JRR Tolkien Discussion

[thecolorsblend]

Some Tolkien fans are quibbling over Hoult's lack of a mustache. During the period of Tolkien's life shown in the two trailers, he had a mustache. It was pretty common in those days.

They'll all still see the movie, mind you. They just wish he had the 'stache.

[Silver Nemesis]

IGN posted a report from a WonderCon panel last week where Tolkien director Dome Karukoski and several cast members discussed the upcoming biopic. It all sounds very encouraging.

https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/03/30/tolkien-biopic-will-celebrate-lord-of-the-rings-authors-life

[Silver Nemesis]

Dome Karukoski's Tolkien biopic has being getting decidedly mixed reviews. I went to see it this afternoon. Here are my thoughts.

The film focuses on Tolkien's formative years at secondary school and university, with the dramatic emphasis placed on his relationships with Edith Bratt and the other members of the Tea Club, Barrovian Society. I've been enjoying Roger Lancelyn Green's Arthurian stories lately (he's much better than T. H. White, IMO), so I was hoping that he, Lewis and the rest of the Inklings literary circle might factor into the film. Alas, the movie skips over that part of Tolkien's life entirely. It also doesn't depict the period of his life surrounding the publication of his most famous novels, nor does it show the impact their phenomenal success had on him and his family. Omissions such as these make the movie feel woefully incomplete. It's as though the filmmakers wanted to explore how the T. C. B. S. inspired the Fellowship of the Ring and little else besides. The usual trappings of a high quality period drama are present in the sets, costumes and cinematography. But the narrative window is so narrow that it never penetrates below surface level or offers a meaningful look at the inner workings of the title character. At best, it's a surface-level snapshot of a young Tolkien. It's certainly not a detailed portrait.

As you would expect, the film attempts to draw autobiographical parallels between Tolkien and his work, some of which feel very forced. For example, he has a batman in the trenches named Sam. And while suffering from trench fever he's afflicted with visions of what appear to be Ringwraiths cutting down his fellow soldiers at the Somme. Where the film could have drawn more legitimate parallels between his life and his work – as in the tale of Beren and Lúthien – it fails to deliver. Edith's dance is portrayed, but in the movie it happens before Tolkien goes to war instead of upon his return. There is a line at the end about Edith's headstone likening her to a princess from her husband's writing, but it doesn't specify which character. This makes me wonder if there was a legal obstacle preventing the filmmakers from directly referencing Tolkien's First Age stories. Edith's religious conversion is not even mentioned and Tolkien's own faith is conspicuously downplayed, resulting in a curiously inaccurate and secularised portrayal of a devoutly religious man. The concept of sub-creation is also never mentioned.

I was hoping to go against the critics on this one, but I'm struggling to find positive things to say about Tolkien. It's fine. It's a nice looking film with decent performances and a pleasant score by Thomas Newman. But beyond that, it has too few qualities to recommend. It reminds me a bit of Damien Chazelle's First Man (2018) insofar as both films fail to offer any greater insight into their central subjects than what you might find on a Wikipedia page (though First Man is still a better film than Tolkien). Because of this, Karukoski's movie ends up being a disappointingly superficial treatment of its title character. The real Tolkien had a very distinctive personality, and this comes across strongly if you read his letters or watch footage of him being interviewed on YouTube. At no point during Karukoski's biopic did I feel as though that personality had been captured. I never felt like this was the real Tolkien. Rather it felt like a reductive Hollywood portrayal. And that's not a dig at Nicholas Hoult, who delivers a solid performance, but rather a critique of the script and the overall focus of the film, which feels uneven and incomplete.

I wanted to like this movie more than I did, but at the end of the day it's just a very average literary biopic. Not terrible, but not especially good either. If you're keen to see it anyway, then go for it. But if you're on the fence, I'd say wait for it to come out on Netflix. Aside from the trench fever hallucinations, it's not a terribly cinematic movie anyway, so you won't be missing much by not seeing it on the big screen.

It's certainly no Shadowlands.

[thecolorsblend]

Your opinion is one of the few I was prepared to trust about this film. And it's a bit heartbreaking. I'll probably watch the film no matter what but I doubt I'll pay money for a ticket at this point. Because why bother with it?

Tolkien's life is rather dramatic. I'm not sure if a chronological presentation of his life is overly cinema-friendly in terms of pacing, tbh. But those are small matters. The fact remains that he was a fascinating man who lived a fascinating life and wrote some of the best literature of the 20th century. Those elements should have been front and center in any bio-movie and it's so obvious that I have to assume there were things happening behind the scenes which kept this movie from being as comprehensive as it should've been.

The sad thing is that I doubt we'll see another Tolkien bio-film any time soon. It's a real shame.

But his written works live on. I take comfort in that.

[Silver Nemesis]

Other people might enjoy it more than I did. My previous post focused on the negative because those were the things that struck me most, but it's really not a bad film. It's technically accomplished and well acted. And as a superficial depiction of Tolkien's school and college years, it's fine. But for people like us, who already know about Tolkien and would perhaps prefer a more comprehensive exploration of the various influences on his work, it falls short of the mark.

One thing the film does get across quite well is the way language influenced his interest in mythology. But it glosses over other equally important influences, such as nature, politics, folklore philosophy and religion. The film does allude to these things, but only fleetingly. The narrative doesn't actually progress beyond Tolkien's formative years until the last five or ten minutes, at which point it abruptly ends with him writing the first line of The Hobbit. There are many different sides to J R R Tolkien – orphan, husband, soldier, author, poet, philologist, teacher, father, brother, philosopher – and I'm not sure if it's possible to encapsulate them all in a 2-hour film.

As I say, it's not a bad movie. I probably would watch it again if it was on television. But I wouldn't go out of my way to see it a second time.

The sad thing is that I doubt we'll see another Tolkien bio-film any time soon. It's a real shame.

A while ago there were reports of there being two Tolkien films in production. One focusing on his experiences during WW1, and the other on his friendship with C S Lewis. Obviously the first film has been made, but the latter seems to have gotten stuck in development hell.

The IMDb page hasn't been updated since 2016, so it looks as if it's dead in the water. I wonder if the project stalled in response to the Fox Searchlight movie. If so, it could still be revived in the future. With the new Lord of the Rings series coming to Amazon, and a new Chronicles of Narnia series in development for Netflix, now would be a good time to resurrect it.

But even if it does get made, it would face the same problems as Karukoski's picture. Namely that it's bloody difficult to condense so much of one man's life into a single movie. And like the 2019 film, it would have to focus on one particular period of his life at the exclusion of others. But I think a movie focusing on the Inklings and the era surrounding the publication of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy could potentially result in a more interesting film than the one that's just come out. It wouldn't have as much romance or wartime action, but the right script might capture a more intellectual perspective on Tolkien's writing. Even just a film about the Inklings – a group of creative intellectuals whose collective endeavours produced some of the finest literature of the 20th century – could make for a fascinating film.

But for now at least we've got the new Lord of the Rings Amazon series on the horizon. I've been revisiting the LotR appendices lately, and there's actually a lot more material there than I remembered. Certain events are recounted in more detail than they are in The Silmarillion. Earlier this year a map containing Númenor was posted on the TV show's Twitter page along with the caption "Welcome to the Second Age."

An epic drama about the destruction of Númenor could be amazing. I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops.

[thecolorsblend]

Finally watched Tolkien last night. I rather enjoyed it. I am familiar with the arguments as to why this movie isn't as definitive as it might be. For my own participation, I do think there are some shortcuts taken with Professor Tolkien's creative process vis a vis the creation of/inspiration for Middle-earth and the Legendarium.

The Nazgul, Sauron, the Dear Marshes, Smaug, etc, were (according to the film) inspired by the professor's experiences at the Battle of the Somme. The Dead Marshes, I could see. But the rest... well, I put that down to taking some creative license with the material. It might be true too for all I know. This isn't quite Shakespeare In Love but I'm just not convinced of the creative origins of some Legendarium concepts. I am open to being proved wrong, however.

My critique of the film is that I was originally hoping for something that would show us Tolkien writing LOTR and how the book's eventual success affected his life. And, put plainly, that's not at all what this film is. Not even close. That doesn't make the film bad. It simply means I need to adjust my expectations. Adjusting them proved to be no challenge.

And still, I do enjoy what the film is. The value of friendship which so clearly influenced Tolkien's work has a clear antecedent with the TCBS. It doesn't take much imagination to understand why the TCBS was so important to a poor orphan like Tolkien.

Is Tolkien, the film, perfect? I don't think so. But in the final analysis, it is really good and I do think it's mandatory viewing for anybody who admires Tolkien's work.

[thecolorsblend]

https://comicbook.com/movies/2020/01/16/christopher-tolkien-dead-obituary-jrr-tolkien

RIP Christopher Tolkien.

I have paid tribute to Tolkien in this thread on a few occasions in this thread that I can immediately think of. And yet, I have to do it again now because the man is gone. In terms of the Legendarium, Christopher's impact is second only to Professor Tolkien himself. Personally, I do not dispute that Christopher was easily, clearly Professor Tolkien's biggest fan. Being a cheerleader for his father's work by itself would've been enough to win my undying respect.

But Christopher's work goes much deeper than that. Put plainly, Christopher expanded upon his father's work with his father's own words that have enriched the Legendarium and his father's legacy in ways that were simply unimaginable to those who lived before the publication of The Silmarillion.

Of course, Christopher wasn't content to let the matter rest after that. He spent the last four decades curating and publishing the professor's work in ways that shed light on the stories of Middle-earth while also informing the public as to his father's creative process.

And STILL Christopher wasn't done.

He knew he could have made a mint by licensing the Legendarium out to other authors. I have no doubt that he was offered blank checks to allow other novelists to play in Tolkien's sandbox and write new Middle-earth stories as hardcovers, short stories and all the rest. Quite wisely, in my opinion, Tolkien turned those offers down.

More? Yup, there's more.

Christopher refused to play the game. Never-ending film franchises is where the real money is at these days. The mind boggles at what might be done with a Beren and Luthien film or an extended Fall Of Gondolin Netflix series. But Christopher wanted no part of it. Rather, he wanted the public to enjoy his father's written works rather than be entranced with CGI effects. He was powerless to stop film adaptations of The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings, of course. And for that, I think we should be grateful.

But nevertheless, he refused to sell the rights to his father's other works. And in so doing, (A) he gave those unadapted works a well-deserved mystique to those interested in reading them and (B) he preserved the magic and imagination of the written word.

Will the new Amazon series be an entertaining and worthwhile endeavor? Perhaps -- although the recent casting announcement is a mixed bag at best. Still, that decision was made after Christopher had retired. And his record of protecting, championing and embellishing the works of his father remains perfect and unblemished.

I can only hope that Christopher's successors show as much restraint, good taste and scholarship as Christopher himself. Indeed, they have a lot to live up to.

[Silver Nemesis]

I've seen some horrid comments on other sites regarding this news, with some people attacking Christopher for not liking the Peter Jackson films and saying that his father's books were boring and inferior to the movies. Most people have been kind and respectful, but I have seen the odd nasty comment. Fortunately they're in the minority.

If it wasn't for Christopher, his father's dream of having The Silmarillion published would never have been realised. Nor would any of J R R Tolkien's other posthumous works have appeared in print; at least not in the presentable, well-edited format we got. And that would have deprived fans of some of the greatest stories in the entire Legendarium. At 95 years of age, Christopher had a good innings, and it's nice that he retained his faculties and was able to continue working throughout his winter years. But he will be missed by those of us who appreciated his editing.

I shall be very wary if the Tolkien estate announces any future posthumous works are being published now that Christopher's gone, and I shall also be wary of the estate's future dealings with Hollywood now that he's not around to act as steward. The chances of the First Age books being adapted now more seem more likely than ever, but that mightn't be a good thing. Not if a studio like Warner Bros is calling the shots.

Anyway, rest in peace Christopher.

[Edd Grayson]

May Christopher Tolkien rest in peace. 

[thecolorsblend]

Is the Amazon LOTR show DOA? Tom Shippey apparently has been let go from the show, not to mention the entire writing staff. It's a pretty lengthy livestream but the discussion of the show is frontloaded at the beginning of the stream pretty much so you don't need to search around for discussion about the show.

How true is any of this? Well, these guys are the admins of theonering.net. If anybody is in a position to have authoritative sources inside the production of the show, these are pretty much the two guys you'd expect. I'd listen to what they say.

Speaking only for myself, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. On some previous page, I unloaded on SN a little bit, saying words to the effect that maybe not everything needs a movie or show. It's okay for some things to exist only as novels or comics or what have you. Maybe Tolkien's remaining works are better left unadapted. Maybe derivative projects based on Tolkien's work are better left unproduced.

This would be my opinion even if I fully trusted Hollywood. But I don't trust Hollywood so everything above is cranked up to 11.

If you're mourning these rumors, well, I'm sorry. I guess. But it's hard for me to consider any of this stuff as a setback.