As, I expect, many fellow hackers, I went to see The Fellowship of the Ring last night. Well, I must say that it was truly very good. I found Jackson incredibly good at picturing evil creatures, and despite lesser inspiration in dealing with good creatures (I especially found Galadriel to be quite disappointing) some of them -- notably the hobbits -- were really well performed as well.
Purists might resent his departing from some elements of the book. In at least one case I must say that I agree, as Jackson completely obliterated the travel from the Shire to Bree, thus leaving out some truly magical moments.
However, in some other cases I totally agree with his choice. Making Arwen a more important character was imho a good choice. I've always found that LotR severely lacked feminine presence and giving Arwen more space to exist was a good choice in that it makes the balance slightly better adjusted.
The music was a bit weak, but the visuals and acting were quite impressive. I think it's a must see, whether you've read (and liked) the book or not.
In true judeochristian mythical tradition the women are sparse in such epic tales but, if you pay attention, you'll notice that they are all either saviours or evil incarnate with little grey area. I only recently learned that Tolkien was Catholic...boy, does that ever explain a whole bunch especially where the women are concerned
Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-20T16:51:35
Oh yes it explains a hell of a lot (no pun intended), his Manichaeanism, his mistrust of women (either mysterious or stupid, and with no part in the actual action), his deep dislike for those of his fans that were too revolutionary in the 70s, and so forth.
That's why I think Jackson deserves extra credit for some of his modifications that correct those tendencies (though of course he couldn't go too far).
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-20T17:05:41
"Correct"? You can't correct what isn't wrong.Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-20T17:22:20
My opinion is that exacerbated Manichaeanism or mistrust of women as a principle, are wrong. Taking steps to change that is, insofar as I am concerned correcting.
Or were you referring to something else ?
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-20T18:01:52
Two problems. First, I disagree that Tolkien's LotR is, strictly, speaking, Manichaeanism, though it certainly has many elements of it; similarly, I don't think there is a genuine mistrust of women, as a principle or otherwise.
Second, if you corrected all the "wrong" things in LotR, you wouldn't have a movie left. You know, like murder, betrayal, evil in general. Come to think of it, without the Manichaean good-vs-evil, LotR would pretty much completely suck. Or do you want to just remove the "wrong" things of the heroes, not the villians? And in that case, isn't that rather Manichaean of you?Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-20T18:23:51
Ah, I like that comment better
:-) No, Tolkien is not strictly speaking Manichaean. It can't be said however that he masters a vast array of nuance from good to evil. As for a genuine mistrust of women, that's how I perceived it in the book. I guess it could be argued both ways provided sufficient literary investigation, however his notes on the book and comments about it would tend to show that my perception is not without foundation. But do we really care about the author's intentions here ? Not I, not much. If you didn't perceive that then indeed you have no reason to resent it.
For your final point, I think you are mixing levels. Taking out all the evil-doing would of course wreck the entire thing, as it would likely wreck 90% of existing stories. But that's more concerned with what happens in a story than with a more general view of it. I feel that LotR lacks in evil/good subtelty and in strong female leads. As far as I'm concerned, anything that improves that corrects the story, or, if you prefer, makes it score higher for me.
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-20T18:46:29
Well, your view is yours. I personally think that you should try to stay as close to the spirit of the book as possible when doing a work as well-known as this. That means not "correcting" anything that you think is "wrong", only changing things to make it easier to tell the story better given the medium. For example, cutting out some less important or impactful scenes, or combining scenes, or even combining characters, but doing it all for the sake of more easily telling a better story in the different medium.
Once you start changing the message or tone of the story when it is this well known, you begin the path to failure.
Given the spectactular reviews I've heard, I don't think this is a problem. People understand the changes made were for the sake of the story... except for the aforementioned Arwen, which is the only real negative thing I've heard about the movie at all.
