Review Questions What was the most important reason that J.R.R....

Review Questions

1. What was the most important reason that J.R.R. Tolkien objected to original movie treatment of The Lord of the Rings written by Zimmerman? What are two other reasons he did not like the way Zimmerman was handling the story?
2. What is the difference between classic animation and CG animation?
3. What power do you give up when you watch a movie rather than reading the book version?
4. Other than just telling a story, what are some other goals that a director might have that may affect his or her direction of the movie?

Critical Thinking Questions

1. From a creative cinematic viewpoint, why was it better that a production of The Lord of the Rings using human actors rather than simple animation did not take place until the 21st century?
2. How does the use of simple animation tend to affect the presentation of a story? For instance, Baksi first presented an animated film version of The Lord of the Rings in 1978. How did his use of animation affect the story? What advantages can you think of for using simple animation in filming some stories?
3. Based on what you have learned in this unit, which do you think is best for your situation: to read the book first and then see the movie? Or to see the movie first and then read the book? Why is this choice best for you?
4. From Sam's point of view, who was Gollum and what was his motive for helping the hobbits? From Frodo's point of view, who was Gollum?
5. Give an example mentioned in this unit where the director, Peter Jackson, changed the nature of a conflict in the story.

reference:

The Cinematic Background of The Lord of the Rings

Introduction

Have you ever noticed how many movies came from books? Classic stories such as Oliver Twist, Pride and Prejudice, Alice in Wonderland, and many others tend to pop up in films on a regular basis. Books, especially older classics, appeal to filmmakers for several reasons. One reason is that they are classics—books that have stood the test of time because they have a story or set of characters that continues to appeal to audiences for many years after their initial publication. Another reason is that many of these older stories are now in the public domain, meaning the copyright which protects them from being used by others without payment or permission has expired. By using these older classics from the past, filmmakers do not have to worry about the film rights issues that more recent stories create. However, they do still need to attribute the source of the story to the original author. You will notice this attribution usually at the beginning (or sometimes the end) of a film which may state "based on the book by Charles Dickens" or whoever the author may be.

The Lord of the Rings is a case in point. The book is still under copyright and the book rights belong to his family and his American publisher, but the film rights were sold by Tolkien before his death. Dealing with the complexities of film rights, merchandising rights, and differences between US copyrights and UK copyrights over the novel made the issue of getting the movies produced quite difficult. However, The Lord of Rings was in an interesting position. It was modern enough to require dealing with the copyright issues, yet it was already regarded as a classic within fifty years of its publication. The fact that the book told such a great story and had such a large following made all the effort to bring it to film ultimately worth the trouble. Other attempts to produce dramatic versions of The Lord of the Rings had occurred before these films were produced. In 1958, the BBC adapted his story as a radio dramatization which considerably abridged (shortened) the story. When a story is presented as a dramatization, it has to be rewritten so that it can be acted out on stage or the radio. This rewrite involved many changes, which Tolkien understood but watched with frustration. He once commented in a letter that since his book was not written "dramatically, but epically," the dramatizer had to take considerable liberties with the story.

About this same time, Tolkien sold the film rights for the story and there was active talk of making the book into a film. Tolkien was involved in consulting on the project (which was never completed), but was quite frustrated by the further liberties that were taken to his plot and characters in order to fit the story to the limitations of time, budget, and movie technology of the day. In a letter he wrote in 1958, Tolkien complained that Morton Zimmerman, the screenwriter (a writer who creates a script to be used in a film), had turned Lothlorien into a fairy tale castle, put feathers and beaks on the orcs, had given the hobbits submarine sandwiches to eat in Isengard, had installed windows in Edoras, and had shortened the plot considerably by having members of the Fellowship of the Ring conveyed around Middle Earth by use of giant eagles!

What bothered Tolkien even more was the way that Zimmerman's screen adaptation cut the core out of his story. In the same letter he wrote: "He [Zimmerman] has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone particularly depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. This last and most important part has, and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered." It is actually an advantage that the film was not made at that time. The creatures of Middle Earth are not your typical monsters that appeared in older action films. It really would have been impossible to portray the fantastic places and beings revealed in the book without the proper technology to represent them. Since the book was conceived "epically," the scope and majesty of the book require more—and it was not really possible to produce the necessary cinematic elements until filmmaking had matured and more money could be invested in its production. Now, with the advent of CG animation (animation that uses computer-generated images), directors, the ones who oversee all dramatic and artistic aspects of a film, can now create the illusion of larger armies and more "realistic" heroes and villains.

