![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On PJ's LOTR and the nature of storytelling.
In this post, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
annwyn55 takes issue with this article about Peter Jackson's version of LOTR. The author of the article talks about interpretation vs. definition, and how PJ's version may be a great interpretation, but is not the definitive version, thus leaving room for other films of the book. Annwyn's views got me thinking about this, and here's my take on the issue.
I'm afraid I have to disagree withannwyn55, quite strongly. I've been a storyteller for several years now, and I can say with some assurance that there is no definitive version of any story. Every telling changes the tale, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. Every teller brings his or her own viewpoint, history, morals, virtues, vices, and voice to the telling, and each teller has his or her own unique vision to add to it.
When we point to a particular version of a story and say, "This is the definitive version", we lock ourselves away from the possibilities inherent in storytelling, the potential for any version to surpass our expectations. PJ's LOTR is far, far more beautiful, impassioned and detailed, more lovingly realized, than I had any right to hope for (especially after The Bakshi Horror...shudder). But that doesn't mean that another filmmaker, with a different vision, cast and crew, couldn't make a different version that was equally beautiful, impassioned and detailed. I personally look forward to any version of LOTR that gets made. I'd love to see a romantic version that plays up the love stories, or a dark dramatic film-noir that focuses on just how ignorant the characters are of the dangers they're walking into, photographed in far more idiosyncratic styling. I'd love to see a wild stylized whack job (Baz Luhrmann, are you listening?). How about a musical? Let's have a pure character piece where we never see any of the battles, a grim war tale with a tragic ending (Sam's return to Bag End could easily be played as terribly sad), a surrealistic reverie - any number of interesting possibilities await inside that massive book.
Take, for a small instance, the issue of casting in a film. Ian McKellen is a lovely, brilliant Gandalf. He is warm, focused, strong, intricate. However, he is not the definitive Gandalf. I remember being rather surprised on first viewing at how gentle and kind a Gandalf he was in FOTR, because Tolkien didn't write him that way. The Gandalf in the book, while not being very different from the film's wizard, was not as tender or avuncular as Sir Ian's. He was a bit more prickly, easier to irritate, not as sweet. Had I been casting the movie (and had the film been made about 10 years earlier), my perfect choice would have been Peter O'Toole, who has both the innate authority to carry off the strengths of the role as well as a wonderful sardonic sparkle that would have brought that touch of acidic humor that I found native to Gandalf in the books. I would not re-cast Gandalf in PJ's version for any money, because McKellan fits so gorgeously and did such a glorious job, but that's not to say that another actor in another version coudn't do as well or better, given a context right for him.
Some time ago, my friend Cat and I put together a piece which I called The Lord of the Rings - The Cast From Hell (which you can take a look at here). It was meant as a sarcastic take on the possibilities had LOTR been made within the bowels of the Hollywood money machine. But although it will curl your hair and make you scream (or at least, that was the intention), I have to say that I'd be very interested to see any one of those actors take on the role we playfully assigned them (well, maybe not Adam Sandler, but that's just me). Each of these people is talented in his or her own way, and would bring something to the character that I might not anticipate. Ashton Kutcher has a sweet innocence, Tom Cruise has a laserlike focus and determination, Matt and Ben have a natural camaraderie, Bruce Willis has a casual strength and very surprising dramatic ability, Jim Carrey has a physical plasticity and a shocking talent for pathos. Each of them would create a character perhaps different from my imagining, but which would include details, attitudes and beats that I couldn't have anticipated, just like the actors in PJ's version.
And lest we forget, were any of us to be magically transported to Middle-Earth and actually see these people in the flesh, none of them would be as we had envisioned them. They would have their own faces, bodies, mannerisms, quirks, voices. They would do things we hadn't anticipated, say things we hadn't imagined, because just like actors interpreting their characters and just like real people anywhere, Frodo and Sam and all the rest of them would have lived whole lives filled with moments that never made it into the book, and which would influence every nuance of their beings. It's not possible to create a definitive version of a character because it's never possible to wholly contain a person in a dramatic performance.
