The White Council

Re: An Open Letter To Peter Jackson

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: An Open Letter To Peter Jackson

I know you're expecting flame wars over this letter -- and believe me, you'd get them on Harry's site. "Stuffy Tolkien purist snob!" they'd say. Which is unfortunate. Your familiarity and knowledge of Tolkien is already legendary. And your love for the books is now just as evident.

I have to agree with much that you say here, which is fortunate, since, it's far to long for a point by point response.

The main difficulty, as you largely admit, is that any film adaptation of a novel invariably involves compromises of some kind -- for reasons of time, if nothing else. In such a situation, it becomes a question for the enthusiast of the written work whether a tolerable film can be feasibly done. The answer is always going to be subjective. Some books necessitate more compromises to be brought to the silver screen than others. The Lord of the Rings clearly belongs in the "tough to film" category. Until recently, I've actually been happy that no one has dared it. The imagery needed, the background and history detailed, the breadth of vision -- all of it seemed to suggest that too many compromises would be needed, especially in view of the likelihood that 1) the filmmaking technology wasn't up to the task until now, and 2) no studio would front the kind of resources needed to do justice to it. And of course there's the time issue. How could everything in LOTR be treated in 1 or even 3 movies?

Jackson clearly has overcome the first two hurdles -- at least potentially. But it's obvious that three 2 hour movies will necessitate some significant trimming. And here's where we run into trouble -- at least in your view.

: It would seem that some decisions have been cast in stone, and I have certainly waited long enough to speak out on these issues, but I've been a staunch defender of the freedom of adaptation in alt.fan.tolkien and rec.arts.books.tolkien for a long time now. I would like to see many movies made based on J.R.R. Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS -- French movies, English movies, Czech movies, Italian movies -- not just one, definitive, authoritative, that's-it-for-all-time movie which will cast in ironclad vision for the imagination of generations to come one man's or one company's interpretation of the book.

Peter has made clear that he wholeheartedly agrees -- as you're probably aware. It would be nice if we could reach the point that we have with Hamlet -- there have been so many film (and other adaptations) that there IS no definitive version - not even Olivier's. Unfortunately, the challenge that LOTR poses for filmmakers makes this unlikely -- unless Jackson's film is wildly successful.

: When rumors of a new LOTR-based movie first surfaced on Usenet a couple of years ago, many people expressed horror at the idea that it might be a "Disney movie", or that whomever engaged in the project would resort to horrendous compression of the book in order to "make a movie worth watching". Through many debates I have stood up for the studios and argued that such compression would be necessary, and that even Disney's adaptations should be considered on their own merits, as works not interpretations of works....

You're more generous than many others here!

[...]

: I am first concerned about the decision to leave out the Bombadil episode altogether. Not to imply that it never happened -- but simply to gloss past it, as it were. To omit completely two entire chapters. No matter how gracefully the hobbits are brought from Bucklebury to Bree (and one must wonder if Bucklebury and Farmer Maggot will be omitted as well), one cannot simply replace the potent foundations laid in "In The House of Tom Bombadil" and "Fog On the Barrow-downs".

I wonder about Farmer Maggot and Crickhollow myself -- as well as Woody End. I think these sequences make a stronger argument for inclusion, as they all relate more directly to the Ring and Frodo's quest. I would have a much greater problem if these episodes were omitted entirely.

: Although much of what is revealed in the Bombadil chapters relates more to the background material for the story (such as the relationship between Bombadil and the hobbits, and the relationship between Bombadil and the Elves, and the relationship between Bombadil and the Dunedain), the confrontation between Bombadil and the Ring is a pivotal moment which thrusts the story forward. Here is someone who has defied the Ring's lure -- something which Gandalf did not warn Frodo about. Frodo is thrown into doubt and as a result of that doubt experiences an admonishment which aids his personal growth.

Good point, but in a way it's actually more of an argument against Bombadil's inclusion. The central lesson of the Ring is the danger of its temptation - a theme that Jackson wants to (properly) focus on throughout the trilogy. In the context of six hours of film time, Bombadil's immunity to the Ring's power may create too much confusion for those unfamiliar with the story, or simply give to much weight to it.