In 1978, Ralph Bakshi produced a version of The Lord of the Rings that used classic animation, a process where pictures are drawn in a series and presented quickly so that they appear to move. At this time, animation, which was most often used for children's cartoons and films, was really the most affordable way to demonstrate the fantastical nature of the places and beings of Middle Earth. However, this use of animation also served to relegate the story more to a children's tale, rather than the richly complex and philosophical novel that it is. This version also cut out much of the intricacies of the plot. Reportedly, Peter Jackson, who was the director of The New Line Cinema versions you have been viewing, was first introduced to The Lord of the Rings by watching this animated film. He was quite impressed with the story and went on to read the book. As his reputation as a filmmaker grew, he decided to finally tackle directing The Lord of the Rings.

Of course, the decision was not that simple. To film The Lord of the Rings the way it deserved to be filmed required a massive budget. It took years of patience and negotiations with various prospective backers before the plan finally came together. In the end, New Line Cinema agreed to back the project. Jackson, his partner Fran Walsh, and another ardent Tolkien fan, Philippa Boyens, worked together to write the scripts for the three movies, which were based closely on the books but took significant liberties with the story in places.

Some of the changes came about because of time constraints. The extended versions of the three movies already require nearly ten hours to view. However, with that, several chapters in the book were completely omitted from the film. Other changes came as a result of the vision of the director. Peter Jackson is primarily known for movies involving monsters and action sequences, so it was no surprise that the monsters and battle scenes of The Lord of the Rings received so much attention under his direction. In this aspect, Jackson and Zimmerman had similar approaches. However, the screenwriters of the New Line Cinema version did what Zimmerman could not: they maintained the heart of the tale—the journey of the Ringbearers—and did so admirably.

Many ardent fans of the book take exception to some of the elements of the movie. For instance, some object to the decision to have Arwen, rather than Frodo, face the Black Riders at the ford on the borders of Rivendell, a decision that was likely made to add more female interest to what is clearly a male-dominated story. We will discuss other changes to plot and character in later units. However, overall, Jackson's version was a wonderful portrayal of the spirit and scope of Middle Earth. The three films were critically-acclaimed and won 17 of 30 Academy Award Nominations, many of these related to their incredible special effects—technology that creates visual illusions in films in order to add drama and realism to the production. However, all this did not come without cost. It took over eight years to film and produce The Lord of the Rings and cost an estimated 300 million dollars (USD). In the end, the three movies took in an average of $820,000,000 each. The Return of the King alone grossed nearly $1,200,000,000. The movies were filmed entirely in Peter Jackson's homeland of New Zealand, where a replica of Hobbiton was erected and is now a major tourist attraction. The entire media franchise, which includes the films, the associated intellectual property (a work that is the result of creative or mental effort), and the associated merchandising (such as toys, replicas, and video games) is one of the most profitable ever recorded. All of this is rooted in the imaginative words of one man—proof of how powerful (and profitable) words can be.

Advantages of Presenting a Classic Book as a Film

The world seems to have two types of people: those who love to read and those who prefer to wait until the movie comes out. Members of this second group trust the filmmakers of the world to decide what literature is worthy of production and then to pre-digest it before feeding it to the public. Certainly, converting a book into a film does offer some definite advantages, as long as you realize what you are trading in return. We will examine some of the advantages of seeing a classic transformed into a film.

Movies offer entertainment.

We associate movies with entertainment because it is easy to watch a film and do other things as well. Think of how many times you have watched movies with your family and friends. Watching a movie can be a social occasion, one that allows all present to share in the experience because it reaches people who come from various ages and educational backgrounds. Books can also be used socially if read aloud in a group setting, but this rarely happens anymore and usually involves people from a narrower segment of society. Let's face it: in most cases, it is easier to spend an evening with a date while watching a movie rather than reading a book.

