Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Daily Cardinal Est. 1892
Wednesday, November 06, 2024

Do Jackson's 'Rings' honor Tolkien's work?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a reason writers like Orson Scott Card, Robert Jordan and Piers Anthony can claim any legitimacy. It is not because of their talent or the volume of the body of their work. They are all recognized because of one man-J.R.R. Tolkien. 

 

 

 

Enjoy what you're reading? Get content from The Daily Cardinal delivered to your inbox

Tolkien is almost single-handedly responsible for reviving a dormant genre, long relegated to the lowest shelves and almost forgotten. His masterpiece, the \Lord of the Rings"" trilogy, set in motion a revival of fantasy literature that is still shaping the books on the best-seller lists. 

 

 

 

By the mid-1950s it seemed that fantasy as a genre had been reduced to pulp novels and sporadic appearances in comic books. Robert E. Howard, the ""father of sword and sorcery,"" made his mark in the 1930s with the stories of Conan the Barbarian but was quickly ignored. C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy suggested a fantasy revival a decade later but soon was supplanted by his children's books, the Chronicles of Narnia. Fantasy needed something epic, and Tolkien provided exactly that. 

 

 

 

While the English majors can debate to death if ""The Lord of the Rings"" fits the definition of an epic, it is close enough. It deals with the dignity and inner strength of men and the fate of an entire world. It runs from the pastoral retreat of the Shire to a version of heaven (Rivendell, Minas Tirith, the Gray Havens, take your pick) to the equivalent of hell in Mordor. Its themes run from the preservation of the homeland to the redemption of nobility. Tolkien made an epic and the world embraced it. 

 

 

 

The appeal of his trilogy works on several levels and functions outside of the context of the films. On the most basic level, ""The Lord of the Rings"" is simply a good story. It has unimaginable evil and legendary heroes. It has wizards, goblins, talking trees, mighty relics and hidden passageways. 

 

 

 

On another level, there is the appeal of an entire world to explore. From Fangorn Forest to the Sea of Rh??n, Tolkien provided a complex setting that was matched by the complexity of Middle Earth's languages. By injecting the Elvish tongue and a few of its dialects into the story of the One Ring, he tied his linguistic genius to his exhaustively constructed world. 

 

 

 

Then there are the near-infinite interpretations that Tolkien's trilogy allows. It has been read as plea for the pastoralization of England, as a rebuke of World War II and as a Christian epic in the vein of Milton. Some point to Bag End as a template for the English countryside. Others see the orcs, the Uruk-Hai and Sauron's minions as representatives of the Nazi empire. Meanwhile, many look for a Christ figure in Frodo, Aragorn or Gandalf. By any account, ""The Lord of the Rings"" offers alternate readings and each interpretation warrants debate. Those interpretations point to the timelessness of Tolkien's works. 

 

 

 

The greatest works of fantasy literature always look beyond their own constraints. Though ""The Lord of the Rings"" may be about two hobbits trying to destroy a ring with the world at war behind them, it goes beyond that simple plot. Beyond the battles and journeys, there is a call to unity and personal stewardship. The Shire is not constructed merely to give the hobbits a home, but also to make readers look to their own communities. The fellowship is not a plot device, but also an example of necessary diversity. The presence of humble heroes speaks for itself. 

 

 

 

Sure, the movies will bring plenty of new fans to ""The Lord of the Rings"" and point many of them to the books. However, a considerable amount of those fans will watch the extended edition DVDs instead of picking up a book. Those fans are denying themselves a pivotal piece of literature and several hours of enjoyment. Though Peter Jackson did a great job of converting the trilogy to movies, ""The Lord of the Rings"" proves, beyond a doubt, that the book is better than the movie. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many Tolkien purists will bemoan the numerous cuts Peter Jackson has been forced to make in the ""Lord of the Rings"" trilogy. These complaints will likely rise in number after the ""Return of the King"" credits roll, for undoubtedly, there will be plenty of elements cut from the final chapter in this epic. 

 

 

 

These purists will point to Tolkien's novels and say that they were perfect and that Jackson had no reason to alter them other than to satisfy a larger audience. They will say that Tolkien's writings were so powerful and overwhelming in their quality that he not only revived the fantasy genre in literature, but that he recreated it in his own image, and that all fantasy since has been mostly a rehash of Tolkien's ideas and themes. 

 

 

 

Along with the string of comic book successes, Jackson has proven that movies filled with fantastic imagery can also engage us emotionally through the use of deeper, enduring themes. Knowing the way Hollywood works, we can expect to see a string of fantasy films in the same vein coming to theaters near you over the next five years. However, just as Tolkien's books set the bar for fantasy novels, so too will all future fantasy films be compared to Jackson's trilogy in terms of acting, computer-generated effects and production quality. 

 

 

 

Going beyond the obvious comparisons, Jackson's films will have more impact than Tolkien's novels because of the method of production. As has been mentioned in nearly every article on the films, New Line Cinema took a huge risk by giving Jackson a $190 million budget. In fact, if ""The Lord of the Rings"" had been a complete box-office bomb, New Line may have gone under. But surprisingly enough, Jackson managed to deliver more than what New Line paid for by filming all three at once in New Zealand.  

 

 

 

The result has been three films that were made relatively cheaply ($63 million each), have solid star power and boggling special effects and locations. Filming more than one film at once, while not likely to take hold as the dominant means of filmmaking, will nonetheless change the way studios consider filming franchises (in fact, Disney is strongly considering simultaneously filming two sequels to ""Pirates of the Caribbean"" as soon as next year). 

 

 

 

While the source material may be Tolkien's novels, film as a medium necessitates certain changes and allows for others. If Jackson were to include every single thing from the books, the films would be even longer than their bloated but enjoyable extended editions already are. The fact is that these films would never had reached the big screen if Jackson had failed to make changes that would keep the average viewer interested-thus, it has been absolutely necessary to keep the running time under three hours. More importantly, Jackson has infused the films with an undeniable sense of pure visual beauty and awe. 

 

 

 

Audiences should not have to have read the book to enjoy these films, and in fact, it is arguable that those who have not will be better for it. ""The Fellowship of the Ring"" and ""The Two Towers"" are easily the biggest film spectacles of the last five years, which is a considerable feat when the competition is considered. Many Tolkien fanatics are unable to appreciate it, because it cannot stand up to what they had imagined, or some songs have been cut, or Faramir plays a smaller role-while all their complaints may be true, their love of Tolkien is ruining the experience. They are jaded-and they are missing out on one of the grandest epics in film history.

Support your local paper
Donate Today
The Daily Cardinal has been covering the University and Madison community since 1892. Please consider giving today.

Powered by SNworks Solutions by The State News
All Content © 2024 The Daily Cardinal