March 7, 2003

In Response to Copewilson
Derek Bessette

Inasmuch as this dialogue has been going on for years, since the release of the first FotR trailer, I must also add my thoughts on the subject of Peter jackson's work not matching the depth or strength of Tolkien's literature.

It must be understood, first and foremost, that film and literature are two vastly different arts and mediums, and never the twain shall meet. Irregardless of the length or format of a film version, it will never appproach the depth of the novel. Even a two-week miniseries running two hours a weekday and three hours on weekends would not reveal the complete depth of the trilogy.

With that in mind, we must then look at the films as what they are; what they must be; what they can only be--an adaptation. Film follows a different format from literature. It is a vital medium; it involves immediate response to two of the most important senses, hearing and sight. It requires little in the way of imagination. It is also, as noted before, quite brief compared to the time required to read a novel.

Film is a medium more given to immediate responses of emotion, as it plays to often sudden, overwhelming inputs of sound and sight. Emotions are not meant to be felt over many hours; people exposed to extremes of emotion experience severe fatigue...not something desireable for moviegoers! All the same, even Tolkien's trilogy does not expose readers to extremes of emotion very often. Points like Frodo confronting the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen, Gandalf facing down the balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, and Aragorn appearing at the head of the black fleet to save the day on the Pelennor Fields all expose the reader to emotion, but they require considerable build-up to reach that emotion. Films evoke emotion quickly, and just as quickly strike with emotion again.

It hardly needs to be said that film lacks in imagination. What books lack, film makes up for in audiovisuals. We can hardly fault PJ for interpreting vague passages of the LotR with his own imaginative creations--the intricate dress of the elves, for instance, or the stonework of Minas Tirith--but unlike books, the imagery of the LotR does not stay within each of our minds when viewing a film. A film adaptation is an interpretation of a book by the director/screenwriter. As such, it becomes as much an expression of the director/screenwriter's imagination as it does the original novel writer's.

Finally, films do not have the luxury of time. Of course, much of the exposition of a book is given up to description of scene and character; the old saw about 'a picture is worth a thousand words' certainly rings true with the LotR movies. What took pages of description for Tolkien and many hours for us to read is displayed on screen in minutes or even seconds. But that still leaves hour upon hour of plot development in the book to be translated to film. It simply isn't possible. Furthermore, you can't simply pare away plot threads like the skin of an apple; it is more like removing threads from a sweater in an attempt to turn it into a light summer shirt. It is more convenient to unravel the entire sweater and reweave it as a lighter model. So it is with a film adaptation of a novel like LotR. Copious and detailed plot devices like Glorfindel and Asfaloth, Haldir's brothers, the flet of Amroth, the tale of Gloin at Rivendell, the connection between the creators of the Pukel-men and the Woses, the dialogue between Frodo and Gildor Inglorion, and the long running feud between Lobelia and Lotho Sackville-Baggins and Bilbo/Frodo are all colorful and desireable in a novel, but unnecessary and burdensome in a film. However, because such plot devices sometimes carry with them necessary threads of the main plot (i.e., Glorfindel's part in bringing Frodo to the Ford of Bruinen), those necessary threads must be winnowed from the unnecessary and rewoven into plot threads like Arwen's expanded role, the telepath-communication between Elrond and Galadriel, and the 'possession' of Theoden by Saruman.

Please keep in mind as you read this that I began reading Tolkien at 10, have read LotR a dozen times, and continue to read it now every year, have perused the Hobbit at least five times, the Silmarillion three times, and have Unfinished Tales, the Book of Lost Tales, and Tolkien's Letters. I love the work of our dear Professor just as much as any of you, and would, of course, love to see a film based solely on my vision of his trilogy. Unfortunately, I believe the rest of you would feel about me just as some of you do about PJ... and of course, if any of you made a film version, it would be the same. Let us enjoy the films for what they are, not what they could never be--on a par with the novels.