Why Peter Jackson is a purist compared to the BBC!

[Pearly Di]

I refer not to the splendid 1981 BBC radio adaptation of LotR but to their current series Merlin, in which they do to the Arthurian legends what they did to Robin Hood: in my opinion, stuff them up royally.

Two of England's best legends -- indeed, our only abiding legends -- and the Beeb doesn't do them justice. IMO.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/merlin/

One of the many annoying things, IMO, about Merlin (besides the wholly pointless revisionism to the characters and the irritating contemporary dialogue) is that there is no cultural context to this latest treatment of the Arthurian mythos. The legends are a mish-mash of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon Christianity and the older Celtic religions. Well, my goodness me, you'd never guess that from the BBC! The costumes and settings are gorgeous but Camelot and its environs seem part of some fantastical never-never land which doesn't seem to belong anywhere. I don't know where we are supposed to be: England, Wales, WHERE? I have no clue as to WHEN this is supposed to be taking place ... Celtic-Roman Britain? Anglo-Saxon Britain? Who the heck knows? And, according to the BBC, who the heck cares? It's just fantasy, innit?!

None of the characters appear to be baptised Christians. There's no reference anywhere to any kind of background religion at all, which would give the drama some historical realism. The whole thing is in a cultural vacuum. OK, so it's just fantasy but I like my fantasy to feel authentic.

The shallow treatment of two wonderful English legends -- I understand now why Tolkien was never very impressed with the Beeb -- makes me so very glad for PJ. I realise that not every Tolkien fan agrees with me and that for some PJ's films were pointless fluff, engaging in pointless revisionism, just as I find the BBC Merlin pointless fluff engaging in pointless revisionism.

Well, we've discussed all this many times. But for me, Jackson's films immerse me in Middle-earth. And Ngila Dicksons' costumes are genius. This woman did her research. Each and every costuming got it right for each race: the Hobbits are rural Victorians (that's how Tolkien wrote them); the Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxon (that's how Tolkien wrote them); the Elves are spot-on; the Gondorians wear beautiful, rich, Renaissance-style clothing, which reflects perfectly the feel of an old and noble civilisation ... Tolkien said of Venice that it reminded him of Gondor's ancient glories. The thing is, while Jackson took liberties with Tolkien's story in order to make the material work on screen, he and his team took the background of the story perfectly seriously.

Of course the Arthurian legends are no more real history than Middle-earth is. However, they belong to the real history of Britain in a way that Middle-earth does not (Middle-earth being a completely fictional universe!). The Arthurian legends are based on ... SOMETHING. At some point in British history there was this mysterious figure who became the Arthur of legend. They're part of my country's history and heritage and they deserve some flippin' RESPECT, man.

Which makes me glad yet again that we Tolkienistas got Jackson.

And we may be gladder yet that we're getting Del Toro.

[Aravar]

Just calm down and put on a Robin of Sherwwod DVD, Di. You'll soon feel much better.

[Pearly Di]

Just calm down and put on a Robin of Sherwwod DVD, Di. You'll soon feel much better.

Now that was class.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Great post, Di (except the "its just fantasy" ). We should really thank our stars for Brian Sibley, too. Remember, the BBC's first shot at LOTR was abysmal, too. And Tolkien was still alive to be offended by it.

[WampusCat]

I loved "Robin of Sherwood." Must hunt down the DVDs (I assume they are available for sale?)

Di, I understand exactly what you mean. I haven't seen this "Merlin," but the idea of plucking myth out of place and time bothers me. The story can possibly hold up anyway if written well, but it won't be grounded. I want to visit Middle-Earth or Arthurian England and feel that I have been there, not that I am watching contemporary people in dress-up.

