Would Sandra Bullock be a good Mrs. Isildur?

Top 2. Aug 17, 2000 11:01 PM

» Michael_Martinez - Sauron, the Ring, and Numenor

This is one of those controversial subjects where people can point to various passages, but one of those which clinches the matter for me is in Letter 211 (which is often cited in many debates on various issues):

"Ar-Pharazon, as is told in the 'Downfall' or Akallabeth, conquered a terrified Sauron's subjects, not Sauron. Sauron's personal 'surrender' was voluntary and cunning: he got free transport to Numenor! He naturally had the One Ring. The Elves kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In any case Ar-Pharazon was not in communication with them....

"...Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended...."

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 3. Sep 1, 2002 10:27 PM

» isengar - Should we treat Tolkien's work in a scholarly manner?

Although it's apparent that you know what you're talking about, unless you're Christopher Tolkien himself it's impossible to take at face value many of the statements and much of the information that you present in your article if there are no references made to what texts you're deriving your points from. What I'm saying is that, while very few will or can challenge or refute your points, we should at least be given a fair chance to do so. That's the only grounds on which worthwhile debate can occur: if we all point to the sources from which we got our facts, so that others may do their own research and therefore prepare themselves to engage in the discussion. Otherwise it all sounds anecdotal and unprofessional, even if all that's being said is true and factual. I would encourage this from all but your most playful articles.

I'd like to take up argument on one point. "Nimloth was was a sapling of Galathilion, the White Tree of Tirion..." You made a mistake. Nimloth was a sapling of Celeborn, White Tree of Eressëa, which was in turn a sapling of Galathilion and so on. This is expressly stated on page 263 of _The Silmarillion (Second Edition)_.

Your narrative on Elendil and his family is intriguing but I'd love to know where you got the dates of their children's births. From one of Tolkien's letters I presume. I also don't remember Oropher and Amdir. My understanding was that Gil-galad was the last surviving Noldor king. Otherwise I've read of Glorfindel being an Elven-lord but that's all. I'd appreciate it if you could solve that puzzle for me.

"One of the Eldarin customs was to forgo the begetting of children in time of war..."

This is very interesting. Where can I find out more about Eldarin customs?

Otherwise, I must say you did a good job at partly retelling the story of the Second Age in an engaging sort of narrative. As to Sandra Bullock, I personally seriously doubt her talents. But, in any case, to make any actress assume a convincing portrayal of a 200 year old Númenorean queen with all her wisdom, tragedy and sensitivity is a monumental task. The fall of Atlantis has captivated us at least since Plato described it in _Timeaus & Critias_. Tolkien's tale of Atalantë is certainly fuller in its account, imaginative, powerful and relevant to us today, who are plagued with the deception of fame, fortune, plastic surgery and celebrities. It would make a great 3 hour film epic but only if put in the hands of the right director.

-- posted by isengar

Top 4. Sep 2, 2002 4:40 PM

» SAyleen - Sandra & friends

I've only read the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit -- I've also studied the appendices, but that basically determines the vast expanse of my knowledge, and so overall I'm enjoying the wisdom that all of you have to share. However, on the direct subject of Sandra B. herself ... she is my hero and I have to agree that your vision of her overlooking the Tolkien domain rings nicely in my mind. =)

To broaden the discussion a bit on casting (sorry ... my bachelors is in theatre), I'm not sure if there is a previous discussion on this, but I've heard that some of the critics weren't very happy with Elijah Wood as Frodo. My personal opinion is that those critics haven't read any of the books. That's one issue I have with making movies of literature. Great books are even greater when they allow imagination to take over and fill in some gaps. When we can see the characters in flesh and blood then our imaginations are no longer left to their own devices.

To be certain about Sandra as Mrs. Isildur, I'd have to see her get a chance at it ;) But if first impulses were always taken, then the tragically young Mr. Wood could have had little hope at obtaining his role. And after seeing his performance in The Fellowship... I have trouble imagining anyone else as Frodo, and I look forward to seeing him take on the challenging transformation his character will undergo in the next two movies.

