What Would Tolkien Have Thought of the Jackson Films? Part 1
What He Thought of Adaptations in His Own Time
(avg. read time: 5–9 mins.)
Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings films were not the first or the last adaptations of Tolkien’s story, but they have come to be widely regarded as the definitive film adaptations of his work. This raises the titular question: what would Tolkien have thought of them? We know that Christopher Tolkien was by no means a fan of the Jackson films and his point of view is certainly understandable, especially as he approaches them not so much from their merit as films as from his perspective as his father’s literary executor. His father’s view can only be the subject of speculation. But as something of an extended thought experiment, we might get some idea of how Tolkien would have thought of these movies by looking at comments he made of adaptations in process while he was alive. This will occupy the first part of this two-parter, while the second part will draw on these points to speculate how he would have thought of the Jackson films.
And just to clarify my purpose here, because I know how Tolkien is often used in these sorts of discussions, no, I am not intending to perform ventriloquism in using Tolkien’s voice to amplify my own criticisms or to support my own views about the movies. I disagree with Christopher Tolkien’s take on the Jackson LOTR, and I expect that I would disagree with at least some things his father might have thought. No doubt, I would agree with him about some adaptation decisions, which I will note a few of in the next part, but I also do not doubt that my perspective as an audience member of both and looking at the trilogy as a film adaptation (that is, looking at their qualities as movies) would cause some differences with his perspective as the author looking at the trilogy as an adaptation of his work. Rather, I am first of all interested in what he might have thought as such, the evidence for which we will review here.
First, we know from a letter Tolkien addressed to Rayner Unwin (Letter #198, 19 June 1957) that he was not opposed to an animated film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. The letter is short enough that we can quote it in full here: “As far as I am concerned personally, I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization; and that quite apart from the glint of money, though on the brink of retirement that is not an unpleasant possibility. I think I should find vulgarization less painful than the sillification achieved by the B.B.C.”
Second, in Letter #201 also addressed to Rayner Unwin (7 September 1957), he makes the following comments on a synopsis he was given of a film that an American company was wanting to make of LOTR:
An abridgement by selection with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation: a pull-back towards more conventional ‘fairy-stories’. People gallop about on Eagles at the least provocation; Lórien becomes a fairy-castle with ‘delicate minarets’, and all that sort of thing.
But I am quite prepared to play ball, if they are open to advice – and if you decide that the thing is genuine, and worthwhile.
Third, in his next letter to Christopher and Faith Tolkien (11 September 1957), he mentions how a “Mr. [Forrest J.] Ackerman” came by with some concept images of the film, which he described as “astonishingly good pictures ([Arthur] Rackham rather than Disney) and some remarkable colour photographs.” No doubt, he was concerned that it would have been otherwise, for he said all the way back in 1937 that he had a “heartfelt loathing” for Disney’s works (Letter #13). As for the photographs, he noted that the crew had toured America to find mountains and desert scenes to fit the story. These were things Tolkien found acceptable, but he said that “The Story Line or Scenario was, however, on a lower level. In fact bad.” Despite such reservations, he said his policy that he had established alongside Stanley Unwin was, “Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations.” At least in theory, then, Tolkien did not consider it necessary for an adaptation to be strict, but if it was going to deviate too much for his tastes, it better at least be profitable.
Fourth, he returns to commenting on the synopsis, the work of one Morton Grady Zimmerman, in Letter #207 to Rayner Unwin (8 April 1958). He will provide more detailed notes later, but his initial impression is already quite negative, as he says of Zimmerman, “He does not read books. It seems to me evident that he has skimmed through the L.R. at a great pace, and then constructed his s.l. [storyline] from partly confused memories, and with the minimum of references back to the original.” He also says, “I feel very unhappy about the extreme silliness and incompetence of Z and his complete lack of respect for the original (it seems wilfully wrong without discernible technical reasons at nearly every point).” The parenthetical note—which also practically echoes what I think of Rings of Power—is further evidence that Tolkien is no purist—at least in theory—about the adaptation of his own work. He could accept changes if he could discern a good reason for them. At the same time, out of respect for the interest of others (particularly Rayner and his father), and out of awareness of his need for money, he is willing to restrain his criticism and “avoid all avoidable offence.”
