Re: the book was...

[Don Smith <dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu>]

> I adored the film, "Fellowship of the Ring" then, several months later, read
> the book, finally, and loved it. there are a lot more differences than I had
> realized, but I accepted both "versions" like I accept watching hamlet done
> by ethan hawke, kenneth branagh and the reduced shakespeare company.

That's really how I look at it.  *Whatever* they do with the movie, the text
remains what it is.  Someone could come along and make another adaptation
(highly unlikely in this case, but who knows, maybe in 30 years, if
civilization hasn't collapsed?), and it would be completely different.  This
was the misguided mistake in the 98 remake of Psycho.  You *can't* remake a
movie shot-for-shot; it's a waste of time and energy to try.  And a book is
even more impossible to directly transfer.  So I am inclined to give
moviemakers a lot of leeway, as long as they remain true to the *ideas* of the
book.   

Which is why I'm really curious/worried about how Jackson et al. are planning
to end Return of the King.  Not to spoil anything specific, but Jackson has
said that the way JRRT ended the book is unfilmable, and yet the end of the
book is the essential culmination of the themes developed over the previous
1000 pages.  To *just* leave that out is to completely change what JRRT is
trying to say about war, heroism, and sacrifice.  On the other hand, Jackson &
co. have shown that they are *devoted* to the book, and have done an excellent
job in remaining true to those *ideas*, even when they deviate from plot or
character.  In particular, I think the movie is unbelivably good at evoking
Tolkien's theme of "lost grandeur".  At the time when LotR is set, civilization
is in decline: the elves are leaving, Numenor (Atlantis) has sunk and the
remnents of human culture are splintering and forgetting the craft and culture
of their heritage, and the Dwarves are a scattered people.  The attempt to
retake Moria was doomed, and Moria itself only shows how much more the people
of the past were able to achieve.  A time when Elves and Dwarves could work
together.  The movie does a brilliant job of evoking this through their
production design: half the film is full of ruins, old statues, overgrown
abandoned fortresses, and forgotten monuments.  Probably the main theme of the
book is carrying forward even without hope, and the movie of FotR does a great
job of conveying that (and from what I've heard, TTT does even better).

So while I am very worried about the possible change to the end of the book, so
far I think the creative team has earned the benefit of the doubt that they can
come up with an ending that, while different, remains true to the ideas of the
book.  And if they give it a happy, "hollywood", ending, I am going to
personally track down Peter Jackson and make him buy back my DVDs.

> I succeeded in finishing "the Two Towers" just a couple of weeks ago, so it
> was fresh on my mind as I stood in line at the theatre. I enjoyed the movie,
> but while my husband (who has only read the Hobbit) was glowing as we emerged
> from the theatre, I was somewhat glowering.

I'm going tonight!  Show time in less than four hours!  Even though I've
already read dozens of reviews, and fully expect to be disappointed in what
they do with Faramir and Treebeard, I'm still completely stoked to see the
movie.  I fully expect the things they get right to outweigh the few missteps
(which is how I still feel about FotR, even after twelve viewings).

Try an experiment: rent the Ralph Bakshi 1978 animated version of LotR and
see if it changes the way you think about Jackson's choices.  

> so, what do you film lovers, book lovers do?  who reads books before watching
> movies?  who views films before reading the novels?  (this is not lotr
> specific, btw) who does both and which is preferable?

I don't think I have a standard policy.  If I've already read a book, that
generally doesn't affect whether or not I go see the movie.  Sometimes seeing a
movie can motivate me to go read a book that hadn't grabbed my attention before
(e.g. October Sky, Minority Report, The Princess Bride, The Committments, Dead
Man Walking, Contact, Devil in a Blue Dress, The Maltese Falcon, A Simple
Plan).  There are several books I would love to read if I could, because I
loved the movie (e.g. Crouching Tiger, and Au Petit Margeury... these books
have not been translated into a language I can speak.).  Rarely do I make an
effort to read a book before going to see a movie.  I'm racking my brain to
think of one, but I can't.  It's more likely I'll go *buy* a book I was
considering getting before the only editions available just have movie art on
them.  :-) Of course, there are plenty of movies where I had read the book
before I saw it (Wizard of Oz, Malcolm X), and a few where I can't remember
which came first (Mary Poppins).  I can't think of a movie that has *ruined* a
book for me, nor can I think of a movie that I would have otherwise enjoyed
that I no longer could after reading the book.  I have liked the Jane Austen
and Henry James movies that I have seen, but they have not motivated me to read
the books. [I'm only considering book->film, not stage play->film.  That's a
completely different kettle of fish.]

I'm very, very curious about this new film coming out called _Adaptation_.

> furthermore, which is your favourite film based on novel?

The Princess Bride - no contest.

> any particular one where you liked both book and film?

Contact, 20k Leagues Under the Sea, Malcolm X, Das Boot, Murder on the Orient
Express, among others.

> where book and film were very different but you liked both much?

The Princess Bride - the book is dark and cynical, while the movie is light
     and inspiring.  Both are necessary.
Dead Man Walking - the book was emphatically anti-death-penalty, but the film
     delibarately took an amiguous stance on the question.
The Wizard of Oz - similar plot, but almost completely different in tone and theme.
The Big Sleep - both versions start out identical, but then the film veers away,
     following style over plot into near-incoherence, but what great-looking incoherence.
L.A. Confidential - the movie makes the surprising mis-step of ending with a shoot
     out (the first thing that happens in the novel), but otherwise a surprisingly
     good condensation of an insanely complex novel.
The Perfect Storm - the movie was a gripping fiction of what might have happened on
     the ill-fated fishing boat, while the book was a gripping non-fiction in which
     the storm itself is the main character, and the author does not speculate where
     there is no hard information.

I think that's enough from me right now.
-- 
Don Smith                           Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
donaldas at umich_edu                                 http://xte.mit.edu/~dasmith/

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/