Word Count: 1,771
It was an enormous undertaking for Peter Jackson to try and emulate J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy from books, to a living, breathing film-phenomenon. One can imagine how difficult a project such as this could be, even for a director as ambitious as Jackson. The Tolkien historian, Tom Shippey, had analyzed The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers and made predictions of the challenges involved with transforming The Return of the King. Shippey’s ideas we’re reasonably close to what Jackson dealt with during filming, although they weren’t the only pitfalls that needed to be overcome before the end of production.
One of Shippey’s predictions was the difficulty involved in filming the ending of The Return of the King. Jackson’s task was to create an ending to the trilogy that an audience could accept as a suitable conclusion to an epic film of this caliber. Tolkien’s ending in the novel was formulated in a way that there is always a sense of impending doom in the reader’s head. One could see that the goal of Frodo and Sam’s mission could be reached, however with one false move they could fail and all hope would be lost. Shippey tells us, “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.” Jackson had to create the encroaching happy ending so that the viewer could believe that regardless of what happens, everything would be all right in the end. Jackson also had to decide the finale. Shippey was right in saying that he wouldn’t end the movie at the field of Cormallen, and that it’s too George Lucas-esque. “Yet it is also hard to imagine a commercial movie repeating the deliberate bathos, the ultimate anticlimax, with which Tolkien ends his epic: Sam going home, having turned his back on immortality like Arwen, sitting down, and saying the most noncommittal final words in modern literature, ‘Well I’m back.’” Shippey was correct in saying that this would be an unpredictable way to end the film, and not what a modern filmmaker would use as the climax for this kind of epic adventure movie. However he states in his article that there really isn’t a better way to end it, “What else is there for man or hobbit to say?” Apparently Jackson saw it the same way.
Transforming a book into a film is a daunting process, especially when you have characters that are as complex and developed, and as numerous as Tolkien’s. Shippey didn’t elaborate much on characterization in The Return of the King in his article, however there was much that Jackson and the other writers had to leave out in the way of character development to make way for plot advancement. The film needed to keep moving and to keep an audience interested. Both Pippin and Merry formed relationships with people in the lands of their individual journeys. The fact that Merry became an esquire of Theoden in Rohan was briefly touched on. However, in the novels this bond is gone over more thoroughly. Merry and Theoden have in depth discussions of the shire and Merry’s expertise on pipe weed, to the point where Theoden instructs Merry to think fondly of him after he’s gone whenever he’s smoking. Merry finds a father figure in Theoden, and it’s apparent that Jackson omitted this key part of his development as a character because it didn’t necessarily help in furthering the plot. The same applies to Pippin’s friendship with Beregond in Minas Tirith. Much of Beregond’s role was given to either Gandolf upon entering the city, or Faramir after his return from Osgiliath. Beregond equips Pippin and gives him a brief tour of the city, as well as watching the fleeing of the Osgiliath garrison under Gandolf’s protection. In the film they put Pippin with Gandolf during the rescue, most likely to increase the audience’s impression of a connection between Pippin and Faramir. For Pippin needed a reason beyond the fact that Faramir was in danger to get Gandolf’s help when Denethor attempted to burn him alive. So it was for concerns pertaining to the movement of the important plot elements and the impression the audience had of the characters that Beregond was considered an extraneous character by Jackson and was replaced.
The next issue of character development that was a challenge for Jackson was one of the most important aspects of the books, the evil being and omnipotent force of Sauron. In The Fellowship of the Ring the main villains were the ring wraiths, the forces in Moria, and the Uruk-hai. And in The Two Towers the antagonist was predominantly Saruman. Jackson needed to emphasize Sauron as the main villain in The Return of the King to remind the audience that he is the source of all discord in Middle Earth. Jackson had expressed the difficulty of having a villain that nobody ever sees and is described as a disembodied eye. The audience isn’t going to latch onto an ultimate evil portrayed in this manner. Jackson struggled to make Sauron a malefactor that would make the viewer fear for the protagonists. Peter had to insert many more views of the eye in general in the third film. He also needed exaggerate his presence during the Palantir scenes with Pippin and with Aragorn. While emphasizing Sauron, Jackson still needed to insert the Witch King often and to reinforce the danger of the Nazgul to the heroes. The ring wraiths were still a cardinal piece of the story. Jackson made a note to construct the Witch King’s crown to look different than Sauron’s helmet in The Fellowship of the Ring, not just so the audience wouldn’t be confused, but to separate the two evil entities to add more drama and suspense to the film.
Peter Jackson had quite a few plot-based difficulties when transferring the novel The Return of the King to film. A particular example was a change in the evens on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. In the film, Gollum frames Sam to separate the two hobbits by throwing away their carefully rationed food. This event was absent from Tolkien’s book but Jackson and the other writers felt that the impression of Frodo and Sam’s relationship needed to be fortified for the audience. They felt that this scene would be the best option to display Sam’s love for his master (by returning to save him), which was mostly absent from the other parts of the Trilogy.
One of the most substantial plot changes in The Return of the King was the decision to remove the Scouring of the Shire and transfer the events regarding Saruman from that chapter to the opening of the film. Jackson wanted the characters to return home to the Shire as it was at the opening of the trilogy, as a sort of goal of the quest, to get back to the Shire. However, in erasing this important chapter, Jackson had to insert the demise of Saruman somewhere in the film. The decision was made to have Wormtongue stab Saruman on top of the tower Orthanc. His choice solved both problems by eliminating Saruman so the main antagonist could switch to Sauron, and keeping the Shire a safe haven for a triumphant return by the hobbits clad in new armor.
The next challenge faced by the team tackling The Return of the King was how to employ the dead host that Aragorn summons from Erich. Tolkien introduced a very chaotic element by thinking up a force such as this one. For an army that cannot be destroyed by any other and will stay in the service of the summoner until he considers their oath fulfilled completely extinguishes any fear of defeat or dramatic tension. In the novel, Tolkien only briefly goes over the actions of the undead army and they only thing they do is help Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas in capturing the corsair ships. Tolkien however doesn’t let the reader figure this out until the characters have a flashback. Jackson on the other hand makes it clear to the audience that the army took over the armada and is going to secure the victory on the Pelinor Fields. This decision goes back to Shippey’s notion of commercial cinema being a triumphant genre, and how the audience needs to know that everything will be all right. Jackson then had Aragorn dismiss the dead host after the battle was won, effectively accomplishing what Tolkien showed in the novel after the capture of the Corsair ships.
Lastly, a change in plot needed to be executed to create a symbol to fight the overwhelming evil sweeping over Middle Earth. During the novels, Aragorn’s sword, Andúril, was forged in Rivendel during The Fellowship of the Ring, and in The Return of the King the Dunedain come with Elerond’s sons to aid Aragorn in the summoning of the dead host of Erich. However, Jackson changed these events in the film to create a definite symbol that an audience could attach to. That symbol being the sword of the king, Andúril. He has Elrond himself come and deliver it to Aragorn at Dun Harrow in Rohan. This new event becomes a turning point seeing as Aragorn can now summon the dead host and has a weapon against Sauron. Without a scene like this, there isn’t a buildup of tension and not a foreboding sense that the odds are against the protagonists.
In conclusion, emulating a story with a scope such as J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings into a film was an incredible undertaking that only a director with an understanding of Tolkien’s world would be able to accomplish fully and to the delight of fans of the genre all over the world. Tom Shippey made predictions of challenges that Peter Jackson would come across during the filming of The Return of the King. Those predictions and more came to light during the process and were overcome in order to create a modern spectacle based on a literary masterpiece.
Works Cited
Brian Nacov September 25, 2008, at 12:48 AM