You could argue that these elements make it harder to tell a story that people today can relate to, but given the popularity of the books, I don't think that's reasonable.Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-20T19:13:39
Well basically I think that's the point on which we differ. When transcribing to a new medium, all you can do is a very distant approximation, at best (unless you focus solely on the plot, but that would be a drastic focus). So you are changing everything, including the tone and potential message. How to best stick to an original is deeply subjective.
Just because you can't stick to it (otherwise it would be the exact same thing, ie not on a different medium) doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to if you are so inclined. It just means that the door's imho open to making changes of various natures.
So as you can tell, I'm probably as far from being a purist as it gets. I feel the same way when it comes to translation. Without calling you a purist, this may be the part on which we disagree.
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-20T19:31:00
When transcribing to a new medium, all you can do is a very distant approximation, at best... So you are changing everything, including the tone and potential message. Then I see no reason to do Lord of the Rings at all.
Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-21T13:54:14
I'm afraid I simply don't follow you. What's wrong with basing something on something else, and reusing reusable elements in order to produce an enjoyable experience ?
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-21T14:30:06
Let me ask you something: if you're not going to faithfully reproduce the original, then how about using that grey matter between your ears to come up with something truly original?
I have pride in my work, myself. If I am going to copy someone else's work, I am going to do the best job I can to express what that person was trying to express. If I am going to express *myself* instead, I am not going to copy anything, I am going to do my own work to express me. I'm not going to ride on the coattails of someone else just to get attention.
To me, it makes no sense at all to take someone else's art and morph it into what I think it should be, without regard for his intent, and then pass it off as the original. It's dishonest, it's uncreative, it's boring, it's lame.
Now, I have no reason to suspect this is what Jackson did, so please don't take this as an indictment of LotR (I haven't even seen the movie, and haven't opened the book in almost 20 years). This is just about general principle, one apparently Jackson agrees with (at least in the case of LotR).Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-21T14:52:58
We've drifted far away from LotR here, so I won't address that part of your comment (which I tend to agree with, though I'm not sure that Jackson would have the motivations for that that you express).
I don't think that reusing someone else's work is copying. I don't think either that it is something that one would necessarily do for the sake of attracting attention. In fact, when I was considering reusing someone else's work to other intents (on the same, or on a different medium) I wasn't thinking of necessarily reusing a famous work.
I have pride in my work as well. If I see something in someone else's work that can be "creatively perverted" then I won't hesitate. The original work has matter, interesting things. I will try to breathe new form, new approaches, new visions into it. What will result will be an original work (barring failure on my part of course).
I don't think that that kind of approach is dishonest: at no time would I deny my source of inspiration.
I don't think it's uncreative: I would be creating something new. Any adaptation, whether it attempts to follow the original or to meld it into something else, requires fair amounts of creativity.
And, as you now expect, I don't think it's boring or lame either. Putting the two approaches next to one another is an exercise that would typically yield new meanings, new light.
Finally, by waving aside all attempts at morphing someone else's work into something else, you are putting aside a vast amount of major works. Pretty much all of Shakespeare would suddenly become lame and boring. Entire centuries of greek and latin poetry and drama would suddenly become dishonest and uncreative. Medieval literature would be rendered entirely inexistant. And I am not even going to list what would happen to more recent works, or to works from other parts of the world. An awful lot of the best that has been produced so far has been so produced through creative and original reworking of previously existing works.
"Yet I am the necessary angel of earth,
Since, in my sight, you see the earth again,"
-- Wallace StevensRe:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-21T15:08:20
I don't have the quote in front of me, but Jackson specifically stated his primary goal was to make a good movie, and his secondary goal was to be faithful to Tolkien's LotR.
Now, about copying: I am not talking about mere reuse. I am primarily talking about doing a very large and extensive production and passing it off as the original work, while not being faithful to the original. That's dumb, dishonest, uncreative, and lame.
