Entry tags:
Jan. 3, 2014 ~ Happy 122nd Birthday, Professor, with poem by jan-u-wine.
~*~
Happy Birthday, Professor Tolkien!
Jan-u-wine has delivered yet again, writing a beautiful personal reminiscence of the Professor in narrative verse. But before the poem, a few photographs....
I posted this photograph last year, but it's one of my favourites. He's standing in front of his favourite tree in the Oxford Botanical Garden. It was taken Aug. 9, 1973, a month before he died.
There are quite a few photos of Tolkien smoking a pipe, no longer an approved pastime (however cherished by hobbits, wizards and academics of previous eras). Two of my favourites follow. I regret I do not know who photoshopped the first of the two. Note how examples of Tolkien's writing and drawing are deftly included along two of the borders.
This, perhaps, is my favourite Tolkien portrait.
The following photo shows Tolkien and his son Christopher napping together in the garden behind their Oxford house. I have always loved it as a candid snapshot offering a glimpse of Tolkien as an ordinary person, not just a Great Writer. After reading jan-u-wine's piece I found the photo more broadly applicable. Looking again, thinking of the poem, I couldn't help seeing Jan, and all us fans, as the small sleeper, experiencing through art a sense of closeness to the man who created the books and secondary world we love, as though we could share his dreams.Mea Cuppa
Might I borrow a cupful of hours,
a tablespoon of minutes
a teaspoon of second-hand
seconds?
I promise I shall not return them.
From the hours shall be forged memories,
whip-stitched 'round the small commas of minutes,
held
at the last,
by the small 'period' of a second.
Might I borrow these things?
Might I have just a bit more
of that which you have already
so kindly given?
~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ .* ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~ . * ~
And so, we walk among the trees,
green and swaying in the wide winds of the world,
knees knobbled by unknown Ages,
roots buried in leaves-of-Autumn-past.
And so,
we walk upon the shore,
star-grist adamant between our toes,
a long-silent leaden dog rover-ing
amongst the sea-wrack.
And so...... we talk of smials
and stars,
of curly heads
and ageless wisdom,
of malice honed sharp
as any sword
of deeds of evil
overthrown
by the bright armour
of love.
Here,
within the sweet-fogg'd lands
of your home,
is the smithy of such dear
devotion,
here,
the kindly word-smith,
forging forever
of nighted curlicues
upon a pale field.
Forever.
Just a moment
in the great river of moments,
just a rounded half-note in
the grand music
of All.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And time runs out,
like the tide upon our life-shore,
and I lie here,
dreaming and alone,
tear-thankful that there have been
such people,
such places,
such.......
time(s).
And wishing that I might have just a
cuppa
more.
~*~
Tolkien's favourite tree today (pinus nigra in the Oxford Botanic Garden):
This more distant shot shows its great height and vast canopy. The wall behind is extremely high, much taller than any person. It makes me think of the tree Niggle spent his life painting, the one he could never finish it. Or, of course, the Tree of Tales.
Previous entry:~ 'The Desolation of Smaug' by jan-u-wine, with screencap from film.
Other Links:~ All entries featuring jan-u-wine's poems.
part deux
As to Sherlock, the only one who could possibly deal with him is Irene, a woman of intelligence and verve to match his own, and one who enjoys and is curious about darkness. He's too flash and too dangerous for anyone else, i should think. Still....dinner would be interesting, wouldn't it?
Martin is so wonderful in all his roles. It's the tiny details that get you The quirk of the mouth, the tiny squint of the eye. the little language of the hands. (also a Matt Smith constant, but of course on a much larger scale!)
Harry Potter made The Dr. cry? well, I can see that. The Dr, I think, could well empathize with Harry's journey. Lovely moment. I'll have to rent and watch it properly.
Matt Smith: well, Tom Baker was "my" Dr. But I have to say: i tuned into BBC one day by accident and the Dr. was on. The moment Matt hit the screen was a ....heart moment. Without really being sure that this was The Dr....i was sure that he *was*. Not taking anything away from Tennant, for without his Doctor, this one would not be possible. So, that is even more lovely, isn't it? And when you see them together....well, that is the most beautiful bit of work i've ever been honored to see.
