Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
A critic comes late to LOTR

Eledhwen
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jun 2, 5:24pm

Post #1 of 39 (3237 views)
Shortcut
A critic comes late to LOTR Can't Post

The Guardian has a series called "I've never seen..." and this week the subject is our favourite movie trilogy.
I've never seen... The Lord of the Rings
The comment thread is a mixture of:- book die-hards saying the films didn't cut it- book-first people saying PJ did a decent job, but ...- film-first people agreeing ROTK had too many endings- people who haven't seen it being dismissive!



Storm clouds


Chen G.
Rohan

Jun 2, 5:37pm

Post #2 of 39 (3163 views)
Shortcut
His Star Wars comparison is kind of wild [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
For most of Fellowship, I couldnít help but feel like I was watching a knock-off of the first Star Wars movie, with Gandalf in the Obi-Wan role and Frodo as Luke. Gandalf even dies at a similar point in the story.


Yeah, that's because George Lucas did some reading when he was growing up, not the other way around...


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jun 2, 5:37pm)


squire
Half-elven


Jun 2, 6:05pm

Post #3 of 39 (3164 views)
Shortcut
It seems kind of unbelievable [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess I've never heard of someone who hated, hated, hated the Fellowship film and then loved, loved, loved the Return of the King film!

But, if as this professional film critic asserts, the best kind of film is a modern-day blockbuster with over-the-top effects, and maudlin sentimentality as the primary emotion shared by the characters, and RotK delivered that for him in a way that somehow FotR didn't, then one cannot argue with taste.

I don't suppose he'll watch The Hobbit trilogy next?



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 2, 6:25pm

Post #4 of 39 (3160 views)
Shortcut
or [In reply to] Can't Post

it could be that after 7 hours, he was finally expanding his comfort zone to include this sort of thing. It would be interesting what his re-appraisal of FR on a second viewing would be.

I am however dismayed that he held up as "good points" junk like Gimli's clownification, or schmaltz like the pointless Rohan mom-and-kids.

It is very telling that he drew the Star Wars comparison, which is more apt than he knows, and praised PJ's work as a mere "blockbuster."


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Jun 2, 7:40pm

Post #5 of 39 (3153 views)
Shortcut
I'm guessing he's forgotten the Shire scenes [In reply to] Can't Post

when he calls FOTR a humorless slog. But it's very interesting that he was gradually drawn into the story. Like Solicitr, I'd like to know if this has broadened his tolerance - perhaps even appreciation - for movies with more depth and breadth than the usual fare.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauronís master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Fantasy novel - The Arcanist's Tattoo

My LOTR fan-fiction


Eledhwen
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jun 2, 8:47pm

Post #6 of 39 (3135 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I thought that was a shame [In reply to] Can't Post

I find the 'humour' a bit annoying. And 'I am no man!' is not a humorous note in ROTK! (Although interesting that he picked that, given it's straight from the book).

Storm clouds


Omnigeek
Lorien


Jun 13, 7:08pm

Post #7 of 39 (2818 views)
Shortcut
Haven't bothered reading the link [In reply to] Can't Post

Over the past 40-50 years, I've come to the conclusion that professional critics seem to know the least about the subject they are supposed to be reviewing. The citation comparing LOTR to Star Wars just reinforces that -- the author just couldn't be bothered to do basic research like when things occurred (i.e., when the stories were first written) or one author's (Lucas) own accounts of where he drew inspiration from.


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 13, 8:20pm

Post #8 of 39 (2807 views)
Shortcut
Frankly [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Over the past 40-50 years, I've come to the conclusion that professional critics seem to know the least about the subject they are supposed to be reviewing. The citation comparing LOTR to Star Wars just reinforces that -- the author just couldn't be bothered to do basic research like when things occurred (i.e., when the stories were first written) or one author's (Lucas) own accounts of where he drew inspiration from.


Issues of priority and influence bug me a lot less than his placing them on the same plane. Yeah, PJ's LR movies are pretty good on the Star Wars scale. But that's a pretty damn low scale. The fact that this critic uses that as his frame of reference just shows how completely PJ turned Tolkien's material into nothing but an action-adventure popcorn blockbuster, rather than what it deserved.


