term, of course, for the "cause" I vow to tell aright is far from finished; indeed, has barely been formulated here, much less developed in pedantic detail. I'll endeavor to bring both the Letters of JRRT (as the ever-acute aragil provided while I was just now composing) and a few words from George Orwell to bear on the point when I next can pop in; but all of God's chillun got to go to bed sometime...

[lilhobo]

not really, in the end its the visual stimulation that "humans" are used to, and live by it.

the audience wants to "see" what other ppl see in a book, espcially fantasy.... and horror (a la stephen king)

after all we are all voyeristic :D

[Parrot]

Al, it's good to have you back.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Aldanil
....farther along the tangent of demur....
a much better script and screenplay (and a very much better, I aver) for this movie could have been had than the hash that finally got cobbled together. Although I'm not even sure if one really can cobble hash, in the last analysis.
I select these gems from your flood of erudition! Let's have more, please.
The first for its originality.
The second for its truth, and its mixed metaphor, duly acknowledged.
Regarding the script, just what sort of tin ear was needed to end the first disc of EE with a chirpy "Where are we going?"
and the second with a swashbuckling "Let us hunt some orc!"?

[joxy]

Originally posted by Aldanil
How else can we explain the technically impressive and totally unnecessary descent of them rickety brick stairs in Moria, or Lurtz the Uruk's arising all covered with slime, or Saruman spinning Gandalf around on the floor by his eyebrows in Orthanc, or any of another half-dozen "cinematic sequences" whose ruthless deletion (and utter conceptual extirpation) would only benefit the film considerably? I'm askin'!
And I've already asked, more than once! No reply yet, but a few hints, based on casual remarks by PJ in the EE extras!
Those scenes ARE impressive, well-done even, but so utterly out-of-place, and irrelevant.
Think of all the wonderful material that could have been included in their place - and weep!

[Talimon]

A better script makes everything else in a movie better; there is no more important element in the ultimate quality of any film than the quality of its screenplay; a much better script and screenplay (and a very much better, I aver) for this movie could have been had than the hash that finally got cobbled together.

My my!!! Do you always speak so poetically? Content aside it's a true joy to read your posts. Please continue. ;)

Ones opinion on the script is, the way I see it, simply a matter of comparison. Are there better scripts out there? Sure. Are there better scripts out there based on 1000 page fantasy books? No, not even close. This isn't to say that a bad script that is the best in it's class is by default good, but then again I do not feel PJ's script is close to being bad.. In my opinion the script is at the top of it's class when it comes to these type of films. It does what the original Star Wars did (and yet no movie since has really come close to): tell a mythic tale that is both exciting and has content. Also, you need to realize the limitations of a 3 hours film, coupled with the demands of a studio. This is not the first time that folks have looked at what isn't there. But tell me, when you go to see a film, do you judge it by what it is or what it isn't? Which way is the most just? There is no "could have been" here. You look at the film, and judge what it presents you. It is certainly possible to judge it negatively, but I have little more then pity for those who can't enjoy it. It is thier loss.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....I do not feel PJ's script is close to being bad
....There is no "could have been" here.
....but I have little more than pity for those who can't enjoy it.
By script, do you mean the whole thing, or just dialogue?
Why isn't there? When something looks wrong why can't we say how it could have been made right?
I don't think there are many who don't enjoy it, but there ARE many who would have enjoyed MORE something a bit different.