Word Count: 1690
Peter Jackson commented on how he thought the Lord of the Rings Trilogy would make a magnificent series of movies. But that he never imagined being responsible for producing these films, as they were such an undertaking, that he probably considered them a producer’s nightmare. That’s an understandable feeling, considering that J.R.R. Tolkien didn’t exactly write Return of the King, specifically, in a way that made it easy to be turned into a film…even though the author entertained the idea. But why was it difficult to transfer the Return of the King to film?
There are two major reasons. One is Peter Jackson’s desire to carry into the films a sense of J.R.R. Tolkien’s worldview. He believed in a “Eucatastraphe”, or a sudden and unexpected turn for the better. This event formed the backbone of Tolkien’s view of the world. He did not believe that anybody became entitled to a good turn of events, nor should one expect it because it is NOT inevitable. I have to say I agree with him, which is significant, because I understand what Jackson was trying to convey in the films. According to Shippey, Tolkien expressed his views through his narrative structure – the way he wrote. This is very difficult to present on screen. But through display of emotion, and focus on the themes through character dialogue, I think Jackson managed to preserve enough of Tolkien’s worldview that Tolkien himself would approve. For instance, during the final debate; when Gandalf, Aragorn, and the others contemplated going to the Black Gate and confronting Sauron in order to distract him from Frodo, Gandalf despairs. He doesn’t think they stand a chance, and says so on screen. This gives the audience a feeling of helplessness, a vain hope for a success that is not guaranteed – which is exactly what Tolkien believed.
The second reason that the books were so difficult to transfer to film has to do with the audience being able to follow the story. Given the philosophy of modern cinema; an expectation that good always prevails, and the need to keep the audience enthralled, there was no way that Jackson could directly send the books to the screen. So at the very least, he wanted the audience to get the essence of the story, which is really all Tolkien wanted people to get out of his books. However, this effort shows up in a number of different places throughout the films in the way that Peter Jackson altered the storyline.
One of the largest changes that Jackson made to the Return of the King, in my opinion, was to include the meeting of Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard in the movie. This was a decent challenge, because originally in the books, this was part of the Two Towers. However, in the books this scene reenergizes the story – which is well, because the reader is still in the middle of a 1000-page story, and could use some energy. But it’s not something you want at the end of a film as it makes a very poor ending. The audience will walk away unsatisfied, because here Gandalf and company are looking on the wreckage of Isengard, but the story just halts. In addition, Jackson already cut up this scene for his use in The Two Towers. The destruction of Isengard is told via flashback in the books, but Jackson told the tale simultaneously with the story of Helms Deep. This leaves very little significant action in the “leftovers” of the Isengard scene. For these two reasons combined, Jackson I’m sure found the scene to be a great beginning for The Return of the King: It starts softly, but preserves and gets quickly into the story, and the Palantir is found. The Palantir plays a large role in the movie, because both Pippin and Aragorn use it, and both times the story shifts rather dramatically – this is yet another reason that the change was for the better.
Another rather large change is the omission of the scouring of the Shire. In the movies; we (the viewer) are led to assume that the Shire was untouched by evil during the entire story. We have subtle foreshadowing in the movies, though, that proposes the opposite: The Black Rider, and Galadriel’s mirror. When speaking about the Black Rider, I realize that Sauron never before concerned himself with the Shire, until Gollum revealed that the ring of power was in the “SHIRE” with a “BAGGINS”. Together with the doom of the Shire shown in Galadriel’s mirror to Frodo, a viewer could assume that these events signify the beginning of a dark time for the Hobbits of the Shire. But Jackson does not follow through with this. Indeed, he completely leaves out Saruman and the ‘Ruffians’ as they concern the Shire. I believe this has everything to do with the audience, and a need to properly end the story once and for all. There are some who believe this to be a pivotal part of the book, and I would agree. However, this is not a pivotal part of the movie. Jackson created a pleasant image of the untouchable shire, constantly reminding us through the Hobbits’ dialogue that the Shire will always be there unless Frodo failed in his quest. But he did not fail, so it would be difficult for an audience expecting a happy ending to accept that the Hobbits travel back to the Shire and find it in ruins. Also, Jackson needed to cut out all the unnecessary parts of the story in the interest of time. So this gets the same treatment as the Tom Bombadil scene; it was given homage through Galadriel’s mirror, but trimmed from the script. I do not think Tolkien would have approved of this cut because it counters his worldview. In the movie, the Shire was assumed to be untouchable, and expected to be okay. But that’s not the way the world works, according to Tolkien, and through the Scouring of the Shire chapter, he tried to convey that. But it was a “page-to-screen” challenge that Jackson had to overcome.
