XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Ronald O. Christian  wrote:   
      
   > On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:10:28 +0200, Troels Forchhammer   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >And yes, I do set a rather high bar here -- the point of the last   
   > >criterion, that the solutions offered are the same, is to ensure that   
   > >Tolkien would accept the position propounded by the films as a fair   
   > >representation of his own position.   
   >   
   > Well, that is your opinion, and at least I know where you're coming   
   > from.  I think you raise some good points.  I'd argue that many of the   
   > themes really are there, at least to some extent, and it's more   
   > difficult (but not impossible) to portray (for instance) an overall   
   > reluctance to do battle and a desperate last-ditch effort at survival   
   > at the same time...  (how did that ever work in print?)  I'm wondering   
   > if there is or was a director who could pull that kind of conflict   
   > off...  Perhaps Cocteau?  Kurosawa?  But then those directors would   
   > get other things wrong.  (I just had a vision of a slow pan across   
   > details of armor and saddle... of a cloud following Aragorn across the   
   > field...  never mind.)   
   >   
   > I wonder if these aren't merely examples of what happens when you go   
   > from print to film.  A reader could maybe hold in his/her mind the   
   > idea of bookish warriors who do not love the sword for its sharpness   
   > and only go reluctantly into battle, and at the same time have in the   
   > back of their mind that a massive army is attacking them in their   
   > homes in a last ditch effort to utterly extinguish their race.  And   
   > that this kind of dichotomy might be easier to write than to film.   
   >   
   > It also occurs to me that these parts -- Gandalf's discussion with   
   > Frodo regarding Gollum, Faramir's philosophy, and other things, are   
   > what give some (small group of) people the mental image of a bucolic   
   > Middle Earth where all the cutting and stabbing occurs offscreen.  Not   
   > saying you feel that way, but I can see where that could arise, and   
   > that any reasonable film portrayal of, you know, a WAR, would   
   > disappoint.   
      
   Very good points there. I fully agree, and I've maintained in the past   
   that it's difficult, if not impossible, to portray the inner   
   thoughts/feelings of a character, especially in the heat of a busy   
   scene.   
      
   And that's the thing. Movies being a visual medium with a time   
   constraint, focusing on the parts that have a direct visual impact is   
   a more logical way to go about to tell the same story (boy, am I oging   
   to get it for that line :)   
      
   So, the Battle of the Hornburg is about nine pages long in the book,   
   but in the movie, it is greatly expanded upon. The reason for this is   
   not because this was a fifteen minute long battle in the book, but   
   rather that it is harder and more tedious to write about battle and   
   action than it is to visualize it on screen. I'm sure Tolkien *meant*   
   for the battle to be at least as long as it is portrayed in the movie,   
   time-wise. But he didn't want to elaborate too much on it (probably   
   not on fear on it being too boring, but rather because he may not   
   enjoy writing about battles all that much, coupled with the inherit   
   difficulties to write about action sequences).   
      
   I do agree that any added material (Elves, wtf?) to the battle is to   
   be frowned upon, but other than that, I think it's easier, and better   
   for the audience, to elaborate on this obviously visual part of the   
   story, rather than the more tiresome (and rather eventless) ride to   
   and from Orthanc that follows it, for instance.   
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)