Chen G.
Rohan

Jun 14, 9:46am

Post #9 of 39 (2732 views)
Shortcut
You say "action-adventure blockbuster" like its a bad thing [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 14, 2:19pm

Post #10 of 39 (2704 views)
Shortcut
Yup. [In reply to] Can't Post

Fine in their place- two hours of mental junk food. I enjoy Indy and Luke from time to time as much as I enjoy a cheeseburger with fries. But Tolkien's writing should never have been reduced to that level.



In Reply To



(This post was edited by Solicitr on Jun 14, 2:20pm)


Chen G.
Rohan

Jun 14, 3:23pm

Post #11 of 39 (2697 views)
Shortcut
Dunno what you're after [In reply to] Can't Post

But The Lord of the Rings has much more pathos than an Indy film or most Star Wars films. Look how they lean into - and simmer in - the sadness of Gandalf's demise. Its not just a plot-point like Old Ben's death - its something that continues to weigh on Frodo for another 45 minutes of movie.

But they ARE action movies, and there's nothing wrong with that.


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jun 15, 3:26am

Post #12 of 39 (2628 views)
Shortcut
Did you not notice... [In reply to] Can't Post

that there's no arguing with this guy? Wink

Of course, you are free to post whatever you want.


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 15, 12:27pm

Post #13 of 39 (2572 views)
Shortcut
Dunno what I'm after? [In reply to] Can't Post

An approach to filming Tolkien that is taken with all the seriousness of filming Tolstoy or Shakespeare.


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jun 15, 12:56pm

Post #14 of 39 (2566 views)
Shortcut
Though I'm no purist... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
An approach to filming Tolkien that is taken with all the seriousness of filming Tolstoy or Shakespeare.


...such an approach would indeed be wonderful to see, to say the least.


(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Jun 15, 12:57pm)


Noria
Gondor

Jun 15, 1:51pm

Post #15 of 39 (2561 views)
Shortcut
Agreed. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But The Lord of the Rings has much more pathos than an Indy film or most Star Wars films. Look how they lean into - and simmer in - the sadness of Gandalf's demise. Its not just a plot-point like Old Ben's death - its something that continues to weigh on Frodo for another 45 minutes of movie.

But they ARE action movies, and there's nothing wrong with that.


There is a lot of action in LotR the novel, from the small or brief skirmishes of FotR to the attacks on Helmís Deep and Isengard and the major battles of the Pelennor Fields and the Morannon. Old Man Willow, the Balrog, Shelobís Lair and so on are some of the many lesser examples.

I must admit, that though overall I loved it, the first time I saw Fellowship I was a little taken aback by the way small or brief skirmishes in the book turned into big fighting sequences in the movie. Not that I didnít appreciate their quality or relevance, but they were unexpected. Later I learned that the studio and filmmakers had thought their primary audience would be teenage and young adult males. Even so, they realized that these very expensive movies needed to attract a much larger and wider-ranging audience than Tolkien aficionados alone and crafted the movies accordingly. It worked. As it turned out, the audience for LotR was much more varied than originally expected, and IIRC, at least half of it was female. There is much more to those movies than action-adventure and they engage the audience much more deeply. Not that there is anything wrong with action-adventure. Movies like Star Wars are modern mythology.

It always amuses me that some Tolkien book fans are so snobbish about the movies or certain film genres in general when, for the first few decades after they were written, Tolkienís works were ignored and/or denigrated by the intellectual elite of English literature. It seems to me that only when the baby boomers who had read LotR in their youth aged into positions of academic influence did Tolkien gain some literary respectability outside of nerddom.

For me The Lord of the Rings is not a sacred text. I love it deeply and it has been my favourite book for more than fifty years but it is a novel, a piece of fiction.


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 15, 5:38pm

Post #16 of 39 (2542 views)
Shortcut
That [In reply to] Can't Post

more than anything represents the narrowmindedness of midcentury critics and academics, with their 'modernism uber alles' creed; they were, through their own self-donned blinkers, incapable of perceiving Tolkien's greatness or whereof it consisted; he didn't color inside the then-approved lines (nothing new about this; just ask the shades of Charles Dickens and Henry Fielding).

