No Del Toro for Deathly Hallows – The Hobbit Instead?

I (and many fans) have been following the Hobbit news avidly–the only thing I’ve known for sure is that Jackson will produce it, not direct.

Del Toro would be a boon to The Hobbit, imho, if he and Jackson can get along vision-wise. *g*

(But dang, he would have nailed DH, too.)

I kind of like the news. At least, I can see some positives.

The Hobbit has never held the same place in my heart as LOTR. It lacks the epic sweeep, the sense of drama, and the seriousness and sheer fraughtness of LOTR. It’s a lesser work. It just doesn’t touch the same strings.

So it makes sense that it should be directed by someone other than Jackson.

On the other hand, looking at it with fresh eyes (i.e. eyes that never read LOTR nor saw the movie adaptation) The Hobbit is a fascinating book on its own: deeply magical, but with a different kind of magic than LOTR: more primitive, wilder, less predictable. And the characters do not as easily fall into the categories of good and bad. For me, it’s actually more frightening than LOTR.

All of which makes it a good match for a new director, and that director del Toro.

On the other hand, we’ve now seen four directors try their hand at Harry Potter: Columbus, Cuaron, Newell and Yates. Despite the stylistic differences, there are a lot of similarities because of the sets and the actors and the screenwriter, Kloves, (who did all but one of the screenplays). We have a strong sense of what the HP world looks like, how the characters talk and act. I don’t think there is really room there for a drastic new vision, no matter how creative or original. In fact, this is one instance where originality might not be that desirable.

So I think that they should either return to one of the original four (and I’ve said many times that Cuaron would have my vote) or find someone who doesn’t have a unique vision. No auteurs need apply.

Agree or disagree?

I have actually had a change of heart about Columbus. I went to see SS with a lot of expectations, and left feeling let down. The movie was faithful to the book; a little too faithful. There was no “original” vision. And more unforgivably, the magic seemed too tame, too cute, too Disney-safe. It’s only more recently that I’ve started liking what Columbus did. with the series. It also doesn’t hurt to see Richard Harris inhabiting Dumbledore, after the indignities Gambon has inflicted on the role.

I still prefer Cuaron, but I don’t despise the other directors’ efforts.

But at the risk of unleashing a torrent of invective, revgeorge, what are the top 10 reasons you despise what Jackson did with LOTR?

Yes, it’s already been announced that Jackson will serve as executive producer, but not director, of the Hobbit films.

Matthew,

I agree with your objections #2 (Arwen as a horsewoman), #3 (the doubt-ridden Aragorn), #7 (the disgusting, repulsive Denethor), #10 (the effete Legolas), and #11 (using Gimli as comic relief). That is not how I saw any of those characters. And in the case of Arwen, her actions were a major and undigestible departure from the plot.

None of these were deal breakers for me, as they were for you (and probably revgeorge). But they certainly kept my enjoyment level less than rapturous.

I wasn’t as bothered by the who-can-beat-who inconsistencies. I wasn’t too bothered that Aragorn could take on the Nazgul: for one thing he does have the blood of Elendil somewhere in his DNA, and for another, he didn’t really defeat them, he swatted them away. And I’ve always been interested in the backstory of the Witch King, so I liked the duel which raised his battle profile, no matter how implausibly.

But now let me tell you the three things that really bothered me about the movies.

First, the Aragorn / Arwen saga took up way too much time: it felt like it was filmed in slow motion. And to what end? An exchange of glances, a hand raised in farewell, a flashing gem, would have worked as well.

Second: the elves. Jackson chose to portray their magical/spiritual nature by giving them straight (most blond) hair and having them walk and talk languorously. You can only take so much dreamy listlessness before you want to kick them awake and put some curl in their hair. Blanchett looked like she was under the influence of major tranquillizers. In a word, I found the depiction of the elves irritating.

I wasn’t too happy about Elijah Wood as Frodo either. Too doe-eyed and earnest and intensely suffering as he dragged himself fromo Weathertop to Mount Doom.

Some casting choices which did work for me: Sean Astin as Sam, Sean Bean as Boromir, Ian McKellen as Gandalf (I now “hear” Gandalf as McKellen when I read the books), and John Rhys-Davies as Gimli.