I had (just barely) seen that video. It really is amazing. I doubt that Sherlock would ever do a Dr. Who insert......but mightn't the Dr do a SHerlock one? Unfortunately, it will have to be Capaldi's, I reckon, and that would really spoil the premise, since i think it really needs to be either Tennant or Smith. Or maybe even Eccleston. Now, wouldn't THAT be interesting, since Eccleston is awfully close, on the surface, to being a socio-path.
well, now must run. I hope this posts!
Re: part deux
I'm just back from my third viewing of Desolation of Smaug. I do enjoy the film very much, despite all of PJ's unnecessary padding.
Martin is such a great Bilbo. But his Bilbo is so gloriously (and canonically) kick-ass that it make me wonder how the hell Film Frodo could ever have been his nephew ... I love the films but that was such an opportunity lost.
And you're right about dating John. It would be a threesome. ;) And Irene and Sherlock together are a bit terrifying. :p
Re: part deux
it was PJ that cut Frodo's balls off. Book Frodo, tho surely much different from Bilbo, was a brave soul, and surely not a drama queenish person.
So....PJ saw a reason to make Frodo look like that, just as he has a reason to present Bilbo in such a light.
The way these characters are written for the film versions i see as sort of amplifications of how they are in book verse (or amplifications of how they are interpreted by PJ & CO in book verse):
Bilbo the rascal (who had to be padded out into some more ballsy sort of hobbit for the films, if they were to work), who decided on an Adventure. (you can use that one point alone to extrapolate the rest of it, if you will (and PJ will, to be sure),
vs.
Frodo the thinker, the orphan (damaged and lonely or not) who enjoyed hearing and reading of Quests, but did not go upon one until it was thrust upon him.
Even in the simplest terms, they were very different people to begin with. But I think it's telling that Bilbo choose that Adventure, and Frodo's adventure, in a very real way, choose HIM.
I find it more moving than anything that Bilbo adopted Frodo, who really was not like (his younger) self at all. What did he see? A bright and perhaps lonely lad, but one who had a spark of difference that, although not like his own, touched Bilbo deeply. Frodo would not ever be a warrior hobbit. But Bilbo, having been one such, would know all about the worth (and non-worth) of that. It's quite flash to go one on one with a sword against an orc, but it's kick-ass of quite another degree to wrestle with the Dark Lord for the salvation of an entire world.
Bilbo saw, i guess, in the young Frodo, exactly what we see in the 'old' one: a reservoir of pure and vigorous love.
Part Deux: A Different Perspective
While I can honestly say that I have read the books, I also must say that I am far keener in knowledge when it comes to the films. I am one of the few and very odd folk who ended up watching the LOTR films before I read Tolkien's original trilogy. I have written about how I became a Lord of the Rings fan on one of metchild's previous posts, as well as on Word Press for a class I took last fall!
I am sorry to say this, but it was Film-Frodo that I fell in love with first (although not necessarily Elijah Wood himself), and so it pains me when I hear or read that he has somehow been castrated or weakened - although I must admit I do constantly find myself trying in some way or another to empower him whenever I do a work of fan art and/or fanfiction involving our dear Frodo!
When I read the books, I constantly found myself imagining scenes that weren't in the films as if PJ somehow HAD incorporated them in... (.i.e. the bath at Crickhollow, the encounter with Tom Bombadil, the Arwen-less battle against the Nazgul, the nude Frodo in Cirith Ungol, Sharkey, and etc., etc....)
In short, while it is a given that Tolkien's work is the very origin of the fandom (and this blog), I cannot swallow the aspect of viewing PJ's films as an abomination, as Christopher Tolkien and some Middle-Earth fans have done - because where would I be without them?
no subject
I'm a realist about the process of adaptation and I enjoy the films enormously, whilst reserving my right to critique aspects of them.
I can understand people falling in love with Film Frodo, as he is very beautiful! I had quite the fling with him myself, at one point. ;) However, my ardour has cooled since the heady days of LotR film fandom, and I wish now that Elijah had been thirty, not twenty, during filming, as I think that might have made a difference to how PJ saw the character of Frodo - as more mature, with more inner steel.
Book Frodo had his detractors long before the films came out. I joined Tolkien online fandom about two years before the release of FotR and to my chagrin discovered that a few long-time fans really didn't like Frodo very much -they saw him as a depressive wimp who couldn't have completed the Quest without Sam. Which is true, but then Sam couldn't have destroyed the Ring on his own either.
