Re-reading the Lord of the Rings, Chapter 1
It has been a long time since I read Tolkien, long enough perhaps, to have a completely different experience now. I'll use Peter Jackson's film to stress the differences, that way there'll be some order in my observations. Of course, this is not meant to be a complete list of differences, I'll just point out what Tolkien did, because, nothing of what Tolkien did made it into the film, since the latter always has the whole picture at his heart and Tolkien never has.
I'll also add some reflections of my own on occasion, starting right now with a remark on the difference between Wagner's take on the power to co-erce and Tolkien's.
In The Ring of the Nibelung the focus is on to what end the different characters use The Ring, Alberich to degrade, Wotan to boast, Fafner to preserve, Siegfried for nothing, and in the Lord of the Rings the focus is on how to wield The Ring, that is, only Sauron can wield The Ring openly, only a tyrant can use co-ercion openly, everybody else has to do it stealthily, invisibly.
Both Wagner and Tolkien agree though that it is best to destroy The Ring.
Looking at that, which hasn't made it into the film, two things stand out, namely the business of the Hobbits, exemplified in writing letters and making presents, and the politics of Hobbits, that is dealing with relatives.
The latter is a bit of a joke. After having established Hobbits as a peace loving race, Tolkien proceeds to explain what peace looks like, that is slander, theft, all kinds of trickery and disregard. Hence seven witnesses for a will.
Describing the Hobbits' business as Tolkien does adds an odd feel to them, they're not just insular, they have their own strange ambitions. And by not completely understanding them, you allow them to deal with the world in their own way.
The film never achieves that. The journey of some somewhat opaque yet in many ways sympathetic figures is intrinsically more interesting than that of a bunch of jolly good fellows. But as I already said, the film sees everything through the prism of pacing and arching.
Tolkien on the other hand has an objective he's pursuing in the first chapter apart from advancing the story, namely to share Bilbo's feeling of weariness, his fear of starting to hate the Shire, for the sheer repetitiveness of its life. He does it ever so subtly though, Bilbo is a complicated person, he's ashamed of his thoughts and hence the queer business of his birthday party, at the same time penance and affront.
But he keeps the affront to a chosen 144, his allotted portion of life in the Shire, an artist recreating his predicament. Ian Holm, though, recreates nothing of that in the film, his Bilbo is angry and afraid. The two most important lines are delivered, but without emotional understanding. Nevermind the butter, the second one
Also, Bilbo's anger at Gandalf, when it comes to giving up The Ring, is no sudden turn to evil, but a mere: Why would I talk to you? Am I not a grown man?, and the whole misconduct consists solely in the belittleling of a friendship. And Gandalf's reply is no threat of force, but solely of condemnation. The truth of the matter is that the film is a pantomime from deaf people for deaf people, transposed for a world in which friendship is nomore a vital part of making it through life. Our guarantor is the state - or at least that's what we think.
I'll also add some reflections of my own on occasion, starting right now with a remark on the difference between Wagner's take on the power to co-erce and Tolkien's.
In The Ring of the Nibelung the focus is on to what end the different characters use The Ring, Alberich to degrade, Wotan to boast, Fafner to preserve, Siegfried for nothing, and in the Lord of the Rings the focus is on how to wield The Ring, that is, only Sauron can wield The Ring openly, only a tyrant can use co-ercion openly, everybody else has to do it stealthily, invisibly.
Both Wagner and Tolkien agree though that it is best to destroy The Ring.
Looking at that, which hasn't made it into the film, two things stand out, namely the business of the Hobbits, exemplified in writing letters and making presents, and the politics of Hobbits, that is dealing with relatives.
The latter is a bit of a joke. After having established Hobbits as a peace loving race, Tolkien proceeds to explain what peace looks like, that is slander, theft, all kinds of trickery and disregard. Hence seven witnesses for a will.
Describing the Hobbits' business as Tolkien does adds an odd feel to them, they're not just insular, they have their own strange ambitions. And by not completely understanding them, you allow them to deal with the world in their own way.
The film never achieves that. The journey of some somewhat opaque yet in many ways sympathetic figures is intrinsically more interesting than that of a bunch of jolly good fellows. But as I already said, the film sees everything through the prism of pacing and arching.
Tolkien on the other hand has an objective he's pursuing in the first chapter apart from advancing the story, namely to share Bilbo's feeling of weariness, his fear of starting to hate the Shire, for the sheer repetitiveness of its life. He does it ever so subtly though, Bilbo is a complicated person, he's ashamed of his thoughts and hence the queer business of his birthday party, at the same time penance and affront.
But he keeps the affront to a chosen 144, his allotted portion of life in the Shire, an artist recreating his predicament. Ian Holm, though, recreates nothing of that in the film, his Bilbo is angry and afraid. The two most important lines are delivered, but without emotional understanding. Nevermind the butter, the second one
I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.i.e. I can't get myself to know you any better, but so far I haven't grown to irrationally hate most of you, which means: time to say good-bye, has to be spoken slowly and with a sense of shame and hope or else no-one in the audience can possibly get it, given that the people in the theater don't have 99 days to pore over what they've just heard.
Also, Bilbo's anger at Gandalf, when it comes to giving up The Ring, is no sudden turn to evil, but a mere: Why would I talk to you? Am I not a grown man?, and the whole misconduct consists solely in the belittleling of a friendship. And Gandalf's reply is no threat of force, but solely of condemnation. The truth of the matter is that the film is a pantomime from deaf people for deaf people, transposed for a world in which friendship is nomore a vital part of making it through life. Our guarantor is the state - or at least that's what we think.
Eingetragen Am/um
11:20
