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

Re: [mythsoc] Movie Interloper

Expand Messages
  • David S Bratman
    ... I have the same bumps . For years, I felt a bump in reading Chapter 8 of _The Hobbit_, because I first encountered the book read aloud to my school
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 06:50 PM 1/1/2003 -0600, Joan wrote:

      >It's the same with the Peter Jackson films. I know Tolkien's Lord of the
      >Rings text so well, there's always a "bump" whenever Jackson deviates
      >from it. The first time I watched PJFR, it was a very bumpy ride. Since
      >then, I've grown used to the bumps, and the experience is much less
      >wrenching for it.
      >
      >In other words, for me, there will never be any danger in the movie
      >intruding on the books. My mind simply doesn't work that way. It
      >separates them definitively whether I want it to or not.

      I have the same "bumps". For years, I felt a "bump" in reading Chapter 8
      of _The Hobbit_, because I first encountered the book read aloud to my
      school class, and I was sick the day that chapter was read. Naturally, by
      this measure watching a Jackson film is like tearing down a washboard road
      at 80 mph. And it doesn't get smoother.

      But that's how I react watching the film. It says nothing about whether
      the movie intrudes on the books. And it does. I don't mind the images of
      the Jackson film as much as those of the Bakshi film, fortunately.

      >I also wish to add that I thought that Sauron's depiction at the start
      >of the film worked well for me. It didn't spoil or diminish my notion of
      >Sauron as evil in the least. After all, he WAS there: he killed Elendil
      >and Gil-galad. And he had to be SEEN in order for Isildur to cut the
      >ring from his finger.

      It doesn't make Sauron any less evil: it diminishes his threat to be, as
      Sparkplug put it, a tubby guy in a Sauron suit.

      >Another matter of perspective: Different people have
      >different ideas as to what constitutes being "true" to the books. Many
      >people who worked on the films say that they believe that they were true
      >to the books, in form and in spirit. We may disagree, but they believe
      >it.

      They believe it, but they're wrong. This is not a matter that can be laid
      down to opinion: they're wrong.

      - DB
    • disneylogic <disneylogic@yahoo.com>
      On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:31:12 -0800 David S Bratman wrote in part: [snip] ... So, Dave, you disagree with Tom Shippey, then, in his review of a
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:31:12 -0800 David S Bratman
        <dbratman@s...> wrote in part:

        [snip]

        >They believe it, but they're wrong. This is not a matter
        >that can be laid down to opinion: they're wrong.

        >- DB

        So, Dave, you disagree with Tom Shippey, then, in his review of a
        sort?
        (Already referenced here, but see

        http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jht
        ml;$sessionid$QVAPP2BCCH1YRQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml
        =/opinion/2003/01/02/do0201.xml&sSheet=/portal/200
        3/01/02/por_right.html)

        If LOTR is that specific--that is specific enough to be able to make
        these judgments without question--I wonder how it can succeed in
        being such evocative myth?

        --jtg

        [snip]
      • David S. Bratman
        ... Not really, no. Shippey spends most of his article discussing differences, and concludes that the message survives the change of medium. By message he
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          At 03:29 PM 1/2/2003 , jtg wrote:
          >On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:31:12 -0800 David S Bratman
          ><dbratman@s...> wrote in part:
          >
          >>They believe it, but they're wrong. This is not a matter
          >>that can be laid down to opinion: they're wrong.
          >
          >So, Dave, you disagree with Tom Shippey, then, in his review of a
          >sort?

          Not really, no. Shippey spends most of his article discussing differences,
          and concludes that "the message survives the change of medium." By message
          he means the necessity of courage; and "survive" does suggest that it gets
          through against all odds.

          What I said was wrong was the statement that the films are "true to the
          books, in form and in spirit." That's a mighty broad statement, and I've
          read what the filmmakers have actually said, in detail. They believe they
          accomplished something a lot truer to Tolkien than letting a basic broad
          message survive the transition. That's what they're wrong about.

          >If LOTR is that specific--that is specific enough to be able to make
          >these judgments without question--I wonder how it can succeed in
          >being such evocative myth?

          I don't see how the evocative quality of LOTR - that is, its ability to
          make you think of other things - is at all limited by the simple question
          of whether a film translation is true to the book.


          - David Bratman
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.