I have a confession to make - lean close and I'll whisper it in your ear... I'm a Lord of the Rings nerd. Only the novel mind you (not a trilogy!! It is a novel which was published in three parts due to the postwar paper shortage); I've never managed to get into The Silmarillion, despite numerous attempts. I first read it in 1990, and have read it at least once a year since then; it's one of the staples of my reading life, along with Shogun, Bad Wisdom, and Howards End.
So when the film trilogy came out (yes, the films are a trilogy) I was pleased. I saw them all at the cinema and was astounded at numerous parts - jumping the falling bridge in Moria, the battle of Helms Deep, the magnificent part played by Andy Serkis. I devoured the extended versions and savoured the success of the films, financially and critically. (Especially when Return of the King was awarded so many Oscars - it almost made up for the monstrosity that is Titanic being so grossly overrewarded).
However, as time has gone on, the weaknesses of the films have become ever more apparent. They are not films which age well, films which pay repeated viewings (like Chinatown or Pulp Fiction or Groundhog Day). I can imagine them in ten or twenty years time being viewed as historical curiosities, like epics such as Ben Hur or Cleopatra, rather than living parts of cinema which are vital parts of beloved film collections. I'd go so far as to say that the 1978 animated version by Ralph Bakshi is a superior cinematic experience which is far closer to the spirit of the novel, although it's not by any means perfect.
Peter Jackson took a lot of credit for the success of the films. He must take the blame for their failings. (There is a story that he only read the book once - whether it's true or not I don't know. But it would explain a lot, especially his superficial treatment of the whole concept).
So what are the failings? Let's go through them. (I have a feeling I might be some time on this...)
So when the film trilogy came out (yes, the films are a trilogy) I was pleased. I saw them all at the cinema and was astounded at numerous parts - jumping the falling bridge in Moria, the battle of Helms Deep, the magnificent part played by Andy Serkis. I devoured the extended versions and savoured the success of the films, financially and critically. (Especially when Return of the King was awarded so many Oscars - it almost made up for the monstrosity that is Titanic being so grossly overrewarded).
However, as time has gone on, the weaknesses of the films have become ever more apparent. They are not films which age well, films which pay repeated viewings (like Chinatown or Pulp Fiction or Groundhog Day). I can imagine them in ten or twenty years time being viewed as historical curiosities, like epics such as Ben Hur or Cleopatra, rather than living parts of cinema which are vital parts of beloved film collections. I'd go so far as to say that the 1978 animated version by Ralph Bakshi is a superior cinematic experience which is far closer to the spirit of the novel, although it's not by any means perfect.
Peter Jackson took a lot of credit for the success of the films. He must take the blame for their failings. (There is a story that he only read the book once - whether it's true or not I don't know. But it would explain a lot, especially his superficial treatment of the whole concept).
So what are the failings? Let's go through them. (I have a feeling I might be some time on this...)
- Characterisation. This is completely off, to such a degree that it must be deliberate. While some modifications and condensations are to be expected (especially in such a large novel), why Jackson felt the need to change numerous characters for the worse I'll never know. Gimli for example - reduced from a representative of the noble dwarf race to a Snarf (from Thundercats, for readers over 30), a figure of fun for cheap laughs. Frodo loses all his nobility and "stature", becoming a tepid victim. Merry and Pippin are reduced in a similar way to Gimli, becoming joke-figures - and without their apotheosis in "The Scouring of the Shire" chapter, there's little personal development. Gandalf - the difference between him pre- and post-Moria is too great; it's like he's a different character, rather than revealing different aspects of the same person. In the "Fellowship", he's a kindly old man, with a bit of a temper; in "Return" he's a sage, a philosopher-king. There's little connection between the two. Denethor should be stern, cold and proud - introducing him as broken by the death of Boromir removes all the dramatic tension from his escalating hopelessness, and reduces the impact of the palantir.