Movies provide visual images and a greater understanding of the setting of the story.

ne of the reasons that movies are usually entertaining is that they satisfy us visually in a way that a book never can. The images not only add excitement and drama, but they also aid in our understanding of the time and place of the setting. If you read older classics, you will notice that, often, a lot of space is devoted to describing certain locations, especially if the book was written in a time when people did not have easy access to pictures of other lands. However, movies don't need descriptions: they place the images before you immediately. The very beauty or ugliness of the images helps contribute to the overall effect that the story has on us.

Movies provide auditory stimulation.

Movies also provide auditory stimulation. Have you ever watched a movie with the sound on mute and noticed how different it seems? The voices of the actors, the sound effects, and the music all combine to add another layer of drama to the scene. When the music is especially well-written and composed for the film, we begin to associate the music with the story independent from the film. Composer Howard Shore did an excellent job with the musical accompaniment to The Lord of the Rings and his compositions help us envision the different cultures and settings of Middle Earth much more effectively than if the music was not present.

Movies are usually more exciting and dramatic.

Because movies are visual and auditory, directors often focus on these elements to increase the dramatic impact. For instance, Peter Jackson took a 3paragraph description of a battle from the book and turned it into a 10-minute battle scene. Many people turn to movies to provide excitement and directors tend to cater to these tastes.

Movies reach a wider audience.

Because of the entertainment value of movies, people are drawn to them. Therefore, movies tend to reach a wider audience than books in many cases. You can usually watch a movie in a shorter time than you can read a book. Today, movies are widely available at the touch of a button on cell phones and tablets, so they are not only convenient but also portable. This convenience can have advantages even in terms of literature. Sometimes, you may watch a movie and be so swept up in the plot and characters that you feel like you have to know more. At those times, you can turn to the book to get more details or find out what you missed. Perhaps you will even want to read the entire text of The Lord of the Rings by the time you finish viewing these films.

Advantages of Reading the Classic Book

Though film has its advantages, encountering a story first through the written word has its distinct advantages as well. We will now examine these advantages.

Because a book allows for expressions of thoughts, you understand the characters better.

n a movie, it is very difficult to understand the thoughts and motives of another person. Actors and directors offer some indications, of course: facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, flashback scenes. But you cannot actually hear the complex thoughts of the character. A book allows you to explore a character's mind and motives much more fully and to trace the changes that the events in the story have on that character.

Reading is more educational and intellectually stimulating.

Of course, you know that reading is educational—that is why your teachers are constantly pushing you to read. But reading, even for pleasure, actually painlessly allows you to expand your vocabulary, increase your reading speed and comprehension, and be introduced to new ideas and concepts.

Reading exposes you to more of the author's original words and expressions.

Much of the beauty of literature comes from the word choices of an author. Here you may find hidden quotable gems, some of which may echo your own thoughts and affect you profoundly. In some books, such as The Lord of the Rings, the author actually includes poems that will never make it into a film. Even when a filmmaker uses direct quotations from the book, the words may be given to a different character or used in a different context, as occurred quite often in the filming of The Lord of the Rings. When you read the book, you have the opportunity to choose the words that are important to you. Reading allows you to createyour own vision of the story.

When you read a book, a wonderfully creative event occurs: you actually begin to see the story in your head. In effect, you and the author are collaborating on creating the story in a way that is unique to you. This is why two people may read the same book and picture the main character in slightly different ways. Your internal visualization—the formation of images in your mind—may be colored by your own experiences or preferences. You actually become the director of the story in your own mind. When you watch a movie, you are handing this awesome power to another individual and trusting their visualization of the story rather than you own.

Reading allows you to see the "heart of the story" as the author intended.

Directors often change a story to meet their own goals. These goals may include making money, winning a certain award, building a reputation in a certain area, fitting the story to a certain rating guideline, or reaching a target audience. These all may be worthy goals in the world of filmmaking. But the author had a purer intention in writing their book: to share a new idea or to make you see an old idea in a new and fresh way. If you want to know the true story, the "heart of the story," you will need to read the words as the author intended. These are their characters and their world. Their true ideas do deserve some consideration.