[axordil]

The contextualization of the Arthurian mythos within an early medieval/late classical framework is very much a product of the modern mind. During the period in which the stories were codified, they really did take place in a generic fantasy neverland, or rather, the generic fantasy neverland of the period in which any particular version appears. Thus Malory's stories are set within the context of a fantasy version of 15th century England, while Gawaine and the Green Knight is set in the context of a fantasy version of late 14th century England. The earlier lais and romances of Marie, Chretien et al follow the same pattern: the world is clearly an idealized version of the authors' with a handful of fantastic elements thrown in. Remember, there were no tournaments in the time of the Saxon invasion, no Francophile courtliness, no institution of knighthood.

[Pearly Di]

Great post, Di (except the "its just fantasy" ).

Well, I did have my tongue in my cheek there.

We should really thank our stars for Brian Sibley, too.

Sibbers! (He has a blog, you know.) He did a lot for CS Lewis adaptations too.

Remember, the BBC's first shot at LOTR was abysmal, too. And Tolkien was still alive to be offended by it.

Oh, yes, the first radio adaptation from the 50s, just coinciding with FotR's publication. Tolkien HATED it. I would just love to hear the recordings, it sounds so bad it would be funny -- I can imagine the characters all talking in that ultra-plummy accent that all British journalists and actors seemed to have in the 50s ... but the silly BBC lost the recordings years ago.

The contextualization of the Arthurian mythos within an early medieval/late classical framework is very much a product of the modern mind. During the period in which the stories were codified, they really did take place in a generic fantasy neverland, or rather, the generic fantasy neverland of the period in which any particular version appears. Thus Malory's stories are set within the context of a fantasy version of 15th century England, while Gawaine and the Green Knight is set in the context of a fantasy version of late 14th century England. The earlier lais and romances of Marie, Chretien et al follow the same pattern: the world is clearly an idealized version of the authors' with a handful of fantastic elements thrown in. Remember, there were no tournaments in the time of the Saxon invasion, no Francophile courtliness, no institution of knighthood.

Ax ... you are absolutely right.

The thing is, the current BBC Merlin just seems kind of clueless, rather taking the above on board. What gets my goat is the complete lack of any sort of cultural reference, even if it's a pseudo-one. Merlin really does come across like modern people playing dress-up, which is not really the effect it should have.

[axordil]

I find most Victorian and later renditions come across as modern folks playing dress up, whether in a historical setting, or an indeterminate-fantasyoid setting. Contrast Boorman's Excalibur, which was frank in making the setting BOTH "Celtic" AND "Chivalric," which I thus found both confusing and oddly satisfying. Arthurian knights should wear plate armor because that's what knights wear, even if the storyline is going on about Druids.

It sounds to me as if the setting problem here is less historical or geographical, or even cultural, than it is dramaturgic. A setting has to have a set of rules in operation that are consistent, even if illogical, for it to feel like a place at all. A story can happen somewhere; it can't happen nowhere.

[Pearly Di]

Contrast Boorman's Excalibur, which was frank in making the setting BOTH "Celtic" AND "Chivalric," which I thus found both confusing and oddly satisfying. Arthurian knights should wear plate armor because that's what knights wear, even if the storyline is going on about Druids.

I really like that film.

I like it even more knowing that Boorman probably made it as a sort of compensation for having lost the rights to film LotR.

Because his 1970 screenplay for LotR was written by someone on crack. (Galadriel seducing Frodo? The Fellowship beating Gimli up for the password to Moria? OMG. )

It sounds to me as if the setting problem here is less historical or geographical, or even cultural, than it is dramaturgic. A setting has to have a set of rules in operation that are consistent, even if illogical, for it to feel like a place at all. A story can happen somewhere; it can't happen nowhere.

I had to look up 'dramaturgic'. You have said what I was trying to say and mean, but much more elegantly and succinctly.

[axordil]

I too am glad Boorman did Arthur and Merlin, not Frodo and Gandalf. Some approaches work for one kind of story and not another.

But c'mon, everyone wants to at least give Gimli a wedgie.

