Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    David, I don t think I ve ever accused you of being rabidly anti-Jackson. I do share Tom Shippey s view that the films, despite their many flaws, have
    Message 1 of 108 , Aug 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      David, I don't think I've ever accused you of being "rabidly
      anti-Jackson." I do share Tom Shippey's view that the films, despite
      their many flaws, have brought many new readers to the book. Some of
      them were college students of mine and some of them turned out to be
      rather good undergraduate scholars. Is that bad?


      -----Original Message-----
      From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of David Bratman
      Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:04 PM
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

      Another somewhat dated reply, but it's on a subject I consider very

      At 10:38 AM 8/20/2007 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:

      >Most feel Jackson did a fine job capturing the themes and feeling of
      >the books in his film(s), and that the few egregious exceptions don't
      >spoil the films as a whole. But this list is dominated by Jackson-
      >bashers, as you've seen, which is why those of us here who feel
      >otherwise generally don't bother to post on the subject much.

      and later elaborated on who he meant by "most":

      >Most of the members of two different Mythsoc reading groups; most of
      >my former co-workers at a company that specialized in creating
      >fantasy stories; most of the people I know who enjoy fantasy
      >literature; most of my Tolkien acquaintance; most of the millions
      >upon millions of people who loved the books and saw the films.
      >Most, not all. And some of the most articulate people who feel
      >otherwise are on this list.

      Surely John is not arguing that sheer numbers give the weight of an
      argument to one side, so it's fair to point out that most of these
      "millions upon millions" don't know very much about Tolkien, as has been
      apparent since long before Jackson was ever heard of. My first awareness
      of that particular problem came many years ago when I read the letter in
      early Tolkien fanzine suggesting, "Let's make Snoopy an honorary

      My own experience discussing Jackson with ordinary casual Tolkien
      is that they'd often be surprised when I criticized the films as
      adaptations, but they'd find that they agreed when I explained this in
      detail. Once they gave thought to the matter, they realized that
      was not a successful adaptation.

      There are two grounds on which Jackson's adaptation has been defended.
      Some claim that it is a good adaptation. But others admit that Jackson
      trashed Tolkien, but defend this on the grounds that it was necessary
      because of "Hollywood values" or "to make the movies be successful to a
      wider audience" or some such rot. The existence of this second line of
      argument suggests that the argument that the films are bad adaptations
      been making some headway. So does the comment raised at several
      Jackson-reception sessions at the 2005 Birmingham conference, by Jackson
      fans who said they were tired of all the Jackson-bashing they were
      constantly hearing. They didn't all hear it on the MythSoc list.

      As for people who have studied Tolkien in depth, I think opinions do not
      break anywhere near the way John says. If John found two Mythsoc groups
      most of whose members liked the films as adaptations, I've found two
      which were far more critical than that, and overall were at least evenly
      split. John knows as well as I do that the opinion among real Tolkien
      scholars is strongly anti-Jackson. Of the six people I would consider
      most renowned and learned living Tolkien scholars, no fewer than five
      such vehement feelings against Jackson that they mostly refuse to talk
      about it. For this reason I won't name them, though it shouldn't be
      difficult to guess who they are. And the sixth, Tom Shippey, expressed
      rather lukewarm feelings in his essay on the subject, hoping mostly that
      the films will lead readers to the book. (Which they have. But that
      doesn't make the films good. Ralph Bakshi led readers to the book.
      Rankin-Bass led readers to the book. Even Leonard Nimoy singing "The
      Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" led readers to the book.)

      John certainly qualifies as a renowned Tolkien scholar himself, but I
      think that if I expanded that list of six it would break much more his
      Carl also qualifies, and he's unusual not because he's vehemently
      anti-Jackson but because he's willing to talk about it. I'm supposed to
      rabidly anti-Jackson (just ask Mike Foster), but I'm actually
      compared to some of these scholars. I enjoyed watching the films. (Most
      of them did not.) I acknowledge some virtues in the adaptations -
      specifically most of the ones John enumerates. (He's made it easier on
      himself by choosing the beginning of the first film, which is one of the
      best parts.)

      And on the other side, John himself is not as pro-Jackson as one might
      conclude. He refers in his post to his disappointment with Denethor and
      Faramir, and his reviews of the second and third films are clear that he
      very critical of this and other matters. He's really not all that far
      the rest of us; where he disagrees is in not thinking that such matters
      massively overbalance the virtues.

      So the implication that the Tolkien world is largely pro-Jackson except
      a few dissenters who by some mysterious chance happen to dominate this
      mailing list is simply false.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • aveeris523@aol.com
      ... appropriate. ************************************** Check out AOL s list of 2007 s hottest products.
      Message 108 of 108 , Dec 7 10:38 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 12/7/07 9:41:39 AM, dbratman@... writes:

        > Very much the opposite opinion here. I don't recall anything harmful being
        > done to the text, but the image was definitely a problem. Tolkien says she was
        > "beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful." The only word in this
        > that Jackson seems to have followed was "terrible" - and he seems to be using
        > it in the sense of "scary and terrifying," rather than "eliciting awe" which
        > is what Tolkien presumably meant.
        > Good point David! Beautiful and Terrible like an angel would have been more

        Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.