(By Greg Wright, Burien, WA: Hollywood Jesus Books, 2004). Review by Kevin Miller.
Anyone who has visited www.hollywoodjesus.com over the last several years will be more than familiar with the name and smiling visage of Greg Wright. Not only does he serve as Senior Editor for Hollywood Jesus, for the past several years he has also facilitated an extremely popular section of the site devoted to The Lord of the Rings, particularly to Peter Jackson’s film adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic fantasy tale. Last year, Wright, who is also an instructor of English literature, parlayed a number of his online articles about Tolkien’s work into a book entitled Tolkien In Perspective: Sifting the Gold from the Glitter. With the theatrical release of The Return of the King nearly a year behind us, and the release of the Special Extended DVD edition about to commence, Wright has seen fit to release a second collection of material that aims to get at the heart of Jackson’s films.
Wright makes it clear from the outset that his goal is not to be “right” about Tolkien or Jackson or to make himself look good in the eyes of his readers. Rather, his intention is to provide “responsible, sober analysis in order to stimulate deeper and more serious thinking on the part of the moviegoing public.” Why? Because “the unexamined film is not worth viewing—further… the unexamined film represents an abdication of living, and its attendant responsibilities.”
Although not stated explicitly, a secondary and perhaps derivative goal is to parse out the spiritual themes, symbols, parallels, parables, and archetypes contained in both the cinematic and literary versions of The Lord of the Rings. Crucial to this investigation is examining how these elements were shifted, distorted, enhanced or eliminated in the transition from page to screen. Perhaps a more general question in this regard is, can you translate an author’s work from script to screen while retaining the essence or spirit of his or her story? And, more precisely, do Jackson’s adaptations do exactly that?
Wright sets the stage for his answer with some previously unpublished lecture-based articles on the challenges inherent in adapting any literary work—especially one as unwieldy as Tolkien’s behemoth—to the screen. Acknowledging the substantial differences between the original text and Jackson’s films, one of the central subjects of this section (and the book as a whole) is the all-important question of “Why?” Why was Tom Bombadil eliminated entirely? Why were the roles of Arwen and Elrond magnified disproportionately? Why was Aragorn transformed from a confident king in waiting to a conflicted, reluctant hero? And why was Tolkien’s “neatly ordered and sensible universe ground into hamburger”? (One of my main pet peeves about the films, especially when it comes to the compressed timeline.)
While admitting that the well-read Tolkien buff will find much to squirm about in Jackson’s films—especially The Two Towers—Wright gives Jackson the benefit of the doubt when it comes to such deviations, stating,
Clearly, when one elects to depart from Tolkien’s meticulously crafted storyline… one does so for very deliberate reasons, knowing that the choices will be critiqued (and even howled at) by Tolkien’s very loyal and demanding fans…. The answer is not, presumably, that Jackson has no respect for Tolkien. Nor is Jackson incompetent.
So what’s the deal then? Why all the changes? Wright’s answer is simple “narrative effectiveness.” Like it or not, obviously Jackson had to make some tough calls when it came to reducing Tolkien’s 1,000-page manuscript down to 900 pages of screenplay. He wasn’t being lazy or disrespectful. He was just trying to make three good movies. And, as anyone who is even remotely familiar with that process knows, conciseness and efficiency are two core virtues. You just don’t have time for guys in big yellow boots who are extremely likeable but who do nothing to advance the plot (at least from a surface point of view).
Even though Wright does not agree with every decision Jackson made—far from it—he seeks to help readers understand Jackson’s choices and what they tell us about Jackson and his audience (or at least Jackson’s perception of his audience). Some of Wright’s explanations are based on interviews with Jackson and his primary co-writers, Fran Walsh (Jackson’s wife) and Philippa Boyens. Others are outright speculation or conjecture based on Wright’s reading of the films. Nevertheless, Wright’s commentary is consistently insightful and illuminating in this regard.
