Word count: 1,661
Peter Jackson is one of the few lucky people in this world who are given the opportunity to accomplish a work worthy enough to be considered a modern classic. He, along with an extensive team of dedicated writers and artists crafted one of the most breath-taking film trilogies of the twentieth century: The Lord of the Rings. The entire process began with a small idea when Jackson was eighteen years old, though then it was only a passing thought that the written trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien would make a fantastic screenplay. Little did he know that years later, in 1995, he would be the one asking his agent about getting the rights to film The Lord of the Rings.
After the trials of finding the proper film company to carry out the project, Jackson was able to convince New Line Cinema that the endeavor was worth taking on, and soon he was producing not one or two, but three films to properly tell the epic tale that Professor Tolkien had so meticulously written. Besides the challenges of finding the proper actors, recruiting hundreds of designers and crew along with the typical issues of finding film locations, Jackson was faced with the incredible task of remaining faithful not only to the original text of the trilogy, but to the worldview of Tolkien himself. Armed with brilliant minds and incredible self-discipline, the team set out and successfully created the first two films. When faced with creating the third, Return of the King, there was much speculation on how Jackson would tackle the tale. Tom Shippey, acclaimed author of the article “From Page to Screen: J. R. R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson,” presented two challenges that the director would inevitably face, though he still would have the task of keeping Tolkien’s worldviews intact on screen.
Shippey wrote the article before the filming of the last movie, and so based his guesses upon Jackson’s methods for filming the first two. Understanding that Jackson was not a man to take the easy path, Shippey was fairly certain that he would not end the film with Frodo leaving for the Undying Lands. Although it is true that Jackson did not have this scene precede the ending credits, it was a critical point in the nearly twenty-minute long denouement.
The scene was heartbreaking as the hobbits watched their dear friend board the ship for a journey that they could not participate in, leaving the viewers with a sense that Frodo was dying, or at least that the entire scene itself was a grand metaphor for death. Perhaps in a way it was, though Tolkien constantly insisted that his work was in no way allegorical, regardless of it being applicable. Unfortunately, the audience’s ability to apply meaning to what they saw made Frodo’s journey to the Undying Lands lacking in the real depth it had in the novel. Jackson neglected revealing in some way that Frodo and Bilbo were receiving an extraordinary privilege that was originally reserved for those who bore a ring of power, and was one that the important figures of Arwen, Galadriel, and Gandalf interceded on their behalf for. In this scene, Jackson failed Tolkien.
Then again, the medium of film is not truly suited for most of Tolkien’s ideas. For example, in regards to the aforementioned scene, Tolkien was one for believing that happy endings were not inevitable. Frodo and Bilbo’s journey to a healing place was only made possible by the efforts of others, though the lack of detail makes it seem prearranged and the ability for Frodo and Bilbo to leave a simple matter. With this being a film, though, and not a novel, the audience must have a sense of a happy ending, or else they walk away unsatisfied. Having the last installment of a trilogy laced with sorrow simply wouldn’t do. Retracing the journey, it was never directly shown that there was indeed hope for the journey of Frodo and Sam, or that their trek was not in vain, but the viewers just know that Frodo is the hero. He has to succeed, because everything good in Middle Earth is dependent on him. As the viewer assumes, Frodo survives the journey, and goes off into the Undying Lands for healing. It still remains that Jackson could not erase that knowing from the viewer that everything would become right in the end, simply because he was making a film.
Jackson goes even further to promote that inevitable happy ending by completely overlooking the Scouring of the Shire. When the hobbits return to their homes, we see that everything is good and green, as if the evils of the world never reached that haven we were first introduced to. Yet, as a reader of the book, we know that is not the case at all. Upon their arrival, they see a charred landscape, and the heinous effects that Saruman had upon the community. The fate of the Shire is in the spirit that happy endings are not inevitable, and that not all that is good remains untouched. The Scouring of the Shire is also reminiscent of what Tolkien saw happen to lovely countryside during the war: beauty ruined by trench warfare. Regardless of Jackson’s disregard for the bitter truth, Shippey was indeed correct that Jackson did not end with Frodo’s departure of Middle Earth.