It isn't a case of what seems to have arisen in tandem chronologically, boomer-driven academe attaching 'seriousness' to pop culture. Tolkien is, though I dislike the usage, "literature" as Coleridge would have recognized it, which is a whole 'nuther category from colleges classes in Batman or Buffy.
________________________
Action sequences: War and Peace has 'em too.


(This post was edited by Solicitr on Jun 15, 5:39pm)


FrogmortonJustice65
Lorien


Jun 16, 4:07pm

Post #17 of 39 (2440 views)
Shortcut
there are many parts of the PJ films that give the source material their due [In reply to] Can't Post

and adapt them with the seriousness and reverence you would expect of a Shakespeare adaptation. Strider discussing Luthien, The Council of Elrond, the entire Lothlorien sequence, Boromir's death, virtually every scene with Theoden in TTT and ROTK, I could go on and on.

The LOTR films stand out from garden variety blockbuster fare precisely because they deliver the excitement you'd expect in a Star Wars film while also providing an epic, high fantasy experience using much of the professor's world-building and dialogue. The LOTR films certainly play within the action/adventure blockbuster genre (and are arguably the supreme representatives of this genre) while also transcending that genre.


Noria
Gondor

Jun 17, 12:28pm

Post #18 of 39 (2334 views)
Shortcut
Beautifully said [In reply to] Can't Post

The LotR Appendices make it clear that the movies were approached with seriousness, respect and reverence. I seem to recall PJ remarking that, in his view, all that gravitas needed to be punctured now and then by humour, even if the form of that humour wasnít appreciated by everyone.


Noria
Gondor

Jun 17, 12:52pm

Post #19 of 39 (2329 views)
Shortcut
I agree, mostly [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem was (and is) the inability of the literati to recognize the greatness of Tolkienís works, to accept that anything that didnít fit their notion of what a twentieth century novel should be could have worth or weight. It seemed that the more popular Tolkien became, the more he was despised by some.

Perhaps something can be pop culture, as in popular, and literature at the same time. Just because something is well liked by the unwashed masses doesnít mean it is valueless any more than something that only a few people know of and like is great.

But what I was suggesting was that as boomers who read LotR in their youth and recognized its greatness later became part the literary establishment, they continued to take Tolkien seriously and treated and taught his works as literature.


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 17, 3:24pm

Post #20 of 39 (2318 views)
Shortcut
Well, [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Perhaps something can be pop culture, as in popular, and literature at the same time. Just because something is well liked by the unwashed masses doesnít mean it is valueless any more than something that only a few people know of and like is great.


This much is true, which is why I invoked Dickens (very popular, published as serials in popular magazines. So very infra dig) and Fielding ("novels are casual entertainments for maidservants and housewives, you know; proper literature is poetry. Pass the port.").

However, I'll take exception to the alleged "seriousness" of PJ's project, given Gimli's reduction to comic relief, even dwarf-tossing jokes), together with farts, stoners and pratfalls; but even more to the warping and dumbing down of characters to fit pop Hollywood tropes.


Starling
Half-elven


Jun 17, 5:38pm

Post #21 of 39 (2302 views)
Shortcut
What is [In reply to] Can't Post

a 'pratfall'?




Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 17, 5:51pm

Post #22 of 39 (2301 views)
Shortcut
Subject [In reply to] Can't Post

Tripping, falling down, more generally what should be painful accidents played for laughs; slapstick humor.


Chen G.
Rohan

Jun 17, 8:10pm

Post #23 of 39 (2279 views)
Shortcut
"You don't earn the pathos if you don't make people laugh" [In reply to] Can't Post

is how Jackson puts it. I think he's absolutely right, I think its easy to conflate how serious a movie is (which all these films are) and how stately it is or isn't.

When Shaye first saw dailies he said: "everything is so serious!" That was also what drew me in: I've never seen a FANTASY played this seriously on the screen.