Thanks & best wishes!
- S. Ayleen

-- posted by SAyleen

Top 5. Sep 2, 2002 8:57 PM

» isengar - Re: Sandra & friends

In response to message posted by SAyleen:

First of all, don't feel that because you haven't read EVERYTHING concerning Middle-earth that you're not a "true" fan. I know it often seems that way because of the way some fans come across, but you're perfectly legitimized, even if all you'd read was _The Hobbit_. However, I strongly recommend you get your hands on _The Silmarillion_ and work your way through it. It's heavy and not written in an easy prose narrative, but it's why Middle-earth exists in the first place. It IS Middle-earth.

Since you're into the habit of posting quotes, I will post one here that I find relevant to your points.

"The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle." -Stanley Kubrick, 1970.

With that in mind, I conducted my studies in the fields of English literature and Film Studies and I would say that while great books do work with our imaginations, they also provide us with images, which is why it wasn't hard for the reading populace to switch over to watching films. While characters are bound physically by the bodies of the actors, the hindrance ends there. It requires imagination to make the connections between shots that we do so easily and take for granted because it's become second nature. The Russian film theorists of the 20's were among the first to exploit this phenomenon. It requires imagination to comprehend a flashback. That's a simple example.

Besides this, many successful films are adapatations of novels. Try the following for yourself: _A Clockwork Orange_, _The Shining_, _Barry Lyndon_. Excellent films based on popular books. Often the problem is not that films can't handle books but that the screenwriter and/or director are/is incompetent.

As far as Elijah Wood is concerned: he's not a terrible Frodo but I find that his performance is often saved by his intensely rich blue eyes, which often make his facial expression look meaningful when he's probably spaced out or confused by the horrendous direction of Peter Jackson. If anyone should be commended it's Sean Astin, who really embodied the Sam Gamgee role without turning him into some sort of ridiculous comic relief the way Pippin was. He brought love and heart to the character. His is a worthwhile performance. Personally I would have adored having Ian Holm (he plays Bilbo in the movie) play Frodo, even if he's in his 60's. After all Frodo is in his early 50's when he sets out for Rivendell. How about that? Changes your entire perspective on Frodo doesn't it. He's not some kid.

Be that as it may, the movies are what they are. I've lost all interest in the next two. I'd much rather wait until an exciting director gives Tolkien's tales a go. For one, my intelligence has been insulted enough. For another, I wouldn't want to disrespect Tolkien's memory a second time by endorsing these romantic thrillers. A boycott is in order. Jackson has really stunk this one up. Let him sink and rot in the $163 million hole he's made for himself. My fellow Americans might not listen to this since they fall for junk like _Star Wars_, but maybe my European cousins are smarter and will heed the call of the Valar. I sure hope so.

-- posted by isengar

Top 6. Sep 3, 2002 4:56 PM

» SAyleen - Performing Tolkien

Thanks Isengar! =) I've actually studied both Film and English quite extensively ... I am very familiar with your film recommendation list! =)

I also agree with everything you had to say in response to my post, with the one exception that I can't bring myself to boycott the next two movies, mainly because of Sean Austin... I've been watching all of the postings about Legolas, and while I have no problems with Orlando Bloom, I grew up watching Sean and seeing him as Samwise (my favorite Rings character) was like having all my dreams come true! =)

Actually, Ian Holm as Frodo would have been fine with me too ... I really like him as Bilbo though. It would have been a challenge to cast a different Bilbo to Holm's Frodo. But it certainly would have been nice to see the other three hobbits as Frodo's juniors, like the Professor intended.

As for the director ... yikes! Wasn't he the 'genius' that brought us Meet the Applegates? When I found out that the man directing the trilogy had little more fame then that of a random film about over-size insects in daily life pretending to be the model American family, I was just a little scared.

While we've strayed from the original topic ... I might as well go off a bit more on my tangent. I'd like to take a moment on the subject of the brutal butchering of Professor Tolkien's The Hobbit as an adaption for the stage. In searching for a copy to use for a live production -- all I can say is "Help!" Elrond is my favorite cameo in this one, and most of the playwrights who attempt it have the terrible habit of replacing him with an Elf Queen. I think I've solved the major issues in an adaption of my own, but overall, I have never been overly impressed with the attempts made to perform Tolkien's work. :/

Best wishes!
S. Ayleen

-- posted by SAyleen

Top 7. Sep 4, 2002 6:50 PM

» isengar - Re: Performing Tolkien

In response to message posted by SAyleen:

Hi SAyleen, you've got me on a roll. Since we come from similar educational backgrounds, I'm sure you noticed my bias for Kubrick. That's not to say he's the only one that's done book adaptations, he's just the only one that I believe has achieved excellence. We are talking about films after all and I take that seriously. Kubrick, Tolkien and Kurt Cobain. Thems my boys.