- Mishandling Scenes. Several scenes are understandably telescoped (we're dealing with a novel that's over one thousand pages long and whose principal action takes place over one calender year). Nonetheless, there are several examples of Jackson getting them completely wrong. The Council of Elrond for example - Jackson usefully gives some backstory at the start of each part of the trilogy, which reduces the need for such a lengthy, unwieldy scene. So what does he do with it instead? He has the various characters squabbling and then Frodo pipes up with "I will take the ring" and all fall silent. This is just utterly ridiculous. Arwen making the river rise up is foolish, suggesting that any old elf can do "magic", whereas it is Elrond who can do it, as he possesses one of the Three Rings. In Moria, we see the skulls of dead dwarves right away, rather than an rising feel of dread, and the battle in the Chamber of Records is much longer than it should be, reducing the impact of the later climactic scene with the Balrog. And what the hell is with that scene with Aragorn being nearly drowned in "The Two Towers"? With so much choice material being cut out, why add more? We know he loves Arwen already, for christ's sake! I also hate the entire section with Faramir - gone is Frodo's nobility, gone is Faramir's ability to resist the temptation of the Ring. It's his ability to withstand the temptations of power which make him worthy of power - just as Aragorn announces that he will never set foot in the Shire. But such subtleties are beyond Jackson.
- Directorial Tics. There are several terrible examples of these littered throughout the films, things which become increasingly grating. The habit of showing the Ring in Frodo's hand, the camera zooming in on the hand and Ring is one. The ridiculous elven music which comes out of nowhere at especially vital moments (Gandalf riding out to rescue Faramir, for example) is unwarranted by any dramatic necessity, and just seems absurd. And worst of all, the Hulk Hogan-esque displays performed by Gandalf and Galadriel when they display their hidden powers - these are frankly embarassing. Tolkien was a man of great sensibility and subtlety - there is no the slightest chance he would have them rampaging in such an absurd fashion. And when Frodo is variously injured, the camera lingers on his pained expression far too long, emphasising his victimhood at the expense of his other qualities (which are never really shown).
- The Scouring of the Shire. This chapter may have added little to the overall plot and action of the film, but it is absolutely fundamental in terms of theme, atmosphere and dramatic synchronicity. Tolkien himself said "it is an essential part of the book, foreseen from the outset". The chapter shows not only how much the hobbits have grown, but that after wars, the Shirefolk choose to revert to their prior mode of life. Wars traditionally bring mechanisation, regimentation and industrialisation, all of which Tolkien deeply opposed. The Lord of the Rings is not (let me emphasis that one million times over) a sword-and-sorcery epic, it is a deeply-felt parable on the hidden powers of the "little people" based on the heroism of ordinary men Tolkien saw during the First World War. That the hobbits come back and reclaim their land from the usurpers and despoilers is a metaphor for what Tolkien wished that the ordinary soldiers could have done. In this sense, it is similar to Lewis Grassic Gibbon's "Sunset Song", where the First World War is won at the cost of the freedom of the small farmers amongst whom Gibbon sets his novel.
- Frodo and Sam. Frodo (still less Gandalf or Aragorn) is not the hero of the book, Sam is. It's that simple. Although Frodo gets top billing, this just goes to show Tolkien's ultimate sympathy is with the underdog. To be fair, Jackson does acknowledge this to some extent by showing Sam and Rose's wedding, but because Jackson omits the Scouring of the Shire chapter, there's nowhere to show Sam's growth, his leading role in the restoration of the Shire, his planting of the mallorn tree. (Trees being a symbol of lineage, as Tolkien well knew).
More could easily be said. But my fundamental faulting of Jackson's films are that they are action films, sword-and-sorcery epics. They fundamentally miss the archaic tone and atmosphere of the book, the freedom, the sense of maps with areas not yet explored. The films do the action sequences remarkably well. But I expect more than that from any adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, of which Jackson only ever captures the surface. For such a thorough, all-encompassing, deep book, that has to count as an failure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments for this post
I forgive Peter Jackson everything for ridding us of Tom Bombadil. That is all.
