![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been reading a lot of the comments about TTT lately, mostly 'cuz it's interesting to see how differently people interpret the same film and characters. The most amazing thing, to me, is how upset people are over the changes made to adapt the novels to a film format. I'm also astonished on how adamant some people are that things should not be changed for the way they are in the books. I'm also puzzled on how many people claim that they are "Tolkien Purists" and that the books should not be changed, altered or interpreted in any way.
Now I've read the books. SEVERAL TIMES. I like the books. I own the books. I even reference the books. While I'm not ever going to call myself a Tolkien purist, its not because I don't admire and enjoy the books. Rather the reasonings for that choice have to do with my understanding of different expressions creativity, personal interpretations and the absolute belief that art is neither static nor interpreted in a vacuum. (Someday I'll rant about the fallacy of "pure art".)
However, even if you toss all those personal reasons out, I still couldn't be a "purist" for one singularly important reason.: Tolkien set out do develop a mythology and the importance of the books lies in it mythos not in its details.
Mythothology: the symbolical significance of something (according to Websters)
Mythos: a set of beliefs or assumptions about something (according to Oxford)
The wonder of Tolkien lies in his themes, in his plot lines, in his archetypal characters and in the grand moral and ethical statements that he makes with his work. The minutia of his work adds wonderful depth and weight to his stories, but focusing on those alone and to the exclusions of all else is like admiring Michelangelo's brushwork but never actually looking at the entire ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Now, when I watch the movie I am expecting that the film version of Lord of the Rings will contain the same mythos (themes, plot lines, archetypal characters and grand moral and ethical statements) as the books. And I haven't been disappointed.
The themes of the corruption of power, the devaluing of nature, the necessity of opposing evil, the power of love and loyalty, etc... are all in the movie even though they are presented in a slightly different manner.
The plot lines of Frodo and Sam destroying the ring, Aragorn accepting his birthright, Gimli and Legolas overcoming ethnic hatred (or at least intense dislike), Gandalf's "death" and "rebirth", Rohan's stand against the Uruks at Helms Deep, etc... are all in the movie even though they don't happen in the exact order or way they do in the book.
The archetypal characters of the small hero, the loyal friend, the reluctant leader, the wise old adviser, the passionate but weak-willed warrior, the innocents tossed into war, the embattled king, the rebellious young maiden, etc... are all in the movie even though those characters are more proactive and less introspective and even though their actions may differ slightly from the book.
The moral and ethical statements of questioning power rather than blindly accepting and using it, of respecting nature rather than merely abusing it, of remaining loyal even if it doesn't seem in your best interest, of accepting responsibility even if it would be easier to refuse it, etc... are all in the movie even though they are presented visually rather than written out in detail.
When you look at the mythos what difference does it make whether it was Glorfindel or Arwen who rode to the aid of Frodo after Weathertop, as long as some elf did thereby aligning men and elves as allies?
What difference does it make whether or not the fellowship knew that Moria was overthrown before going in, as long Moria was overthrown and we could be shown the folly of greed?
What difference does it make whether the Elves fought the Uruk-hai in a battle on the edges of their forest or joined Theoden at Helms Deep as long as it is shown that the Elves, too, joined in the final battle of Middle Earth and demonstrating that they are part of the world even if they are leaving it?
What difference does it make whether Eomer was imprisoned or banished, as long as it is shown that Theoden was so befuddled that he couldn't even rule his own kingdom
And what difference does it make whether Faramir talked (endlessly, IMHO) until he understood he had to release the ring or if he witnessed an event that made him understand that he had to release the ring as long as it is shown that Faramir did resist the power of the ring?
From a mythological standpoint, the movies are a sound and faithful adaptation of the books.
I recently heard a wonderful statement attributed to Tolkien (on my wonderful Christmas present, "JRR Tolkien: Master of the Rings" DVD) -- When CS Lewis claimed that myth was made of lies, Tolkien responded that wasn't true. Rather, he said, Myths told something so important that is didn't matter whether it was factually true or not. These books -- and movie -- tell us something so important that is doesn't matter if the details are the same or not, as long as the mythology is true.
Now I've read the books. SEVERAL TIMES. I like the books. I own the books. I even reference the books. While I'm not ever going to call myself a Tolkien purist, its not because I don't admire and enjoy the books. Rather the reasonings for that choice have to do with my understanding of different expressions creativity, personal interpretations and the absolute belief that art is neither static nor interpreted in a vacuum. (Someday I'll rant about the fallacy of "pure art".
