Don't let my "Shock and Awe" title fool you: I'm a huge fan of the LOTR movies, books, Peter Jackson, and fantasy in general. However, I was doing some research, and I found something interesting to share which may make you think about the decisions directors have made in the past pertaining to LOTR movies (Both Ralph Bakshi and Peter Jackson's versions).According to the Wikipedia page on Tom Bombadil, J.R.R. Tolkien had this to say about the character:
"I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless..."
Both Jackson and Bakshi have stated they left Bombadil out of their movies because he did not advance the story - which is true (by Tolkien's own admission). However, he did serve an important function to the story, which Tolkien is explaining in the above paragraph; Bombadil defines the actual power of The One Ring, which is an important omission in both movies since the power in the movies isn't the same as it is in the books.
Bombadil, in the books, wears the Ring and it has no effect on him. With that act, Tolkien defines the Ring as not having a magical property that binds itself to a wearer (unlike in Jackson's Movies, the Ringbearer cannot willingly give up the Ring, save Bilbo Baggins). I have always had a theory that it was not the Ring's will that holds it to it's wearer but rather the wearer being addicted to the powers that the Ring did have, and Tolkien, in his statement above, seems to confirm that assessment.
It's interesting that Jackson omitted Bombadil to serve the movie, when Bombadil's existence in the literature serves the story itself; Jackson had to alter the role of the ring in his story to suite the omission of Bombadil, which in turn made him have to alter plot points around the ring. For example, the power the ring has on Faramir and the addition of Sam and Frodo going to Osgiliath (which did not happen in the books), and Sam never wearing the ring in the movies.
Tom Bombadil is still largely a misunderstood character in the trilogy. It's a shame he was left out of the films, but in the end the decision was probably best for the medium. The movies were fantastic (well, barring Ralph Bakshi's cartoon drivel), and are among my favorites.
1 comment:
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree that Tom should have been left out of the film. This, in my view, is the weakest point of the first film -by far,- and contributes to or is symptomatic of nearly every other issue the film had.
It contributes to Frodo's lack of understanding of the plight and doings of Gandalf, to his near-despair over said ignorance, to his sudden arrival at Bree, without passing through the intervening lands, and to his lack the barrow daggers, and correspondingly, of visible heroism or courage at the ford, which was, I think, his finest hour in the books.
It's symptomatic of the incessant glossing over of the many allies who Frodo and company ran into as they journeyed forth from the shire. Both the elves and Farmer Maggot fall into this and never emerge again. The early parts of the story outlined the essential goodness of the world that Frodo is trying to protect, and in the Jackson movies, it's all so depressing by comparison.
Bombadil, however, is the worst example, since he most fully represents the rightness of a world, properly-ordered, and his total absence is such a noticeable blot. The entire mood of the film was altered from what it had been in the book, and what it should have been.
These are my reasons for viewing the first movie as the weakest of the three. The second and third books -did actually have- much the same mood and plot as their Jackson equivalents, with a few minor changes here and there, but the first half of book 1 established how worthwhile their efforts were, and this is almost totally missing from the Jackson trilogy.
Post a Comment