Maybe PJ saw Frodo in a similar way. In which case, it would seem to me that the obvious thing for a film director to do is to beef up the central protagonist (which is exactly what PJ did with Martin Freeman's Bilbo, to my delight) - not wimpify him further.
But I agree with Jan about this. PJ systematically deprived Frodo of all the small signature moments that build up Frodo's heroic profile. E.g. in the book, Frodo has the inner strength to resist putting on the Ring when the Black Rider is crawling towards him in the woods of the Shire - in the film, Sam grabs Frodo's hand to prevent Frodo from succumbing to the Ring's power. And this keeps on happening in the films - do we ever actually see Film Frodo resisting the power of the Ring in his own strength? In the book, Frodo is the ONLY hobbit to actually lash out at the Nazgul on Weathertop: Merry and Pippin are quaking with terror and Sam shrinks to his master's side - in the film, all the other hobbits stand their ground with their little swords, Sam lashes out at the Ringwraiths ... and Frodo drops his sword. I have no quarrel with PJ making the other three hobbits more heroic - again, it's exactly what I would do were I making a film of LotR, because I wouldn't want the audience thinking these little guys are a bunch of useless wimps. What was disappointing was that Frodo's heroism got undercut yet again. And so this pattern in the films was repeated over and over ... Frodo frequently falling over, Frodo acting like a damsel in distress with Sam helping him out, Frodo apparently being a naïve and trusting idiot about Gollum, whereas in the book Frodo has no illusions about Gollum yet is willing to act redemptively and give Gollum a chance.
To this day, popular Facebook memes frequently laud Sam as the true hero of LotR. Yes, I realise that Tolkien did say that. ;) But in fact he describes both Frodo and Sam as heroes. I like Sam, and don't resent his heroic status. I do think it's a crying shame that Frodo got so sidelined. As I said: opportunity lost. :)
I sound more bitter about this than I actually am. I don't lose sleep over it, and there are far more important things in RL to stress about. ;)
There are also Frodo-moments in the films which give me some compensation. I liked how PJ handled Frodo's moment when he claims the Ring in the Sammath Naur, for example. 'Don't mess with me, I'm a Ring-bearer'. I so wanted to see more of that, though. :)
I'll end with one of my favourite quotes from the Letters:
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246
no subject
(I hope we don't come off as rabid Frodo fans)
Wait.
Yes, I do.......
no subject
I must say, reading your discussion with Jan made me recollect those days with a nostalgic, appreciative sigh. What discussions were then had -- and this could have been one of them.
Thanks so much, both of you, for this engaged and engaging discussion!
I will copy and paste a version of this for Jan or she won't receive a notice of reply.
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
I think there are many people who came to LOTR through first viewing the films. And there are many of us who still love the movies and are glad that they were made even if they were not faithful to the books (which they never really claimed to be, saying honestly that they were an adaptation).
In this particular discussion, though, we were, of course, talking specifically about film Frodo vs book Frodo. And the problem is that, film Frodo, although a wonderful and heroic person in his own right, is very different from the Frodo you know if you read the books first.
I can't tell you how many film fans have said that Frodo was not fit to be the Ringbearer, being a weak-spirited coward, among other things. This is a concept that comes from omissions/commissions in the films, little or large moments where moments that made book Frodo who he was were deducted or wrongly added.
(as examples: a moment so small as having Frodo simply fall to the ground in terror, NOT stabbing at the Witch King on Weather-Top, a moment where, instead of him being shown to be brave and in control of his own destiny even tho wounded, he is, since he cannot fend for himself, saved by Arwen upon the road to Rivendell and at the Ford, and (a major moment and certainly not in the book) the moment upon the walls of Osgiliath where he seems to be offering the Ring to the Nazgul (or claiming it himself, equally damning, considering where in the time-line he is). Or the other huge and character-undermining moment of sending Sam home, which flies in the face of all canon and in the face of character-logic even if you've never read the book)
In all of these moments,and more, the character of Frodo is changed, it is diminished. The *spirit* beloved by book readers from the 1950's onward is there, yes, but the moments that make up that spirit are altered, giving him a much different aspect from the 'true' Frodo, as written by Tolkien. (and we must go with the original, since it is not Jackson who created Middle Earth. It is Tolkien, and he wrote as he wrote for reasons well thought out and necessary). We can easily see, from watching the movies ourselves, and reading/listening to the comments of other fans, that the character of Frodo in the films has been altered.
