- Not that it matters much, but I might rephrase my 'idiotic'
characterization of the film, to, "arrogant, frequently misguided and terrifically
disappointing, given the resources available," with choices made that profoundly
change key characterizations; willful alterations to both explicit, and subtle
implications one might draw from the tale; choices which trivialize or cheapen
dramatic moments, or invent new ones, and numerous failures to benefit from
wonderful 'filmic opportunities'.
The invention of entirely new scenes which change the story, rather than
those which might be expected in the service of condensation-this says enough.
That, and the implicit and even explicit remarks that I have heard were and
are being bandied about that the film improves upon Tolkien- makes me turn to
the word "idiotic" for brevity.
PS. I would love to find a good 4-6 paragraph summery of what is wrong with
the film, citing particular moments, and how they could have been handled
otherwise. A dutiful search through archives here would probably turn up several
such, ( though they would grow in length beyond a few paragraphs, which is also
OK) but if any of you have a prior posting along those lines handy, or feel up
to composing one afresh, I for one would love to read such.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "marcfcs" <marcfcs@a...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:has,
> > But neither of these describe Thomas Covenant. He is not
> uninteresting, he
> > is positively annoying. Nor is he merely detestable, but a
> > person one is supposed to identify with (to an extent) as a
> > character, without - at least as far as I read, three long weary
> books of
> > it - having a turning point or apotheosis of sympathy as Lear
> > getting his due comeuppance as Richard III does.
> Two points: 1) I don't think you are supposed to identify with
> Covenant. I think Donaldson goes out of his way to block you from
> identifying with him(though as I said before, I know nothing about
> his motivations beyond what is in the books, so I could be
> 2) I don't have a problem with Covenant not getting his
> or having a turning point and learning some deep lesson aboutlife.
> The universe is an imperfect place. I don't mind if fictionexpectations
> reflects that sometimes. I like it when a work subverts
> and does not unfold in a traditional way. It doesn't bother me ifan
> anti-hero character doesn't have a heart of gold and doesn't growone
> later (and isn't punished for that in some act of cosmic justice bykind
> the author).
> > The problem with this moment is not the sentiment - for surely an
> > king no more intends to outlive his son and heir than a modern
> Oprah guest
> > does - but the phrasing and style with which it is said.
> The phrasing is the worst part and the one that is most relevant to
> me for enjoying the movie. However, the sentiment is wrong as well
> as an adaptation of Tolkien since this clearly goes against the
> of "men of the north" heroic ethos that Tolkien gives to Rohan.that
> Lamenting the death of a son is 1 thing. Saying no father should
> outlive their children is not the right sentiment for a culture
> honors noble death more than survival at any costs. This changesa
> culture that Tolkien meant to be a little alien to his audience andexplained
> makes it more like modern people in medieval clothing. Can anyone
> imagine Beowulf or Sigurd saying such a thing, however you want to
> phrase it? Not that Tolkien doesn't modernize those types of
> characters a little, but not that much.
> Finally, as far as the whole post-Romantic thing goes, I've
> my point and you clearly understand it now. We could probablyargue
> endlessly about the exact usage of the specific words I chose and Idiscussion
> doubt it would be of interest to anyone else reading this
> group. So, lets just let it drop.Hi I'm (dmsherwood53@...) & I'm breaking into a conversation
where the protagonists have agrred to let it drop wvery uncivilised
If your still listening coupla points:
I agree theris a post-romantic sensibility.
I think this and its opposite the romantic sensibility ties deeply
intowhat a person is; wants to be; fears being; all thaT shimola
I think ROMANCES using the term v widely tie into this more deeply
than ordinary books tho its part of why anybody cares a damn about any
art at all.
Its a mistake to talk about a romance as tho it was a bad attempt to
do what an ant-romance was doing and vice-versa-which was mostly what
you guys were doing- altho take this to extremes and we all end us
reading our own diaries and never confrunting another POV (Which
Lewis thought the reason why there are booksat all)
PS Have you readthe NEW WEIRD fiction goes much further into anti-
romantic vision than Donaldson eg a;lmost any CHINA MEILVILLE's books