THE RETURN OF THE KING???
Posted by gandalf30598
THE RETURN OF THE KING???
“’If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go forth, or, ‘Behold, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them.” (Mat. 24:26)
Last week in my review of Peter Jackson’s movie version of The Hobbit, I alluded to the “betrayals” of Tolkien’s vision I thought he had committed in his Lord of the Rings. My original review of Jackson’s LOTR antedated the advent of Lantern Hollow Press, so this week I thought I would reach back into the past and resurrect it so you could see what I was talking about last week:
The pre-release internet buzz was that Peter Jackson’s third installment of his version of the Tolkien trilogy stayed closer to the book than his “Two Towers.” That is true only in a very gross and superficial sense. There were no new big departures from the original plot, just the inevitable workings out of the disastrous big departures made in “The Two Towers.” But there were a thousand little changes, which, like Chinese water torture, made it almost impossible to enjoy the good things (i.e., one of the best artistic renderings of Minas Tirith ever). These little changes also reveal, as clearly as the major departures in the second movie, the shallowness of Jackson’s understanding of Tolkien’s world view and therefore of his epic.
I say nothing here against the omissions and conflations of plot elements, as much as we would all have liked to see the scouring of the Shire. Some simplification has to be expected in an adaptation, and anyone who won’t accept that just shouldn’t watch movies based on books. What bothered me were the thousand and one little gratuitous changes to the original that served no purpose. No doubt they were intended to make things more dramatic on screen and/or to bring out elements of conflict as Jackson sees them. But almost every one of these unnecessary changes is either a clumsy and heavy-handed treatment of themes Tolkien showed us with much greater skill and subtlety, is just plain pointless and stupid, or betrays an appalling lack of understanding of what Tolkien was doing (and why) when he wrote the story the way he did.
A few typical examples of these gratuitous changes to the plot will have to suffice; no doubt you can think of many more. One thinks of Gandalf punching out Denethor with his staff, which was simply demeaning to both characters. The movie Denethor has none of the nobility that made his fall tragic in the book; he is just a dottering and despicable old fool. Second, Sam beating the snot out of a supine and passive Gollum is absurd on two counts. Not only would he have been physically incapable of this—it took both Frodo and Sam to subdue Gollum, and then only with the threat of Sting and the influence of the Ring—but, knowing that Gollum was under Frodo’s protection, it is just not something Sam would have done, no matter how strong his feelings. It was completely out of character.
Finally and most significantly, we have Frodo pushing Gollum off the cliff at Sammath Naur rather than having him fall by “accident” during his celebratory dance seriously diminishes Tolkien’s emphasis on the role of Providence (or, to use his own words, “Luck, if luck you call it”). Tolkien’s scene is the culmination of a theme present at least since the words of Gandalf to Frodo: “I can put it no plainer than by saying that you were meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. And that may be an encouraging thought.” Why is this an encouraging thought? Because if Frodo was meant to find the Ring, there has to be Someone to do the meaning. Some one greater than Frodo (we learn from The Silmarillion it was Iluvatar, God) was at work, and that is really the only reason why there was hope in the Quest. Frodo’s impotence in the final moment is integral to Tolkien’s meaning then–but it is absent from Jackson’s.
In an attempt to summarize what went wrong and what was at stake, I can do no better than to offer the following sonnet:
THE QUEST MOTIF
(What Lewis and Tolkien Knew,
And Peter Jackson Does Not)
Snaking out across the vast expanse
Of History and Legend lies a trail,
The footing treacherous, the markings pale,
And peril lies in wait for those who chance
To travel it. But if they can advance,
And if their luck and courage does not fail,
They may emerge into a mystic vale
And reach the magic realm of fair Romance.
The landscape’s always changing. There is no
Map that can be trusted once you swerve
Aside; your only compass is your quest.
If, true to friend, implacable to foe,
You’re faithful to the Vision that you serve,
You’ll find that Country which the Muse has blessed.
One might have hoped, in other words, that Peter Jackson would have had the humility to see himself as the servant of Tolkien’s vision. He shows us that, had he done so, he could have created a worthy adaptation that would have been a true masterpiece. Instead, he had the arrogance—yea, hubris–to make up his own vision and think it better, while outwardly claiming to give us Tolkien’s.
There can be only one word to sum it all: Tragic.
Donald T. Williams, PhD
Toccoa Falls College
Check out Dr. Williams’ Lantern Hollow Press books at https://lanternhollow.wordpress.com/store/. Including:
Stars through the Clouds: The Collected Poetry of Donald T. Williams. Lynchburg: Lantern Hollow Press, 2011. ISBN 9781460906514. 360 pp., $15.00, pbk.
“Williams has returned poetry to the writing of poetry. Here you will find new life breathed into the great forms that graced English verse for centuries.” — Dr. James Prothero
“ . . . the believer’s Robert Frost . . .” — Wil Shorb
About gandalf30598Theologian, philosopher, poet, and critic; minister of the Gospel who makes his living by teaching medieval and renaissance literature; dual citizen of Narnia and Middle Earth.
Posted on February 11, 2013, in Donald Williams, J.R.R. Tolkien, Middle Earth, Movie Reviews and tagged Denethor, Frodo, Gandalf, Gollum, Iluvatar, Lord of the Rings, Luck, Peter Jackson, Providence, Tolkien. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.