[Pearly Di]

I too am glad Boorman did Arthur and Merlin, not Frodo and Gandalf. Some approaches work for one kind of story and not another.

Yes.

But c'mon, everyone wants to at least give Gimli a wedgie.

Never!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Legolas, maybe (at least Bloom's Legolas).

[Primula Baggins]

Nah then, nah then, wot's all this then?

Don't make me split this off into a wedgie thread.

[Crucifer]

Legolas, maybe (at least Bloom's Legolas).

Not that it would affect the guy...

[MithLuin]

Because his 1970 screenplay for LotR was written by someone on crack. (Galadriel seducing Frodo? The Fellowship beating Gimli up for the password to Moria? OMG. )

Well, yes, I agree. Drugs of some sort were definitely involved.

But as for Galadriel seducing Frodo.... obviously, literally, that wouldn't work. But I think a few people have seen sexual tension in that scene, so he probably wasn't getting it from nowhere. Leaving aside the Harvard Lampoon's random elf seducing Frodo on the blurb to Bored of the Rings...consider PJ's take on this scene. He left Sam out, so it's just Frodo and Galadriel alone (the other notable scene he excised Sam from is, of course, Shelob's lair...)

Not that anyone here needs a reminder.... The Mirror of Galadriel

Yeah, yeah, it's about the Ring. I know that. But still. I was not a huge fan of movie!Galadriel, and the way PJ did this scene explains at least in part why I felt he was off.

[solicitr]

A setting has to have a set of rules in operation that are consistent, even if illogical, for it to feel like a place at all. A story can happen somewhere; it can't happen nowhere.

Oh, my. Nice, Ax. (And rather in the vein of Tolkien himself).

[Pearly Di]

But as for Galadriel seducing Frodo.... obviously, literally, that wouldn't work. But I think a few people have seen sexual tension in that scene, so he probably wasn't getting it from nowhere.

Well, fanfic writers certainly have.

Yeah, yeah, it's about the Ring. I know that. But still. I was not a huge fan of movie!Galadriel, and the way PJ did this scene explains at least in part why I felt he was off.

This scene is actually one of my very favourites from FotR the film. I really love it. Even without Sam there, I absolutely love it. I didn't see any sexual subtext, and I highly doubt that PJ intended any, personally. But Galadriel does come over as sort of seductive, not in a sexual way, but in the promise of power she seems to have ... she is putting Frodo to the test in some way, which she is definitely doing in the book -- she pretty much admits to it (if memory serves me correctly!) Gladys (as I like to call her ) is not Gladys for me without her edge.

But then I am also a big fan of Movie Galadriel. Blanchett was, IMO, perfectly cast.

Well, I love Movie Gladys apart from the silly Nuclear moment, that is. That was off.

[MithLuin]

Radioactive!Galadriel is part of that scene

I agree that Galadriel needs to have an edge...but she also needs to have something more than that. She might be an 'elf-witch of terrible power', but Sam enthusiastically praises her without reservation, so she is also...kind? That's not the right word...but good, at least.

The EE has a few moments where she shows that softer side - with Gimli, and by showing Nenya to Frodo. But the TE of FotR? No, not so much. I don't think she ever smiles, let alone laughs. But PJ's elves are just too serious anyway.


Okay, fine, a seductive subtext - I think that was very intentional. I wasn't really trying to suggest that PJ filmed the scene as being about anything sexual, so much as he was trying to put some tension into their relationship and used seduction as the model for it. (As I said, I know it's about the Ring...really...) Like in Aragorn vs. Lurtz - it's a very visceral fight, but that doesn't make it sexual. But there's a thread on TORc suggesting just that.

[axordil]

soli--

I think some of what JRRT says about "fantasy" (my term, not his) in "On Fairy-Stories" applies to writing in general, no matter what genre. I suspect there was some shaping of writing world-view for me there.

[sauronsfinger]

Mithluin ... when you mention "radioactive Galadriel" is that in a negative sense or a positive sense?