You might well have a good point there! Bakshi also got rid of Bombadil, but didn't invent any new bits and kept the dialogue and plot much closer to the novel. So my vote is still for Bakshi, not Jackson.
The destruction of the charachters - especially the secondary ones -- was unforgivable to me. And unecessary. Instead of the hobbits and Gandalf etc. inspiring others to do great things, they berate them into it, which is awful. With a sy bit of convincing, Theoden was supposed to rise up on his own to ride against the orcs. Treebeard had to be berated by the hobbits to bring his people against Sauraman. And Sam would have never left a living Frodo. And Frodo never would have chosen Gollumn over Sam.
Great post. Agree with every word.
I agree with all of this.
Just rewatched Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. Absolutely hated it.
One of the worst things about these films, possibly the very worst thing, is the dialogue. It is absolutely dreadful.
Banal, cliche-ridden dialogue is inserted everywhere. After questioning the Hobbits, the gatekeeper at Bree says: "You can't be too careful." In the battle in Moria, one of the Hobbits says: "I think I'm getting the hang of this."
(In the book, the gatekeeper says: "I meant no offence. But you'll find maybe that more folk than old Harry at the gate will be asking questions. There's queer folk about." Compare: "You can't be too careful.")
It's flat, dull, lifeless, stupid. The *whole point* of this story is that we're in a strange world full of strange people. They don't speak like us. Jackson's films destroy any sense of wonder and mystery. That's what's unforgivable. He's taken high fantasy and made it ordinary and everyday. Just a bunch of empty characters with computer-game CGI.
Finally, I have found someone who criticizes these films for the right reasons. The film lacks all the nuances that make the books great and cuts scenes only to insert unnecessary ones made up for the films. However, I disagree about Bombadil. He was a nature spirit in the traditional mold. (Remember, Tolkien was an expert in Celtic mythology.) He was necessary as an illustration of a power that has little relation to the Middle Earth that exists in the story. He cannot effect the ring nor it, him. And, again, Tolkien loved fairy tales, and this was very much a fairy tale character. I know he's uncool, but don't be a hater.
My question is is when does artistic license become artistic butchery?
A: when you give peter jackson a story to put on film.
I hate the movie trilogy and Peter Jackson. His works have been banned from my house since he butchered a literary work of art. I agree with this whole article. If you're going to take the time to rewrite perfection then why not use that time to film the movie as it was written in the book? Tom Bombadil was important to the plot of the book. If not for him rescuing the Hobbits from the Barrow-Wights then Merry wouldn't have had the "sword" that broke the Witch King's enchantments, allowing him to be killed by a woman. Everything about those movies is wrong wrong wrong. It makes me angry every time I reread LOTR or see the movie is on TV. For shame, Peter Jackson!!
Glad someone else agrees. With The Hobbit trailer out and everyone oohing and ahhing, it just reminds me of how angry I was after seeing The Two Towers.
I couldn't believe when Faramir suddenly started becoming Boromir all over again. And the unbreakable friendship of Sam and Frodo? No, there has to be betrayal.
I wish Aragorn would cut off the head of Peter Jackson like he did the orc at Parth Galen beneath Amon Hen.
Most of the things, I could fogive. Two I will never be able to:
1. Frodo is made to look like a whiney teenager, rather than a middle-aged everyman who overcomes impossible odds with a little help from his friends.
2. Arwen is clumsily stuck in places that make no sense just so Steven Tyler's daughter can have some screen time.
I always judge the film qualities based on film credentials; when adapting from a book, it is inevitable that changes are going to be made. Though there are a couple of changes & such that bother me when I watch or think of the movies,(like replacing Glorfindel I think with Arwen, it was totally uncessary) but to condemn Peter Jackson for moving such things around is just childish and it makes you sound like a stubborn fanboy. He cut a lot out, but you have to realize even after he cut so much out the films were still 3-3 1/2 hours long! Do you need 6 hour faithful epics to be satisfied? I do enjoy the books more, but I thank Peter Jackson for bringing the fantasy genre successfully to the big screen. Because of these films, nobody seems to care that every action movie that is released is always near 3 hours and people finally tolerate it (Pirates of the Caribean & Transformers) And I tear up a bit when the ring is destroyed in ROTK, whether I'm reading the book or watching the movie. But if you watch the special extended editions, I'm pretty sure they have every single bit from the book besides the scourging of the shire.
