Word Count: 2,469
J.R.R. Tolkien stated in his essay “On Fairy Stories,” that the fantasy genre incorporates several important features, one of which includes usage of enchantment rather than magic. Magic is purely a means of transforming the Primary World (the world in which we live), but enchantment produces a Secondary World, a world separate from ours, that both the designer and the spectator can enter into. The person who encounters such a story is not concerned with the possibility of such an event taking place, but more with the desirability of entering into this Secondary World. Tolkien achieved this fantasy genre with his novel The Lord of the Rings. As a reader of Tolkien, I entered into a completely different world, a world of enchantment in which I found a space altered from my own, a separate entity in which elves were wise and mystical, trees had spirits and the more life-like ones were called Ents, and small beings named Hobbits were relied on to determine the fate of the world. I believe that Tolkien created a novel that is not only for children. As he stated in his essay, fairy stories are not specially associated with children, but are for a certain kind of people. When Peter Jackson undertook transforming these books into film, I believe that he took much of Tolkien’s worldview pertaining to fairy stories and fantasy, and transformed these into a beautiful cinematic masterpiece.
The difficulties of such a project must have been daunting, especially for the transformation of the third book. For one, the audience of a movie is completely different from the reader of a book. Tolkien’s story is complex in that it contains multiple story lines, shifts from one story line to the next with hundreds of pages in between, complicated family histories, and a slew of names of people, creatures, and places. There is also much of a history behind the entire story, which would be difficult to portray, including about one hundred pages of appendices. How does one attempt such a difficult task, without losing the audience in the process? People of this day and age, especially children, have learned what to expect from a movie. More is being done in cinematic productions to keep the audience involved and entertained. That is the pure reason behind cinema: to entertain the audience. When Tolkien wrote his books, he never intended to have a large audience. He was writing for himself, as many great writers tend to do. He never expected his book to become such a cultural phenomenon. Jackson had to transcend this expectancy of the audience into the film, while at the same time trying to maintain the essence of Tolkien’s work and satisfying the fans of the book. He had to recreate this completely different world while simultaneously appealing to as many audience members as possible, although this book was intended to appeal to “a certain kind of people.”
In Shippey’s article “From Page to Screen,” he questions how Jackson will tackle the most difficult task of perhaps all three movies: the ending. In the book, there are various “multiple endings,” including a follow-up on all of the principle characters (those in the fellowship and some not), and a large portion of the novel which includes the scouring of the shire and how the hobbits overcome this situation. The end of the novel sees Frodo leaving Middle Earth on the Gray Havens, in which he journeys to another land, which is basically death to those who are mortal. The end of the entire book concludes with Sam returning to his family in the Shire and saying, “Well, I’m back.” Shippey declares how difficult this would be to portray to a theatre audience- who is going to sit through a significant number of multiple endings to be given such an anticlimactic conclusion? Jackson admits that it is difficult to shoot a climax to a movie, especially one as great as the Lord of the Rings.
At the climax of the movie, and the beginning of the endings, when Frodo and Sam eventually reach Mount Doom, Jackson decided to incorporate Frodo into the reason why Gollum fell over the edge of the cliff. He said that he wanted Frodo to be a part of the action, and not to have Gollum merely trip over the side. He also wanted the audience to have another moment of suspense, in which Frodo must contemplate whether to let go or not. As Sam holds out his hand to Frodo, he says, “Don’t you let go.” Once the ring is destroyed, Jackson worried about not doing justice to the question of what happens next. He decided to stay true to Tolkien’s version of the story as a whole. The destruction of Mount Doom and the surrounding area is Biblical, in size and scale. There is then a fade to black to make the watchers of the film speculate whether this is the end. The picture of the eagles carrying off Frodo and Sam is followed by a fade to white. This brings forth the question of death and an afterlife.
When Arwen is shown in the next scene, her and Aragorn share a good kiss, which breaks the formality of the situation, and shows them for who they truly are, as two beings coming together and in love. Arwen is depicted earlier in the movie in a dream sequence, in which she is preparing to leave Middle Earth, but sees that if she stays and marries Aragorn, she will have a child. This was unresolved in the Two Towers, and also shows the reforging of the sword, which was moved to the third movie in lieu of the first because Jackson felt that if Aragorn was given the sword too early on, this would be less dramatic. Further on in the movie, Elrond delivers the sword to Aragorn, who has a dream of Arwen giving up her immortality and becoming ill because of her vulnerability to Sauron. Aragorn at this point NEEDS to do all that he can to aid in the destruction of the ring, because he has a personal stake in the matter. Arwen’s love is the driving force behind every action which Aragorn takes. Jackson did a superb job of showing the strength of Aragorn and Arwen’s love and giving reason behind each character’s actions. This further develops them as characters, which must have been a challenge for many of the other characters as this is difficult to do with such a large cast and time restraints.
Even so, Jackson achieved this character change with quite a few of the characters. One for example, was Eowyn, who was more weepy and distressed in the first two movies. Jackson takes her character and depicts her bravery in the scene when Theoden dies. Eowyn contains her anguish and cries only after he is gone, which shows her strength and compassion for him. When she confronts the Witch King and removes her helmet, she proclaims, “I am no man.” Jackson says that this is a very powerful moment for the audience, as Eowyn’s character has developed immensely since “The Fellowship of the Ring.” This also reiterates the fact that Jackson chose to portray the female characters in a more independent, strong way than in the novel. They are much more present in the movies, and therefore shown in a better light.
