2,761 Words
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a very fascinating fantasy that was originally created only in book form. Fortunately, a very talented producer, Peter Jackson, came along, took the legendary books, and made them into something very dear to many Lord of the Rings fans: films. To this day, the Lord of the Rings books and films alike are enjoyed by an endless number of people. Jackson took on a very difficult task when he took over the role as producer. His job was difficult based on the following question: How was he going to fit the three books into films and still do it justice? Jackson faced many conflicts and issues in making the books into films. I will explain some of these issues and the resolutions of them in this paper.
J.R.R. Tolkien was insistent on the fact that he thought his books could not be made into films. Obviously, we see now that he was wrong and that his work could be made into something more for fans to enjoy. It is easy to see why Tolkien thought this way though. In his books, he skips around a lot. The reader sees a major event happening to one or more main characters, and then the book skips to another major point. The next thing the reader knows, they haven’t seen past characters for one hundred plus pages! Potentially, if the film were set up just like the book, the audience would have time for memories of those characters to fade more than they should.
Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings crew have a rather brilliant idea to solve the issue of skipping around. In the films, Jackson intertwines both chapters and different books, placing them in chronological order so that we see each character within real time increments. This way, we as the audience are more apt to remember what had already happened to those characters. It would be incredibly confusing to just blatantly skip from one spot to the other. I think Jackson did a really good job with this solution. I am a person that can never remember what happened in the movie I saw yesterday. With the Lord of the Rings films, I can still remember the pathway set for the story to take place. I cannot imagine how the movie would have succeeded if Jackson had not created a way to make the skips less noticeable.
Tom Shippey also, as one of his worldviews, obviously believes that novels, especially Tolkien’s work, would be impossible to turn into a film. He speaks about Tolkien’s way of presenting the main plot of the Lord of the Rings and how it makes him appear to be an unprofessional writer. We do not figure out until over two hundred pages into The Fellowship of the Ring what the plot is. A lot of people would not like to sit through a film that begins with nothing. What Jackson does about this is shows other events and background of Middle Earth to get the audience into the movie. Then it goes into the main book and eventually we hit the Council of Elrond where we finally figure out what the whole trilogy is going to essentially be about.
An issue that came about when producing the second film was what should Jackson do with the last four chapters? The Road to Isengard, Flotsam and Jetsam, The Voice of Saruman, and The Palantir were chapters that were at the end of book three, but they were also after the Battle of Helms Deep. Helms Deep was already a big event that would end that book well. Plus it was a longer section and to have the film go on for even longer would have just been too much for some people. Again, Jackson and the crew came up with an idea that proved to be for the better, especially in the view of the audience.
To solve the issue with the four chapters, Jackson and the crew decided to take them, cut them out of the second film, and place them at the beginning of Return of the King. Instead of using the detailed version and making the movie that much longer, they decided to “trim the fat” off the chapters and use the bare minimum of what was needed for the film. This way, the essence of those chapters is still in the film, just not every detail. I agree with the way this problem was solved because I do not think Tolkien would be happy having those four chapters cut entirely. Neither would many of his fans, for that matter. The chapters were written for a reason and I think ending the second film on a slightly happier note was a better idea anyway. That way, those chapters can set the scene for the third movie.
Another issue in Return of the King that Jackson had to solve was the Undying Lands. In the book, we as the readers are able to experience what Frodo sees the Undying Lands as. In the film, there really is no room for that as the movie needs to end at some point. Putting in the description would seem like it was leading to another small scene which would take more time than necessary. Also, it would be leading away from the ending that Jackson chose. This problem, shown in the Appendices of the DVD, was solved skillfully. The description ended up resting in the hands of Gandalf. He ends up using it to give Pippin a more peaceful mind after the Gate was broken in Gondor and fear was in the air. The description is that of beauty and what some people might consider Heaven-like.
A smaller and yet noticeable issue in creating the film from the book is the presence of Arwen. The reader goes for long periods of time in the book without seeing either hide or hair of Arwen. This, to me, is not a demanding problem, but if we think about it in terms of how and when she is used in the film, having her included more is a great solution and asset to the film. Arwen is used in dream-figure, person, and flashbacks throughout the movie. I think that as flashbacks, she is used to keep Aragorn in the game. Essentially, he wants to finish the journey, be crowned King, and have Arwen as his queen, where he can spend his time with her. If Aragorn had not been motivated by thinking of her and had died, he would not have been able to take his place as King and have love with her.
Also, in a conversation I had with a friend, the aspect of Arwen being used as symbolism can be argued. She can represent the fact that Middle Earth may be ruled by men in the end and not immortals anymore. She also is a part of the destruction of the ring as in if it did not get destroyed; there would be little hope for her to continue on as she had already given up her eternal life to be with Aragorn eventually. This can be a theme as Arwen shows up throughout the journey and battles in the film. I think it was a great solution of Jackson’s and the crew to put Arwen in the film more.
In the Lord of the Rings, the main villain/enemy is a big, orange, burning eyeball at the top of the tower. This raised concern in the creation of The Return of the King. An audience would not be able to perceive a big eyeball as the main villain of the trilogy. It does not seem to portray any lethal immediate danger. To resolve this above issue, Jackson incorporated other villains that did not have the role as main villain, but were there to show us that there is more than one evil. Gollum is included. He is very contemptible in The Return of the King. The orc leader is another type of evil that shows the audience fear. When we see him, we sense tension. Near the end, the Mouth of Sauron is another type of evil that plays a big role in the film more so than the book. The eye is not believable enough to be a scary role. The Mouth of Sauron hits home. Jackson knew what he was doing when he added all of these evil characters in as bigger roles than they were originally meant to be. In the book, the eye was more believable because the human mind was forming its own images, but in the film, the other characters were “necessary evils”. They really showed how many evils Tolkien had in mind in the narrative.
