On why a Tolkien fan doesn’t have to hate the films
(In which I bring up a super-current issue, the Lord of the Rings film trilogy from 2001–3)
Wikimedia-Jackie.lck (photos · sets) [CC BY 2.0]
How about this?
- You don’t have to hate the films just because you’re a fan of the books, and
- those who like the films aren’t worse fans than others.
Usually some points are listed to explain how unsatisfactory the films are. Some I agree with, others get some comments below.
Tolkien wouldn’t have liked it
Probably not. Then again, if a new version was made with all the changes undone, he probably still wouldn’t have liked it. He had very unmodern tastes and was very much married to his own vision. If a film could be made that reflected his preferred dramaturgy and acting, we probably wouldn’t want to see it.
Christopher Tolkien thought it was bad
Then he shouldn’t watch them.
It’s not quite the same story as in the books
Film adaptations seldom are, often for good reasons. Books and films are very different media.
But this one is too different, because…
…Aragorn is too self-doubting / hesitant / inhibited / etc
Witness the Aragorn who scornfully salutes the Uruk-hai before engaging them in melee single-handedly. Jackson’s Aragorn oozes confidence and is truly a man of action. However, he is also intelligent enough to recognize danger and to choose to avoid it if possible.
He is humble and does not pretend to be infallible. He also recognizes that he will have to upset the lives of many people to reach his destiny on his own (in the end he “only” has to ride the storm to achieve it: destiny finds him, as it does). I think this Aragorn improves on the book’s Aragorn.
…Faramir isn’t an enlightened philosopher-warrior, and he wouldn’t have tried to take the Ring
Tolkien inserted himself in his text as Faramir, to give his own opinion on the matters that his characters wrestled with. It wouldn’t work as well to have such a character in the film. As he is a minor character, it makes no sense for him to be able to resist the Ring.
…Elrond is irritable, racist, and protective about his daughter
Three thousand years ago, Elrond’s glorious king Gil-Galad gave his life to defeat Sauron, together with so many elves that the elven race in Arda was permanently weakened. All it took to complete the victory and justify all the sacrifices was to destroy the Ring, but a human’s weakness prevented this. Ever since, humans have been famously unable to keep their kingdoms intact and uphold civilization. Elrond — quite understandably, I think— sometimes lashes out against humans.
And about Arwen — what kind of degenerate monster would not try to walk the fine line between letting his daughter follow her heart and getting to see her ever again?
There is sort of a pay-off when Elrond visits Aragorn to give him his sword and urge him to embrace his destiny. What we see in this scene is a changing of the guard: from now on, the already dwindling elves will withdraw completely, and a new form of kingdom of Men will arise. Tolkien hints at this in many places but never makes a scene of it (he wouldn’t, since his Elrond and Aragorn have a different relationship).
…Arwen gets to save Frodo, and to have too much time in the films
Arwen wasn’t invented until the books were almost finished. Tolkien had her appear in the finale and squeezed in a mention or two in other places, e.g. when Frodo is in Rivendell, but didn’t want to do all the rewriting he would have had to do to let her be active in the plot.
What if Tolkien had invented her earlier and had been more free to use her in the story? What would he have Luthien’s descendant do? I wouldn’t have been surprised if she had been an action girl in the style of Luthien, and maybe played a much larger role in the books than she does in the films.
…Tom Bombadil is missing!
No, he isn’t: he’s just absent. The Bombadil episode is a different story, told in the middle of the first book. The plot is suspended until the episode is done, and picks up again when the hobbits arrive in Bree. It’s not a sub-plot, it’s a departure.
You can’t really do that in a film if you want the audience to stay in their seats. Whether you like or dislike the Tom Bombadil character, there is just no way to include him in the film without it shattering under the weight of Bombadil’s enigmatic nature. And there would have been very little payback for it.
…but Bombadil gave the hobbits their weapons, made by the Dúnedain a thousand years ago!
And in the film they were given daggers by the Chieftain of the Dúnedain of the North. They could be just as good.
…Denethor is just nasty
Economy of character. The book parallels and contrasts Theoden and Denethor to good effect. To do so in the film would demand too much time.
Also, I don’t understand those who want Denethor to be a noble ruler. The man had been under a great deal of stress, as it were, and is at this point in the story one heartache away from a mental collapse.
…Galadriel is weird
Yes, she is. She is one of the oldest living beings in Middle Earth, older than the sun and the moon. She was born in one of the mightiest families of the mightiest nation of elves. She is functionally all-knowing, and extremely powerful. She is feared by the people in neighboring lands: even the scholarly Faramir gets superstitious about her. So it is, I think, a good thing that we get to see her as more than just a pointy-eared hippie.
Tolkien’s elves were halfway between angel and man, and if you read Tolkien’s description of Galadriel in this scene together with the description of Glorfindel when fighting the Black Riders, you get something like this.
…some characters are just caricatures
Also economy of character, and for instance the need to lighten up the drama sometimes.
YMMV, but I think John Rhys-Davies deals with this well: his Gimli is loud, pompous, and accident-prone but at the same time believably lethal in battle and has many fine moments in between. His Gimli also ties in well with the dwarves in The Hobbit (the book, not the film). Interestingly, Rhys-Davies also mostly fails to make Treebeard a strong character, but you can’t win them all.
So the films are perfect?
Certainly not. There are scenes and arcs that are just awful, but luckily most often gone from the theatrical cut. I’ll take this opportunity to call out the Minas Tirith scene where the Witch King knocks Gandalf the White on his ass and breaks his staff as
- illogical
- confusing
- far-fetched, and
- stupid.
I can’t, off-hand, think of any scene where Jackson’s vision fails as badly, and lord knows there are some mistakes in there. That this scene isn’t in the theatrical version is laudable. It shouldn’t be in the extended version either. This scene should have been cut, and all the copies taken around the corner and shot, then buried in a dung-heap, the dung-heap set on fire, and the key thrown away. Yes, I know, just throw it away.
I am surprised, though, to see how few fans note how splendidly the films capture the “sense of land” that permeates LotR. In the books, the land — the forests, the mountains, the rivers, etc: good lands, bad lands, wild lands — are very much part of the plot and sometimes nearly characters in their own right.
This is an area were the “sub-Tolkien” authors almost never match the Master, and this is why their books are more flat, seem more like they are played out on a stage. Jackson goes all out to recreate this. It is a great pity that he rarely gets credit for doing so.
The films also take good care of the languages and the cultures that are attached to them. Edoras is at a glance different from Minas Tirith; the Haradrim foot soldiers are exotic-looking and hidden behind their armor, but you can glimpse what Sam saw in the book, that these are men who serve Sauron, but still men and not monsters.
I like to tell myself Tolkien would have been delighted to see film dialogue in Sindarin, and approved of the care taken in not automatically pronouncing names in his invented languages with modern English accent.
I would also commend the films for their treatment of Aragorn.
After the first half-dozen or so readings of LotR, Aragorn started to seem a bit of a peacock. Calmly questing for the throne makes him seem aloof and a bit unscrupulous. It’s like he is just going through the motions without caring very much. I cannot understand those who prefer the Aragorn of the books: he is one of the weakest points in Tolkien’s narrative.
Aragorn in the films is so much more intense, passionate, committed, caring. He agonizes but finds the strength to do the right thing. He is unselfish, but not self-erasing. He is goofy enough to fit in with the hobbits, but he can collect himself and give Boromir comfort in his final moments with his dedication and resolve. He doesn’t neglect a young boy’s anxiety before a battle. He tells his men that he too feels their fear, and invites them to share in his conviction and his philosophy to do what needs to be done in the now.