Fifth, and most extensively, the next time he picks up commenting on this film treatment is in Letter #210 to Forrest J. Ackerman (not dated; June 1958). This letter goes on for a few pages and by the editor’s (Humphrey Carpenter’s) own admission, what we see in the book copy are extracts. The full letter, as well as Zimmerman’s actual treatment, are available in the Marquette collection, but not online as far as I am aware. Some summary remarks are also made about it in this article, as well as Lynette Porter’s The Hobbits: The Many Lives of Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. Of course, from the extent of Tolkien’s comments, complete with the numbers referencing the pages of the treatment, one can tell a lot about this movie that never was.
Tolkien reiterates that he finds Zimmerman’s work as careless, reckless, and lacking in appreciation of the work he is adapting. He had cut out too much of the core story and added too much that was unwarranted, especially in the excessive participation of the Eagles and the excessive presence of magic (which included Gandalf rescuing Faramir from the pyre by levitating him off of it). Tolkien understood that things would need to be left out for his story to be adapted to this new medium, but his bigger problem is with the changes and additions made, “If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.” His strongest criticism is that “He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. The last and most important part of this has, and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered.” Indeed, he says of Part III that it is “totally unacceptable to me, as a whole and in detail. If it is meant as notes only for a section of something like the pictorial length of I and II, then in the filling out it must be brought into relation with the book, and its gross alterations of that corrected. If it is meant to represent only a kind of short finale, then all I can say is: The Lord of the Rings cannot be garbled like that.” Indeed, too much of significance about the Ring is left out altogether, such as the temptation of Galadriel.
In between these points, he criticizes many details. He insists that the time compression he sees in this adaptation is all wrong, “Time must naturally be left vaguer in a picture than in a book; but I cannot see why definite time-statements, contrary to the book and to probability, should be made.” This included a definite statement that the Fellowship leaves Rivendell as soon as they pack after the Council of Elrond. And these Nine Walkers then meet up with the Eagles right outside of Rivendell. Nor did Tolkien like the contracting of geography, as the treatment suggested Rivendell could be seen from Weathertop (despite being 200 miles away in the book): “I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography.” Furthermore, he says of the encounter at Weathertop, “The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness, and do not ‘spur’. There is no fight.” Indeed, of this scene and others he sums up his problem as being, “deliberate alteration of the story, in fact and significance, without any practical or artistic object (that I can see); and of the flattening effect that assimilation of one incident to another must have.” In terms of the latter, he makes multiple notes of how Zimmerman fails in terms of using anticipation properly, as he all too often skips build-up and set-up, thereby ruining the effects of later scenes. He also takes issue with the descriptions of lembas (which Zimmerman completely misses the significance of) and of Lórien as containing a castle with great spires and minarets. Similarly, he insists on following the portrayal of Edoras and Meduseld in consistency with how he presented them in the book.
As I have noted previously how important character voice was to Tolkien, it is noteworthy that he brings it up here. Tolkien occasionally comments on his impressions of the handling of Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, and so on, but more generally he says, “I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.” Again, Tolkien is not necessarily insisting that his dialogue be duplicated (the ipsissima verba), but he is insisting that the style and characterization by speech remain consistent (the ipsissima vox).
He mentions other criticisms of detail, but we need not recite all of them. It is little surprise that this film was never made, for it could not meet Tolkien’s approval as something he could perceive as profitable nor as something that comported with his artistic vision. Judging from the various criticisms he made, and judging from the summary remarks I have seen elsewhere, I am not sure this movie would have passed muster by any criteria, except perhaps for those who like a thing because it has their favorite brand on it.