Word Count:1902
J.R.R. Tolkien’s opus work, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a fairy tale through meaning and not conventional understanding. Tolkien felt that fairies were a broad term and easily could refer to elves or nearly any mythological creature faced with the reality of being supernatural. To Tolkien, fairy tales created a world separate and practically impossible in comparison to the existing reality of the present world. In the secondary dimension that a true fairy story has created, a reader is drawn in by the element of enchantment. In the fairy realm, there can exist impossible creatures as well as distortion of reality, such as goblins coinciding with a race of hobbits—short people with no particular magic ability or characteristics. However, due to the inclusion of both realistic and possible creatures with impossible and fantastic creatures of enchanted birth, J.R.R. Tolkien has created a fairy tale that creates a history of its own fairy tales. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien has created a realistic yet mythological world based upon human nature and enchantment.
The third installment of the Lord of the Rings, the Return of the King, greeted filmmaker Peter Jackson with problems as the director and screenwriter converted book to film. As Tolkien historian Thomas Shippey, pointed out: The Lord of the Rings “Cannot be imitated on screen. The problem is that commercial cinema, for obvious social reasons, is essentially a triumphalist genre.” In essence, Tolkien’s works loom on the edge of defeat, while characters hold onto hope, the reader is sure to understand that there is little hope that remains in the face of pure evil, destruction, greed and weakness. Shippey also concedes that the ending of the third film will provide sufficient difficulty for Jackson as the author has provided the reader with several. Shippey however, does not address several challenges that affect Tolkien’s worldview of including humanism with fantasy, and triumph without inevitability.
In converting novel to a cinematic presentation, Peter Jackson had to propel the story while developing characters and create a film in due time. These restrictions create a movie slightly different from the original novel, while also creating a film worthy of 11 Oscar wins. Despite Shippey’s belief that cinema would destroy Tolkien’s worldview is slightly skewed, as Jackson carried on the meaning in different ways as through my interpretation. Several subplots had to be ignored, changed or merely inferred so that the storyline of the film could move forward without too many distractions.
The representation of Palantirs in the film version of The Return of the King is closely related to “Walkie-Talkies” rather than divine seeing stones possessing magic powers and complex riddles. The film version of Palantirs shows only two stones that evidently serve as a basis of communication between Sauron and Sarumon. The true literary Palantirs however, often cause the user to misinterpret their sightings in search of insight into the different reaches of Middle Earth. The Palantirs lead Saruman to misjudge the rise of power of Mordor, leading the Wizard to join forces with Mordor. The Palantirs coax Sauron to mistake the true location of the Ring, as he sends an army to Minas Tirith in search of the ring. Finally, Denethor is misled and filled with despair at the encroaching army of Mordor.
The problem with presenting the Palantirs in a way cohesive with the novel is that the Palantirs add more to Tolkien’s view of good and evil rather than the theme of Frodo and the destruction of the Ring. The Palantirs of Tolkien’s vision shows the very realistic negative consequences of the misuse of enchanted items despite the Palantirs’ intention being that of good, as they were a gift from Elendil. Jackson however, would have to spend a large amount of time in each of the three movies describing the history of the Palantirs and continually discuss how they are deceitful rather than inferring their misuse of power. It would also lead Peter Jackson to include Denethor as an owner of a Palantir, which would add more layers to an already complex storyline. Denethor’s madness is plausible considering his grief over the death and apparent death of his two sons, however when a Palantir and his ability to read minds adds to the plot of a film, Denethor suddenly becomes a much more complex character that needs far more screen time than the film can allow.
The Army from the Mountains, long dead, add a spectral and indefinable presence to the cast of characters and armies, however Peter Jackson’s use of the army simplifies the storyline with both success and failure. The Army of the Dead gave Tolkien more fantastic elements and magic to work with, thus creating more potential legends to exist within Middle Earth. The army is a source of evil used moderately for good, as the mountain men are traitors. Aragorn and his company of fellow Dünedain Rangers as well as Gimli and Legolas muster the army of Oathbreakers. Finally, the Army of the Dead is released from duty after Aragorn takes the Corsairs of Umbar at the port city of Pelargir in Lebennin. The company of Rangers and Gondorians from the Southern kingdoms sails on to meet the armies of Mordor at Pelennor fields.
Disapprovingly, the movie cuts out all mentions of other Rangers and reinforcements from the southern kingdoms of Gondor, leaving only Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and the Army of Dead. This simplifies the character list while continuing the momentum of the film. The Rangers would have caused Peter Jackson to suddenly introduce several dozen characters that are potentially as complex as our Ranger hero Aragorn. More names would need to be learned and histories revealed as the audience was previously unaware of the other Rangers and their affiliation with Gondor and Aragorn. Throughout the three films, the audience is aware that Rangers do exist, but to what extent is left undisclosed, causing a major problem if they were to be introduced in the last installment of The Lord of the Rings.
