LoTR and dwj

Robyn Starkey rohina at shaw.ca
Wed Feb 18 18:38:07 EST 2004

>What about the ents? Shouldn't they count? In the extended version, they 
>even have the moving trees... And Arwen calling upon the river - though 
>that *looks* a bit like a spell, it isn't meant to be one (at least 
>according to the DVD commentary).

No fair arguing the extended version, because the issue is that in the 
general release, which is like the standard version of the text, the trees 
are missing. The point about Arwen is that in the book it is quite clearly 
not caused by any person, and it also isn't nearly as clear that it *is* 
magic. Same with the mountain - in the book it's the mountain itself that 
is hostile, in the film it is made into a spell by a person to make the 
mountain hostile. There are other examples, but I'm not familiar enough 
with the text to repeat them.

>The only bit of animism I can think of that didn't make it into the film 
>was Tom Bombadil, and the quite obvious reason for that is that he doesn't 
>move the story along one bit. He's a lovely character, but I don't think 
>there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind that he couldn't make it into 
>the film.

The person who gave the paper made the point that JRRT always argued that 
Tom Bombadil was really important, and in fact he was the sticking point on 
an earlier proposed film version. I think your explanation kind of hits the 
important issue about assumptions and the differences between popular films 
and reading.

-------------- next part --------------

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 18/02/2004

More information about the Dwj mailing list