Once the stage is set, Wright moves on to briefly analyze previous attempts to bring The Lord of the Rings to the screen and why they failed. Then he begins a chronological analysis of all three films, focusing on a number of issues raised by each. Each chapter contains a mixture of film and literary criticism and—not surprisingly, considering Wright’s connection with Hollywood Jesus—a number of questions, insights, and applications drawn from the spiritual themes and symbolism found in Tolkien’s tale. While some of these spiritual applications seem to be tacked on, for the most part they are organic to Wright’s observations and serve to enhance his commentary while deepening the reader’s understanding of Tolkien’s intentions as well as the power of fiction to convey such spiritual truths. Standout chapters in this section include “Visions of Justice in the Two Towers,” which ponders the issue of redemption, “Our Own Private Tower of Cirith Ungol,” which offers some compelling insights into the nature of good and evil, and “Destroying Tolkien’s Ring,” a brief albeit moving chapter that shows how the making of Jackson’s cinematic trilogy took on the character of Frodo’s struggle to destroy Sauron’s ring.
Interestingly, throughout the book we get Wright’s commentary in “real time.”Each chapter is dated according to when it originally appeared on Hollywood Jesus and, as Wright states in his introduction, no attempt was made to smooth over inconsistencies or seeming contradictions in his early readings of Jackson’s films. Nor has he attempted to correct himself where he was outright wrong. At some points, this mode of presentation proves to be as interesting as the content it expresses, because it allows us to see Wright’s thoughts and reflections unfold over time, particularly in regard to Jackson’s artistic decisions.
At first, Wright is uniformly affirming, even exuberant about Jackson’s work. But once he sees The Two Towers for the first time, he begins to hold Jackson a bit more at arm’s length. By the end of the book, he almost seems to wonder if Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens have missed the point of Tolkien’s work entirely, at least on a spiritual level. This becomes painfully clear in Wright’s recollection of an interview he did with Jackson, in which he asked Jackson if Tolkien’s theory of eucatastrophe (“the joy of the unlooked-for happy ending, a joy that catches a glimpse of the biblical resurrection story—the triumph of God over sin, death, and the grave”) had ever been broached in story conferences, to which Jackson replied, “No, what is it?” Also infuriating for this self-confessed Tolkien purist was Walsh and Boyens’ admission that they had not bothered to consult with experts on Catholicism prior to working on the script, even though Tolkien was a devout Catholic who admitted his faith had a profound impact on his writing. How could these people claim to be keepers of the “Spirit of Tolkien,” Wright wondered, if they had no knowledge of the foundational issues behind Tolkien’s fiction? Judging by the photo on the book’s back cover, Wright does not have a lot of hair left on his head, and I get the sense he started pulling the remaining strands out during such moments.
Despite such misgivings, Wright concedes that even though fans and critics may be disappointed to discover that the filmmakers were not as serious about Tolkien’s work as they may consider themselves to be, in the great scheme of things, Jackson’s shortcomings have not proved to be disastrous. “These [Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens] are good people, who have good, solid moral and spiritual values, and who believe in the value of human life. We could have done a lot worse than Jackson (and company) as the guiding force behind the cinema’s The Lord of the Rings.”
That said, I have no misgivings about recommending this book to anyone who would like to deepen their understanding of the spiritual nature of Tolkien’s writings, Jackson’s films, and the relationship between the two. Non-Christians will likely be surprised—and possibly even delighted—by the spiritual insights Wright manages to draw out of the literary and cinematic versions of Tolkien’s work. This book also serves as a good caution for Christians who would rush out and embrace Jackson’s films as “Christian” just because the source material upon which they are based was written by someone who claimed Jesus as Lord. While the films definitely retain much of Tolkien’s original themes, such as faith, hope, love, faithfulness, sacrifice, and redemption, the way these themes are altered from page to screen definitely bears closer examination—something that Wright offers in spades.
Comments