I don’t want to sound negative, because there are a lot of things I enjoy about the movies, and I have the extended versions on DVD. But there are some flaws as well. Inevitable perhaps, in a project of such magnitude and carrying the weight of so much expectation.

Elrond was a bit creepy, wasn’t he? Didn’t help that we were simultaneously watching him as Agent Smith in The Matrix. I found his scenes with Liv Tyler vaguely incestuous.

I thought the Balrog was cool too. But not as cool as the one in the Ralph Bakshi animated version (anyone here remember that?). There should have been a special award for the whip.

And Sean Bean. I’ve said before that I’d hoped he’d be resurrected as He Who Must Not Be Named -hereafter referred to as HWMNBN. I also think he would have made a great Aragorn. Because I was not into the post-modern interpretation of Aragorn at all. One dimensional he was written, and one dimensional he should have been potrayed, but with verve.

What did you think of Christopher Lee’s Saruman and the judo match between elderly wizards wearing long robes on Orthanc?

revgeorge,

I truly don’t think Rickman will have any problems expressing Snape’s thwarted passions, hatred. agony and ambivalence. It’s a part any decent actor could do a competent job with, and Rickman is more than a decent actor. Whenever he appears on screen (and that’s been lamentably little in the last few films) he seems to be fully aware of his backstory and biding his time to step into the foreground.

I am reminded of a director’s concerns that Alec Guinness was too thin to play the role of the pudgy George Smiley in the tv adaptation of the LeCarre series. Someone who knew Guinness reassured him: “if Alec wants to seem fat, he’ll act fat.”

Have faith.

reyhan,

I have lots of faith in Alan Rickman’s ability to do his duty when the time comes. I guess I don’t have as much faith in the screen writer.

I’ve always liked Rickman’s acting. He has the uncanny ability to take totally unsympathetic characters & give them some humanity. I liked that in Die Hard & in Robin Hood I was rooting for the Sheriff of Nottingham because I hated Costner’s portrayal of Robin Hood.

And Denethor is a much more complex character in the books. His desire to fight the Dark Lord, his willingness to use any weapon to do that, including his own sons, his dedication to his people & nation, & his pride in his heritage & his belief that the stewards of Gondor were much more suited to rule than the kings. All of which Sauron is able to draw out & twist to such dark, despairing ends. Having not seen any of the scenes in the movie with Denethor, does any of this come out?

reyhan,

I can’t say much about the whole of the new version of The Lion, Witch & Wardrobe (LWW) since I think I stopped watching about twenty minutes in. And I had such high hopes for the movie, too.

But in my opinion it fell victim to Hollywood’s incessant desire to revamp & revision everything they get their hands on, instead of simply telling the actual story the way it was written. I guess they think they’re being more relevant & compelling than those old fuddy duddy authors could be. Who knows?

Lewis said they were not allegory, preferring the term “supposition” instead. “Let us suppose…” that Christ were in this other world…that sort of thing.

Concerning the LWW film, here are my problems:

1. It was all about the kids, not Aslan.
2. The Witch’s power was magnified, Aslan’s seriously diminished.
3. No significant “awe” surrounding Aslan.
4. Beavers as comic relief.
5. Liam Neeson. A lot of people disagree with me on that one, but Neeson bugged me.

First time I met The Lion et al was in grade 5, when a teacher read us a bit. I thought it was enchanting in an off-beat sort of way, but never got around to reading it for myself. Then I had kids. The then-9 year old was reading it in school, so I bought a copy for home. Ended up reading it to the then-5 year old (abridging it as we went along to suit a 5 year old attention span).
All was fine until we got to Aslan’s walk to his sacrifice. The allegory then hit me like a sledge hammer.

That was ok. Nothing wrong with the sacrifice/death/resurrection theme itself – deeply moving even in Lewis’ heavy handed prose – but it was the manner in which he did it that turned me off. The theme felt superimposed on the story. There was no intrinsic link between the tale of the four children and Aslan’s sacrifice. They were tourists in Narnia, even the treacherous Edmund. And for some reason it was the way Susan and Lucy accompanied Aslan to the Table which felt the most artificial, as if Lewis was trying to create Mary and Mary Magdalane surrogotes out of the two girls.

This is why I responded as I did to Deathly Hallows, why I said JKR had “out allegoried” Lewis. Harry’s sacrifice grew out of the plot, the people who accompanied him weren’t surrogates: they were the people who loved him and who had come back from death to walk with him on his last walk.