If someone were to mold LotR into your vision for it, I would hope that wouldn't have the gall to call it "Lord of the Rings". Because it would suck under such a title. All work builds on what came before it; don't pretend that's what I am talking about. I am clearly talking about taking someone's work and presenting it as that same work, but creating something completely different, with a different intent, goal, themes, mood, etc. That's lame. Very lame.Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-21T15:21:06
According to your definition, Romeo and Juliet, Oedipus Rex, and many others are very lame. We're not talking about "building on what came before it", we're talking about simply stealing all major plot elements (and even some style elements) and nevertheless producing works of high creative genius.
The one thing I can agree with in what I read in your comment (perhaps, read into it) is that a very large and extensive production would be despicable for trying to make money by advertising itself as a faithful reproduction in order to attract fans, and in fact present a totally warped version of the original. But that's marketing, that's lying, and I don't think anyone respectable would defend that.
However, my point in my original journal entry as well as throughout my comments is that, were I to do a version of LotR I wouldn't mind changing things that I don't like in the original, no more than I'd mind someone else doing that, so long as it's honest. So long as it's presented as "this is something I did that is based on LotR, that has many elements of it, but in which I decided to take liberties in order to produce something more to my liking" then I wouldn't see where the problem is. I might agree or disagree with the modifications made, but I won't call it dishonest, nor lame or necessarily boring.
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-21T17:32:07
According to your definition, Romeo and Juliet, Oedipus Rex, and many others are very lame.
Yes, if you take my definition and twist it around to mean something I never intended. Is this what you mean by disregarding authorial intent?
So long as it's presented as "this is something I did that is based on LotR, that has many elements of it, but in which I decided to take liberties in order to produce something more to my liking" then I wouldn't see where the problem is.
Sure. But then don't call it Lord of the Rings. Call it "Darobin's Lord of the Rings" or something, so we know it is something different.Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-21T17:42:54
The definition I'm using is from your own text: I am clearly talking about taking someone's work and presenting it as that same work, but creating something completely different, with a different intent, goal, themes, mood, etc. That's lame. Very lame. "Presenting it as the same work and in fact doing something largely different" is typical of an awful lot of greek drama, poetry, and philosophy, as well as of part of Shakespeare (this is not an exhaustive list by far, painting would reveal yet many more cases).
I don't see the point in calling it something different, unless it directly serves the purpose of the work itself. After all, if it is LotR done by me, then it will say "The Lord of the Rings, put to stage (or whatever) by darobin".
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-21T18:12:42
Shakespeare did not present it as their work, but his own work. He didn't pretend it was someone else's.
I don't see the point in calling it something different, unless it directly serves the purpose of the work itself.
Because if its intent is completely different, if it makes no attempt to be faithful to the original, it is a lie to call it by the same name without being very clear. It is NOT Lord of the Rings, in the case of your version. it simply isn't. It is something based loosely on Lord of the Rings. To say otherwise is a lie. And lying is far more "wrong" than any of the things in LotR you wish to "correct."Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-22T20:33:22
Yes, in some cases he did. If I get a chance to dig up my old literature course while at my parents place around the end of this year, I'll bring forth references. Note that I don't think it's wrong.
As for lying, no it wouldn't be. Only people with a warped idea of identity would imho perceive it as a lie. If it's not done by the same person, it can't be the same thing. Where does one's understanding of a work stop and interpretation begin ?
Maybe we come from different backgrounds. My three years spent in theatres might be sufficient to provide me with a different perception from yours. Putting a play to stage requires a solid amount of creative perversion of the original, if only because it is boring to just be faithful over and over again. Some stagings change the text, the order, and much more. They certainly change more than would be necessary to suit technical or narrative constraints. How interesting would it be to go see twelve stagings of Hamlet if they weren't all different, often with very different approaches ?
And those people don't lie. Nevertheless, they don't call it something else. It's simply Play Foo, put to stage by Joe Bar. Critics and humans may then disagree with the choices and changes, but I don't think I remember anyone ever calling that "wrong" in the moral sense of the term.
