What did Christopher Tolkien think?

[MatthewM]

I was reading the J.R.R. thread like this, and I saw Christopher's name mentioned as "unhappy and unsatisfied"...

Is this true? What did Christopher think of PJ's films?

[davem]

CT put out a statement:

In a statement through his solicitors, Tolkien said he thought it would be impossible to translate his father's novels onto the big screen.


"My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form," he said.

"The suggestions that have been made that I 'disapprove' of the films, vent to the extent of thinking ill of those with whom I may differ, are wholly without foundation."

He added that he had never "expressed any such feeling".

More here

As far as I'm aware Christopher has never seen the movies.

[ninja91]

Personally, I think Christopher should give the movies a go. They are the very best.

[davem]

Sorry, but I think CT is absolutley right. The books are not suited to visual representation. Tolkien's language is absolutely essential to LotR. That's why the BBC Radio version works so much better than the movies.

I know this isn't a popular view here on the Downs, but it is correct (as is usual with me).

[Nogrod]

I'm afraid that this topic has been turned over a hundred times here at the BD, but still I think it worthwhile to bring forward a few points.

"A picture says more than a thousand words" they say. I believe this is quite a widely-spread idiom (with variations). I have been against it for a long time. On occasion a word tells more than any thousand pictures. It depends of the words and pictures involved in the comparison... Think of the words of ancient Greek, like: kalos/n, filia, sophia, logos, whatever - or just plain contemporary expressions like God, love, humanity...

I can't see a way to exhaust these concepts with any pictures, how artistic or highly valued they might be.

Neither could I see Picasso's Guernica (sorry about the trivial example) or any other major work of the "great modernists" I love (Marc, Beckmann, Kandinsky, Rothko...) to be explained away with a mere thousand words... with any words.

Or someone making a film about T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land...

They seem to be incompatible.

But even making a picture of a story, that's somehow tricky too.

A story, when read, takes place in your mind. You may have vivid ideas of how the things look like, but more often than not, they are vague feelings and emotions depicting you the things told in the story. When you take on to filming a story, you will have to take a stance on every detail: how many toes does a Balrog have? Is Frodo's sleeve just an inch or an inch and a half from his wrist? How did Boromir indeed look at lady Galadriel, what were the minute details on his expression (and someone has to act them in reality)? And so on.

Making a film kind of nails things down to something like a reality. Makes them look something actual or being.

I'm not sure what I think of the films by PJ. It was great to see them and there were many beautiful sceneries and finely wrought details that stirred my emotions and made the opus breathe in a new way *, but still... The imagery of PJ somehow shadows now my reading of the LotR, and I'm not sure how good it is...

I can relate to CT when he's being sceptical about transforming his father's world and stories into a film. Maybe the story and the world would be more varied and more personal without the films?

But was all this individuality something J.R.R. craved for? Probably not.


* That is not to say that I didn't disagree with many of the decisions the PJ-team made in adopting the story - or getting their own ideas over the original story... but that is another matter.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

* That is not to say that I didn't disagree with many of the decisions the PJ-team made in adopting the story - or getting their own ideas over the original story... but that is another matter.

This is another matter, and I know what you mean. All of us fans have some issues with some of PJ's decisions. But personally, I think the movies are great and I believe they paint a beautiful picture of Middle-earth. However this too is another topic.

I really think CT should watch the movies, for they got many people really into Tolkien, or got them back into him. And by being "into" Tolkien I mean all things LotR- books, films, Letters, History, etc.

Does anybody know a snail mail address or anything of that sort to write to Christopher Tolkien?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

This is another matter, and I know what you mean. All of us fans have some issues with some of PJ's decisions. But personally, I think the movies are great and I believe they paint a beautiful picture of Middle-earth. However this too is another topic.

I really think CT should watch the movies, for they got many people really into Tolkien, or got them back into him. And by being "into" Tolkien I mean all things LotR- books, films, Letters, History, etc.

Does anybody know a snail mail address or anything of that sort to write to Christopher Tolkien?

I think a guy in his early-to-mid 80s can make up his own mind about what movies he wants to see...