Do you see the difference?

BTW, even with judicious abridging, my 5-year old was dismayed by Aslan’s sacrifice. He cried at the part where the mice gnawed away the rope.

I’m not debating that Lewis didn’t see the story as allegorical. It’s just that for a casual reader, such as myself, it appears very allegorical. You’d have to be well versed in his writings to know the difference.

I have great love and respect for both authors-Tolkien and Lewis. They were best friends for many years, but sadly, as they aged, their disagreements about writing styles and how to write stories distanced them from one another.
Of the two authors’ works, Lewis’ Narnian chronicles never captivated me for some reason, although I enjoyed reading them, while his Screwtape Letters and Surprised by Joy are some of my favorite writings. Lewis’ fiction was never real to me -I was always just an observer.
Tolkien’s LOTR, on the other hand, always brings new thoughts to my mind, when I get a chance to reread them. His stories are born of the World Wars that he had to endure, the suffering a fatherless and soon, motherless boy who had to overcome many obstacles to win the woman who was to become his wife. Some years ago Tolkien’ son(the one who became a priest) and one of his daughter published a book about their parents and growing up in the Tolkien family which I found very moving. I corresponded a bit with the daughter and she told me of the profound love that they created in their family, in spite of enormous difficulties.
Another book which I found very helpful was a collection of Tolkien’s letters. I could see how much fun he was having, using his linguistic background to create this wonderful world.
One very offensive thing to me about the movie was the way the elves were “Nordic beauties” with the long skull and blue eyes characteristic of Anglo-Saxons. The Hobbits were all chosen to be rounded in body and face, to look like the traditional lower class Welsh and Irish servants in England. This was reinforced by the music. I love the music, by the way, but notice that the Celtic themes are deliberately chosen to pair with the Hobbits, whereas you have the more sweeping type of music with the Elves.In defense of Helms Deep, I am interested in Medieval Warfare, and I found the depictions of combat there very interesting.

Colorless.blue.ideas,

I don’t think we could call Hobbits another species: they of all of Tolkien’s creatures are meant to reflect humanity, and a very specific type of humanity: the run-of-the-mill, salt-of-the-earth, plain spoken average working class Englishman.

And while the High Elven appear to have semi-divine attributes, the lower elves are presented as human. I don’t think anthromorphizing as with domestic pets is really an issue here.

But it’s an interesting question: are we meant to see ourselves in Tolkien’s characters, and if so, which ones? Not the Elves, I would guess, with the possible exception of Legolas. Maybe the Dwarves, with their acquisitiveness and long held grudges and thin skin and short tempers. Some of the Men (although probably not Aragorn). Not the Ents. I think the Orcs are meant to be alien, but I think I recognized a few of my acquintances in their ranks. But the Hobbits? I think definitely, we’re supposed to see the best of ourselves in the Hobbits: decency, compassion, loyalty, determination.

I also don’t think there is anything alien in the class structure in LOTR. Quite the contrary, Sam calling Frodo “Master” seems to quite closely reflect the relationship between a Feudal property owner and his serf.

I agree that the elves were presented as quite different from Men (and of course Hobbits, Dwarves and Orcs). And I have no problem with that. What I do object to is the way their difference was depicted: straight, long hair, and the air of permanently being on Prozac or something mildly hallucinogenic.

I wish I had more time to participate in this thread, and not just because it’d give me another chance to explain why Critical Race Theorists aren’t racists

The political philosophy of LOTR is fascinating, and he’s become a huge favorite of paleo-conservatives. (I think Harry Potter, by the way, will be a very important text for libertarians in the same sort of way…).

You might be interested in downloading the talk, “Lord of the Rings as a Defense of Western Civilization” at iTunes U from Seattle Pacific University.

