Artistic License for Political Correctness or Original Artist's Intent

[lavender]

I just got back from seeing Lord of the Rings The Two Towers. My roommate, her boyfriend and I were discussing the film on the way home. It's quite evident that there are few women characters in the movies - the elvin Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, the human niece of a King, and the women who are being protected by the men and children.

My roommate's boyfriend mentioned on the way home that in the first movie, there was a change from the book. The female Elvin (played by Liv Tyler) was not the person in the book who rescued Arragon, it was actually just a male Elf. They think they changed it so a woman could have a strong role in the film.

Now, mind you, I have not read but bits of the Trilogy, but this brought up an interesting point, in my mind.

When an artist, such as a director, producer, etc. is using old literature what should be his intent? It seems that many want to make literature from years ago, become revived in the minds of the masses. The original author grew up in a vastly different time, where women, minorities, etc. were treated in a much different manner. Should the author stick entirely to the original writings, which might be a bit antiquated in ideas and may even allow for the further entrenchment of damaging constructs within our society? Or, should the director/producer/etc. branch out and try to use the basic purposes within the book or work while trying to steer clear of thought that is now outdated?

This is rambling, I hope you understand.

I think either position has its own merits. What do you think?

 

[Phoenyx]

the scene in the first where she saves frodo was not in book either.

It was a riderless horse. someone saif if you gonna oay her good money to be in the movie you might as well make use of her so they added her in a few scenes.

 

[70/30]

Give airtime to your stars. She's consumed enough with Elvish and she didn't get much face time in the first---she deserves a rescue or two. I have not seen two towers yet but fellowship followed the book almost too close. If the trilogy or parts were studied in school, kids wouldn't even bother with Cliff's notes. The films are Cliff's notes of the Cliff's notes. Embellish, recount--make a good film that adheres to the overall concept that the author intended.

 

[Azwed]

I would say Eowyn, thats the daughter of The King of Rohan, is a strong female character. I don't know how they treated her in the film but in the book she was projected as strong perhaps a bit masculine, I always thought of Legolas as a little feminine though .

Arwen was changed around a lot be I expected something like that more for the star power then for PC reasons.

I am curious how they treat some of the armies that appear in the third book. I don't want to give too much away to people who have not read the book but I think it will be interesting to see how they are treated compared to the book.

 

[Lancecastor]

I think you watched the fine print in the credits to catch the names of the lawyers.

By the way, you're getting inaccurate Canadian p.l. info.

Start here:

 

[Azwed]

Still not taking me up on that bet ehhh.

Maybe you should talk to Oliver Clozof.

 

[lavender]

Let's pretend political correctness is synonymous with social responsibility instead of the horrible connotations that go along with the term "PC."

Do you think a director should be governed by some social responsibility? Or should he stick to the actual text?

I'm talking about this conceptually, LOTR was just an example.

 

[JazzManJim]

My roommate's boyfriend mentioned on the way home that in the first movie, there was a change from the book. The female Elvin (played by Liv Tyler) was not the person in the book who rescued Arragon, it was actually just a male Elf. They think they changed it so a woman could have a strong role in the film.

They did it for a couple reasons. First, they wanted to show a bit more explicitly the potential romance angle between Arwen and ARagorn. But Glorfindel had action roles in that particular section so they combined the two characters. That also allowed them to make efficient use of a star actor, too and bring the movie in with a reasonable running time.

Having said that, I much prefer that director's keep as much of the artist's original work as humanly possible. Authors wrote stories, not Directors and to have a Director decide he can make a better story by fundamentally changing some part of the author's work nearly by definition diminishes the craftsmanship of the story.

IN the LotR case, Tolkien didn't write his characters the way he did out of any malicious intent. He was creating a world using as accurate a historical model as he was able. The man was very smart - a linguist by profession - who creted one heck of a complete world in which to put these stories. And he didn't scrimp on the strong female characters either: Arwen was influential in the books also, as was Eowyn and Galadriel. Even a villain was female (though I'm not sure if the movie is going to be able to convey that, since sh'es not exactly visually identifiable as one. ). Interesting to me was that there were no women among the baddies.

I'm thankful that Jackson kept to the original story and characters as much as he was able, given time constraints. His choices were judicious and stayed surprisingly faithful to the books.

And Azwed...I'm most definitely with you in your last paragraph.

 

[Azwed]

Re: Re: Artistic License for Political Correctness or Original Artist's Intent

And Azwed...I'm most definitely with you in your last paragraph.

I think it will be very interesting don't you? I reread the book before I watched the first movie and kept thinking that the armies at the end will be very very interesting to see.

 

[Phoenyx]

Let's pretend political correctness is synonymous with social responsibility instead of the horrible connotations that go along with the term "PC."

Do you think a director should be governed by some social responsibility? Or should he stick to the actual text?

I'm talking about this conceptually, LOTR was just an example.

I think a director should tell a good story

 

[Cherry]

I'm always a little disappointed whenever I watch a movie replay of a book that I enjoyed and it differs in important parts.

If the changes were simply because of production limitations (or an interpretation of how to visualize some special effect) that seems understandable enough and doesn't bother me.

But, when the plot varies, or characters are rewritten differently, I'm left with the feeling that the director took excessive liberties.

 

[kotori]

I think a director should tell a good story

I agree. They are two distinct mediums. The fact that a film is "based on" a novel, doesn't necessarily mean a literal interpretation of the novel. The book was written in it's day and time, the movie was made in it's. This doesn't make one intrinically superior to the other. They should be true to their specific zietgeist.