I have never called the movies an abomination, and do not think them so. I am glad they were made, since so many people who otherwise might never have read Tolkien now have. But I must also say that people who saw the movies first and fell in love with *those* characters have a pre-disposition to accept that films as 'truth'. And why would they not? I read the books first, and I accept them as 'truth', so it is entirely understandable that, whatever came first in your own personal time-line is the version that is more acceptable.
On the third hand, I understand any fan who does feel the films are an abomination. Christopher Tolkien and any of the Tolkien family are in a class of 'fan' utterly by themselves, although the family, as well, has been divided on what they find right in terms of adaptations of JRR's works. If I were Christopher, having devoted my entire life to the preservation and proper presentation of my father's work, I would likely hate the film adaptations, too, and seek to prevent any further such (for one thing, since that is apparently what JRRT wanted, as he would not have sold the rights to LOTR had he not needed money to, ironically, secure his children's futures). And if I were JRR's grandson, removed at least somewhat from the intimate relationship that Christopher would have had with JRRT, I would likely favor more adaptations.
I am glad that you came to LOTR fandom and remain glad that PJ made the movies. I, for one, would never have written in the LOTR universe without them. They are to be celebrated for the wonderful works they are. My gratitude and joy in them does not change what they did, however, which was to change crucial arcs and aspects of Middle Earth. And for that, I continue to be very sorry, like a parent who knows their child is so much more (through knowing the complete and true history of the child) than how they are perceived (by the lack of knowing that history) by the rest of the world
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
Hannon-le to you both for your lovely comments!!
Yes, I do see how in some parts of the film how Frodo has been weakened. I remember one scene in particular that bothered me this way in FOTR where he was dragged by a water monster into the lake near the mines of Moria, only to be sent tumbling into the arms of Boromir. At that moment, he did indeed look like a damsel in distress!
*Sigh*... but I love him anyway! Pearlette, I think I've seen some of your Frodo-loving comments before. I remember being so relieved to discover that there were other people out there who were having the same reactions as I was!!
As I mentioned in my previous post, I am constantly trying to somehow empower Frodo via fan art and fan fiction as a result of working with Peter Jackson's portrayal, as if to try to bring Frodo's image back into equilibrium, my latest attempt to date being a crossover with Disney's Brave.
Perhaps it is simply the price to pay for falling with such a beautiful character. If that is it, I am more than happy to pay it. ;)
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
(many of Mechtild's entries celebrate the beauty and deserved swoonability of film Frodo, so i hope you'll explore some of the earlier portions of her LJ)
Like you, I love Frodo, be he book or film. I only wish PJ had taken more care in some of his arcs. I, too, find myself spending time trying to buff him up a bit. But I also admit that PJ's depiction led me to think about other elements that i had not considered before. You never do know what will come of throwing a 'damsel' into a distress patch......
i have to laugh when you speak of the Watcher in the Water Incident. For that was one that was certainly altered, some of the alterations meant to be Frodo-favorable.....(and yet, we see they did not quite work that way)
in the book version, it was Boromir who threw the stone into the Lake, prompting FRODO (not Aragorn) to remonstrate with him (see, right there, a bit of leadership and authority is denied Frodo by giving his line to Aragorn). The watcher, once it grabs Frodo, is beaten away by Sam alone. (a chance for us to see that the hobbits are brave and on top of things; Frodo didn't need a Fellowship SWAT team to rescue him. And he didn't need to be caught by a Big Brave Comforting and Ultimately Betraying Man.
i know it sounds like i'm bitter about the films, but truly not. They are great works of film and art. I can't help it that my heart wishes that they could have painted the being i cared for most in a bit of a different light.
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
Reading your discussion again with Pearl made me think of the golden days of that Tolkien messageboard with an appreciative sigh. What discussions were had there, many of them so passionate and in-depth I mostly read rather than participated, too much of a newbie. This exchange you had with Pearl could have been one of them.
I wanted to thank both of you for this discussion. It was a very great pleasure to follow.
