With all due respect, those who are championing the work of PJ in
LOTR, we seem to be in the midst of a factioning of our board, between
those who dislike the changes, and those who are supporting PJ's
efforts (as if these two were mutually exclusive). One can be a fan of
the films, and yet critical as well. In fact, if a work of this kind
was universally loved or universally hated, that would not be in the
spirit of Tolkien. He created a work of art, and as such, it challenges
us to think. And where thought if found, debate should be riding its
heels.
In regards to the changes in Faramir shown on screen, I think there is
more to it than just some "people [having] in their heads what TTT was
going to be like, and they were angered when they found out they were
wrong."
While I agree that this may be the case for some, and perhaps some of
the more vocal critics of the film here on the board, there are many of
us who were upset, yet went in having girded our loins against the "it
must be like the book" phantoms which haunt us.
I have been a fan of LOTR for over twenty years now, and have read and
re-read them during different times in my life, and am delighted that
each retelling of the tale, even in the same format, sometimes plucks
different heart-strings and moves me in new and different ways. I am
also a creature of the stage. I have performed many roles from great
literature which had to be changed in some aspects just to make them
work in a new format. And being an opera singer, where many changes
have to be made with regards to musical considerations, I feel that I
am familiar enough with dramatic changes and their necessities to
discuss them. In my coursework for my doctorate, I wrote a paper on
three Othellos: Shakespeare's, Rossini's, and Verdi's in terms of plot
changes and comparitive analysis of their adhearance to the Bard's
original. When I go into a film of a great book, I strive to be
somewhat forgiving when changes occur.
I understand why the changes in Osgiliath had to happen: Frodo's
journey in TTT is more a spiritual than an exciting physical one,
especially when one removes the "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol" from the
film in an effort to keep the timeline consistant. To be honest, I
don't know that the timeline consistancy PJ demanded needed to be so
strictly enforced, but having given the matter much more thought than I
have, knowing the entire screenplay from front to back, and cutting out
the Scouring of the Shire, had he stuck to the format of the book,
Frodo would have appeared for 13 1/2 minutes of ROTK, and it would have
been somewhat lopsided. When you look at Frodo's part, in terms of
pages, the first half of the ROTK is all about the rest of the world
and Gondor. Frodo appears for three chapters in the final book, and the
quest is over and the rest aftermath. By keeping to the timeline, it is
possible for PJ to give us the story's heghtened sense of urgency and
tension, and making three movies more equal in length, and not
completely overwhelmed by the battles of the fellowship and little
screentime of Frodo.
The move to Osgiliath was necessitated by PJ's removal of the surprise
of the Palantir in the first film. Since Gandalf knew it was there with
Saruman, he would not be so negligent as to let Pippin come ANYWHERE
near it should it be thrown by Wormtongue as it was in the book. In the
books, Gandalf was sleeping and musing the true purpose of the stone
when Pippin stole it from him. If Gandalf had been holding what he KNEW
to be a palantir, the chances of Pippin getting his hands on it would
have been Slim or None (and Slim was on a bus out of town!). In the
books, it was the sudden silence of Saruman and the face of Pippin that
brought the focus of the eye away from Mordor, followed Aragorn's use
of the stone, wrested from Sauron's control, which started the
anschluss against Minas Tirith. He thought that the Ring was in the
control of men, and he needed to strike before they were ready. As this
was not going to occur in the film, the focus had to be brought towards
Minas Tirith by the sidetrip to Osgiliath, as if the Ring was going
to/from Gondor, and now Sauron has impetus to send his forces there for
the third and final film.
Having recognized this, however, the treatment of Faramir and the
sidetrip to Osgiliath still bother me. Not in terms that will ruin the
movie for me, but rather in terms that don't distinguish Faramir and
Boromir. With fear of offending Boromir fans, he was not able to
contain himself when faced with the Ring. He did redeem himself when
Frodo fled and he regained his senses, but when near the Ring, he was
overwhelmed. This can not be argued, though some may try to interpret
this fact with more emotionalism than I have. I admire his final
revelation and his attempts to save Merry and Pippin from the orcs,
where he gave his life, and give him great credit and respect for his
humanity which finally embodied him, but I also recognize that he
failed the test of the ring.
In the book, Faramir realized all of this too. He knew and loved his
brother well, and knew that it would consume him as it did. Faramir
knew that the Ring could not be used as a weapon by Gondor, and that it
should continue on its way unhindered. Knowing what it did to so great
a man as Boromir, he feared what it would do to the men of Gondor,
especially as they were beset with war. Who among us would not pick up
a weapon such as this when faced with an army of Orcs and worse, headed
by Nazgul who were slaves of the Ring?
Yet, in the movie, Faramir decides to risk it, and take it to his
father in Minas Tirith. This is where many of us are having the
difficulty: he knows the danger, and still goes the way of lesser men.
Which seems to be a theme in this movie with the exception of Aragorn.
