(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unpublished lecture-based articles on the challenges inherent in adapting any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.