How the Film Affected the Story of The Two Towers

A study of The Lord of the Rings is a great way to see how a director can affect the way the story is told for two reasons. One is that the series of films had a large budget and allowed for more time than many book conversions, so the director had more creative license than on many films. The other is that the director did try to maintain some faithfulness to the original tale, even though there were many small changes and some major ones. In The Two Towers, we begin to see many of the greater changes between the books and the movie and we will discuss some of those below. Changes in Plot Structure

Even though The Lord of the Rings book and the films are both trilogies (a series of three books or films), they do not stop and start in the same place. In fact some of the events found in the book of The Two Towers actually appear in the movie The Fellowship of the Ring. This was a decision made by the director about where to break the story for maximum effect.

Shifting Points of View

Another big structural change we see is in how the plot information is presented in both media and this begins to show up more in The Two Towers. The actual book of The Two Towers is divided into two parts: Part One follows the adventures of Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, and Pippin while Part Two follows the adventures of Sam and Frodo, which occur at the same time. In the films, the director chose to take a more chronological approach, alternating scenes back and forth between the groups so that we know roughly what events are occurring at the same time. This method works far better in the film as it allows the pacing of the story to move quickly and keeps the audience informed as to what events are happening concurrently. This also causes the point of view of the story to shift in each scene. The point of view of a story is the perspective through which the events of the story are viewed. Everyone who watches or participates in an event has their own point of view.

Think about your own life. Let's say that you and your older sister are supposed to babysit your younger brother while your parents are out. Your older sister was left in charge, but she wants to video chat with her secret boyfriend while your parents are gone and so she pays you to keep an eye on your younger brother. During this time, while you are watching television, your younger brother gets bored, finds a set of permanent markers, and decides to createan alarming mural on the dining room wall. Then your parents come home. How will each of the three of you tell this story to them? Who will get the blame in your version?

As you follow the scenes in The Two Towers, some are related through Pippin's eyes, some through Sam's, some through Aragorn's, and some even through Gollum's. These differences in perspective allow us to see the story from more than one point of view. We begin to understand Frodo's fear of the influence of the Rings, Pippin's alarm at being separated from his protectors, Aragorn's doubt as to which path he should have followed, and Gollum's vision of himself as a victim, rather than a villain.

Gollum's Split Personality

Another incredible scene in the movie is the transformation of Gollum into a split personality. The dual character of Gollum is handled much more subtly in the book. Under the kind but firm governance of Frodo, Gollum does begin to remember his former self to some degree. As he does, the Smeagol character tends to refer to himself in the first person (I) while Gollum uses the third person, referring to himself as Gollum. Smeagol also uses better grammar than Gollum (which is a lesson to students everywhere) and offers other subtle signs of change.

However, in a movie, we cannot see so well into the character's mind, nor do we have the time to follow subtle shifts in character. Jackson, who tends to go for the direct, rather than subtle approach, handled this self-conflict by staging Gollum's dramatic scene where he splits into two characters and argues with himself. This is the same approach Jackson took when retelling the conflict between Saruman and Gandalf in Isengard. In the book, the dispute between the two was only in words (though Gandalf was still imprisoned on the tower). In the movie, Jackson instead substitutes a dramatic wizard fight with added dollops of violence.

The Effect on the Ents

One of the ways the movie differs from the book is seen when Merry and Pippin meet Treebeard, the Ent. As the Hobbits are left on their own for a while, the trees attempt to devour them. This incident never happened in Fangorn, but in the book, a character named Old Man Willow does attack the hobbits in the forests just outside of Buckland. In that scene, the hobbits are rescued by Tom Bombadil. The movie omits all the chapters dealing with Bombadil. However, the director does manage to move the carnivorous tree incident to Fangorn.

Also in the book, the Ents are portrayed as very slow. In fact, their motto is "Don't be hasty." However, this concept does not play well in a movie. The director has to give the illusion of a slow pace without actually halting the action. Notice the breathiness of Treebeard's deep voice? These elements help with the illusion. By the way, did you know that the actor who played Gimli also performed the voice of Treebeard?

The Transformation of Theoden

One of the coolest special effects in The Two Towers is the transformation of Theoden. In the book, Theoden is strongly under the influence of Wormtongue, who is in league with Saruman. The movie suggests a stronger possession of Theoden by Saruman. (Note how Saruman is thrown down during the transformation.) With the use of incredible special effects, we are able to watch Theoden change right before our eyes in a way that classic animation never would have been able to capture.