For Mrs. Maggot - Changing the meaning etc.

[Odo Proudfoot]

Mrs. Maggot wrote:

You see, my problem is that when Mr. Jackson began his (at the time very slight) deviations in FOTR, we were told that they were being done for reasons of time and budget constraints. That made sense, but when some of his changes did not seem to be necessary for either reason and did apparently change the characters (seldom for the better, I might add), there were those of us who wondered why if no time was saved by the change, Mr. Jackson just didn't stick with the original theme.

Well, of course, as we have come to know, time and budget reasons obviously were not the reasons for many of these changes, especially in TTT where whole invented plot lines and scenes are added. Indeed, so grievous are the changes in TTT, that FOTR appears to be an almost word-for-word rendering of the book! One can only wait in dire anticipation of what TTT means for ROTK! And my question remains, WHY? If time and money were not the reasons - and obviously they weren't, what part of Tolkien's story did Mr. Jackson think worthy of translation to film?

I am confused, really I am. If you love the story, its moral and literary theme and its characters, if you think it's the best thing that has ever been written, why would you go off on such incredibly useless and, frankly, dramatically inferior "plot lines"? If you don't trust your source, why use it in the first place? Yes, edit. You have to. Yes, consolidate and shorten when and if necessary. But don't change the meaning of the story! and that is what has happened even if the Ring does go into the Fire and Aragorn is crowned and he and Arwen marry. LOTR is far more than such narrowly defined plot themes but apparently, Mr. Jackson either can't see that - or doesn't want to.

You raise a number of different points here. Your central complaint is, if I understand you correctly, that PJ has changed the meaning of the story. Let me respond first to that.

I have always been of the opinion that truly complex, great works of art, be it music, literature, theatre, even religion, transcend the intentions of their creator and take on a life of themselves. Every intelligent recipient of such works will try to look beyond the surface and explore the inner meaning – and most will find not just the meaning infused by the creator, but also elements of their own self, their beliefs, lives and experiences. I venture to say that even the creators themselves may, if they were to reflect on their work afterwards, find meanings that they had not consciously introduced in the first place. In that sense I posit that such works of art do not possess a unique, true meaning, but rather that those exploring them will end up with an interpretation, subjective and somewhat different from everybody else’s. So to say that PJ has changed the meaning of LotR means to me no more than that he has a different view of the core message than you (or I) have. My bottom line is that he could not have avoided changing the meaning of LotR as held by yourself, since he is not you (I presume )

Having said that, I think one can make an argument that he has not even changed the ‘commonly accepted’ meaning of the work that much. There have recently been some other posts on this subject that consider this in better ways than I can, but let’s call it ‘goodness, pity and free will’ (and I am blatantly stealing from someone else here). All creatures have originally an innate goodness that can be corrupted, often by making the wrong moral choice, yet even those who have made those wrong choices deserve pity, for it is not for others to judge. Would you agree with me that this comes close to the core of Tolkien’s world and stories?

Now this is wonderfully summed up by the famous discussion between Gandalf and Frodo about Gollum. This piece of dialog takes place in Bag End in the book, but has been moved by PJ to Moria (where it functions as a caesura in the storyline, a reaction on the sighting of Gollum and a heightening of the audience’s empathy for Gandalf and Frodo, leading into Gandalf’s fall shortly afterwards and the emotional impact of that on Frodo). The scene has a large effect on me, and as I know on many other viewers. I daresay PJ has not left this in on accident, nor moved it inadvertently out of the lengthy and wordy first part of the movie to a place where it would get the focus it deserves. I think this scene illustrates more than anything else that PJ knows and accepts this core meaning of the entire work. If his view was simply that of an Action Movie and Good Guys vs. Bad Guys I don’t think he would have handled this in the way he did. To depict PJ’s concept of the LotR as no more than a good story does him injustice, in my view. The way he handles the relation between Frodo, Sam and Gollum, and between the Slinker and Stinker sides of Gollum, also makes it perfectly clear to me that he has thought about the issues of good and evil, and how complicated things become in the presence of powerful temptations.

Your next worry concerns the characters and how PJ has changed them. On the whole I do not share that concern, I do agree that some characters show a degree of exaggeration of their personae, but doing so is the oldest trick in the book of theatre, and probably necessary given the complexity and total time available for the film. With so many different characters to introduce and develop in a relatively short time I think it is justifiable to introduce them in bolder strokes than in the book, and develop them at a quicker pace. Always remember that the film is not made for Tolkien fanatics who know their Pippin from their Merry, but for the masses who can’t tell a hobbit from an orc.

I know you don’t like PJ’s Aragorn, and I agree he is different from the book, but frankly the book Aragorn is a bit of a cardboard character who can’t do anything wrong and shows little, if any, development in the story. Not Tolkien’s best in my view – surely the momentous events in which he finds himself involved would have some effect on even the noblest of Kings, let alone someone who might have been no more than a Ranger for the rest of his days, had the Ring not by accident been found in his lifetime. I realise that this may cost me my head, but even Tolkien has his weak moments, you know. Cinematically, portraying Aragorn literally as he is in the books would leave PJ wide open to serious criticism regarding the credibility of one of his major characters. It may have pleased hardcore Tolkien fans, but it would have annoyed everybody else – and face it, that’s where the money has to come from.