My family once happened upon the end of The Battle of the Five Armies and had a similar response. Thorin was locked into combat with Azog, and my mother was just astonished: "its a movie with monsters, how come its THIS serious?!"


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jun 17, 8:16pm)


Hasuwandil
Lorien


Jun 18, 8:21am

Post #24 of 39 (2204 views)
Shortcut
The monsters and the critics [In reply to] Can't Post

That's pretty much what the critics who first heard "Beowulf" performed said, I imagine.

Hêlâ Auriwandil, angilô berhtost,
oƀar Middangard mannum gisandid!


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 18, 5:05pm

Post #25 of 39 (2180 views)
Shortcut
Subject [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
"You don't earn the pathos if you don't make people laugh"


Yeah, I'm sure that was what was in Shakespeare's head while writing King Lear. And Schindler's List wouldn't have had nearly the emotional impact without Spielberg writing in all those pratfalls and zany chase sequences. {/sarc}

Even when we concede that Tolkien was not without humor, and there's good bit of it in The Hobbit, it was a droll, donnish humor. Not PJ's clodhopper Three Stooges idea of "humor." The one appeals to intelligent readers, the other to mouthbreathers.


(This post was edited by Solicitr on Jun 18, 5:06pm)


Starling
Half-elven


Jun 18, 6:13pm

Post #26 of 39 (2045 views)
Shortcut
Is that really necessary? [In reply to] Can't Post

I get that you don't like it, but...wow.
And FYI, I can actually breathe through my nose. Incredible, I know.




Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jun 19, 1:16am

Post #27 of 39 (2007 views)
Shortcut
Humor in The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Yeah, I'm sure that was what was in Shakespeare's head while writing King Lear. And Schindler's List wouldn't have had nearly the emotional impact without Spielberg writing in all those pratfalls and zany chase sequences. {/sarc}

Even when we concede that Tolkien was not without humor, and there's good bit of it in The Hobbit, it was a droll, donnish humor. Not PJ's clodhopper Three Stooges idea of "humor." The one appeals to intelligent readers, the other to mouthbreathers.


You might be better off citing the more humorous passages in The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit as a children's story does have its share of physical comedy with dwarves falling all over each other on Bilbo's doorstep juggling with Bilbo's dishes, and sleeping Bombur being carried through Mirkwood by the others. No fart gags, true.

#FidelityToTolkien

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jun 19, 1:17am)


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jun 19, 5:24pm

Post #28 of 39 (1943 views)
Shortcut
I have yet still to see... [In reply to] Can't Post

one ''fart gag'' in the entirety of PJ''s six-movie saga.


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jun 19, 5:25pm

Post #29 of 39 (1946 views)
Shortcut
No, it isn't necessary. [In reply to] Can't Post

But I bet he knows that.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jun 19, 5:40pm

Post #30 of 39 (1938 views)
Shortcut
Belches? [In reply to] Can't Post

I think what keeps getting characterized as "fart gags" are more often (if not always) actually belch gags.

#FidelityToTolkien


Chen G.
Rohan

Jun 19, 5:42pm

Post #31 of 39 (1940 views)
Shortcut
Gimli in The Return of the King [In reply to] Can't Post

During the drinking game with Legolas, Gimli breaks wind. I always took it for the creaking of the chair, but its definitely intended as a fart joke.

Still, focusing on those "downtime" gags is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.

I would also say that a lot of other movies that I love have "silly" humour. Vito playing with his grandson in The Godfather is one of the goofiest, silliest things I've ever seen in a movie. In Lawrence of Arabia, a camel gets prodded (which is to say nothing of Lean's later A Passage to India) for laughs; and then there's Stephen the Irishman in Braveheart (very much Gimli's template), which to me breaths life into the movie.

But some people aren't pleased with movies until they become what Pauline Kael (rightly) said of Doctor Zhivago: "Stately, respectable... and dead."


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jun 19, 5:55pm)


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 20, 8:31pm

Post #32 of 39 (1814 views)
Shortcut
There [In reply to] Can't Post

is an enormous difference between a major character having a lighthearted moment,* and reducing a character's entire role to comic relief. Filmli is a long, long way from Tolkien's "tough, thrawn race... secretive, laborious, retentive of the memory of injuries (and of benefits)."