From the Prologues giving rings to men, "who crave power above all
else", to Elrond's treatment of men in the first movie as he was
talking to Gandalf in Rivendel, to the august Faramir suddenly becoming
less than he should be, I object to this. It paints humans as weak, and
while we do have our downfalls, there are plenty of us who are not
kings of Numenor who are not just craving power. Some of us really just
want good to succeed, and recognizing this desire, would send Frodo on
his way, without taking them to Gondor.
Had this been the determination of Faramir, and then the party (Hobbits
and all) was blown off course to Osgiliath by a roving band of Orcs,
the scene in Osgiliath would not bother me half as much. This way,
however, where all men are too stupid to realize the danger, or too
craven to make thier own decisions without the need of a battle to
force them to see their folly, Humans are relegated to second-class
citizens of Middle-Earth, with a king like Aragorn to *rule* us wisely
as our only hope. This was not the ME that Tolkien painted, and it is
to THIS that I object, not some lame disappointment that PJ didn't meet
MY expectations.
On the matter of Tolkien's work being treated as Myth, one must realize
that Myths (even modern day ones) are passed down as an oral tradition;
in many cases for centuries/generations. Not all of Greece or Rome, nor
Celts, Norse, or Indians could read, and the proliferation of these
myths would change slightly with the retelling, until codified and
written down, and even then, they were still passed down in the form of
oral tradition. If you chose one random child from each of the fifty
states, and have them sing the alphabet song, you would discover that
while they all list the letters in correct order, the words and rhythms
in the song after 'lmnop' would vary. Having moved from Ohio to the
Texas border of Mexico, I have heard three so far (though I have not
made a study of it nationally!). This is a song that is taught via oral
tradition from generation to generation, which shows how changes occur.
Even modern day urban legends are passed this way. I still receive
emails from people who are telling me that Congress will remove all
shows which mention God because of M. M. O'Hare, which has been
circulating since the Landmark Case over 20 years ago. It is nonsense,
but it has morphed into "CBS will remove "Touched by and Angel" because
it mentions God in every episode. Before it was Little House on the
Prarie for similar reasons. Ths story changes as times move on, but it
all comes down to the story of "Christian Rights are being abused."
Tolkien, on the other hand, DID codify his myth when he put it on paper
and published it. He did many rewrites, but the story we know as LOTR
is a work which, having been codified, is tough to mess with when there
is an authoritative statement of the story . . . Tolkien's Books. Had
he really wanted it to proliferate mythlike, he would have either
passed it along as an oration, leaving much of the story out (who would
sit through a 12-day story telling. . . OK we ALL would, but only if HE
was telling it!, and tickets would prohibit it from gainging such
popularity), or given away the rights of authorship, and allowed it to
be freely rewritten and published by others. This did not happen, and
the estate is ADAMANT that it NOT happen, so where is the wish of the
professor being honored?
In comparing it to Star Wars and the Hero tale, I am not sure that it
fits the arguement. Are both stories derivative, ABSOLUTELY! Eowyns
defeat of the Witch-King who need fear "no man" (but She was a woman)is
the same sort of oracle misunderstanding found in Greek Tragedies like
Oedipus Rex, who was destined to Kill his father at the crossroads and
marry his mother (His father, the king, put him out on a hill to die,
but he was raised by another family as their child, became a
highwayman, and robbed/killed the rich stranger (his father), and
married the queen (his mother)). This sort of thing goes back thousands
of years. And changes like the omission of Bombadill and removal of the
Scouring of the Shire, do not alter the main thrust of the story
greatly in terms of the overall storyline. Adding Elves to the battle
at Helms Deep, and the weakening of Faramir, however, cast a pall on
humankind which Tolkien didn't write, and to this I object.
Tolkien did create his own mythology for ME, but it has little
connection with our own world. The story of Persephone explains why the
seasons change. The light of the two trees is eloquent, beautiful, and
wonderful to hear, but doesn't really illuminate our own world. As to
his languages, I am amazed at what he accomplished, and know many
people who have studied Elvish. However, it is (I would imagine) a dead
language (like Latin). Elvish speakers have no linguistic way to
describe "an automobile with an internal combustion engine complete
with an onboard Pentium processor and wireless ISP connection." One
can't describe this in Latin either and be universally understood by
all Latin Scholars.
And, just for the record, I AM a fan of PJ and the films. I like them
so far, and am willing to reserve judgement until I see the story in
its full scope. Nevertheless, I also reserve the right to differ with
PJ's representation of the story. We are both fans of the book, he and
I, as are many of the posters on this board, and if he didn't wish to
have his vision discussed, then he would have kept it to himself. Any
idea, once put on the floor, is open to debate (even the ones *I* state
are fare game!), as long as we are all reasonable and polite about the
discussion and agree to disagree. I have gained immeasurable insight
through PJ's work, and enjoy his telling of the tale. He probably has
gained nothing from mine, as he has not decloaked on the board (if he
indeed ever visits). I have also learned a great deal from my fellow
posters, who keep me thinking, and in whose debt I remain. I would
welcome PJ's comments, should he see fit to present them. As I welcome
yours.
