1,538 words
In J. R. R. Tolkien’s article, On Fairy Stories he states, “But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy.” It is clear to see that he did not think he novel suitable for adaptation to performances of any type. He was afraid the work would become a farce. The inability to present the different creatures and races would prevent the audience from entering the “secondary world.”
In the same article, he speaks of the secondary world and how the creation of such a world defines a good storyteller. “What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful ‘sub-creator.’ He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed.”
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is an excellent work of storytelling. Tolkien creates this “secondary world” in which it is hard to get out of. He creates a world full of history and culture, made up of different races with their own languages and customs. Tolkien’s fairy tale is realistic and emerges the reader in another dimension entirely. With so much detail and background, making a screenplay of the trilogy is challenging. What also makes the novel so successful and universal is that its themes are based on truths. The underlying themes as classic and can easily relate to generation after generation. The ending to any story is important, particularly for a trilogy of such awesome proportion as the Lord of the Rings. In Tom Shippey’s article Page to Screen: J. R. R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson, he predicted that Peter Jackson Will Take the Route of George Lucas and end the film at the Fields of Cormallen. This would be an appropriate place to do so, however, Jackson wanted to stay as true to Tolkien’s masterpieces as possible. One slight change that will Shippey predicted would continue into the third film, is the role of Arwen. Shippey thought, perhaps the romance between her and Aragorn would be used for a possible ending. In the film, the reuniting of the two lovers can certainly be taken as an ending. In the terms of this portraying Tolkien’s worldview this would do well. Even though Aragorn and Arwen are together, Arwen has given up her immortality for the man she loves. Jackson, in the extended version of the film has a scene foreshadowing the death of Aragorn and the sorrow of Arwen. This bitter sweet end certainly embodies Tolkien’s worldview. There are many spots in the last part of the movie which can easily be called the movies end. Shippey even speculates that Tolkien could have easily ended the book with Sam and Frodo left at Mordor and the Cracks of Doom after the destruction of the ring. This would have clearly illustrated his worldview for good prevails over evil though a truly happy ending is not achieved.
Tolkien’s worldview is extremely difficult to portray through a film. For such literary methods such as Tolkien’s “leapfrog” narrative through the Two Towers and the Return of the King cannot stay in the same format. The movie would not flow well and the audience would be extremely confused. Bewilderment is what Tolkien aimed for. Tolkien wanted the reader to experience the feelings that the characters felt. Frodo and Sam did not know that Gandalf was alive until after the ring was destroyed and they were back at Rivendale. In the book the narrative is switching back and forth between the disbanded members of the Fellowship, often not chronologically. Had Peter Jackson use the same approach, yes the audience would have a greater feeling of suspense and bewilderment but they would be incredibly lost and the plot and essence of the story would have been lost.
Tom Shippey also speculates on Tolkien’s narrative structure along the lines of his worldview versus modern film. “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 triumphalism 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.” With the complex narrative there is plenty of room to doubt the possibility of Frodo surviving. Often times you will not know what has happened to characters until multiple chapters later. And even at the end of the novel there is a bitter sweet ending; as Shippey puts it, a “gloomier homecoming and a sad and final leave-taking.” “Frodo goes off to the White Isles and Sam, having giving up the opportunity at immortality, goes back to the shire. The departure of Frodo, often times is interpreted as his death though it is not entirely clear. It illustrates Tolkien’s worldview beautifully, for he was of the thought that nothing can be certain. For Tolkien lived during a time of uncertainty, from the uncertainly he faced at the battle of the Somme to the continued industrialization of society. A happy ending was not the inevitable outcome and in the end he ends the novel with the understated lines of Samwise, “Well I’m back.”
Peter Jackson ends the third film similar to Tolkien. It was a huge risk, for Hollywood is full of large, dramatic endings. Such a subdued ending for an epic, action filled trilogy may have been disappointing to many, however, Hollywood stereotype is disregarded and the integrity of the literature kept. Though dramatic Hollywood cinematics were left by the wayside for the ending, the complete worldview of Tolkien was not fully addressed. The ending is very much a predictable outcome. Throughout the movie the audience knows that, even when Frodo is dangling over the hot lava of the Cracks of Doom, they know that supposed hero will survive, for in today’s cinematic world, the hero always prevails. Such a clean and obvious outcome was not the aim of Tolkien. He did not believe that happy endings are inevitable. As he said, it was an eucatastrophe, which he defines as the “consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous ‘turn’.”
Another view of Tolkien’s as discussed in his Fairy tale article was the loss of innocence. He writes, “The process of growing older is not necessarily allied to growing wickeder, though the two do often happen together. Children are meant to grow up, and not to become Peter Pans. Not to lose innocence and wonder, but to proceed on the appointed journey: that journey upon which it is certainly not better to travel hopefully than to arrive, though we must travel hopefully if we are to arrive. But it is one of the lessons of fairy-stories (if we can speak of the lessons of things that do not lecture) that on callow, lumpish, and selfish youth peril, sorrow, and the shadow of death can bestow dignity, and even sometimes wisdom.” The Lord of the Rings is part is a coming of age story. The members of the Fellowship each grow and learn. With regards to a child, the Hobbits are the closest to such a transformation. The Hobbit community was sheltered and untainted much like a child in his or her early years. Once the four hobbits venture out into the “real world”, so to speak, they gradually learn the horrors and the evils that exist in the world. In the films, Jackson does a fairly commendable job showing the change particularly in Merry and Pippin. In the Return of the King, the loss of much of their innocence is apparent. They participate in the battles and emerge as prevailing leaders; they witness the deaths of thousands and the madness of men. The playful and irresponsible gaiety that was evident in the first film gradually diminishes as their journey into the dark goes on.
Overall, Peter Jackson did an admirable job formatting the story into once that translates well on the silver screen. The Lord of the Rings is written as a history; a documentation of a trying time in Middle Earth. Jackson chooses to film it this way and because of this the worldviews of Tolkien were able to be better illustrated. Scenes like the White Isles and the simple ending of “Well I’m back”, illustrate Tolkien’s belief that happy endings are not inevitable for, as Shippey states, “in Tolkien’s worldview, what else is there for man or hobbit to say?” Unfortunately the format for a Hollywood film prevents any further feelings of doubt for the hero’s success, for a movie needs cohesive and orderly action. The sad departure of Frodo is perhaps the clearest illustration of J.R. R. Tolkien’s view that happy endings are not foreseeable.
Works Cited
Shippey, Tom. “From Page to Screen: J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson.” World Literature Today: A Literary Quarterly of the University of Oklahoma 77 (2003): 69–72.
Tolkien, J.R. R. On Fairy-stories. Ts.
Tolkien, J.R. R. The Return of the King. New York, NY: Random House, 1994
Brittany Thrun ? September 28, 2008, at 01:07 AM