So far I’ve only presented instances where Jackson was forced to compromise the original story in order to properly put it on screen. But there were some things that I thought Jackson was able to do better on film that Tolkien did in the books. The brief battle in front of the Black Gate stands out to me, especially. It was incredibly short in page-length, and once Pippin blacked out…that was it. I honestly felt that Jackson did an exemplary job in telling that portion of the story on film. Mostly, because he incorporated Frodo’s tale inside Mount Doom side-by-side with the battle just beyond the gate. By doing that, he forced the audience to the edges of their seats: Will Frodo succeed in destroying the ring? Will the King’s army be able to hold off the enemy long enough? Their fates are linked, but Tolkien told their tales separately in different chapters. If Jackson had told it the way Tolkien did: having Pippin black out, showing Frodo, Sam, and Gollum inside it mountain at a separate time…I think the audience could have lost interest, because there would be too much thinking going on – as they link Frodo’s struggle to the struggle outside the Black Gate – to enjoy the film properly. This Challenge was not one that necessarily needed to be addressed, but I think we’re all glad it was.
Finally, I want to end talking about the “Big Question”, as Shippey puts it, regarding the third book. How to end it? There are more than three endings all wrapped into one in the books. Sort of like those songs that start up again just as it gets quiet and you begin to applaud. It’s both irritating, and rewarding. I mean, we’ve just read 1000 pages of story, will it never end? On the other hand, this is such a great story; I want an ending that does it justice. And Tolkien delivered just that. Shippey said that it was unlikely Jackson would use the book’s multi-layered ending. I’m happy to say that he was wrong in underestimating Jackson’s ability to render such an ending on screen in a successful way. Certain aspects of Jackson’s altering of the films facilitated a well thought out, and well-received ending.
One challenge Jackson faced with the ending was actually getting there. By changing the time in which some scenes appeared, such as the devastation of Isengard, the battle at the Black Gate and Frodo’s struggle to name a couple, Jackson allowed the movie to flow from beginning to end. As opposed to Tolkien’s style of “rinse and repeat”; that is, for every expanse of time, he separated the story into two sections concerning different character groups (usually Frodo & company, and Aragorn & company) that a reader had to read through and piece together what happened and when. Jackson’s approach makes the story much easier to follow, and much more enjoyable to watch on screen for four hours at a time.
Then, Jackson altered the story slightly, which facilitated the ending to be accepted and make sense to an audience. Most notably was his omitting of the scouring of the shire. By doing this, the audience could be comfortable with Sam’s final, plain statement: “Well, I’m back.” They can accept this because as far as they know, the Shire has not changed since he left. It takes an anticlimactic ending, and turns it into a good ending by the judgment of most.
Overall, I feel Peter Jackson took a long story – one that he once thought impossible to actually do, but neat to see – and met the many challenges he faced during the transition from page to film. He transferred it to the screen in such a way that J.R.R. Tolkien would have been proud because it conveyed his view that a happy ending is not inevitable. Yet he also created a series of movies that allowed an audience consisting of both avid Lord of the Rings fans, and first-time viewers to appreciate and enjoy Tolkien’s story.
Joseph Bella? September 24, 2008, at 11:49 PM