A similar fate befell the army of fellow Gondorians. Previously, Gondor seemed composed of the cities of Osgiliath and Minas Tirith, with little to no mention of their southern kingdoms. With the other territories of Gondor come princes and generals who were before unknown. Peter Jackson cut out the southern lands as it would lead the film on another tangent in an effort to describe the southern kingdoms allegiance, political system, histories and military power. To introduce the fellow Gondorians on the field of battle would make a triumphant scene as reinforcements of countrymen came to Minas Tirith’s aid however, their introduction would create many unanswered questions for Jackson to address. Simply, Jackson cut out their involvement, and substituted the Army of the Dead, whose history is already known with the army from the southern kingdoms of Gondor. Tolkien was interested in country pride, as he seemed dissatisfied with the French influence after the battle of Hastings in 1066. Tolkien wanted to create his own myths and legends based upon English lore pre-1066. It is clear that nationalism played a part in his own life as well as his Lord of the Rings trilogy, as the Riders of Rohan were mustered to aid Gondor and as the southern kingdoms came to the White City’s aid. This sense of patriotism was undermined when Jackson cut out reinforcements of Gondor’s countrymen.
The correction from Gondorians to the Army of the Dead however, created a plot “cop out”. In accordance with Shippey’s observation, cinema creates undeniable triumph, as Jackson created a battle scene where victory was irrefutable. If the Army of Dead was so clearly invincible, then why did so many have to die in the defense of Minas Tirith? The death of Gondor’s defenders undermines their human bravery and courage in the face of despair. Aragorn seems to be a poor leader as his unstoppable force destroys the armies of Mordor much too late, ignoring the sacrifices of Rohan and Gondor. The battle to save Minis Tirith was built up for so long with many images of heroism and courage and Jackson simply undercut the momentum with a quick end.
The scouring of the Shire provides director Jackson one more obstacle before he can address Shippey’s question of: how to end the film. Sam, Frodo, Pippin and Merry return to the Shire at long last to find the town overrun by men. Saruman, under the name Sharkey has a host of men at his disposable and runs the shire as a police state. The four hobbits, with help of their countrymen rise up against Saruman’s tyranny and overthrow the men and Saruman’s servant Grima Wormtongue murders the old wizard. Tolkien, after the destruction of the ring shows that clearly, there is not always a “happily ever after.” Continuing with his worldview, Tolkien reflects in the Scouring of the Shire that while the ring was enchanted and filled with evil, the ring was not the source of evil itself. Man can be corrupted and evil can exist after victory, while victory itself is never a foregone conclusion for the side of righteousness. Shippey explains that Tolkien’s life view regarded “Humanity as a pilgrim.” Evil has to exist as man is in constant search of a better place to call home.
The scouring of the Shire scene was cut on account of it being anti-climactic in the final film. After several scenes which could portray possible endings, including the Crowning ceremony of Aragorn and the last moments for the hobbits atop Mount Doom, and two large battles, a third battle seems nearly impossible. The Battle of Bywater would take time and create scenes that are useless in propelling the story of Frodo and the Ring. While Sharkey and his men portray that no land is invulnerable to evil, and that evil can always exist, it does not aid in showing how the Ring needed to be destroyed. As the fourth hour of the film passed, Jackson could in no way create another subplot that doesn’t aid to his central theme, despite cutting the scene subtracting from Tolkien’s worldview. The Shire needed to offer a home for the hobbits so that the movie could end with Sam returning safely to his home and saying, “Well, I’m back.”
Apart from his concern with Peter Jackson’s film restraining from adding the humanity of the potential defeat of good, Shippey addresses the debate of how to end The Return of the King. Jackson, in an anti-climactic move, chose an ending most similar with the third book, however his decision remained faithful to Tolkien’s worldview. As some characters sail off to the undying lands, and others return home, the audience realizes two claims. “Well, I’m back,” for one, as Shippey points out in relation to Tolkien’s worldview: “what else is there for man or hobbit to say?” Secondly, death itself, while filled with gloom and despair for the living, may be the happily ever after of the human fairy tale.
While both film and novel pose advantages and disadvantages, the Lord of the Rings trilogy in any format carry onto the world connotations of fairy tale and myth perhaps amusing to a child yet provoking to an adult. As the timeless works spread across the world in popularity and reverence, one may assume that Tolkien’s aspirations of creating his own folklore is a dream come to fruition.
Eligh Hanning September 25, 2008, at 01:38 AM
