December 24, 2004
"Tolkien's moral universe"
lan makes a good point on how the film of The Lord of the Rings is flawed because "Jackson's greatest fault as director of LOTR is his inability to enter Tolkien's moral universe."
...Another example of an immoral choice is Aragorn's slaying of the Mouth before the Black Gate. This is a barbaric act, utterly unmeet for the King of the West, who would never so treat an emissary under flag of truce. All the nuances of the Tolkien confrontation are gone. In the book, the Mouth feels menaced when Aragorn merely glares at him. In Tolkien's worldview, evil is always proven cowardly when confronted one-on-one. Cringing, the emissary appeals to the morality of his enemies, saying he 'may not be harmed' under the rules of war--rules which no servant of Sauron would honor, if the roles were reversed.
By scripting Aragorn to behead the Mouth, Jackson showed that he cares not a whit whether the heir of Numenor might seem no different in spirit from the Dark Lord himself. I fear that the director is just a spoiled, obese, nasty child playing with skulls and spiders. He is not morally fit to engage Tolkien's work. It's a pity, because he did so much right--especially in allowing the artists to fulfill their visions of Middle Earth. If someone had been handy to argue for Tolkien's values, as well as his dialogue, to be sustained in the script, the film would have fared better. But I probably couldn't have worked with him...
I myself think the whole idea of filming LOTR was a catastrophic mistake. Every single element of the story has been reduced and diminished by the literalism of film. Even the stupefying beauty of the New Zealand landscape is less profound than the far realms which the book evokes in my mind. (I have my own film running in my head, so you can put all this down to petty jealousy that the other fellow's stuff gets so much attention) All the mystery and strangeness is leached away, and the Misty Mountains have become just mountains, and elves are no longer spooky, dangerous and beautiful creatures lingering from the Morning of the World...but just people in costumes...
It is a curious fact that polls taken of people in the English-speaking world often claim LOTR as the most important book of the 20th Century. I'm sure literary-critic types greet this as more evidence that "the voters are morons," but I'm not so sure. I won't opine about literature, since I'm less and less sure what the word means. But I often think the LOTR is an extremely important political book.
You could say that the entire leftish project, from the days of Marx and Engels onward, has been to get rid of Hobbits! Hobbits are sturdy and self-sufficient, and not inclined to be clients of the state. They are democratic, but never vote for grandiose projects of reform or big government, and don't give over-much respect to elected leaders. They are not intellectual or theoretical, but have deep reserves of common sense. They are not warlike, but are dangerous, even deadly, if attacked. They are not regimented or organized, but can self-organize beautifully in time of crisis.
Tolkien himself had no sympathy for any political party, perhaps because no party of his world had much sympathy for Hobbits—that is, for the virtues of ordinary Englishmen, which is what the Hobbits really are. I suspect, if he had heard about it, that he would have understood just what John and Sam Adams were saying when they declared that they were "fighting for the rights of Englishmen." The current effort to punish anyone in England who defends his home against intruders would have been understood by JRR Tolkien and John Adams in precisely the same way. It is calculated to destroy exactly that doughty quality of Englishmen (and Hobbits) that is resistant to grandiose projects of the state. It is probably too late to save the people of England, but fortunately the hobbit-spirit has spread far and wide, and has a way of bubbling up from below in unexpected ways wherever English is spoken. Hence, the "Anglosphere."
Word Notes: The Lord of the Rings is not a "trilogy." It was divided into three parts to suit the needs of the printers, but was not written as three books. And it is not a novel. An epic fantasy or epic romance is what I guess it should be called.
Posted by John Weidner at December 24, 2004 01:16 PM | TrackBack"A spoiled, obese, nasty child playing with skulls and spiders?" Are you serious!?
By chance, I watched RotK extended edition tonight--finished about an hour ago. I first read The Hobbit in 1970, and the LotR shortly thereafter. I was so taken with the books that I wrote to Tolkien and actually got an answer, which unfortunately, got tossed out with a good deal of my other belongings when my darling mother decided I no longer needed "that old stuff" after I joined the Army.
Since the first time, I have read the entire series at least 20 times, as well as all of the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc. I have also been an avid movie-goer since going to B&W serials in the mid-sixties, and it is no exaggeration at all to say I had been waiting 30 years to see the stories brought to life on the screen. I cried with joy within minutes of the opening of the FotR. Tolkien's universe is a vivid in my imagination as any fictional universe could be, so much so that few people I know can best me in a LotR trivia contest. to me Jackson got it as close to right as it is technically and politically possible to do today.
With that as prelude, I will now say only this: Alan is, in my opinion, a great twit. And an insulting, demeaning one at that. What right has he to say that Alan Jackson is "just a spoiled, obese, nasty child playing with skulls and spiders," except the right that comes with being able to insult people at will because they will never actually know about it--or care if they did. And what does obese have to do with movie making? And a nasty child? Just because Jackson created something that did not match what the oh-so-erudite Alan thought it should?
And he calls Jackson a child. . .
Frankly, considering that the movies were very close to the printed versions (despite their many flaws, both in story line and characterizations), and that they came back to the source at important junctures, I was thrilled with the finished work. Of course I was disappointed at many things, like the missing Tom Bombadil, or that the sword which Merry used to stab Angmar didn't come from the Barrow Downs as it should have. And I truly disliked the way Treebeard was "tricked" into attacking Isengard, and the lack of the Ranger Company going with Aragorn under Dwimorberg, and so on for what would be pages... But then, I also know it would not be commercially feasible to make the movies match the books unless you were to make at least five separate movies, each up to 3 hours long.
I could go on, but I'll just close with this. I think it puerile and mean to speak so harshly and disdainfully of not only Jackson, but of all the people who worked so hard to bring the movies to the screen. I also find it specious to claim that the making of the movies somehow diminished the books or Tolkien's works. Nothing could ever diminish Middle Earth. More important, the LotR was never a finished work, as is completely clear to anyone who ever actually studied the works in all their versions; moreover, the current versions are not those published the first time by Tolkien, but rather reflect his attempts to clean them up and correct errors. I have read at least three different endings to the RotK, ALL penned by Tolkien.
I like Jackson's versions of the books. I see them for what they are: an attempt to tell an extraordinarily complex and deep story in the grandest way possible --and still make money doing it. He brought the LotR to a good many people who would otherwise never have known the story. And he whetted people's appetites for the books, that are very difficult to get into if you start with the Hobbit. Most people I know tried several times before reaching the point of interest. . .
The bottom line is this: If Alan doesn't like the movies, he shouldn't watch them. More to the point, calling Jackson names shows a real lack of class and maturity. I would be the first to agree that the movies don't match the books--and I would love to discuss that with other true fans--but I don't need to insult other people just to make myself look good.
I, for one, am endlessly thankful to Jackson for what he did.
Feh!
-SangerM
It's always the modifiers that get a guy in trouble. I knew some would react exactly as you have done, if I told the plain truth as I see it.
I suggest that you learn more about Jackson before you attack my characterization. Ever seen 'Heavenly Creatures?' I stand by what I've said. Sorry if it punctured your balloon.
Posted by: Alan Sullivan at December 28, 2004 06:41 PMAnd another thing...
You allude to several issues that I did not mention. It's poor form to commingle them with your complaint about a single sentence I wrote. Unlike other critics, I have never complained about the ending of ROTK; and I specifically praised Jackson for letting the artists realize their vision. You were enthralled by the surface details those artists created. Underneath that surface, however, the Jackson sensibility wars against Tolkien's in ways that you haven't perceived.
Posted by: Alan Sullivan at December 28, 2004 06:49 PM