 

[Never]

I agree. They are two distinct mediums. The fact that a film is "based on" a novel, doesn't necessarily mean a literal interpretation of the novel. The book was written in it's day and time, the movie was made in it's. This doesn't make one intrinically superior to the other. They should be true to their specific zietgeist.

Good answer. Good answer.

 

[Dillinger]

The book has very few women in it. However Tolkien does discuss the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen in an appendix. The director, Peter Jackson, decided to expand on that relationship (based on the appendix) in the second film of this trilogy. My understanding is that the second film strays the most from the book itself - I haven't yet seen the film, though I've read the books several times.

 

[Azwed]

Appendix A talks tells the complete story of Aragorn and Arwen. The story is very good and is woven into the first movie quiet well.

Most of Appendix A has to do with history of men and the history of the men of Numenor.

 

[Phoenyx]

Most Movies based on books suck. I tend to avoid those movies..
If I read the book no movie... I am allways disapointed ....

bvut since I have never read the lord of the rings books i gave no preconceptions and I think it is a great movie.

 

[LukkyKnight]

When an artist, such as a director, producer, etc. is using old literature what should be his intent?

Should be? Come on, lavy, her intent should be to create something she's proud of which earns money for the investors.

Should the author stick entirely to the original writings, which might be a bit antiquated in ideas and may even allow for the further entrenchment of damaging constructs within our society? Or, should the director/producer/etc. branch out and try to use the basic purposes within the book or work while trying to steer clear of thought that is now outdated?

It's NOT the author, it's a financially-driven Hollywood team which picks a Director with the primary/sole intent of making money. Hollywood is always after some new way to get people to shell out money to watch stories, they don't give a rat's ass about the intent of the story, or the author's vision, though they do at times pay lip-service to it. They may - may - even have found something in that orginal work inspired certain decisions but at the end of the project the success is measured in dollars.

 

[Azwed]

That is not always true Lukky. A well known powerful director can for the most part do what he wants as long as he stays close to his budget. A movie that is shot entirely on location, like LOTR, will tend to be controled more by the director then by anyone else.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Artistic License for Political Correctness or Original Artist's Intent

I think it will be very interesting don't you? I reread the book before I watched the first movie and kept thinking that the armies at the end will be very very interesting to see.

I'll be interested, but it'll be a fairly academic interest. To be honest, when I've re-read the books I don't see that as anything sinister. I just see another army of men seduced by the half-truths of Sauron.

 

[Azwed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Artistic License for Political Correctness or Original Artist's Intent

I'll be interested, but it'll be a fairly academic interest. To be honest, when I've re-read the books I don't see that as anything sinister. I just see another army of men seduced by the half-truths of Sauron.

Yes, that is true. Sometimes it is easy to forget how many different types of people he did seduce with his power.


*********
I have officialy entered into geek phase now by thinking of Sauron as a real person.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artistic License for Political Correctness or Original Artist's Intent

Yes, that is true. Sometimes it is easy to forget how many different types of people he did seduce with his power.


*********
I have officialy entered into geek phase now by thinking of Sauron as a real person.

LOL. Not to worry. I do that all the time.

You know, I think that really was a good part of what Tolkien was trying to get across, besides just a good story. The promise of power, or promise of anything of advantage, even from someone who has knowingly and demonstratively lied and deceived before, is still a very alluring thing.

 

[JazzManJim]

The female Elvin (played by Liv Tyler) was not the person in the book who rescued Arragon

It hurt me all the way to my Geek Core to see these two names butchered so needlessly.

 

[cybergirly]

Originally posted by Phoenyx
Most Movies based on books suck. I tend to avoid those movies..
If I read the book no movie... I am allways disapointed ....

I'm the same way. I'd avoided seeing LOTR for that very reason. I was finally talked into watching it a couple of days ago and was pleasantly surprised.

Some movies have the strength to stand on there own.

 

[Azwed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artistic License for Political Correctness or Original Artist's Intent

LOL. Not to worry. I do that all the time.

You know, I think that really was a good part of what Tolkien was trying to get across, besides just a good story. The promise of power, or promise of anything of advantage, even from someone who has knowingly and demonstratively lied and deceived before, is still a very alluring thing.

Yes, that is also very true and can be seen in every character who knows how powerful the one ring is. In the very beginning of the story gandalf is truly afraid of the One Ring even though he is very powerful. The first time you read the story you dont' really know how powerful Gandalf at least not untill he faces the Balrog. Tom Bombadil seems to be the only character who knows how powerful the ring is that is not afraid of it. That is one thing I never really thought was explained well was why Tom was if not more powerful then the One Ring at least as powerful as it was.

 

[phrodeau]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artistic License for Political Correctness or Original Artist's Intent

Yes, that is also very true and can be seen in every character who knows how powerful the one ring is. In the very beginning of the story gandalf is truly afraid of the One Ring even though he is very powerful. The first time you read the story you dont' really know how powerful Gandalf at least not untill he faces the Balrog. Tom Bombadil seems to be the only character who knows how powerful the ring is that is not afraid of it. That is one thing I never really thought was explained well was why Tom was if not more powerful then the One Ring at least as powerful as it was.

Tolkien wrote in his letters that Tom Bombadil was intended to be an enigma. He also had much to say about dramatizations of his works, and I don't think he would mind the alterations seen so far.