Whilst many have made the point about the visual elements of the films helping personal visualisation upon re-reading (and I shan't digress into arguments about personal imagination etc), it seems to me the case that the book could inform the film as we watch it too, and not in a negative way. Instead of taking the two media as separate units to be compared, can they not exist together? Can we not, for instance, recall that Faramir is unequivocally good in the book, notice that he is not on screen, and instead of commenting on the difference as wrong in itself, a Hollywood sellout, a time-constraint, dumbing-down, or any other accusation, rather see it as an interesting interpretation?
And here you might being to accuse me of being a pseud (to use the Private Eye term). Take, for instance, the varying accounts of Judas Iscariot in the Gospels; how in one (I forget which) he is possessed, and that it's the devil's fault, but in another he must betray Jesus as part of God's plan. Then think of Jesus Christ Superstar, and the portrayal of Judas as a realist. Perhaps the case is slightly different because these are interpretations of actual events (and please no subtle debates about the existence of Jesus), but each new interpretation helps aid the old one. To become REALLY wanky, let me cite T S Eliot in Tradition and the Individual Talent:
"...what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves,which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions values of each work of art towards the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new."
Extremely wanky, but it's Christmas - indulge me. Of course, the counterargument is that an adaptation is NOT "really new" - but perhaps this injection of novelty is technical artistry, rather than thematic/story. As regards Faramir, can we not reshape him as a character in and of himself, without recourse to "faithfulness" to Tolkien, and transcending chronology? Given the zeal of some of the really hardcore fans, I'm surprised they don't think these characters are real and atemporal anyway!
Merry Christmas - just trying to justify being bought the 12-disc boxset to myself!
Slashdot Mirror
NB: Long, indulgent post follows.
Whilst many have made the point about the visual elements of the films helping personal visualisation upon re-reading (and I shan't digress into arguments about personal imagination etc), it seems to me the case that the book could inform the film as we watch it too, and not in a negative way. Instead of taking the two media as separate units to be compared, can they not exist together? Can we not, for instance, recall that Faramir is unequivocally good in the book, notice that he is not on screen, and instead of commenting on the difference as wrong in itself, a Hollywood sellout, a time-constraint, dumbing-down, or any other accusation, rather see it as an interesting interpretation?
And here you might being to accuse me of being a pseud (to use the Private Eye term). Take, for instance, the varying accounts of Judas Iscariot in the Gospels; how in one (I forget which) he is possessed, and that it's the devil's fault, but in another he must betray Jesus as part of God's plan. Then think of Jesus Christ Superstar, and the portrayal of Judas as a realist. Perhaps the case is slightly different because these are interpretations of actual events (and please no subtle debates about the existence of Jesus), but each new interpretation helps aid the old one. To become REALLY wanky, let me cite T S Eliot in Tradition and the Individual Talent:
"...what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves,which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions values of each work of art towards the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new."
Extremely wanky, but it's Christmas - indulge me. Of course, the counterargument is that an adaptation is NOT "really new" - but perhaps this injection of novelty is technical artistry, rather than thematic/story. As regards Faramir, can we not reshape him as a character in and of himself, without recourse to "faithfulness" to Tolkien, and transcending chronology? Given the zeal of some of the really hardcore fans, I'm surprised they don't think these characters are real and atemporal anyway!
Merry Christmas - just trying to justify being bought the 12-disc boxset to myself!