Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Sure, there were action sequences, and there were in the books also. But there were also moments of intense emotional drama, portrayal of the human condition(and I guess the Elven condition if there is such a thing ), and lots of wonder and beauty that was subtle and sublime.

My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

I think with a book you have the actual characters - the 'real' Gandalf facing the 'real' Balrog (real in the secondary world that is), whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect. It doesn't help to have all the documantaries & interviews either, which reinforce that fact & discussing how he approached the role.

Tolkien discusses this in OFS:

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results. It is a misfortune that Drama, an art fundamentally distinct from Literature, should so commonly be considered together with it, or as a branch of it. Among these misfortunes we may reckon the depreciation of Fantasy. For in part at least this depreciation is due to the natural desire of critics to cry up the forms of literature or “imagination” that they themselves, innately or by training, prefer. And criticism in a country that has produced so great a Drama, and possesses the works of William Shakespeare, tends to be far too dramatic. But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy. This is, I think, well illustrated by the failure of the bastard form, pantomime. The nearer it is to “dramatized fairy-story” the worse it is. It is only tolerable when the plot and its fantasy are reduced to a mere vestigiary framework for farce, and no “belief” of any kind in any part of the performance is required or expected of anybody. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that the producers of drama have to, or try to, work with mechanism to represent either Fantasy or Magic. I once saw a so-called “children's pantomime,” the straight story of Puss-in-Boots, with even the metamorphosis of the ogre into a mouse. Had this been mechanically successful it would either have terrified the spectators or else have been just a turn of high-class conjuring. As it was, though done with some ingenuity of lighting, disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered. In Macbeth, when it is read, I find the witches tolerable: they have a narrative function and some hint of dark significance; though they are vulgarized, poor things of their kind. They are almost intolerable in the play. They would be quite intolerable, if I were not fortified by some memory of them as they are in the story as read. I am told that I should feel differently if I had the mind of the period, with its witch-hunts and witch-trials. But that is to say: if I regarded the witches as possible, indeed likely, in the Primary World; in other words, if they ceased to be “Fantasy.” That argument concedes the point. To be dissolved, or to be degraded, is the likely fate of Fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare. Macbeth is indeed a work by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have written a story, if he had the skill or patience for that art.

A reason, more important, I think, than the inadequacy of stage-effects, is this: Drama has, of its very nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute, magic: the visible and audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasimagical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much. To make such a thing may not be impossible. I have never seen it done with success. But at least it cannot be claimed as the proper mode of Drama, in which walking and talking people have been found to be the natural instruments of Art and illusion. For this precise reason—that the characters, and even the scenes, are in Drama not imagined but actually beheld—Drama is, even though it uses a similar material (words, verse, plot), an art fundamentally different from narrative art. Thus, if you prefer Drama to Literature (as many literary critics plainly do), or form your critical theories primarily from dramatic critics, or even from Drama, you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making, and to constrain it to the limitations of stage-plays. You are, for instance, likely to prefer characters, even the basest and dullest, to things. Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

That certainly makes crystal clear sense to me. I understand your feelings completely when expressed this way.

I am just glad that did not happen to me.

[Sir Kohran]

or if I'd seen them first

Maybe that's the case. I saw the movies before I read the book and now I enjoy both.

whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect.

That's just you. When I see that sequence, not for a second do I not believe I'm seeing Gandalf the Grey defy the Balrog, in the same way as when I am reading the corresponding passage in the book I do not believe that all I'm doing is looking at some ink printed onto some paper.

But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted.

I agree with Tolkien here...I saw the movie Eragon recently and it was appalling. So was Dungeons and Dragons back in 2000. One before LOTR...one after LOTR...and yet both were terrible. In fact, I think the LOTR movies are the only fantasy films I've seen that have done both drama and fantasy well at the same time. I believe this is because they have their roots in literature, where drama and fantasy can coexist (as the books prove).

disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered

[Sauron the White]

For those who criticize the films for being too action oriented or playing up the violence at the expense of other more sublime parts of the tale.... I was reading LOTR just this morning , chapter THE GREAT RIVER. I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

For those who try to tar Jackson with the brush of being a thud and blunder action director who plays up the violence over more subtle parts of the story, thse two examples prove that it is not always so.

I reread the scene where we have the death of Boromir and noticed that JRRT describes him as pierced with many arrows. Jackson limits it to three. I guess you could argue that three could be the same as many but I got the image of the old St. Stephen paintings where he was nearly a human pin cushion. Then JRRT describes that around the dying Boromir lay many orcs piled about him. Makes me think of those 70 trolls in COH. A far more gruesome image than the one Jackson used in the film.

I would guess that there are other portions of the book where similar examples could be cited.

If you want the movies to be more like books does that include adding more violent action scenes like these?

[davem]

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield). Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way - which is perfectly understandable when you take into account the fact that he had fought on the Somme, seen two out his three closest friends die horribly & possibly even taken German lives himself.