I agree with. I was actually pissed from the beginning when he changed the rhyme of the the ring from 9 mortal men doomed to die to 9 mortal men who above all things desired power. Too many small changes like that throughout the movie make it Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings and not Tolkien's. I am a fan of Tolkien's.
Interesting criticisms, but I really think everyone's being too critical with hindsight. I'm still surprised that anyone managed to film The Lord of the Rings in any kind of cohesive manner, never mind managing to make three fantastic movies. Maybe some of the spirit of the book got lost in translation and I do agree with some of the characterisation problems. But it could have been so much worse.I still love these films. And I still love the books. They are different and, although I agree with many points listed here, I do not think that a slavish adherence to the text would have produced superior films. In fact, I think they would have produced films that were boring and unwieldy. I find it doubtful that such a trilogy would have been financially viable after it's first installment.
Every time I watch the films I regret the books didn't do battles better and every time I read the books I regret that the films totally failed to capture any sense of redemption achieved through great loss. Release from the bondage of flawed natures was a key theme for Tolkien. True, there was wonderful movie action and styling, but sadly, no mystery in the films. The two big mistakes Jackson made were to change the characters and to sweep away the ancient history and the wonder that the Hobbits and men feel as they meet and fight alongside living myths that connect them with the events of thousands of years before. The deep, pervading sorrow that underpins the trilogy is never captured apart from in the first few seconds as Treebeard's words to Galadrial are spoken. The unexpected extension of pain, suffering and sadness at the end of the story in the Scouring of the Shire and in Frodo's own illness and personal sadness are important. So much is missed. And now the Hobbit has been extended across three films! It makes me feel that Jackson could have done better with the Lord of the Rings.
Could not agree with this posting more. I applaud Jackson for bringing scale to the films and realizing the visuals of Middle Earth with such skill and grandeur, but the characterization of many key figures is simply silly and reveals either a fundamental misreading of the story or a willful and misguided change. I found the transformation of Aragorn to be the most galling. In the books, there is nothing halting, reluctant, or self-doubting about Aragorn's sense of identity and role as the future king of Gondor. He knows exactly who he is and what he needs to do. And don't even get me started with the belligerent/impatient take on Elrond (such a mis-characterization), the absurdity of the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep, or the fact that Jackson somehow thought Sauron was a Tesla-powered, disembodied eye set atop a tower. Curious to see how he'll reconcile that unfortunate portrayal with the Necromancer in the Hobbit "trilogy". Sigh. I understand that any massive work needs to be adapted, but I will never understand why directors feel a need to change/add certain elements so that they fundamentally change certain characters or the tone and tenor of the story. Congrats on an excellent post.
These criticisms are neither petty nor picky. PJ changed the most of the characters in such fundamental ways as to change the entire story.
He actually made the movie, which is 99% of the hard work. It should have been easy not to mess it up. Be he felt he need to add "Drama" the capital D kind, the worst kind. He felt he had to make the most dramatic story ever written more dramatic. And he felt this way because his narrative lacked the excitement, spookiness, and sense of wonder inherent in the book.
So he adds a forbidden love story, douchebags being shamed into reluctant acts of heroism (see the growth!) Whiny bitchy folks of all sorts, and a dying AIDs patient dragging a ring halfway across middle earth.
Peter Jackson was found urinating on a pile of Tolkien manuscripts. "What are you doing!?!" asked the man who discovered this, to which Peter Jackson replied in a hoarse hushed tone "I'm making them better"