The relationship of classes in English society was very important at the time Tolkien was writing,and in his own family. It is important to understand his biography. At the outbreak of WW1, classes were very much an important part of English society, and it was believed that literally there were differences in the “blood’ between upper and lower class. We know now that these differences were due to lack of nutrition and lack of education for the poorer groups, but at that time it was physically obvious that upper class people were taller and “smarter” than the average population. And one’s accent would immediately pinpoint where one fit into the social world.
Tolkien was born into an upper middle class family; his father died when he was very young, and his mother was forced into poverty when she was disowned by her relatives for becoming a Roman Catholic. Tolkien was left in the guardianship of a priest who was a friend of Tolkien’s mother. The boarding house where he grew up was a bit like something out of Dickens-not quite as bad, but he was often hungry.
He met his future wife in the boarding house, a lonely little girl growing up with no family. It was revealed, years later, that she was illegitimate and she never knew who her father was.
When they married and Tolkien began to teach at Oxford, they were an oddity. It was unusual for faculty to be married-the single Lewis was more the rule than the exception. Poor Tolkien’s wife felt very excluded because she was not considered upperclass, and as the wife of an Oxford teacher she was very much by herself, socially, being excluded from Tolkien’s social companions. This created tremendous difficulties in the Tolkien’s marriage. The fact that the two of them, basically orphans, were able to create such a loving family is a real tribute to the dedication both gave to make this marriage work. Yes, Sam is based on Tolkien’s batman in WW1, but I think also on his wife.
the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon split was a very real one in Tolkien’s world, and he defied it by loving and learning Welsh, as well as Anglo-Saxon, and he brought those two worlds together in his LOTR. The emphasis on the “superman” quality of the Anglo-Saxon world continued to grow in English society throughout the 20s until, of course, Hitler’s actions would debase its core beliefs. Remember, the Irish uprisings were going on in the 20s, and a lot of British believed that the Irish were physically and mentally inferior.
Tolkien’s works were meant to defy these beliefs. He was once asked by a German publisher during the pre-WW2 area if he was Jewish, because in that case his academic works would not be published in Germany. In his letter he replied that he was not Jewish, but he was very sorry to have to write that he was not, because he regarded the Jewish people with great regard and profoundly wished he were part Jewish.
My disagreement with the movie is that they way the actors were chosen for elves, hobbits, etc, in a way went against what Tolkien stood for.
As for US society-we are very much a class society, but it is based,not on family, but on money.

Thanks, Mary Jo, for the background. It makes me feel sorry for Mrs. Tolkien: growing up without a family in a boarding house, ostracized by the so-called-intelligensia for the double sin of being a woman and of a lower class, and finally having the character of a male servant – however beloved – based on her.

I would add that however much Tolkien loved the Welsh and Anglo-Saxon languages, and wouldn’t have scorned being a Jew, the relationship he wrote between Frodo and Sam was a master-servant relationship. And not even the act of saving Frodo’s life and bearing the ring for a little while and facing death by his side took away the master-servant relationship. Tolkien could not totally step away from the mores of his time – as indeed very few could – Rosa Parks, Mahatma Ghandi and Hermione Granger being outstanding exceptions.

Sorry. I wrote “Aragon” instead of “Aragorn”. The inscriptions on the tombstones of Tolkien and his wife were “Beren” and “Lúthien”, an earlier version of Aragorn and Arwen.

I base my statements on the diminishing of their friendship on the publication of a collection of Tolkien’s letters. Their friendship was real; their disagreements were real. Tolkien’s criticisms of Lewis’ Narnian cycle were real. Tolkien once said of Lewis” “You can take the boy out of Ulster, but you can’t take Ulster out of the boy.” Tolkien’s mother had been excluded from her family because she had become Roman Catholic, and she died in poverty from complications of diabetes when he was about 10, which is why he ended up living in the boarding house with not quite enough to eat. He also saw his mother as a Roman Catholic martyr.
It is not that they became enemies: they respected one another. But when Lewis married it did create a fundamental change in their relationship, and Tolkien did resent that Lewis had always excluded Tolkien’s wife from their intimate circle of friends, but now he was expected to include Lewis’s wife. Lewis did move to Cambridge, where he continued to teach and their friendship simply ceased to exist to any great degree, which I think is a very sad thing, but it is a reality.
I have long been a great fan of Tolkien and visited the pub in Oxford “The Bird and the Baby” (Actually, The Eagle and Child)where he, Lewis and the others used to sit and have their discussions. I have read everything I could on Tolkien’s biography because I identify a lot with his interests: I love languages, I am a bit of a Medievalist, and I sincerely admire the man.
As a child, I named my pet cat “Frodo”, which I know sounds childish, but it just shows how long I have been researching this author. I even tried to learn the ‘Our Father” and “Hail Mary” in Elvish and knew it at one time, but have long forgotten it. He also inspired me to try to learn Estonian ,Welsh, and Anglo-Saxon. I have done OK on Anglo-Saxon-not great, but I enjoy the poetry of it. I can say a few words in Welsh and have several books on it, which remain on my shelf because I am currently studying Italian. I confess I have made no progress whatsoever on the Estonian.
Lewis and Tolkien were both great men and great Christians. Like all of us, they were flawed. But their lives are well worth reading; they did far more to bring people to Christ than I ever have or ever will, and I admire them both very much.