However, even if you toss all those personal reasons out, I still couldn't be a "purist" for one singularly important reason.: Tolkien set out do develop a mythology and the importance of the books lies in it mythos not in its details.
Mythothology: the symbolical significance of something (according to Websters)
Mythos: a set of beliefs or assumptions about something (according to Oxford)
The wonder of Tolkien lies in his themes, in his plot lines, in his archetypal characters and in the grand moral and ethical statements that he makes with his work. The minutia of his work adds wonderful depth and weight to his stories, but focusing on those alone and to the exclusions of all else is like admiring Michelangelo's brushwork but never actually looking at the entire ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Now, when I watch the movie I am expecting that the film version of Lord of the Rings will contain the same mythos (themes, plot lines, archetypal characters and grand moral and ethical statements) as the books. And I haven't been disappointed.
The themes of the corruption of power, the devaluing of nature, the necessity of opposing evil, the power of love and loyalty, etc... are all in the movie even though they are presented in a slightly different manner.
The plot lines of Frodo and Sam destroying the ring, Aragorn accepting his birthright, Gimli and Legolas overcoming ethnic hatred (or at least intense dislike), Gandalf's "death" and "rebirth", Rohan's stand against the Uruks at Helms Deep, etc... are all in the movie even though they don't happen in the exact order or way they do in the book.
The archetypal characters of the small hero, the loyal friend, the reluctant leader, the wise old adviser, the passionate but weak-willed warrior, the innocents tossed into war, the embattled king, the rebellious young maiden, etc... are all in the movie even though those characters are more proactive and less introspective and even though their actions may differ slightly from the book.
The moral and ethical statements of questioning power rather than blindly accepting and using it, of respecting nature rather than merely abusing it, of remaining loyal even if it doesn't seem in your best interest, of accepting responsibility even if it would be easier to refuse it, etc... are all in the movie even though they are presented visually rather than written out in detail.
When you look at the mythos what difference does it make whether it was Glorfindel or Arwen who rode to the aid of Frodo after Weathertop, as long as some elf did thereby aligning men and elves as allies?
What difference does it make whether or not the fellowship knew that Moria was overthrown before going in, as long Moria was overthrown and we could be shown the folly of greed?
What difference does it make whether the Elves fought the Uruk-hai in a battle on the edges of their forest or joined Theoden at Helms Deep as long as it is shown that the Elves, too, joined in the final battle of Middle Earth and demonstrating that they are part of the world even if they are leaving it?
What difference does it make whether Eomer was imprisoned or banished, as long as it is shown that Theoden was so befuddled that he couldn't even rule his own kingdom
And what difference does it make whether Faramir talked (endlessly, IMHO) until he understood he had to release the ring or if he witnessed an event that made him understand that he had to release the ring as long as it is shown that Faramir did resist the power of the ring?
From a mythological standpoint, the movies are a sound and faithful adaptation of the books.
I recently heard a wonderful statement attributed to Tolkien (on my wonderful Christmas present, "JRR Tolkien: Master of the Rings" DVD) -- When CS Lewis claimed that myth was made of lies, Tolkien responded that wasn't true. Rather, he said, Myths told something so important that is didn't matter whether it was factually true or not. These books -- and movie -- tell us something so important that is doesn't matter if the details are the same or not, as long as the mythology is true.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-12-28 05:20 pm (UTC)From:Anyone who can't take what's been given as a treat to enjoy in it's own right is more anal than I by far, and I am one of the most anal beasts in the jungle. Each venue has it's strengths and weaknesses and few will properly overlap...be equal in measure while similar or even exactly the same in content.
I thought viewing the Exorcist was the scariest time I'd ever lived through in a fantasy sense...until I read the book; a much more frightening tale. But the images in the film only enhanced my reading the story in that each new visage had a face, all that was not contained within the film was more powerful given the memory of Regan and the pea soup incident et al.
There was no need to compare the two as each was a wonderous telling of a story.
Ignore them hon. These are little more than trekkies who would argue with William Shatner about who the first Kirk was and who might have done a better job. As if they know, and more importantly, as if it matters. Entertainment is not created for prigs to second guess it's makers.
Let's face it, if Tolkien were still alive he'd wet his pants that not only a cult has surrounded his grave, but that so many have delighted in his creation. That's what it's all about; a smile and sigh, not a debate and thumping. I'm only happy that the makers of lotr were aware of the significance of their enterprise and didn't hack it altogether like a few dozen films I could name.
Sorry:) Wen't on a bit. I'll try to be less verbose in the future: