The Lord of the Rings |
The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies |
|
|
|
The Lord of the Rings |
The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Lord of the Rings |
|
In September 2006, MGM committed to produce a "Hobbit" movie, hopefully starring Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf and possibly with Peter Jackson directing.There have been many audio-visual adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's works through the years, more than most people know about. The audiobooks alone could fill a bookshelf in anyone's library. But the dramatizations of Tolkien's Middle-earth provide us with an ever growing spectrum of interpretations of Tolkien's work. We are not simply limited to one director's vision, as with, say, the Victor Fleming adaptation of "The Wizard of Oz" or the George Cukor "Gone With the Wind" (Fleming actually wrapped up directing duties on this movie). While many of today's movie viewers are astounded by Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" movies, Jackson did not lay the groundwork for his own success (which he readily admits). Those who came before him, and those who (hopefully) come after him, have helped to build a versatile tradition of dramatizations which take Tolkien's hobbits in different directions. It is impossible to catalogue all the productions through the years. While film, radio, and television productions have been relatively few, there have been numerous stage adaptations -- especially of The Hobbit. Schools are usually permitted to make adaptations without having to pay licensing fees. Community theaters throughout the United States, Canada, and around the world have taken The Hobbit to stage. So, the few pages we devote to these dramatizations are only the tip of the ice berg. Uniquely, there are connections between many of the productions. For example, Brian Sibley co-wrote the second BBC dramatization of The Lord of the Rings in 1981 -- and he also wrote some of the books associated with the Peter Jackson movies in 2001-2003. Sir Ian Holm played Frodo Baggins in the BBC dramatization and Bilbo Baggins in Peter Jackson's movies. John Huston, Brother Theodor, Glenn Yarbrough, and Orson Bean were all involved in both the Rankin/Bass productions (of "The Hobbit" in 1977 and "The Return of the King" in 1980). And Peter Woodthorpe provided a voice for Gollum in the Ralph Bakshi movie as well as in the BBC production. These productions also have connections to other popular science fiction and fantasy productions which span generations. Felix Silla, who provided voices for Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings, Part One", appeared as Twiki in the television show Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, which was a Star Wars-inspired revival of the original 1930s and 1940s-era Buck Rogers serial pictures. But Silla also appeared in at least one Star Wars production (as an Ewok in "The Return of the Jedi"). Anthony Daniels, perhaps best known as C-3P0 in Star Wars, provided the voice for Legolas in Ralph Bakshi's movie. And William Conrad, who provided Denethor's voice in the Rankin/Bass "Return of the King", also provided the voiceover at the beginning of the "Buck Rogers" credits in the first season of the television show. What one can also look for in these productions is a common theme of breathing life into Middle-earth. Each Middle-earth is a little bit, or perhaps a great deal, different from the others. And they all differ from Tolkien's Middle-earth in radical, sometimes brazen, ways. It might be desirable, at some point, to include at some future time Tolkien's letter responding to the Morton Grady Zimmerman treatment of the story, if only to convey to the reader just how different a typical dramatization can be from the original work. Nonetheless, all the adaptations -- both realized and unrealized -- fulfill a promise the scope of which Tolkien himself did not full understand when he wrote about it in 1951. ...But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story....I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. (Letter 131)In fact, Tolkien was speaking of something entirely different from Middle-earth: I have allways been seeking material, things of a certain tone and air, and not simple knowlegde. Also - and here I hope I shall not sound absurd - I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing.He had, when he was much younger, wanted to create a mythology for England -- a collection of stories about the birth of the world as it might have been envisioned by the Old English peoples -- such as might have survived in their legends and literature down to the year 1066, when the Norman invasion toppled their aristocracy and destroyed their literary traditions. But Tolkien was fond of speaking about "applicability", where it could be used instead of "allegory". Allegory is too confining and restricting, whereas applicability allows the reader to understand something which the author does not intend or even foresee. Applicability has, unfortunately, been misused by some to mean that Tolkien's vision of a mythology for England extended through to Middle-earth itself. But in reality, Tolkien had given up that vision long before 1951. Nonetheless, he did succeed in creating "a majestic whole", and yet he left "scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and brush and drama". The drama has gone in directions Tolkien would not have approved of -- in fact, he disagreed with them strongly. But in the end, given a choice between Art and Cash, he selected Cash -- for reasons he was not obligated to explain to us. Yet in making that choice, he freed up at least a part of his legacy so that it might be nourished and enrichened by those other hands he had so hoped to inspire in his youth. |
This page is copyright © 2005-2007 by Michael L. Martinez. All rights reserved. |