Mary Jo, I completely echo Travis’ thanks: it adds immensely to our understanding of any topic to hear from someone who is very knowledgable in that area. Until I read your comments, I was almost totally ignorant of Tolkien’s life aside from the fact that he was an Oxford professor. Now I have a lot more detail to fill in the broad outlines.

I think that Lewis’ non- fiction books were and are very profound and have helped so many people, including myself, in their Christian understanding. Yes, I agree that C.S. Lewis also had a lot of suffering in his life. I did not mean to criticize him – I was trying to explain their relationship from Tolkien’s point of view.
Lewis had a very difficult time relating to women for reasons which stem back to his early youth.
Both he and Tolkien were greatly influenced by Charles William, but they could not deal very well with another powerful Christian writer of the time, Dorothy L. Sayers, who was also a disciple of Charles William. Tolkien couldn’t stand Sayers’ series about Lord Peter, which I love.
Unfortunately, I think in many ways these wonderful Christian writers have had their lives sanitized into “hagiographies” so that most people aren’t aware of what they really went through.
One of my favorite moments in the biographies of Lewis and Tolkien is when an American admirer of Lewis sent over a big box of canned and packaged foods to Lewis,either during or right after WW2. They people in England were really suffering from shortages of food. Lewis dumped the bag of food onto his bed and invited Tolkien to take some of the food to his family.
All three of these writers, Tolkien, Lewis and Sayers, were complex individuals whom I greatly admire and whose literary works are profound in many ways. Yet if we simplify who they were and how they struggled in their own relationships and lives we miss the depth of their experiences and their personal stories which I think are even more moving than what they wrote.

Well, I think you need to read a biography of Sayers to understand where she was coming from.
Tolkien was probably the only one that had a “normal” married life. Lewis never included romances in his stories and his main hero in the Perelandra series, while based on Tolkien, was single. Many of Lewis’ difficulties stem from the fact that as a young man he was molested or raped by a serving woman in the boarding school he attended. At least, this is what I have read.
Sayers’ also had great difficulties with reconciling her intellectual abilities with her sexuality. Her private life was very complex; she apparently loved one man, possibly another one later on, neither of whom returned her love, she turned down a marriage proposal from a man who she termed nice but she wasn’t madly in love with; while still single, she became pregnant by another man who turned out to be married; she place the illegitimate child in private care and never told anyone, even her parents. She did marry another man later, but never had any children with him and they seem to have had an odd relationship. Her character of “Harriet” is based in many ways on her own experience, and I think Lord Peter is the man she wished she could have married. She had a wonderful imagination, and countless women, like myself and you, have also loved him.
Tolkien’s comments about sex and Sayers were based on the fact that when Sayers became very interested in Dante’s works and started translating them, she also attempted to do a psychological analysis of his sexual behaviour and Tolkien thought it was all utter nonsense. Tolkien worked very well in collaboration with female scholars on subjects such as linguistics, etc. He thought Sayers’ portrayal of a woman who chose to leave academia to marry a farmer and raise a family for example, as failures-”like a race horse being put to the plow”-as Sayers writes in GAUDY NIGHTS, was not a true valuation of a homemaker’s life.

In a biography on the friendship between the two, The Gift of Friendship by Colin Duriez (I think I’m remembering the correct book), I recollect that, from Lewis’ point of view anyways (and I think also from Duriez’s), one major bone of contention was Tolkien’s disapproval of Lewis’ marrying a divorced woman.

For Tolkien, a Roman Catholic, this was a major violation of the RC sacrament of marriage. I don’t believe that Tolkien ever met Joy Lewis more than a few times—and that it was his wife who encouraged him. (I wish I had the book at hand to verify the details, but I don’t.)