Returning to the Return

T.S. O'Rama has a somewhat different take on the movie The Return of the King:

Lord of the Rings should get the Oscar for Best Documentary given its accurate portrayal of our spiritual geography. The film was a sequence of non-stop physical battles, which pretty much mirrors the interior life of Christians: non-stop tiring battles to follow Christ rather than self. (Btw, according to our old Dominican priest, the ring might symbolize comfort which he said Americans crave/worship.)

I perhaps overemphasized the negative in my review of the movie below, and I should note that, for all its shortcomings, Jackson's trilogy comprises three of the best movies made in recent years. (This isn't such high praise as it may seem. Most of the movies I've seen in my life were not worth the time it took to watch them, and I seldom visit the cinema any more.) Steven, in his comments on my review, suggests that Jackson's innovations improved the movie. Perhaps. But I'm not convinced.

I have a particularly difficult time with movies based on books I've read. Blade Runner is considered a classic; when I saw it many years ago, I left the theater furious with the betrayal of Dick's vision. (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? poses the question, does an entity possessing human-level intelligence necessarily have a soul? Dick suggests not; Ridley Scott says, sure (at least in the version I saw; possibly the "director's cut" is more thoughtful). Androids is far from Dick's best, but it deserves more respect than that.) I'm not an utter Tolkien fanatic -- I only read The Lord of the Rings three times in high school, and I don't speak either Quenya or Sindarin -- but Middle Earth is part of my interior geography. It is a measure of Jackson's extraordinary achievement that I didn't leave the theatre angry.

I wonder sometimes just what the point is in making a movie from a novel. The pleasure of a good book lies largely in its author's language, which is not translatable into pictures and a soundtrack. The characters and the plot might survive the transition to the different medium, perhaps, but the author's voice won't. You might as well make a novel from a piano concerto as make a movie from a book.

MORE...

Dear Don,

This is very thoughtful and interesting. I think you may have hit upon why I often like such things.

I did not care for Bladerunner in its inception because of the awful voice-over dialogue. However, I think you draw the line too darkly. I would say that Dick's book did not come down so firmly on the side you suggest, there is an enormous amount of ambigiuity with regard to his answer to the question.

I live in a Rashomon world. I delight in seeing good movie representations of books that I like because it begins a different sort of dialogue, a differnt point of view, on the same subject. (I already know what I think and what I derived from the book--what did YOU walk away with--rhetorical question for demonstration purposes only) Thus Jackson's movie is not printed Tolkien--nor can it be. The medium to some extent dictates the content. You can't do in a movie what you can do in a book and vice versa. But he has given me an impression--now I know what two people (at least) make of the book.

So too with Ridley Scott's Bladerunner--turn off the sound and you have a stunningly beautiful piece of cinematic art--gorgeous and complex and a nice representation of Philip K. Dick. About as good as he's gotten so far in the filmworld.

Great post--thanks for the thoughts,

shalom,

Steven