I accept that Jackson didn't included every single incident of action/violence on screen - actually I wish the Warg attack just prior to Moria had been included (one of my favourite episodes) - the problem I had was that every incidence of violence that was included was depicted in the most graphic way imaginable. Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... I do appreciate this exchange and I am appreciating your position more and more. Not agreeing with it - but appreciating what it means to you. I do think that we are placing Jackson into the position of he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. You concede that Jackson did not put in all the action and violence that is written by JRRT. But you find fault with the stylings of how it is depicted. You explain it this way

A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield).

The first half of your objection would apply to any author of any book as compared to any on screen depiction. Obviously what happens in a readers mind in terms of how much detail they want to see can never be captured on screen since the director is forced to make a choice that the viewers can see. It would seem that your criticism there is not directed at Jackson so much as it would be the simple process of filmmaking where things must be shown clearly. Of course, the alternative to that is the type of violence which was depicted in the sanitized Hays Office years of the movies - Thirties and Forties - where blood was hardly ever shown and carnage was invisible. Some feel that that type of depiction of violence is far worse because it gives people an unrealistic view of the consequences of violence. And I would agree.

You saw Legolas surfing down the stair as humorous - as is your right. I believe Jackson was going for "oooh thats cool" reaction from the younger viewers. I do not feel that scene was an attempt to be humorous in the least. So we see that differently.

Regarding Boromirs death - we are tending to repeat our positions here but I felt that it was far more effective on screen than in the book. We see the sacrifice of Boromir in all its dramatic magnitude and we gain a tremendous appreciation for it and for him despite the previous scenes of his less than gallant behavior towards Frodo. Having him dying in this way is an on screen display of personal redemption that seemed to ring true with the viewer. Again, repeating a previous point, but I have seen many posts over the past few years from people indicating that this scene really helped them gain a new respect and love for the character. So it did work on screen.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood.

No, actually; not of his own volition. Weta built the set for that episode, but a sudden flood washed it away so the scene was scratched. So we *do* get a scene of tension and character dynamic- only because PJ was forced by powers beyond his control not to go with his preference, another fight.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - and if PJ wanted that scene in the film they could have rebuilt it and included it. Even on the later pick-ups, it could have been included if Jackson had thought it important for inclusion. BUT HE DID NOT.

Again, some here seem to damn Jackson if he does and if he does not. In this case, he gets no credit for not including a JRRT written scene of more violence and action because you attribute that to the forces of nature ........ or perhaps even some higher power?

WCH - your argument about the style of Tolkien and even being out of sync with his contemporaries only serves to strengthen the hand of those who feel that it simply had to be updated to be marketable to todays audience. By your reasoning, JRRT appears even out of touch with the actual time he was writing in. He was a throwback to previous eras and traditions. The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He was writing for an entirely different generation. Ours is one that expects action and character development and people they can identify with. The movie is meant to appeal to them, therefore it includes these things.

Stuff and nonsense. The English literary world of the time was dominated by the likes of Leavis and Muir and Waugh, who expected all of the above (and castigated Tolkien for defiantly refusing to play ball). Again, intentionally 'appealing' to what an audience 'expects' (especially an audience which, if you are correct, is effectively Neanderthal in its expectations), is pandering and the antithesis of Tolkien's art. His mission, insofar as he saw it, was to reintroduce modern readers to something they had lost or forgotten, the glories of older literature before the rise of the bourgeois novel.

I regret that similar pandering apparently underlies the Zemeckis Beowulf, which from the trailers looks gawdawful- but I'm sure the same audiences whioo flocked to Conan the Barbarian and PJ's flicks will eat it up.

[Sir Kohran]

I had a big post that covered all of davem's points but the bloody internet came up with a 'cannot display' page so I'll have to be short:

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish.

Not really. Tolkien was gory:

Then Pippin stabbed upwards, and the written blade of Westernesse pierced through the hide and went deep into the vitals of the troll, and his black blood came gushing out.

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

The movie violence is extreme & often gross

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

And anyway, it's realistic - a bunch of fighters with swords and axes hacking into flesh is going to be brutal. What are you suggesting, that the camera cuts away every time we see Aragorn or Gimli swinging at an enemy?

its often presented in a humourous way

I don't agree. Was Boromir's death, grunting as the arrows slammed into him, depicted humorously? Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

What's more powerful and moving - seeing a man sitting next to a tree with some arrows in him, or seeing him fighting an overwhelming enemy desperately and slowly being shot? Also, Boromir's death is only surprising ad shocking on the first read - after that you epxect it. However the movie's death scene remains powerful every time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I actually have little problem at all with Boromir being shot onscreen. I think it's powerful and moving, and follows a very real dictate of cinema: "show, don't tell." What I do have a problem with is what follows immediately, Aragorn's o-so-Hollywood duel with an invented superorc character. Yest even that didn't bug me as much as, not the *acting* or *emotion* of Boromir's death-scene, which were palpable; but the *dialogue*, which was stupid, and reflects the supercession of Tolkien's powerful laconicism for more Aragorn-the-reluctant crap.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

I don't interpret that as humourous.