But then, it's a long known fact that theatre and morals don't really mix that well
;-) Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-23T03:33:44
As for lying, no it wouldn't be. Only people with a warped idea of identity would imho perceive it as a lie.
I don't for a moment believe there's anything humble about your opinion.:-) And yes, it is a lie. If you say you are putting on Lord of the Rings and yet consciously change the very intent of the original work, and don't say that you're putting on such a significantly different work, you are lying. I don't care if you don't like it, it's quite simple fact. You are saying it is one thing, knowing it is something else. That's the very definition of a "lie."
Where does one's understanding of a work stop and interpretation begin ?
But you aren't talking about understanding or interpretation. You were very clear about changing the very intent of a work. That's neither interpretation nor understanding, that's molesting.
Critics and humans may then disagree with the choices and changes, but I don't think I remember anyone ever calling that "wrong" in the moral sense of the term.
Until you came along, I'd never heard anyone call "exacerbated" Manichaeanism as practiced by Tolkien's works morally "wrong," either.Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-23T11:43:34
You are saying it is one thing, knowing it is something else. That's the very definition of a "lie."
As it happens, it is also the definition of a game, of a joke, and -- to a certain extent -- of art. Do the words "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." ring a bell somehow ?
If I were to put on LotR, I would definitely warp it in many ways. I would assume that my name being put next would be sufficient for people to know that it isn't Tolkien's version. Tolkien's version is available from all good bookshops, and it's the only one. I would never pretend that I've followed the authorial intentions to the letter, because I care not about that. Where's the lie ?
I don't think I was "clear" about changing the very intent of a work as you say. However I might, so I don't think it matters that you are changing the very intent of my words into something more extremist. I would still consider it interpretation (note that the concept of interpretation isn't specifically bounded, one can interpret to one's heart's content provided the original work is pregnant enough).
I don't think "exacerbated Manichaeanism" is morally wrong, I just find it rather bland and boring
:-) PS: off to the mountains I am, see you in a few days, merry christmas and all.
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-29T03:55:04
I would assume that my name being put next would be sufficient for people to know that it isn't Tolkien's versionUnless your name is *part of the title*, that assumption would be false.
Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2001-12-30T17:07:59
Well, I would still assume that. Can you support your view with more arguments ?
Re:feminine presence
pudge on 2001-12-31T22:49:59
I think it is clear. If you title something "Lord of the Rings" and don't qualify it as being a different version, most people will assume that it attempts to be faithful to the original, and will be upset if it is not. I don't see what more arguments are necessary. If it were called "Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings" I would expect it to be his own work, loosely based on the original. Since it is called "Lord of the Rings," I expect it to be as faithful to the original as possible, while still making a good movie.
Which is, from what I understand, what it is.
You might disagree. I assume;-) you do. C'est la vie. Re:feminine presence
darobin on 2002-01-01T17:36:00
Of course I disagree
:-) If I go see a theatrical performance of a play, I don't expect to see the same old boring original version. I don't think anyone putting, say, Hamlet to stage today tries to be in any specific way faithful to the original. In the end of Kenneth Branagh's In the Bleak Midwinter (US title "A Winter's Tale" for reasons beyond my understanding) one sees extracts of an interpretation of Hamlet which would have been infinitely more interesting than the full text and supposedly more faithful four hour film by the same director. And that's not because we've all seen/read/heard Hamlet dozens of times and then some. It's simply that there's great potential in taking someone else's creative stuff and letting your own creativity toy with it. And I've never seen posters for "Joe Random's Hamlet", only for "Hamlet", directed by Joe Random. So why expect creative license in one case and not in another ?
It's like templating systems, the more the better
;-) But yes, Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring is mostly faithful (except for the parts in which he corrects the original's flaws...
/me runs far away and ducks ;-) and nevertheless enjoyable, despite the fact that naturally this implies that PJ had to bridle his own creativity. Bonne année !!!
Just so you know.