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
One of the reasons i enjoy writing these things is the conversations that grow out of them. I gain insight and perspective and just.....feel the love that still exists in the fandom.
May we ever be found at Frodo's feet....whether those be the normal, fairer-than-most ones or the Giant, Don't-Miss-PJ's-Point, Fairer-Than-All type!
by the way, i believe you can find TORC on the wayback machine, should you wish to visit. It's like Dr. Who without the Dr. Only the Tardis is there to transport you where you wish to go. A privation, to be sure.
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
*oh, LJ, are you blushing?!*
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
Re: Part Deux: A Different Perspective
I loved growth I experienced talking about Tolkien, too. It's not the same just saying "thank you very much" to people who have enjoyed one's post, though that is very affirming. The conversation is what animates and inspires.
I think we'll still be found at Frodo's feet, or, rather, we will be Frodo ourselves, sitting at the feet of those who mentored and taught and inspired him, whether other characters or the creative mind that made him.
TORC is no more? Just goes to show how out of touch I am.
no subject
Yes, I was Diamond at TORC and Pearl elsewhere. The names of Pippin's wife and then his sister always appealed to me. ;)
And indeed I wrote that 'Di's heartfelt plea' thread, years ago. It was worth a try. ;)
no subject
Ah, Pearl, I wish they had heeded Di's plea. Watching the Hobbit films, seeing Bilbo portrayed (so far) as someone who, however an "everyman", is possessed of pluck, clear perception and fortitude, I go, "if only...." All the more, I should think, will new viewers, people only coming into Tolkien's world via the Hobbit films, wonder when watching the LOTR, "why didn't they give the ring to Frodo? why couldn't they find someone with the courage, moral resources and inventiveness of Bilbo?"
*sobbing faces* (even though I shouldn't care any more; can't help it, I've been listening to the LOTR EE soundtracks this week, such gorgeous stuff)
no subject
Freeman's Bilbo is the best hobbit characterisation by far. He's brilliant.
The number of internet memes I see about Sam being the 'true' hero of LotR and not that drippy Frodo ... sigh.
I prefer that glimpse of thirty-something Frolijah in AUJ to his younger self: with hindsight, I would now much prefer a 30something to play Frodo and not the dewy youth that EJW was when he began filming. Had EJW had been older at the time of filming LotR, and also had he actually READ LotR (the silly boy), might he have fought harder for his character, I wonder? Astin was (understandably) annoyed that PJ wanted to make Samwise too bumbling and silly. He fought for his character. Well done him. (Unfortunately, his Sam still annoys me. Way too bossy, and forever rescuing a Frodo who makes silly decisions, i.e. sending Sam away at the Stairs of Cirith Ungol).
I'm glad you think 'I am quite a good writer.' ;)
no subject
Yes, the Hobbit score is not as good as those that came before. It's still very good stuff, but not the "great" stuff written for LOTR. Perhaps Shore is a bit tired of it at this point. Too many years in between, not able to get the original passion back.
I agree with all you said about EW being too young to play Frodo. Not because he couldn't have done it as such, but for the reasons you state. Older, more seasoned, he'd have been far more likely to stand up to PJ and the writers on behalf of his character. Astin did, as you pointed out. McKellen did regularly, even if he did not always gain his point. He spoke up, he tried. Even agreeable Liv Tyler put her foot down now and then (I'm thinking of protesting the idea of kissing Aragorn's double rather than Viggo when filming that part of the coronation scene).
The trick would still be getting EW to read the blasted book. Would he be any more likely to read it at thirty than nineteen? He said in an interview during one of his films after LOTR he purposely didn't read books before acting in their adaptations for film, I think on the grounds that the film's version was always different so why lose sleep over it. Would he have changed his philosophy by thirty? Or better, I might ask, *has* he changed his method of not reading the original material from which roles he acts have been taken? I don't follow his career any more so I don't know.
I, too, am very impressed with Freeman's Bilbo. I'm so glad he was cast. I just wish the films were more focused on story-telling than opportunities for action sequences (typical PJ but someone needs to reign him in). They'd be so much richer, more nuanced, more interesting if there was more shown of what's going with the characters on a deeper level.
By the way, in my comment I wrote that new viewers of LOTR would be saying, "why didn't they give the ring to Frodo?" I am sure you realized I meant to write, "why DID they give the ring to Frodo?"