I went to Mass this morning. The church was very well-attended too (and not just because of the Baptism crowd, which was very small). After Mass, I went into the small hall for tea and a nice long chat with two friends (but not before having a brief chat with Maureen, my uncle's godmother and a very old friend of my grandmother's, who promised to give me an old photo of my great grandfather which she has at home). We spoke long about faith and intelligence (the Curé of Ars was mentioned). I asked whether intelligence could be measured purely upon the basis of the ability inherent within someone of memorising facts by rote, or the ability to string facts together into a coherent argument. Intelligent conversation is amazing. I learned of something called ''emotional intelligence'' - which had to be explained to me - I then said that it sounded like something I would fail spectacularly at, but was assured - with evidence - that it was not so. That was nice.
Then I was invited round to lunch. It was a lovely day to eat outside, and I played ping pong with the children after stewed plums in toffee sauce with cream and coffee. I hadn't played ping pong for years - in fact, I did many things today which I haven't done for years (that makes me sound old, but I guess I just don't get up to much - except keeping up my knowledge of Tolkien, who, as you know, constantly fascinates me). I rang my father at around 6:00pm to let him know that I was going to be home later, and discovered in the process that I was supposed to have mowed the lawn!
Well anyway, I thought I'd share a quote from The Lord of the Rings I was thinking about this evening. One thing I haven't yet mentioned on this blog is my attitude to the film ''trilogy.'' This post is not about that, but one thing the films lack (or wilfully portray in a manner discordant with Tolkien's work) is the profundity and piteousness of the creature Gollum. This may seem a trivial detail, but the manner in which Gollum is presented in the film ''trilogy'' on Mount Doom (in which he sneers something - a quote in fact from Book IV, although taken out of context - and pounces upon Frodo) departs shockingly from the moving narrative of Tolkien, which goes:
'''Now!' said Sam. 'At last I can deal with you!' He leaped forward with drawn blade ready for battle. But Gollum did not spring. He fell flat upon the ground and whimpered.
'Don't kill us,' he wept. 'Don't hurt us with nassty cruel steel! Let us live, yes, live just a little longer. Lost lost! We're lost. And when Precious goes we'll die, yes, die into the dust.' He clawed up the ashes of the path with his long fleshless fingers. 'Dusst!' he hissed.
Sam's hand wavered. His mind was hot with wrath and the memory of evil. It would be just to slay this treacherous, murderous creature, just and many times deserved; and also it seemed the only safe thing to do. But deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched. He himself, though only for a little while, had borne the Ring, and now dimly he guessed the agony of Gollum's shrivelled mind and body, enslaved to that Ring, unable to find peace or relief ever in life again. But Sam had no words to express what he felt.''
Now which presents a more Catholic approach to Gollum? The film treatment, with its emphasis on meaningless violence and its grossly unwarranted tampering with the nature of Sam's character (which Tolkien would have resented) or the portrayal in the book? Food for thought, but sadly not my own. I shall spend the next two weeks cramming like I've never crammed before! Sorry if this post follows no clear sequence, but it's been quite a full day!
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I just discovered your blog. I recently completed my own series of posts on The Silmarillion, and I decided to google other blogs to see who else was writing what about it: so that's how I found you. I like your meditations on Elvish death. Very thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteI may be one of the few who holds both Tolkien's originals and Jackson's film adaptations in equal reverence. Anyway, just a few thoughts on your discussion of the films in this post.
Basically, I think you dismiss the films too easily. I don't think Gollum is depicted with "meaningless violence." Yes, Peter Jackson includes a lot of violence, and he often presents it in an entertaining fashion, but I don't think that makes it meaningless. And having seen the films (and read the books) numerous times, I don't think I'd characterize his treatment of Gollum anywhere, and especially not on Mount Doom, as meaningless. Even when Sam and Gollum are brawling, the emphasis is not on the action (biff! pow!), but on the facial expressions of the principals, the narrative consequences of the fighting and the emotional overtones of it. I don't require anyone to like anything they don't honestly like, but if you're dismissing the film out of hand as an inherently thoughtless piece of work, I'd recommend you take another look at it. Jackson's trilogy repays close attention, just as Tolkien's does.
As for the change in Sam and Gollum's interaction at this point... I think this is a more complicated issue. Tolkien, for all his marvelous power as a creator and writer, was capable of some real lapses as a narrator/ plotsmith, I think. And perhaps the biggest is when he allows Sam to wear the ring. Is it remotely plausible that the Eye wouldn't immediately be drawn to Sam when he puts on the ring? And yet Tolkein has Sam galivanting about with it on his finger, in Mordor itself, for quite a while.
My guess is that Jackson felt this couldn't work in the film. Tolkien got away with it, but Jackson couldn't. So he dispensed with it.
But that in turn weakens the case for Sam's sudden empathy with Gollum in the passage you quote. To Jackson's credit, he tries to give Sam some moments of pity for Gollum in earlier scenes (the departure from Osgiliath, for example). But he had to lose the scene you quote. And if you're simply talking about how the films convey Gollum to the viewer - whether his "profundity and piteousness" come through - well, I think they do, if you look at the films as a whole. The point is consistently made in the films that Gollum should be pitied, and indeed has been pitied at very important junctures. And Andy Serkis's remarkable performance allows the viewer to pity him. I don't think many serious viewers of the films miss this, although the popcorn watchers might.
This is in keeping with my experience in close-reading the films: Jackson changes a lot of stuff, a surprising amount really. But it's never done thoughtlessly, or without respect for what Tolkien wrote. In fact, I've always been amazed at how reverent Jackson's films are toward the original texts; much more than most films are, even non-Hollywood films.
Tanuki, many thanks for your comment. My attitude to the films is shaped by my knowledge of Tolkien's work (which some allege is quite extensive), Tolkien the man, and my own opinion. Since I am too busy at the moment with exam preparations, I cannot reply in any detail to your comment, but I shall try to summarise my opinion of the films.
ReplyDeleteThey have good and bad points, more bad than good in my opinion. The music was generally excellent, as was the graphics, the visual effects, the scenery was generally true to the book. The choice of some characters was good - Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett to name four of my personal favourites. But the film fails spectacularly in other respects. Some of the music was odd, and more suited to a modernist, neo-pagan gathering around a table with tealights and a bowl of white stones - particularly the Elvish ''singing.''
In the mid 1960s, Tolkien met with someone (I can't remember who, I looked it up in the Scull/Hammond Chronology, but couldn't find it) who wrote some music to be set to some of Tolkien's Elvish poetry. Tolkien approved of it, but said that they (especially the Namarie one) ought to sound more like Gregorian Chant.
The scenery was generally good, as I have said, but with a few minor points at variance here and there. But it's the plot and characterization that goes right to the heart of the book. In the assigning of speeches to characters, they should have been as they were in the book (but in many cases they weren't), and the portrayal of many characters (particularly Gimli, Merry, Pippin) I found so bad as to suspect mockery of Tolkien, and I found much of it personally insulting.
As for the Catholicism of the book, well that was just ignored for the most part in the films...
Yes, I have had that thought on intelligence myself. Those who are regarded as most intelligent generally are those simply with the best memorization skills, but truly the most are those who are quick and can see deeply into many things at the same time.
ReplyDelete