*PJ's LR is not without good examples: Boromir's play-swordfight with the younger hobbits was deftly done.


Solicitr
Gondor


Jun 20, 8:32pm

Post #33 of 39 (1811 views)
Shortcut
Well, [In reply to] Can't Post

[replyPauline Kael (rightly) said of Doctor Zhivago: "Stately, respectable... and dead."


Kael was wrong. Wasn't the only time.


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jun 20, 8:47pm

Post #34 of 39 (1811 views)
Shortcut
There is an entire rant about movie Gimli that you may find interesting... [In reply to] Can't Post

The deepest-rooted problems — in style, characterization, and plot — however, are in the writing, and as manifold as they are rife in the Jackson-Boyens-Walsh script as well as how it is played out and directed. The one which in my opinion is both typical and horrendous, and which to a large extent is responsible for destroying everything else for me, is the [mis]characterization of Gimli. This for me is even worse than the film's treatment of Faramir. In part I think because I read The Hobbit before LOTR, and thus knew who he was before reading of his adventures, and loved his character for the sake of his family history. Is it the most important problem in the writing of TTT-M? Actually, I rather think it is.
In the Tolkien knock-offs tradition — D&D, Dragonlance, and sundry other sword-and-sorcery adventures — dwarfs [sic] are stereotyped as crude barbarian fighters, short versions of the stereotypical "Viking warrior" (I have even seen Gimli drawn with the classic, unhistorical horned helmet) with no dignity nor culture: drunken, brutish, loutish and stereotypically greedy, in their concern for gold. —Who bear, as it happens, about as much relation to Tolkien's Dwarves as do Santa's elves to the Eldar. Here was an obvious chance to reclaim the archetype here from its misuse, in the films, by remaining true to the books, which J/B/W passed up (boy howdy, did they pass it up) for no obvious artistically justifiable reason.

This is even more piquant when one considers the history of the Earth-folk in the Indo-European literary tradition. (No, Wagner didn't invent them, any more than he invented Valkyries, Norns, trickster gods or Rings of invisibility and power.) There (as you will see in many stories, including the Arthurian legends and the Arabian Nights) it is rare to find a good dwarf, but the bad ones are no dull thuds — clever, crafty in all senses of the word (it is related to the concept of strength, of leverage through knowledge and technical skill) and embittered manipulators of those who have dominated the upper levels of the earth. Although initially in the earliest sketches of the Arda mythos, Tolkien had followed this simplistic tradition of dwarves as natural villains, as soon as he began to work with them not from the slanted perspective of those who had fought historic wars against them, the underground folk became revealed as complex figures with their own valid perspective on events, the wrongs and misunderstandings of the past no longer all one-sided in favor of the Elves — and whose culture, though different and in many ways alien to the other races of Middle-earth, still is rich and noble and inspiring in its own right.

"…where hammers fell like ringing bells…"

In the "revisionist" mythic backstory he worked out for them (as in the backstory of traditional folklore dragons, still villains but now minor demons incarnate in bodies engineered to be living war-machines, running amok after their leaders are overthrown and no kind of natural monster) which may be found in the Silmarillion, the Dwarves are revealed to be not so much children of a lesser god but the adopted children of the Creator, conceived of by an archangelic guardian who was tempted by pride but did not fall, and whose weaknesses and strengths are both passed on the people of the Earth which is his domain. Much of this mythic struggle — including the symbolism of the contentious relationship between this immortal guardian and his partner, the patron of the things which grow in and on the Earth, especially trees — is invisibly present on a foundational level, enriching and informing the plot and characterization of, especially, TTT.

But you'd never guess any of this from the movies.