Sean Astin's a part of my childhood. Remember _Goonies_? Great flick. I still watch it with my sister when I get the chance. I love Sam a lot, too. I'm not particularly fond of Frodo yet. There's just something about Sam. I wish there were more Sams out there. You know what gets me? How Tolkien and Sam cared about Bill the Pony. That's sweet.

I never saw _Meet the Applegates_. I did see _Heavenly Creatures_. Very disturbing and not as avant-garde during a second viewing as it wanted to appear. I will share my theory on this director. I read his last film _The Frighteners_ was a huge flop. He's using the huge Tolkien fanbase to guarantee himself three hits. It's pretty sick. He knows many like you will go see his films anyway for the chance to at least have the books visualized, since the opportunity might not come again for some time.

You know, we can complain about the little yet significant changes he makes as director of the movies, like leaving out Tom Bombadil or making the storm on Cardhras Saruaman's fault, but none of that is really the point. You can get away with significant changes from the original if they are intelligent and have an actual purpose besides saving screen time for the "good stuff." Kubrick did this superbly. Have you ever seen Federico Fellini's _The Nights of Cabiria_? It's a story about a prostitute seeking desperately for love and a way out of her dreary existence. That came out in 1957 and didn't have any special effects and for the most part was shot very simply. But do you know what makes that a film I will never forget? The love that director poured into that film. If you're not crying by the time the film ends, you're simply not human.

My point is the love permeates every frame of that film. You don't see this today. _The Lord of the Rings_ movie is so devoid of any emotion that you want to strangle the director. While the final scene is very heart-wrenching, that's because they stuck to what Tolkien wrote and because I love Sean Astin--I believe Sean Astin. And that's all it really takes, man. That's the point. The heart of cinema was never special effects but love in its creation.

As for stage adaptations of _The Hobbit_, I'm afraid I'm not as in touch with what happens in theatre as I'd like to but what you've been relating sounds horrendous. I'm excited to hear you're attempting an adaptation that does it justice. That's what we need. Just remember, it'll be good if you do it out of love, not ticket sales. Corporate America would have us think otherwise, but look how well they're doing.

Thanks for sharing,
isengar

P.S. I think _The Hobbit_ as a play could be very Shakesparean in its mix of tragedy and comedy. It's got a huge battle scene like _Henry V_, a mystical but dangerous forest like _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and Thorin Oakenshield can go out like Richard III screaming, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

-- posted by isengar

Top 8. Sep 5, 2002 3:40 PM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: Performing Tolkien

In response to message posted by isengar:

This topic is here for entertainment, not for serious scholarly debate. Although I do often provide references, I don't expect to have to defend every point in each essay. They are intended to be read without the distraction of constant interruption by counterpoints.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 9. Sep 5, 2002 3:48 PM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Should we treat Tolkien's work in a scholarly manner?

In response to message posted by isengar:

On the lineage of the trees, I'm just checking in from work and don't have my books with me to check. I'll have to leave that for another day, but if I remember to check and find you're correct, I may update the essay.

The dates of births for Elendil's family came from The Peoples of Middle-earth, the section titled "The Heirs of Elendil".

Oropher and Amdir are mentioned in Unfinished Tales, in the appendix to "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn..." titled "Of the Sindarin Princes of the Silvan Elves" (or something like that -- I'm relying completely on my memory here). Oropher was the father of Thranduil, and one of the two places where his history is found stipulates that he was a survivor of Doriath.

Gil-galad was the last of the High Kings of the Noldor-in-Exile. Gil-galad was also High King of the Elves of the West (and he seems to have been the only king to bear this title). I don't think that Oropher and Amdir, as kings of Silvan Elves, would have been considered kings of Eldarin peoples (Elves of the West), but it's hard to say.

Oropher was the father of Thranduil (Legolas' father). Amdir was the father of Amroth.

Eldarin customs are discussed at considerable length in a section of Morgoth's Ring titled "Laws and Customs among the Eldar" (they concern mostly marriage, birth, and death).

And I still think Sandy Bullock would be a great Mrs. Isildur.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez