Word Count 1611
In the words of Tom Shippey “There could never have been the slightest chance of the movie makers presenting this(The Lord of the Rings) in anything like its original form.” and yet, in 1997, director Peter Jackson gathered the rights to the film and began to undertake the huge task of turning Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” into a epic on-screen trilogy. The act of translating from one language to another does not produce identical copies, like wise the process of turning book to film, especially Tolkien’s, would not produce an exact rendering of his literature. Consequently Jackson took some artistic liberties to make the movies just as engaging as the books are, while still striving to stay true to Tolkien’s intentions for the series. Shippey’s article “From Page to Screen” observes the problems addressed by Jackson in the transition and anticipates others possibly to come in the third and final movie “The Return of the King”
The continuing challenge of taking Tolkien’s descriptions of creatures and characters and making them into interesting 3-Dimensional beings follows Jackson into the third film. A confrontation at the Black Gate was needed to satisfy what Shippey describes as “triumphalist” tendencies in film making. Jackson wished to provide a physical confrontation between Sauron (evil) and Aragorn (good) with the last army of men at the entrance to Mordor, but when that doesn’t pan out Jackson instead creates this sense that there is a line of communication between Aragorn and the Great Eye. Aragorn’s reply to which is the beheading of the mouth of Sauron and successfully distracting of the Eye from the ring. This edited scene is a more effective way of portraying the classic victory over evil. In a similar fashion we see the results of why Jackson built up the character of Arwen in the previous movies, as Shippey observed as a challenge. Her role becomes that which authorizes the re-forging of the sword of Anduril so that Aragorn can assume the throne. At the same time we are able to view her on an intimate level as she bears the burden of a mortal life and we begin to understand, as the audience, how much she has sacrificed to be with a human and without her people. This perspective of her love for Aragorn makes it easier to comprehend why he so callously will not return Eowen’s affections, even though she proves her self as a capable leader and warrior.
Shippey also anticipated that Peter Jackson would have a difficult time choosing a proper ending for the third film. The “Return of the King” is very unique in the fact that its pages contain more then one feasible cinematic closing point. Jackson really had a lot of room and content to work with in that concern. For example; Frodo and Sam taking refuge on an outcrop after destroying the ring could conceivably be a place to end the film, as could the reuniting of the rest of the Fellowship when Frodo wakes, the crowning ceremony of Aragorn where the Hobbits are honored, the retaking of the shire and death of Sharkey, as well as the departure to the Gray Havens, and the return of Sam to his family to continue his story would all have been appropriate endings. Jackson could have chosen one, all, or any combination of these options to complete the trilogy. The actual outcome of the “Return of the King” has omitted the scoring of the Shire and ends with the less dramatic statement of “Well, I’m home.” Perhaps Peter Jackson thought that to include the scoring of the Shire would tamper with the idea that the Hobbits went out into the world to save the shire and would leave the audience melancholy after such an epic story. The very last line, delivered by Sam, though somewhat anti-climatic, serves to bring full circle the impression of Hobbits being these multi-faceted creatures perfectly content to live simple lives.
There exist in the third film other challenges not voiced specifically by Shippey in his article. One of them being how Jackson must tie up all the loose ends and still mind the length of the “Return of the King”. Both the author and director were encouraged to separate the “Lord of the Rings” into three pieces, but Jackson does not divide the second and third film in the same manner as Tolkien had. He makes the decision to move the Stairs of Cirith and Shelobs’s lair to the third film in order to keep the separated fellowship on a similar time line, not allowing one group to progress a significant distance ahead of the others. As a result we see a fantastic display of light shoot from Minas Morgul while Frodo and his posse are on the stair, and then see it again from the perspective of Gandalf & Pippen in Minas Tirith. This would not have been possible if the director had made a different choice. Peter Jackson has only allowed himself a certain amount of space to make changes as dictated by the choices he’s already made in the previous two films. It is plausible at that time he may have wished he could go back and remove or add an event to the first or second film to fix a problem he did not anticipate.
While creating the trilogy on screen Jackson tries to bring the ideals of Tolkien and his world view into the films. Tolkien is frequently described as a Naturalist and we know from information available about his early life that he was deeply impacted by World War II. When the trilogy was published people connected the war to the events happening in Middle Earth. This alignment was never intended to be taken literally by Tolkien, rather he wished it to been seen instead as a universal conflict understandable to everyone, not just an interpretation of WWII. Jackson is very successful in his creation of extensive battle scenes only described briefly by Tolkien. He is also careful, like Tolkien would have wanted, not use any tactics or specific looking places that would correspond with the second World War. Also, in accordance to Tolkien’s belief that the ending is not always what we want it to be, Frodo and Sam learn to accept the fact that they may never see the Shire again. The authors naturalistic tendencies are shown in the film through the directors choice of setting and emphasis. In one scene Frodo and Sam come across a beheaded statue of a human king in Mordor. The head itself lays a distance away with its brow covered in tiny white flowers. Frodo comments on how, even yet, the king has his crown. This attention to detail really ties the natural world into the turbulent lives of the characters.
The big question is whether or not Peter Jackson is successful with his interpretation of Tolkien’s book. The trilogy had positive and negative results when viewed by an audience. His films do have the ability to stand alone and be interesting, if not as meaningful, to a new viewer who knows nothing about Middle Earth up to that point. Many old Tolkien lovers though, who had read the book previous to the release of the movies, were upset by changes that were made. One very apparent change that affected them so strongly revolved around the events at the beginning of the third film at the Tower of Orthanc. Here Gandalf and other fellowship members address Sarumon and the director incorporates the stabbing of the White Wizard by Worm Tongue, that occurs at the end of the book, into the scene. This promoted those fans to cut and edit the film to include no branching off from the original story, thus the Purist edition of the movie was born. In addition to changes in the story the choices Jackson makes in casting really have a strong effect on how certain characters come across. Denethor specifically may have not been displayed as “Kingly” enough for the fans who remember Pippen’s inner dialog comparing who looked more the part, Gandalf or the Steward. On the other hand the films did much to widen the fan base of the “Lord of the Rings.” The films not only allowed more people to be exposed to Tolkien’s tale, but also prompted some to go out and read it for themselves. Shippey describes it as the “emergence into yet another wave of bestsellerdom, propelled by the Peter Jackson movies.” The appeal of the movies to old fans may be attributed to the fantastic costumes, landscape, creatures, and special effects. What one could only imagine before, finally gets turned into reality. Jackson had a wonderful creative spirit and took it to a level that some readers were unable to match. Watching his rendition of the book’s descriptions was like finally seeing a piece of art from multiple different angles. For example when Denethor finally looks out the window to the enemy at his door step, Jackson works his magic and places the computer generated armies as far as the eye can see. The impact of the actual visual is astounding.
All in all Peter Jackson as a director has the ability to thoughtfully turn words on a page into a captivating movie. Tom Shippey in his article also appears to approve of what Jackson is trying to do with the “Lord of the Rings” stating that Peter Jackson ”has dealt sensitively with several issues.” I believe he was indeed successful in presenting an respectful depiction of the events found in Tolkien’s middle earth while still adding his own unique touch.