After the scene in which Arwen and Eowyn kiss, Jackson proclaims that the scene after scene approach accentuates the multiple endings. There is a scene in which the hobbits are in a pub, and everything in the Shire is apparently the same. This was a major deviation from the book, as we lose the sense of the entirety of Middle Earth being affected by Sauron, as well as Frodo’s sympathy for Saruman and his growth as a character, which was apparent when he said, “ ‘Do not kill him… He was great once… He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it’” (325). I believe that something is lost in the omission of this incident. Regardless, I can see how the forty pages of the changes in the Shire would be too lengthy to include in a film. Also, Jackson was able to show in this pub scene the sense of coming home, in that the hobbits are thoroughly changed by what they have experienced, but no one else can understand this. They are not treated as heroes, and do not expect to be treated as ones, which reflects the feelings of many World War I veterans describing coming home. This brings in a part of Tolkien’s life to the movie as well.
The pub scene also reflects an earlier scene in the movie in which the characters have a banquet in the Golden Hall following the fall of Isengard. This scene was used to lighten the mood of the movie. A drinking game was incorporated, and focused on Legolas and Gimli for the comedic relief. Jackson says that it made it so that this movie is “not all doom and gloom.” I was contemplating the role of comedy in this third film, which must have been difficult to achieve as each movie becomes increasingly darker. A later scene that is played for comedy was showing Gimli’s point of view in first encountering the ghost army. He tries to blow away the ghosts, which is a stark contrast to Legolas’ reverence and infatuation. The issue of comedy is only critical when developing a movie rather than writing a book, as Jackson is trying to appeal to a larger audience and relieve some of the serious mood which is resonating in the rest of the film.
One scene in the movie which was absent from the book was the incident of Gollum framing Sam for throwing the lembas bread over the cliff’s edge. This was done by Jackson in order to achieve several goals: to provide conflict for the journey up the stairs, to have the scheming of Gollum eventually pay off, to allow Frodo to enter the cave alone (which is more scary and dramatic), to prove that Sam is forever loyal and will not leave Frodo, to build up tension, and to emphasize Frodo’s paranoia and jeopardize the mission. Jackson also points out that this scene shocked the fans of the book, which was an accomplishment on his part because he was able to create intrigue and emotion in those who already knew the story.
Jackson also achieved the incorporation of many aspects of Tolkien’s world view into his film. Two, already mentioned, were the production of a Secondary World, and one which appeals to more than just children. He also included the idea of a “Eucatastrophe,” which Tolkien coins as the “the sudden joyous ‘turn’” or good catastrophe that occurs. The destruction of the ring does just this. Sauron is defeated and the world enters a presumably better age, one with a wise and just king. In addition, Tolkien proclaims that the question of truth in the fairy story can be answered by: “If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.” Jackson created “The Lord of the Rings” as if it is truly a Secondary World. The attention to detail that he uses in every aspect of the movie makes the effect very believable, a truth in the world he has created. This includes my previous discussion of the changes in characters and the chosen ending to the film. Jackson’s Middle Earth is not a mockery of the place which Tolkien created, but a very “real” world, although it is different from our own. When the ring was destroyed and the movie turned towards good, I found this completely believable, in the context of this world that I was being shown.
In keeping with the “Eucatastrophe,” Jackson also created a sense of recovery, which is also a component of the fairy story. As Tolkien states, it is “seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them.” When Sauron is destroyed, our eyes are opened to the extent of his destruction. We see, through the multiple endings, the world slowly recovering from the damage it has endured. The king is restored in his rightful place, Arwen and Aragorn, who were meant to be together from the start, are joined, as well as Faramir and Eowyn, and the hobbits return to the Shire. The world of Elves and Wizards is ending, and the world of men is beginning. In this way, the viewers are able to see recovery by the way in which the movie is wrapped up. Throughout the film, the viewers also experience forms of escape, including man’s desire to converse with other living things, and in the surveying of the depths of time and space.
Jackson declares that in ending the final movie of The Lord of the Rings, he was not ending one film, but ending three. This built up the expectation of the audience and the pressure on him as director to produce something that would satisfy a large number of people, but would also stay true to Tolkien’s world view. He honored the last line of the book, and in this way ended on the same “page” as Tolkien. At the conclusion of the Writers’ and Directors’ cut of “The Return of the King,” Jackson says that there is a split between the audience of the movie. Some hate the ending, while others love it. He says that the only way to determine who is right would be to have those hating the ending versus those loving the ending “Jell-O wrestle” in a pit of Jell-O, and whoever is left standing is right. In saying this, Jackson reveals the truth of his predicament. There are some people who just do not like or appreciate “The Lord of the Rings” as a whole concept, book or movie. As Tolkien pointed out in his “On Fairy Stories,” this genre is not for everyone, only for a specific range of people. With transforming the book into movie format, Jackson undertook a great project, and he was able to bring more people into the world of Middle Earth than would be drawn to Tolkien’s book. I believe that there were a few aspects of the film that were lacking, for example, the close relationship between Theoden and Merry, but for the time that he was allotted and the audience which he was catering to, I think that Jackson did a terrific job. He filmed an “unfilmable” film, and did so while keeping the integrity of the novel and Tolkien’s view of the world and the genre in which he was writing.
Works Cited
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Extended Edition. Dir. Peter Jackson.
Tolkien, J.R. R. On Fairy-stories. Ts.
Tolkien, J.R. R. The Return of the King. New York, NY: Random House, 1994.
Kelsey Till September 24, 2008, at 09:20 PM
Kelsey Till October 08, 2008, at 02:22 PM