Quite frankly, I wish I COULD unwatch the movies.

Yes, I did watch them. And, yes, I thought they were excellent movies- as movies. But as presentations of my most beloved tale?

Paltry.

And, like Nogrod, I find them seeping into my mental picture of the books. And I'd like to be rid of that. I LIKED my mental pictures. They might not have been awesome, but they were MINE.

And if I, who am 19 and a world (time and space) away from Tolkien... how much would Tolkien's own (80-something) son have his own mental image? It's clearly been satisfactory for 60 years- why let someone else's image spoil the view?

[Lalwendë]

Matthew M - if you want to write to CT, the usual way is to send a letter via the publishers.

Anyway, I be surprised if CT had managed to avoid the films so far, even if he's only taken a sneaky peak at them. And the marketing images are pretty strong and pervasive so he cannot have avoided those - least of all if he had to 'approve' them in any way.

Really, why should a film cloud our imaginations any more than paintings and illustrations would? Yes, certain things from the films creep into our internal vision, but can anyone here deny that John Howe's Gandalf has not also influenced them? There's a long history of Tolkien art - including by Tolkien himself - and I'm sure I'm not the only one to be influenced by it.

I suppose some of the film images will fade over time, but not all will (e.g. the image of Frodo with the Ring, and the Gollum they created), and they will form part of that collective idea of what Middle-earth looks like. Even then readers will still form their own view despite what they are told or shown - otherwise why would I still persist in seeing a grey, bearded Elrond?

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Matthew M - if you want to write to CT, the usual way is to send a letter via the publishers.

Anyway, I be surprised if CT had managed to avoid the films so far, even if he's only taken a sneaky peak at them. And the marketing images are pretty strong and pervasive so he cannot have avoided those - least of all if he had to 'approve' them in any way.

Really, why should a film cloud our imaginations any more than paintings and illustrations would? Yes, certain things from the films creep into our internal vision, but can anyone here deny that John Howe's Gandalf has not also influenced them? There's a long history of Tolkien art - including by Tolkien himself - and I'm sure I'm not the only one to be influenced by it.

Thanks, I do agree. Hildebrandt art along with others seep into my mind as I read as well as the films (although the films do more) and unfortunetly...shutter...Ralph Baski's cartoon version will sometime peer it's ugly head on in.

I really don't understand why so many people are so against the movies. I'm 19 as well, and we weren't even around when LotR was created. I think some people to be honest are just trying to be strictly book, when in our world you cannot. It is a movie phenomeon, and there is no denying in many scenes it captures the essence of Tolkien's books greatly. They too are my beloved story, but why can't you just accept them as Jackson's take, just like you had your own? Jackson makes great visuals as well as great movies in tLotR. They are there, and they treat the LotR very good, compared to what other directors in the past have planned on doing to it...

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I would give anything, ANYTHING, for Tolkien himself to have seen the films, and then to know what he thought of them. If you, like me, share his faith, then that is a possibility. But that's another thread...

Really, to say that the movies should never have been made is selfish. Millions have been introduced into Tolkien's world through them. Even for those who don't read the books, they've still been given a glimpse, just a glimpse, of the beauty and majesty of Middle-earth. Unfortunately, they've also been given a belching Gimli and an insane Denethor, but hey, take what you can get.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Unfortunately, they've also been given a belching Gimli and an insane Denethor, but hey, take what you can get.

Hey, it could have been A LOT worse. If John Boorman had got his hands on it, we would have had Frodo getting intimate with Galadriel.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Lal

I suppose some of the film images will fade over time, but not all will (e.g. the image of Frodo with the Ring, and the Gollum they created), and they will form part of that collective idea of what Middle-earth looks like. Even then readers will still form their own view despite what they are told or shown - otherwise why would I still persist in seeing a grey, bearded Elrond?

I agree. It is very sad how so many who have seen the movies after reading the books have lost their original pictures of things. Fortunately for me, I myself am now (three years after the movies) beginning to recover my old pictures, (though not all of them were lost).

Oddly, I nowadays never consider the movies even the same story as the book...