By the same token, every aspect of the story and film could have been re-imagined in a different way, because that's always true of any story. There are a thousand ways to say any line ("I love you" can be said with murderous rage, while "Fuck you!" can be a laughing declaration of affection), a thousand ways to play any character (Frodo could be played as sweet and easily moved, a la Elijah, or shy and introverted, or eagerly adventurous, or sad and reluctant, etc.), and locations and art design can be interpreted in a thousand different styles. (Witness Ian's comments about the look of Gandalf - Tolkien said he had a tall hat and a long beard. That's all very nice, but...how tall? How long? Every detail of the book has to be dealt with in this manner.) All of these aspects are part of the artist's interpretation, and make up the whole of the storyteller's vision.
The guy who wrote that article could have been nicer about it, sure. But then, he isn't paid to be nice, but to give his opinion. But his main point is absolutely valid - every filmmaker focuses on different things, as all artists should, and any one of them would make an LOTR that would bring different aspects of the story to the surface. For instance, wouldn't it be interesting to see what Joel Schumacher, an openly gay filmmaker, would do with this hunk-o-rama of a book? (Yeah, yeah, I know he's made schlock, but he's also made good films - go rent Tigerland if you don't believe me.)
Some of those other versions might not be to my taste, but I'd definitely see them. My love for this book is such that I'm willing to give any filmmaker who takes on the task a chance because, as much as I love PJ's version, I know he did not tell the whole story. I don't think any filmmaker could ever tell the whole story that's in that book, and I'm rather happy about that. It means there will be other voices telling the tale, and that's all to the good.
In order for a story to truly live on, it must be told over and over again. That's the nature of a true mythology, and that's how I know Tolkien really did manage to create one - by the recurring impulse of artists to interpret and re-interpret the canon. After all, isn't that what all of us are doing when we write fanfic on LOTR? If it's possible for us to keep re-interpreting these characters, sometimes coming up with wildly wonderful takes that can be nearly as good as the original, who's to say another filmmaker couldn't surpass PJ someday? Who can say for certain that another filmmaker couldn't come up with original moments as achingly lovely as our first glimpse of Frodo reading his book under the oak tree, or Elrond's mythical telling of his daughter's love and loss, or Merry relating his nightmare of the world's death to Pippin, or Gandalf's vision of the shores of Valinor?
Art is always an interpretation. There's no way around that. I may not give a hoot about the latest Mortal Kombat movie, but when the source is as densely layered, as mythically complex, and as gorgeously detailed as The Lord of the Rings, I will never stop hoping for another version, or wishing I could see every one that will ever be made.
annwyn55 takes issue with this article about Peter Jackson's version of LOTR. The author of the article talks about interpretation vs. definition, and how PJ's version may be a great interpretation, but is not the definitive version, thus leaving room for other films of the book. Annwyn's views got me thinking about this, and here's my take on the issue.I'm afraid I have to disagree with
annwyn55, quite strongly. I've been a storyteller for several years now, and I can say with some assurance that there is no definitive version of any story. Every telling changes the tale, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. Every teller brings his or her own viewpoint, history, morals, virtues, vices, and voice to the telling, and each teller has his or her own unique vision to add to it. When we point to a particular version of a story and say, "This is the definitive version", we lock ourselves away from the possibilities inherent in storytelling, the potential for any version to surpass our expectations. PJ's LOTR is far, far more beautiful, impassioned and detailed, more lovingly realized, than I had any right to hope for (especially after The Bakshi Horror...shudder). But that doesn't mean that another filmmaker, with a different vision, cast and crew, couldn't make a different version that was equally beautiful, impassioned and detailed. I personally look forward to any version of LOTR that gets made. I'd love to see a romantic version that plays up the love stories, or a dark dramatic film-noir that focuses on just how ignorant the characters are of the dangers they're walking into, photographed in far more idiosyncratic styling. I'd love to see a wild stylized whack job (Baz Luhrmann, are you listening?). How about a musical? Let's have a pure character piece where we never see any of the battles, a grim war tale with a tragic ending (Sam's return to Bag End could easily be played as terribly sad), a surrealistic reverie - any number of interesting possibilities await inside that massive book.