: Furthermore, the encounter with the Barrow-wight is one of the greatest perils that Frodo and the hobbits endure on their road to Rivendell. It is the first of only two incidents (the other being the confrontation at the Ford of Bruinen) where the Ring is seriously in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Even the encounter at Weathertop doesn't pose as great a perild, because the purpose of the Nazgul there was merely to wound Frodo with a Morgul-blade -- but they did not wound him as mortally as they intended.

Actually, I think they hoped for complete and immediate capture of the Ring, but Aragorn's presence made that prospect too risky, and so they withdrew when they encountered resistance, hoping for the blade to do its work -- and another opportunity.

: Finally, it is from the barrow hoard that Bombadil takes the Numenorean knives (short swords, perhaps) which the hobbits carry with them through the rest of the story (except, of course, for Frodo -- his blade is broken at Rivendell and Bilbo gives him Sting to replace it). Merry's sword is crucial to the defeat of the Witch-king. With that sword, about which Tolkien wrote, "No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

Good point, but I'll address it after your next paragraph...

: How is Merry's stroke going to be explained in the final battle with the Lord of the Nazgul? Is the terror of the Nazgul going to be diminished by the allusion that ANY sword could have dealt the spell-breaking stroke? This is an important and off-debated issue among Tolkien fans: who killed the Witch-king? Merry's stroke was crucial, and Eowyn's stroke finished him off. (Although, if anyone must know my opinion, I would say the Witch-king would have continued to function had Eowyn not dealt the death-blow.)

I agree entirely with your paranthetical conclusion.

The more important question may be: WHAT was needed to kill -- or at least wound -- the Witch-king: the person or the weapon?

Tolkien clearly indicated that there WAS something special about the sword. No argument here. I think we must concede, at the very least, that it dealt the Witch-king a more severe blow than a normal blade would have. But I do not think it clear that a lesser blade would not have served Merry's purpose, which was simply to knock the Witch-king off balance long enough for Eowyn to deliver the knockout blow -- with a sword, I might add, of no explained lineage. This last is a point worth pondering, and it leads me to conclude that it was ultimately the person (well, "people") that mattered, not the weapons.

Glorfindel's prophecy is the only relevant one mentioned in LOTR -- a vague reference in the text itself, and a clearer explication in the appendix recounting Earnur's confrontation with Angmar in T.A. 1975: "...Not by the hand of Man" shall he fall. Neither Merry or Eowyn could be considered a "man," at least not in a strict sense. I think this the critical component in the Witch-king's fall. The sword certainly adds good effect, no question. But not an essential one.

Moreover, the reference to Glorfindel's prophecy can be easily worked in to the script, far more easily than explaining the sword's background. Naturally, however, I too would like to see all of it left in -- in a laserdisc director's cut, if nothing else. But if something has to be cut, I can think of far worse things that might get the axe. Peter has two hours to get to the Breaking of the Fellowship. That's not a lot of time.

[snip]

: Bombadil knows Aragorn, and Aragorn knows Bombadil. Aragorn is lying in wait on the highway when he overhears Bombadil send the hobbits on to Bree. "Now, I was begind the hedge this evening on the Road west of Bree, when four hobbits came out of the Downlands," he tells Frodo and the hoobits in Bree. "I need not repeat all that they said to old Bombadil or to one another, but one thing interested me...."

Snip "to old Bombadil or" and the difficulty is largely erased. I don't think Bombadil's presence essential for this particular episode.

: The connections between Bombadil and the outside world give credence to Gildor's promise to Frodo in the Shire: "Be of good hope! Sleep now! In the morning we shall have gone; but we will send our messages through the lands. The Wandering Companies shall know of your journey, and those that have power for good shall be on the watch...." Bombadil tells the hobbits that he has indeed spoken with Gildor about them, and Aragorn says he has also spoken with Gildor. If Gildor Inglorion is to be part of the movie, then surely Bombadil must also be part of the movie, for he is the first of several people who claim to have heard from Gildor. Gildor's words are empty if those he speaks to are not present in the story, and Aragorn alone has so many things to say that I fear his admissions about Bombadil and the Elves will be lost. A great discontinuity threatens the story in this adaptation.