If Christopher has had his own scenery for 60 years, would a few movies be able to destroy it?

[drigel]

And, yes, I thought they were excellent movies- as movies. But as presentations of my most beloved tale?

The books are not suited to visual representation. Tolkien's language is absolutely essential to LotR. That's why the BBC Radio version works so much better than the movies.

As time goes on, I tend to agree with these positions. PJ did as well as one could, given the current state of technology, but I think that the product would have been in a much better quality (both as a finished product and as a vehicle for a specific audience - rather than all audiences) if LOTR was adapted into cinema in, say, 20-50 years from now.

Byt, if one believes that the Hollywood blockbuster will soon be a thing of the past, then we should thank PJ and NewLine for taking this project on now, with it's $300 million budget, as that kind of money may not be so ready 20 years from now.

[Mithalwen]

Having known and loved the books for so long and having been traumatised by the Bakshi cartoon version, I had absolutely no desire whatsoever to see the films so I can only imagine how much more strongly given his much closer connection to the books the level of disinclination Christopher Tolkien felt. I should think it would be more or less unbearable. And I can certainly understand the attitude that since he had no control he would rather stay right away. Given that he has no control of the contents, and that I doubt that Hollywood blockbusters are among the particular interests of elderly academics resident in France, I am frankly a little surprised that people are particularly surprised he isn't interested in watching Peter Jackson's view of his father's creation to which he has devoted decades of his life.

I did watch the films (having seen a trailer) and I do own them but compared to the books they are peripheral. I am not an action movie person so the things I like about them is the way they look and I think it was a clever move to use Alan Lee and John Howe since as a result Middle Earth looks familiar to those of use whose books are illustrated by them. when I saw the trailer I realised that the sets and the costumes had been designed by people who loved the books and that was enough to make me go. The look of the film has lingered and parts were well done - the ride of the Rohirrim, for example, and I thought it was clever the way they made clear the paralel of Sam and Elrond at the Crack of Doom, but overall they didn't have the impact of the Radio Version... which I heard soon after I first read the books, and to which I listen every couple of months while the EEs sit on the shelf unwatched.

While it may have introduced some people to Tolkien it is clear that a lot of people never make the transition to the books whereas most of the book people have seen the films. And there are a lot of them. The Lord of the Rings was voted book of the century BEFORE the films came out, discovered by generations of adolescents in turn.

However I do wonder if age is a factor here - not age itself but the fact of having grown up in a world without so much constant visual stimulus. When I was a child there were 3 television channels and they didn't broadcast 24 hours a day - for a large part of the day all one of them showed was a picture of a girl with a few toys. Children's television programmes were few and centred largely on story telling.

I did have a computer game (and if I can find it it might be worth something) which consisted of two lines and a dot. The plus side was that we had a lot more freedom to roam around outside, but without computers, videos and 24/7 dedicated TV you were a lot more reliant on books and your own imagination for entertainment. Maybe that is why more of the slightly older generation prefer our own images to those presented to us.

I am not against the movies as such and I understand a lot of the reasons for the changes but I could leave them as easily as take them. I am not very keen on a lot of the art either - in fact a lot of it is quite hideous but it is much easier to ignore! I guess the films are always going to be more significant to those who were introduced to Tolkien by them. And least significant to Christopher Tolkien of anyone living.

[Diamond18]

I find all this so amusing.

[Lush]

I find all this so amusing.

Moi aussi.

[Inziladun]

Having been (years ago) one of the few who opposed the movies here, I think CT was right. I did finally break down and see them: once. Books are always superior to movies in my opinion, but this work in particular misses much in the translation. As has been said, the wonderfully descriptive language and dialogue is sacrificed for mass appeal, the characterizations seem rather stilted and dull, and many of the changes were done for no reason I can fathom.
JRRT himself said in 1955

I think the book quite unsuitable for 'dramatization'.

though it is debatable if he thought this about movie adaptations.
I'm not one of those who believes the movies have forever ruined my special, imaginative view of Middle Earth and its denizens. I wasn't hurt by seeing the movies, but I didn't gain anything by it.