Take, for a small instance, the issue of casting in a film. Ian McKellen is a lovely, brilliant Gandalf. He is warm, focused, strong, intricate. However, he is not the definitive Gandalf. I remember being rather surprised on first viewing at how gentle and kind a Gandalf he was in FOTR, because Tolkien didn't write him that way. The Gandalf in the book, while not being very different from the film's wizard, was not as tender or avuncular as Sir Ian's. He was a bit more prickly, easier to irritate, not as sweet. Had I been casting the movie (and had the film been made about 10 years earlier), my perfect choice would have been Peter O'Toole, who has both the innate authority to carry off the strengths of the role as well as a wonderful sardonic sparkle that would have brought that touch of acidic humor that I found native to Gandalf in the books. I would not re-cast Gandalf in PJ's version for any money, because McKellan fits so gorgeously and did such a glorious job, but that's not to say that another actor in another version coudn't do as well or better, given a context right for him.
Some time ago, my friend Cat and I put together a piece which I called The Lord of the Rings - The Cast From Hell (which you can take a look at here). It was meant as a sarcastic take on the possibilities had LOTR been made within the bowels of the Hollywood money machine. But although it will curl your hair and make you scream (or at least, that was the intention), I have to say that I'd be very interested to see any one of those actors take on the role we playfully assigned them (well, maybe not Adam Sandler, but that's just me). Each of these people is talented in his or her own way, and would bring something to the character that I might not anticipate. Ashton Kutcher has a sweet innocence, Tom Cruise has a laserlike focus and determination, Matt and Ben have a natural camaraderie, Bruce Willis has a casual strength and very surprising dramatic ability, Jim Carrey has a physical plasticity and a shocking talent for pathos. Each of them would create a character perhaps different from my imagining, but which would include details, attitudes and beats that I couldn't have anticipated, just like the actors in PJ's version.
And lest we forget, were any of us to be magically transported to Middle-Earth and actually see these people in the flesh, none of them would be as we had envisioned them. They would have their own faces, bodies, mannerisms, quirks, voices. They would do things we hadn't anticipated, say things we hadn't imagined, because just like actors interpreting their characters and just like real people anywhere, Frodo and Sam and all the rest of them would have lived whole lives filled with moments that never made it into the book, and which would influence every nuance of their beings. It's not possible to create a definitive version of a character because it's never possible to wholly contain a person in a dramatic performance.
By the same token, every aspect of the story and film could have been re-imagined in a different way, because that's always true of any story. There are a thousand ways to say any line ("I love you" can be said with murderous rage, while "Fuck you!" can be a laughing declaration of affection), a thousand ways to play any character (Frodo could be played as sweet and easily moved, a la Elijah, or shy and introverted, or eagerly adventurous, or sad and reluctant, etc.), and locations and art design can be interpreted in a thousand different styles. (Witness Ian's comments about the look of Gandalf - Tolkien said he had a tall hat and a long beard. That's all very nice, but...how tall? How long? Every detail of the book has to be dealt with in this manner.) All of these aspects are part of the artist's interpretation, and make up the whole of the storyteller's vision.
The guy who wrote that article could have been nicer about it, sure. But then, he isn't paid to be nice, but to give his opinion. But his main point is absolutely valid - every filmmaker focuses on different things, as all artists should, and any one of them would make an LOTR that would bring different aspects of the story to the surface. For instance, wouldn't it be interesting to see what Joel Schumacher, an openly gay filmmaker, would do with this hunk-o-rama of a book? (Yeah, yeah, I know he's made schlock, but he's also made good films - go rent Tigerland if you don't believe me.)