The first prediction that Shippey makes is that Jackson could use Arwen to end the film. He sees that Jackson has been slowly building her character, drawing from the extensive appendices Tolkien has supplied in the end of Return of the King. He hazards a guess that Jackson would end with Arwen’s inconsolable sorrow at the death of Aragorn, though makes a solid point in saying that the teenage audience wouldn’t quite know how to interpret such an ending. Had Jackson used such an emotionally trying ending, it may have been in the spirit of Tolkien’s own sorrow. When he lost his wife, he had upon her tomb inscribed the name “Luthien,” the name of the elven maiden who gave her love to the mortal Beren. Arwen became a Tolkien-like figure, inconsolable and wandering without the love of her life to guide her. Even though this tragic image did not become the ending scene, it did however appear during the film as Elrond is telling his daughter of his vision, and why he wanted her to leave Middle Earth, for he saw only pain within her future. The vision of a mourning Arwen is quite indicative of Tolkien’s own sorrow at losing his dear Luthien, a pain that Jackson did quite well to present to the viewers instead of leaving dialogue to guide the scene. It is a common rule that in filming, the movie must show what happens instead of tell, which in this case truly succeeded at gripping the heart.
So far, Shippey has presented ideas that have made it into the film in some way, but did not serve as the ending. His last idea to put forward, which he himself admits is hard to envision a “commercial movie” committing to, is to end the movie in the same fashion as the book. That is to say, upon “the most noncommittal final words in modern literature” uttered by Sam the hobbit after an epic journey to save all of Middle Earth, being “Well, I’m back.” Which, ironically enough, is exactly what Jackson does. “What else is there for man or hobbit to say?” Shippey asks. The tale has ended, and with a smile of relief we see Sam join his new family. The credits begin, and the trilogy has ended. In this way, Jackson has truly paid a tribute to the greatest author of the twentieth century by drawing the same conclusion directly from the book, instead of going out on a needlessly dramatic venture.
On these last words, the reader and viewer get a sense of continuing onward regardless of what has happened. There is no more adventure to be had. Tolkien’s own life reflected the same feeling after his horrific experiences in the trenches in World War One. There was nothing to do but continue on with life. Tolkien incorporated many of his worldviews and experiences such as these into his work, though the most notable was his love of the natural world. The very first book brings us into a world that is good and green, full of simple creatures who enjoy nothing more than gardening and a rich patch of earth. His extensive imagery of the trees of Lothlorien, Fangorn, and Mirkwood are so beautifully descriptive that it is hard to miss the love behind the words. The counter to this love was the disdain of mechanical things, shown in the mechanization of Saruman’s army, a cold transformation that reached into his mind. Tolkien’s experience with mechanized warfare undoubtedly influenced the manner in which Sauron’s armies defiled the countryside. These sentiments are constant throughout the trilogy, and were impossible to ignore when bringing the book to film. Jackson’s success in communicating this rested within his choice of natural film locations as well as the painstaking attention to detail on artificial sets. Reaching back, though, his omission of the Scouring of the Shire left a deep want of a personal message of Tolkien’s. Seeing the pristine Shire in a state of dilapidation would have caused the viewer to cherish what it once was, instilling the desire to heal the world instead of see it go to ruin.
Peter Jackson, regardless of some deviations for the sake of film, was ruthlessly dedicated to keeping true to the spirit of Tolkien. The trilogy of The Lord of the Rings was both true to meticulous detail, and respectful of Tolkien’s methods. Though his methods did not always translate well to film, and his worldviews were not always able to be adapted properly, the trilogy did not leave a sense of detachment from his own works.
Sources:
Tom Shippey “From page to Screen: J.R.R Tolkien and Peter Jackson”
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (book, movie)
Devon Cozad? September 24, 2008, at 10:21 PM