We may have to agree to disagree here, but I think you overestimate the threat of discontinuity. Aragorn gets Gildor's message, and I think that may be sufficient. And come to think of it, doesn't Glorfindel make a reference as well on the Last Bridge? There's no question you lose SOME impact when you make these cuts, but how important is the impact? Does it make degrade the story so much for someone unfamiliar with LOTR that it becomes insufficiently captivating or even incoherent? I don't think it does. I will mourn the elimination of Bombadil, but I don't think it will prevent me (or most viewers) from enjoying the movie per se.

: Another matter which gives me cause for grave concern is the apparent intention on Mr. Jackson's part to give Middle-earth a medieval feel.

Here we go again....:-)

: Middle-earth is not Medieval Europe. Tolkien tried to make this clear on more than one occasion. Although he borrowed from many cultures and time periods for inspiration in describing Middle-earth, it is very clearly an ancient and pre-classical world, one in which there is no Church; there is no feudal hierarchy such as those of England, the Holy Roman Empire, France, and the eastern states; there is no tradition of chivalric orders such as the Knights Templars and Knights Hospitalers; there are no great cathedrals; and though knowledge has been lost through a sort of dark age, Europe's dark age was not the first and only one historians have noted. There were dark ages in the past.

At least two, to be sure. I'm not sure how much difference it makes in the long run, once you strip away the chivalric and religious aspects of the medieval motif (and I think we all agree that neither belongs in Middle Earth) For one thing, you don't see a substantial change in technology over the three millenia or so which constitute the Ancient and Medieval worlds of the West. As Martin has argued, the Middle Ages constitute the Dark Age most people are familiar with. So I don't mind if he borrows to some extent from various aspects of medieval culture, so long as it's nothing too suggestive.

Still, I don't suppose I will have any more luck than poor Martin did. There's no question that Middle Earth is not "medieval" per se. In fact, all you CAN say about it is that's not modern. Tolkien's sources and borrowings are too many and too diverse to tie his creation down to any one period or place. That's the magic of it. You can't say that about any other fantasy world -- at least not that I'm familiar with.

Peter is clearly taking a liberty -- no, let me step back and say that he is interpolating from the text when he discusses the kind of mail, weapons, and costumes he's contemplating. Tolkien doesn't give us much in the way of details on these areas, however. This leaves Peter in something of a quandary: how does he depict the garb and weapons of Middle Earth? There are gaps to fill, and he has the choice of attempting to create something unique or to do some borrowing from previous periods, or a mixture of both. Frankly, I'd have to see what he comes up with. Obviously, if Aragorn's wearing a carbon copy of 12th century Norman armor, Peter's slipped up. It seems more likely, however, that weapons aand garb will be an amalgamation of styles. At least I hope so. And how many different ways are there to make chain mail?

Again, however, (and this is the key point) so long as the sartorial or architectural styles don't belong too specifically to any one period or place of real history, the difficulty may be nothing to worry about. It's the same difficulty I have with so many Tolkien artists (and I'm sure you agree, and you know who I'm talking about).

: It would be a great tragedy, Mr. Jackson, if your Middle-earth were drawn against a medieval canvas. You would be misleading millions of people about Tolkien's vision.

If it borrows too specificaly from medieval motifs, I would agree. If his armor and buildings borrow bits and pieces of medieval styles -- and ancient styles -- I won't mind so much. Perhaps we're not so far apart.

In regards to accents, I can't take issue with what you've written. Obviously, most American accents, and probably some Commonwealth (to say nothing of non-Anglo-Saxon) accents will sound...out of place. I think most of us agree on that much. As with the architecture and garb, we might be able to tolerate a vaguely English accent, but nothing that evokes anything too specific.

On the whole, I think you may be more concerned than need be about what Jackson has said to date -- though ultimately we must all reserve judgement until we've seen the final product. Let me say this much. I believe that the inevitable compromises and (alas) distortions that a film adaptation of LOTR must invariably entail will be far fewer than would be the case with any other filmmaker I know of, or at any previous point in the last 30 years.

For now, we must hope -- and wait.

Oberon