Some of those other versions might not be to my taste, but I'd definitely see them. My love for this book is such that I'm willing to give any filmmaker who takes on the task a chance because, as much as I love PJ's version, I know he did not tell the whole story. I don't think any filmmaker could ever tell the whole story that's in that book, and I'm rather happy about that. It means there will be other voices telling the tale, and that's all to the good.
In order for a story to truly live on, it must be told over and over again. That's the nature of a true mythology, and that's how I know Tolkien really did manage to create one - by the recurring impulse of artists to interpret and re-interpret the canon. After all, isn't that what all of us are doing when we write fanfic on LOTR? If it's possible for us to keep re-interpreting these characters, sometimes coming up with wildly wonderful takes that can be nearly as good as the original, who's to say another filmmaker couldn't surpass PJ someday? Who can say for certain that another filmmaker couldn't come up with original moments as achingly lovely as our first glimpse of Frodo reading his book under the oak tree, or Elrond's mythical telling of his daughter's love and loss, or Merry relating his nightmare of the world's death to Pippin, or Gandalf's vision of the shores of Valinor?
Art is always an interpretation. There's no way around that. I may not give a hoot about the latest Mortal Kombat movie, but when the source is as densely layered, as mythically complex, and as gorgeously detailed as The Lord of the Rings, I will never stop hoping for another version, or wishing I could see every one that will ever be made.
Thanks, hon!
*hug*
Re: Jesus films
(Couldn't bring myself to see Gibson's, but that's because I simply don't want those visuals in my head.)
Go see it, Serai, I highly recommend Gibson's take on the Passion of Christ. The visuals are hard, but they are honest and true. In many ways, I think of this movie more as a cinematic experiment than a big box-offices movie. The way the language works is astounding. The impact this movie had on me - a lesbian and a Catholic who left the church - was intense. This will sound corny as hell but, really, the movie made me want to be be a better person. :) Not exactly what Gibson might have had in mind,
Back into lurking :).
All the best -
Calanthe
Re: Jesus films
A moviegoer I know who has the same view as me said something interesting, to the effect that had Gibson made a trilogy of films about Jesus, with this one as the last piece, it would have had a context that made the violence understandable and perhaps (perhaps) even appropriate. As it stands, I can see no reason why I should force myself to sit through such an ordeal. I am not a Christian, and thus have no religious call to fill my head with such images. (Hell, I was raised Catholic, and even as a child I understood how sadistic and gory that faith can get.)
I could go on about the place of violence in art, and the necessity of balance in a story, and the problems of overkill in the context of religious fanaticism, but I think I've made myself fairly clear already. And you know what? It makes me sad. I was so looking forward to that film, especially when I heard Caviezel was going to play the role. If there's any actor alive born to do it, it was him, and this is the film he chose to do it in. *sigh*
Re: Jesus films
we seem to have different ways of approaching the issue of violence in recent movies - what do you think of Tarantino, KILL BILL I and II, especially??
For me it was really interesting to see that THE PASSION OF CHRIST is as much a visual and "language"-experience as an attempt to make a film about the suffering of Jesus with a spiritual dimension. Caviezel is wonderful ... And I do think it is an honest film, not true to the historical Jesus - as much as we know of him - but true to a Christian iconography which has been shaping the faith of many people since the Middle-Ages. Jesus does not come across as a superhuman to me in this movie, rather as a human being with an extraordinary strength to endure (which is also where this movie tells me something about Frodo and Sam, btw - not that I mean to imply in any way that they are Christ figures :)).
All the best -
Calanthe
Re: Jesus films
And sure, it's true to the iconography, but as I said before, that is exactly what I object to. When I was about eight years old, I was given a catechism book at the Catholic school I attended. It was filled with descriptions of Jesus's torture and death every bit as loving and lurid as the visuals in Gibson's film, and to this day I can still recall some of them very specifically (though I've tried over the years to forget them, believe me). Even at eight, I was horrified by that book, and realized how ugly an act it was to give it to a child.
