Early Morning Squeeing...

Galadriel is the best! Last night, she made me the lovely new icon that is now gracing my journal.

There isn't much that can make me happy first thing in the morning, but this did.

Much to post tonight. My response to this week's Rings-Thing question is turning out much longer than I expected. And I'll have a rant of my own about this article about why fantasy is just wasteful, escapist tripe. The link comes from Andrea.

Now, it's off to work I go.

Rings-Thing Weekly Question...

Did the changes from book to screen bother you more or less (or the same) in TTT vs. FOTR? Any TTT changes that you found particularly distressing, or any that others are harping on that bother you not at all? Were there any parts of the movie that you thought made no sense if you hadn't read the books?

For the most part, I don't have a problem at all with the changes Jackson has made in moving from book to film. Most of the complaints that I've heard stem from the fact that the films are not "true" to the books. By "true," they mean that the films fail to precisely reproduce what is in the books. However much Jackson may stray from the books, he remains very true to the spirit of the texts, and that is what is most important to me, not some slavish reproduction of the book.

What the most severe fault-finders fail to take into account is that a film and a novel are two very different beasts. While readers may not object to having characters (some they know, many they are meeting for the first time) simply tell stories and talk for the lengthy Council of Elrond chapter, a film audience is not going to sit still for twenty minutes of tale telling. They aren't. They will be flinging popcorn at the screen faster than you can say "hairy little hobbit."

Perhaps the most bitter complaint I heard about Fellowship concerned the elimination of Tom Bombadil. I've endured debates about his thematic importance to the work because of the Ring's lack of power over him. The richness of meaning that is lost because of his absence. How the film becomes somehow diminished and more trivial. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Now, I like Bombadil well enough and agree that he's a fine old fellow. But I cannot imagine, given the tone and texture of Fellowship, what would happen if Jackson dropped in a big guy in wacky, bright-colored clothes who trots about the countryside singing silly songs. I mourn the loss of Bombadil more because it also meant sacrificing the scene with the barrow-wights, which would have been shivery good fun, than for his absence.

Coupled with the Bombadil complaint is one leveled against the poor cave troll. I must confess I am a great fan of the cave troll and the
battle in Balin's tomb. I'm happy that more was added to it in the Expanded Version of the film-especially since it was an Aragorn/Boromir moment. Complaints leveled against the troll are that the battle is a bit of gratuitous violence that pandered exclusively to interests of Adolescent boys and wasted time that could have been spent...well, including important stuff. Like Bombadil. Please.

A close second to Bombadil-related moaning is the complaint about Arwen's expanded role. Glorfindel fanciers pout because their favorite Elf has been cut. Others complain that having Arwen stand up to the Nine at the Ford of Bruinen robs Frodo of the chance to make a stand against them and find the Pieta-esque image of her cradling Frodo on the river bank cheesy. On the lowest level, people say there was a reason Tolkien put the story of Arwen and Aragorn in the Appendices, and there it should stay.

I like Jackson's Arwen. Frankly, the image of her wandering alone after Aragorn's death is one of the things that always haunted me in the book. The terrible sacrifice that is the cost of her love has always interested me, and I'm happy that Jackson is exploring that in the film. I don't have a problem with her riding about with a sword either. In fact, I'd prefer that so seeing her sit prettily in the Hall of Fire and smile vacantly at her husband-to-be. Arwen doesn't come from a line of weak, passive women, and if she is to be anything other than a trophy bride she'd have to have more than beauty and grace to attract and hold Aragorn's attention and affection.

Since TTT departs more radically from the book than Fellowship, it provides a more attractive target to those looking to criticize the "faithfulness" of the film to its source.

Faramir's character seems to be drawing the most fire from irate fans. People wanted the "I would not pick [the Ring] up if I found it lying on the highway" fellow rather than a man who is tempted by the Ring. Book purists wail that Jackson has made him "just like Boromir" (as if that's a bad thing).

Frankly, I find the Faramir flack quite puzzling. These same people are not lamenting the fact that Boromir is more noble and Aragorn more angst-ridden than in the books. If it's simply a matter of "purity," then those adaptations should enrage every bit as much as the ones to Faramir.

I like Faramir in the books, especially in RotK, and the buzz that preceded the opening of the film concerned me. But after Fellowship, I trust Jackson. I trust he won't let me down. And he didn't.

I also like the edge Jackson has given Faramir in this film. And let's be honest here, without it--without his temptation, without his taking the hobbits to Osgiliath--Frodo and Sam's story arc reads something like this:

Hobbits walk through rocks, get lost, find guide of questionable repute. Hobbits get out of rocks. Hobbits walk through swamps. Hobbits meet Men and are questioned, given news of Boromir's death, fed, and then set loose. Hobbits walk some more. Hobbits walk up stairs and through tunnels.

Do you want to watch an hour of that? No. Didn't think so. With Shelob moved to RotK, Frodo and Sam need an obstacle to overcome. Faramir becomes that for them.

I've also read complaints about the fact that the Ents first decide not to go to war in the Entmoot scene. Again, Merry and Pippin need to do something in this film except get hauled about by orcs, run away, and hang out with the Ents. Their fight is to get the Ents to engage with the troubles of the world and take an active part in trying to resolve them.

Rather than the Faramir controversy, I expected there to be more rumblings about the very reduced role of Eomer in the movie. In the books, while Legolas and Gimli are bonding during the battle of Helms Deep, Aragorn and Eomer are as well. This change allows more focus on the relationship between the King of Rohan and the reluctant King of Gondor. In fact, Theoden actually speaks some of Eomer's lines from the book. I'm interested in seeing how this will be continued in RotK.

In TTT, I would have liked more of Faramir. The scenes that were cut (and will hopefully be restored on the Extended Version) would have gone a long way to establishing his motives and conflicts. People who hadn't read the books will not get the same thrill when Faramir is tempted and says, "Now is the chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality." They won't know of the scenes between Denethor and Faramir that are waiting in RotK.

Oh, it is starting to annoy me that the bloody sword has not yet been reforged. I'd like to think that Aragorn will have it before he faces off with Sauron in the palantir.

The thing that distressed me most in Fellowship, the ruthless compression of the gifting scene in Lorien, was remedied in the Extended Version, and I expect the same will happen with TTT. In fact, in both films, the one thing that was most disappointing was how quickly they were over. I was ready for another hour of film when the credits started to roll, and that isn't something I'd be feeling if I were fidgeting over Faramir or Elves at Helm's Deep or the absence of Eomer.