Every film, it would seem, needs a buffoon — at least by mainstream Hollywood rules — and Gimli is the designated clown in LOTR-M. In FOTR-M this wasn't as obvious, because his role was cut to a minimum. None of the dark, foreshadowing exchange with Elrond regarding promises and oaths of loyalty as the Nine set forth, nor the poignant, affectionate introduction at the banquet in Rivendell, linking the generations as the son of Bilbo's old friend, to set the stage for future interactions among the characters. Nor, in theatres, any of the defining Lůrien scenes. (Now, I have not seen the FOTR-M Extended version yet, so I do not know how they were handled — but I have my suspicions that they do not quite fully capture the symbolic non-clash of cultures and reconciliation of old rifts which the eerie and mystical sequences in the original texts convey.)

But the problems were already there. In Moria, Gimli's obtuseness is revealed in his lack of wariness entering the halls — I hope I should not need to explain why this is patently absurd as well as OOC, book canon or movie canon — and then there is the utterly fatuous, pointless, fourth-wall-breaking, anachronistic insertion of a modern joke, instantly dating a timeless story with the unworthy crassness of "Nobody tosses a dwarf" —!

Is it not bad enough that such lines as "These are not holes. This is the great realm and city of the Dwarrowdelf. And of old it was not darksome, but full of light and splendour, as is still remembered in our songs," must be sacrificed to those more critical, worldbuilding shots of EW's dewy eyelashes and porcelain complexion, but we must be subjected to this tripe as well?

This trend — of excising what dignity and depth the character has in the books, and replacing them with stupidity entirely original to J/B/W — gets free rein in TTT-M. From the beginning, with the (again anachronistic) sports jokes thrown into the deadly earnest chase of the Three Hunters, destroying all the heartbreaking suspense of the original for the sake of a few cheap laughs, to the constant visual harping on his shortness, as if this were the defining fact about him, and funny in itself (why not as much for Frodo and company, then? —Ah, but they are pretty—) as in the confrontation with the Rohirrim he is made to stand like one of the Little Rascals, eyerollingly droll in the midst of adult business, a comic Buckwheat, the butt of Middle-earth ethnic humour by Jackson et al — in direct contravention of both letter and spirit of Tolkien's story.

This gets worse when he is given dialogue — all bluster and oafish cluelessness, he is made a short Falstaff to the tall and handsome princes of the story. (Remember the scene where Jackson dresses Gimli up like a child in daddy's big coat? Contrast this with the original "helms too they chose" sequence—!) This would be only injury — I confess though that even I was taken aback that J/B/W would stoop to the insertion of a "comic" belch in his scenes at Meduseld — but then we are given the final insult in that he is not allowed even worthiness in that area which is traditionally allotted to the RPG and knockoff "dwarf" — as a fighter. In each encounter, his boasting words about being a fierce warrior are revealed as mere bluster (the Falstaff comparison was not an accident) and his helplessness in combat hammered home by the repeated need to be rescued by the (tall, handsome) princes of the story.

And, in this continued inequity, all chance of the charming camaraderie and friendship between these heroes of vastly different background is destroyed. Even the playful rivalry of the "kill count" at Helm's Deep is turned into something tawdry. So much for the seasoned, competent third member of the triangle of stability that carries the mission through insane odds to Rohan and beyond.

And then there's the loss of his sensitivity — the ability he has to reach beyond his own cultural prejudices and assumptions, his own limitations, and not only appreciate someone from a formerly enemy culture, but also to translate his own mindset and values into the terms of that alien culture. Consider the following spelunkers' paean, here abridged, but enough to give the flavour of it:


"Strange are the ways of Men, Legolas! Here they have one of the marvels of the Northern World, and what do they say of it? Caves, they say! Caves! Holes to fly to in time of war, to store fodder in! My good Legolas, do you know that the caverns of Helm's Deep are vast and beautiful? There would be an endless pilgrimage of Dwarves, merely to gaze at them, if such things were known to be. Aye indeed, they would pay pure gold for a brief glance!"
"And I would give gold to be excused," said Legolas, "and double to be let out, if I strayed in!"