I don't have a problem with violence in film, so long as it fits. Given that I believe the manner in which Jesus is said to have died has little relevance to his teachings and eventual godhood, I do not believe that such a bloodbath fits in a film about him. Yes, he died a nasty death, but being as it is such a small part of his story, I don't believe it merits being the centerpiece. I would much rather have watched Caviezel take on the Sermon on the Mount, the overturning of the moneychangers' tables, the healing of lepers, the relationship between himself and the Magdalene. Those seem far more worthy subjects, and far more interesting challenges for his talent, than being a victim of brutalization for hours on end.
And lastly, don't apologize for seeing Frodo and Sam as Christ figures. In my book, they definitely are. Being a pagan, I have some fairly unorthodox views on that score, and don't hesitate to say so. :)
no subject
I will never stop hoping for another version, or wishing I could see every one that will ever be made.
Oh, me too. Why not? How could you ever get enough!
*smile*
well said as always hon
"and just like real people anywhere, Frodo and Sam and all the rest of them would have lived whole lives filled with moments that never made it into the book, and which would influence every nuance of their beings. It's not possible to create a definitive version of a character because it's never possible to wholly contain a person in a dramatic performance. "
so very true, and what makes them endlessly facinating for us, Tolkien created characters that are so alive and dear to us that we actually want to know about those lost moments
are you saving these essays?? :)
Re: well said as always hon
no subject
I recently read an article from a journal of popular media (gacked from Hope) which discussed this very subject, highlighting Anne Rice's statement on her website that she considers fan fiction an offense and an affront to her vision -- well, not in those words per se, but that was the gist. This article questioned whether even the original author of the work has the right to claim a definitive vision of the characters, the story they write. The idea that an author owns their work was not a given (all legal considerations of copyright aside). To me it makes absolute sense to question it, seeing as a character only "becomes" as they are interpreted by a reader. As a storyteller I could debate whether that interpretation is correct or not, whether it is what I intended or not, but it doesn't really matter because the character will remain just as they are in the mind of that reader. Or they will change but either way I have little control over it. I think there is an aspect to telling stories that wants to be in control, if I am totally honest. As a storyteller I may feel somewhat proprietary but I could also be excited by the way readers interpret my characters, things that may never have occurred to me. This is what fanfiction is all about, after all.
To say that there is a definitive telling of a story is very much like saying a song can only have one life, one rendition. A song is in essence nothing but chords, melody, lyrics, but that stuff can be made into an infinite number of different versions, everything from country to jazz to dance. The harmonies can change, the rhthyms, the tempo, the character of the person singing, the instrumentation, arrangement, and the list goes on. And yet there are people who can't bear to hear a remake of a popular song because "it doesn't sound right". I think that's very unfortunate. The world of human expression is too wonderful and varied to place limits upon it.
Wow, I do ramble don't I? I didn't intend that when I started.
no subject
That article you mentioned sounds very interesting. Can you let me have the link to it?
no subject
http://www.refractory.unimelb.edu.au/journalissues/vol5/pugh.htm
(assuming this link thing worked, I will check)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-07-26 06:59 am (UTC)(link)Of course no story can exist in a static form, unless it's dead and buried. The life in a story is created by two active participants - the teller and the listener. And so I agree that not even the author can claim to own the 'definitive version', because a story has not completed its telling unless it has been heard and understood by the listener. Since I may not understand the same thing as some other listener, each person makes their own definitive version in their heads.
Probably the greatest accomplisment of PJ's version is to bring the awareness of the story to so many people. There are millions of living versions of this story now in the world, and when (not if) someone does decide to make a new one for the type of wider distribution that film gets, they won't have to (nor should they) duplicate what PJ has done, but they can use it as a base from which to tell their own version. I personally would love to see the version you mentioned, where all the big events are understood and assumed, and the characters are free to tell us what happened in between. Come to think of it, that's my favorite type of fanfiction too.
FantasyFan