Along the lines of world views, in “On Fairy-stories”, it is said that “The human mind is capable of forming mental images of things not actually present.” This would explain why Tolkien left out some of the detail that should have been presented in the books; especially The Return of the King. He left it up to the reader to form some of their own images. This is one reason why I think that Tolkien knew what he was doing. The other eighty percent of his trilogy have incredible detail that creates the image for the reader. Maybe he wanted the other percentage to be determined by the individual. I think this is a great idea, especially since it left a small margin of room for Jackson to solve the issue in production. He was able to interpret a few small things in his own way. This is more beneficial for the reader/viewer too. Instead of seeing the same exact replica of the books, there are slight differences to be surprised by in the film.
A problem arose when Frodo and Gollum were at the edge of the ledge of the volcano. In the book, Frodo is a huddled mass of hobbit after his finger gets bitten off by Gollum and Gollum goes over the edge, destroying him and the ring, while dancing around like a madman because he got the ring back. To Jackson and the crew, this seemed simple and like no justice was given to the rest of the journey that had happened up to that point. In the Appendices on the DVD, it was said that Frodo was too much of the story to just sit there and be a bystander watching Gollum face destruction.
The solution to this situation was giving Frodo and Gollum an equal chance at the edge of the cliff. This way, Jackson made it seem like there was a true battle going on over the ring. He did not want to make it look like Frodo was just murdering Gollum either though. So in the end, Frodo was made to look like he was trying to get the ring back. It also was said to make the story center back around the ring. Another solution that came with this new twist was putting Frodo dangling over the edge. This created a chance, once Frodo saw that the ring had indeed been destroyed, as to whether he was going to let go or be pulled back up by Sam. I like how Jackson put these little twists in because it really gives the character’s decisions and efforts throughout the film more life. I think this particular decision was incredibly successful because, for the moment, it left the viewer feeling like Frodo was the center of everything. It was also suspenseful waiting to see the decision he would make.
A major problem as we get closer to the end of the book and film was whether or not Jackson should keep The Scouring of the Shire as a scene. Jackson thought that it would be a waste of time to keep the scene in the film. In the book it is eighty plus pages. The amount of detail that would need to be put into the film for that section of reading would take an insane amount of time in planning, producing, and watching (as the viewers). The solution that Jackson came up with for this issue was to cut the scene right out. Also, he made reference to it in The Fellowship of the Ring so that the essence and style of it would still be included somehow. It was an important part to cut, but it still ended up in there even if not as a top priority. On the Appendices DVD, it was talked about in a way that the climax of The Return of the King film should be Frodo destroying the ring, not coming home to realize that his journey was a big waste. The crew felt that it would be anti-climatic to start another story line that really was not necessary after approximately nine hours of film. This also leads into another major issue in Lord of the Rings, the ending issue.
The problem with ending the film of Lord of the Rings was that there were just too many endings. It could be argued that it could have ended after the destruction of the ring, with Sam and Frodo stranded on the rock, with the happy reunion with Frodo lying in bed, with Arwen and Aragorn together, with The Scouring of the Shire intact, or with Frodo getting on the boat. As I was watching the movies I kept thinking, “Wow, is this how it all ends?” Jackson came up with an easy fix.
Jackson and the crew decided to end the film the same way the written trilogy ended. It ended with Sam saying, “Well…I’m back.” The crew thought that it was important to end the two the same way because they had made changes along the way and they felt like it would do the books justice. They also thought that it was much better to end the film in a way that suggests that it is time for everybody’s lives to go on.
I think Tom Shippey is also correct when he says that we as the audience always expect a happy ending. I think that is very true because if a movie ends in any different way, people usually walk out of the theatres in shock. “Tolkien’s narrative structures, I would suggest, are a part of his worldview. That is why they cannot be imitated on screen. The problem is that commercial cinema, for obvious social reasons, is essentially a triumphalist genre. In it, Good Must Prevail. Villains get their Just Desserts-as they do in Tolkien, of course, but the difference is that Tolkien never thought this was inevitable,” writes Shippey. As stated before, there are many endings that could have taken place to finish the trilogy. Some of them could have been bad for the good characters. I think Tolkien realized this. Good “fairy-stories” should be about men’s adventures in the Perilous Realm. In a way, the Lord of the Rings fulfills this because it is of men, elves, and hobbits on their journey. It also includes elements of the Magical towards Nature. As Tolkien follows these characters on their journey, he does not imply that the ending will be happy; it is us as the viewers that are hopeful for the happy ending.
Peter Jackson did a great job working the movie through to the happy ending. Throughout the movie, we never realize that the ending is definitely going to be a good one. In fact, there were many times when I thought, “Oh no! That is how it ends?” It just seemed to gruesome to seem like the inevitable happy ending. Since Tolkien did not think that a happy ending was inevitable, I think Jackson did the right thing by not letting the viewers predict one, especially when Frodo and Sam are meant to think that Gandalf is dead. That wouldn’t make for a very happy ending. Overall, Jackson did a good job keeping the good ending hidden until the end.
I think that all the solutions that Jackson came up with in order to get through the difficulties of making the Lord of the Rings from books to films were great. They really solved what needed to be. The decisions made it easier to follow the films and made the mood obvious. Jackson really nailed the ideas and I think he and his crew definitely justified the movies versus the books. I think that J.R.R. Tolkien would be pleased overall about the success of the films.
Bibliography:
Shippey, Tom. “On Fairy-stories.”
The Return of the King. Dir. Peter Jackson.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Return of the King. 1994th ed. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