"You have not seen, so I forgive your jest," said Gimli. 'But you speak like a fool….when the torches are kindled and men walk on the sandy floors under the echoing domes, ah! then, Legolas, gems and crystals and veins of precious ore glint in the polished walls; and the light glows through folded marbles, shell-like, translucent as the living hands of Queen Galadriel. There are columns of white and saffron and dawn-rose, Legolas, fluted and twisted into dreamlike forms; they spring up from many-coloured floors to meet the glistening pendants of the roof: wings, ropes, curtains fine as frozen clouds; spears, banners, pinnacles of suspended palaces!… Do you cut down groves of blossoming trees in the springtime for firewood? We would tend these glades of flowering stone, not quarry them…"

and even to make a convert to his own lyric vision:


"You move me, Gimli," said Legolas. "I have never heard you speak like this before. Almost you make me regret that I have not seen these caves. Come! Let us make this bargain—if we both return safe out of the perils that await us, we will journey for a while together. You shall visit Fangorn with me, and then I will come with you to see Helm's Deep."
"That would not be the way of return that I should choose," said Gimli. "But I will endure Fangorn, if I have your promse to come back to the caves and share their wonder with me."

"You have my promise," said Legolas.

How different this is from the films! Here, he is the authority, criticizing his friend, kindly, but with firmness and winning the argument. (Try to imagine film-Legolas humbly accepting such a rebuke to his ignorance — just try.) The glimpse of the aesthete we had in FOTR is now fully revealed, when despite exhaustion, wounds, and danger, in the flight from Moria, he insists that Frodo not pass by the Mirrormere, not miss the cultural treasure of Durin's Crown. In the original, he's a poet of stone and depth. In TTT-M, he's a belching fool. I could go on with the specific examples, but I'm too heartsick to do so. You see why against this travesty, the missing of all Faramir's honour is really fairly small, compared to the destruction of Gimli's dignity. (And needless to say, there was precious little glittering to be seen in the Caves of Aglarond in the movie. Beauty of nature seems to hold as little interest as beauty of spirit for Peter Jackson.)


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jun 20, 8:50pm

Post #35 of 39 (1803 views)
Shortcut
There are some issues re formatting... [In reply to] Can't Post

But all things considered, I think it's actually readable.


squire
Half-elven


Jun 20, 10:06pm

Post #36 of 39 (1798 views)
Shortcut
I think I remember that essay [In reply to] Can't Post

Those were the good old days, when people wrote endless criticism of the New Line films' differences from, and general inferiority to, the books. This particular board on TORn was a semi-bloodbath of rants, fights, moderator interjections, trolls, and the occasional ejection of a poster from the site.

But time moves on. The films have settled into their prominent but not exclusive place in the Tolkien fan universe, and the passion your reviewer displays is now exercised in other venues against other films. This board has become a shadow of itself as social media displaces the message-board format, and TORn itself has become quite sleepy as the films that inspired it recede into the pop culture past.

Thanks for the wayback machine thrill!



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Chen G.
Rohan

Jun 20, 10:22pm

Post #37 of 39 (1793 views)
Shortcut
There's nothing wrong with comic-relief characters [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
is an enormous difference between a major character having a lighthearted moment,* and reducing a character's entire role to comic relief.


Like I said, Gimli is basically Stephen the Irishman.

I absolutely L O V E Stephen the Irishman!


In Reply To
Kael was wrong.


I don't think she was. I can't much stand Doctor Zhivago.


In Reply To
This particular board on TORn was a semi-bloodbath of rants, fights, moderator interjections, trolls, and the occasional ejection of a poster from the site.

But time moves on.


Its very well without bloodbaths. Reminds me of one of the funnier things I've seen online in recent memory, and its only funny because its true:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lordoftherings/comments/h82avs/it_be_like_that/

May we continue to be this fandon and not THAT fandom.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jun 20, 10:35pm)


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jun 21, 12:44am

Post #38 of 39 (1766 views)
Shortcut
I posted that essay several times here... [In reply to] Can't Post

Myself. Smile


Hamfast Gamgee
Grey Havens

Jun 21, 10:01am

Post #39 of 39 (1710 views)
Shortcut
But shadows can be more than a reflection upon the original [In reply to] Can't Post

Didn't Tolkien say something like that? Or was it Buddha? Or did I make it up.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.