Now, about time and budget constraints. First of all, I hope you have seen the Extended Edition of the FotR. This version adds a lot of material that is aimed at the Tolkien afficionado, rather than at the average movie going public. Yes, there is a bit more action with the Cave Troll, and also at Amon Hen, but on the whole the added scenes are character development and exposition (even the hobbits throwing rocks at the orcs is more than just action, and goes back to Tolkien’s characterisation of hobbits). The fact that PJ shot all of that footage in the first place shows that he cared about these things, and had to leave them out of the theatrical version because of factors outside his control. The theatrical version is just that – a version intended to please the average public, so he has had to cut the ‘deeper’ scenes rather than the action scenes. I have great expectations that the EE of TTT will be along similar lines as the one for FotR.

Next the issue of adding completely new plot lines. Yes, he does this in the TTT to a certain extent. I haven’t clocked it, but I would think that all of those (Warg attack, Arwen and Elrond, anything else?) don’t add up to more than 20 minutes screen time, so we can hardly claim that the bulk of the 3 hour movie doesn’t follow the book. Interestingly, the Arwen scenes fall back on material from the Appendices, which would otherwise have been impossible to include unless you suggest having the appendices follow the ending in the film as well as in the book! So in that respect PJ does us a great favour by including this in TTT. I don’t think the Osgiliath scene actually takes up much more time than had we had more dialog in Henneth Annun, and anyway I don’t have too many problems anymore with that change in terms of character or plot development (but I want to see where it goes in RotK before I close this one).

Leaves the Warg attack. Right now I am unhappy with that, not so much the wargs themselves which I think are quite cool and illustrate to what extent the enemy is freely roaming about in Rohan, but more the Aragorn-over-the-cliff scene which I find unnecessary and cheesy. I am still open to hear why PJ included this scene and its aftermath – I am sure he will tell us more about his reasons in due time.

Finally, I do cut PJ some slack. Why? Because in my view directing a film, certainly one with the scope of this trilogy, is a creative undertaking. Expecting a director to spend years of his life in making a film like this, coping with the scale, the detail, the demands from his producers, the scrutiny of the public, and more, yet also to park his creative energy and slavishly follow the book, is asking too much from anyone. Of course he wants to put his stamp on it, what else would you expect from anyone mad enough to try it in the first place? You can’t have your cake and eat it. That’s why I say that we either have to accept some changes or forget about ever seeing a LotR movie at all.

Well, this is ridiculously long, so I stop here. I hope this helps to clarify my views.

fG

 

[Gandalf White]

Well, this is ridiculously long

Good point. There is no way I am reading all of that, I'm just way too tired.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

First, let me thank you for considering me worth an entire thread! I haven't been that well thought of, well... I just can't remember when!

Most of what you have excellently posited has been discussed and debated over quite some time on these threads. I will admit that literature is not "static". I remember many years ago being stage manager of our high school presentation of "Wizard of Oz". I found it interesting that the three audiences: the young grade school children, the middle school kids and the high school, adult audiences - all laughed at different places because the play's humor appealed to each audience differently. What the little kids found funny, the older ones ignored, while the adults and older kids got the "nuances" that the playwright had put in that went way over the heads of the younger children.

I have no problem with Mr. Jackson doing what he felt was necessary to bring the story to the screen, but Mr. Jackson himself has expressed in many instances the belief that Tolkien's story was "inferior" to what he "could have done" using the same general plot. When the Director has lost faith in his story and starts mucking about to "fix things", the result is seldom good.

As for the characters, I disagree about Aragorn. Yes, he is a "mythic hero", but Tolkien does not make him a cardboard figure. At Parth Galen after the orc attack when the remains of the Fellowship must decide whether to follow Frodo or abandon the Quest and attempt to rescue the two younger hobbits, Aragorn tells them that they have chosen "a bad" guide because all of his choices have failed. He is not a "superman" without any doubts, all the more because he knows his choice of an elf bride whose father will not permit their marriage unless he is King of both Gondor and Arnor might well mean that he will be the last of his line. Yet, he ever forebears revealing himself until there is no longer any reason to do so; Sauron is already on the move and open war has broken out. Jackson could have done so much with this character, especially given the acting ability of the man chosen for the role. But, instead, he decided on the easier "conflicted" vision that, alas, plays well in our current "therapeutic" culture.

My problem with Mr. Jackson is that he has taken the great gifts given to him (talent - his and others - location, technology and a wondrous story) and squandered them on an attempt to forever make LOTR his rather than Tolkien's. I simply cannot imagine - given his own statements - any other reason for the egregious changes he has already made and will doubtless continue to make in the remaining film.The movies are and will be good and worth watching, but it doesn't do to think too much about what they might have been.

 

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I have no problem with Mr. Jackson doing what he felt was necessary to bring the story to the screen, but Mr. Jackson himself has expressed in many instances the belief that Tolkien's story was "inferior" to what he "could have done" using the same general plot. When the Director has lost faith in his story and starts mucking about to "fix things", the result is seldom good.

Mrs. Maggot, I don't really have time right now to respond, but I would like to know if you have some references to these statements of PJ, so that I can read them for myself.

I am in the process of watching the EE of FotR with the director's commentary, and most of what I hear there is satisfaction in the way they have managed to portray Tolkien's world on the big screen. I have not yet come across an instant where he claims to have improved on the original.

fG

 

[aragil]

Either PB or FW says that the Boromir death scene is better than Tolkien's, but I don't think they meant in any thematic way. The death scene is pretty close to what is in the books, so I take it that she meant the impact was greater. I'll point out that this is (IMO) largely due to the talents of Sean Bean.

 

[Bjarki]

They've certainly expressed the opinion that some of the changes to plot and character were "necessary" from a film perspective. And one must presume that in terms of the film they also thought they were "improvements" - and about that we can agree or disagree as the case may be. However, as far as I know, they have never suggested that they same changes would also be improvements to the book. This is an important distinction, I think.