This recent article about and interview with Fran Walsh, co-scriptwriter and -producer of Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson's partner, reminded me again how the LotR films (and now the Hobbit ones), scriptwise, are very much the work of three people, with the main emphasis on the two women. Not that this is news; if you ever listened to the audio commentaries on the dvds, and not just the track with the cast, you'll have noticed that Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson very much sound like equals in their discussion of the characters, script decisions etc. But it's worth remembering that when people say "Peter Jackson", they mean Walsh, Boyens and Jackson in terms of Middle Earth interpretation. (And other Jackson projects. The article also mentions how Heavenly Creatures, which I recently wrote about and which was the film that first made PJ a name with international critics, was Fran Walsh's idea which she pursued and persuaded an initially reluctant Jackson into.)

As Hobbit day approaches, I did some reviewing of the LotR films last week, and was reminded again how much I enjoyed and was moved by them. Also that I did and do approve of a lot of the changes (though by no means all). Some background: I read Tolkien's novels first with 12 and 13, and loved them, but they weren't the first fantasy novels of my childhood/adolescence, or the first epic, and they did not have the galvanizing impact on me they had on many. So they were never sacred to me the way some books can be if you grow up with them or if they shift your thoughts in a crucial way. Which means that no matter whether an reaction to seeing the film adaptions was "oh, splendid!" or "damn, I wish they hadn't done that!", it doesn't come with the book of books emotional burden. So, here are some things which the scripts (not "just" the acting - the acting of course is an important factor, and I don't mean to diminish anyone's performance) did which weren't Tolkien but really worked for me:

1.) Boromir. In the books, even to 12 years old me, Boromir was red-flagged as "He'll try to take the ring, arrogant man, bad news" from the get go. So there was no sense of loss when he did and died (though of course I was worried about Pippin and Merry). To me, the Boromir of the films is far more shades of grey, and though Sean Bean is tremendous in the role, I think this is also due to the way he's written. Both by giving him lighthearted, sympathetic moments like teaching Merry and Pippin how to sword fight and letting himself be rushed by them and by emphasizing his worry for Gondor and desperate love for his country and people. Scenes like Boromir's conversation with Aragorn in Lothlorien, where he talks of Minas Tirith and describes the White City, aren't in the novel, but they feel right for the world the story plays in and for this particular character. His dying conversation with Aragorn (I remember Philippa Boyens in the audio commentary being justifiably proud of coming up with the line "I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my king") to me is infinitely more moving than the same scene at the start of The Two Towers, the book. And not just on Boromir's account. Which brings me to:

2.) Aragorn. Honestly, I never could relate to Aragorn much in the novel. (Which is okay, that's the Hobbits are there for.) He's a static and noble character, but basically I never felt for him. I do for the Aragorn in the films, who has an emotional arc to go through. His becoming king at the end doesn't just feel like a symbol of Rightful Order Restored (which is the impression the books gave me) but something earned, by his relationship with Boromir in the first film, with Theoden and Eowyn in the second. Giving Aragorn doubts about his worthiness in the first film was decried as a too modern touch by some viewers, but to me, it made him more interesting than if he'd been completely convinced of his right to Gondor and at ease with his human heritage from the get go. It all became richer, more layered; Aragorn very much sees Isildur and human susceptibility in Boromir, and of course what he sees is there, but he comes to appreciate Boromir's virtues as well during the course of the first film, and when he commits himself to Gondor in Boromir's death scene, it means a commitment to humans as well. Theoden, weaknesses and strengths, is very much a lesson in how to be a king in practice. Making Aragorn someone who is not already finished when we meet him, who learns from people as he relates to them and they to him, meant I became attached to a character who had never been more than part of the Middlel Earth scenery to me. (It also meant I finally understood what Eowyn, whom I'd always loved, saw in him.)

3.) Arwen. One of the most controversial changes. Now, not all of the Arwen stuff worked for me (her failing health in RotK the film is totally superfluous) , but most of it did, and really, if we'd only glimpsed Arwen from a distance in FotR and then have her show up to marry Aragorn in RotK, it would have felt empty. So using the appendices really paid off (the vision of Elrond's about her life after Aragorn's death in The Two Towers the film, which comes from the "Aragorn and Arwen" appendix, is haunting and one of the most visually beautiful scenes of the film), and sorry, but I'm not attached to Glorfindel, Silmarrillion backstory not withstanding. In LotR, he serves no further function; giving Arwen his role in FotR was a good way of introducing her. Incidentally, this reminds me that we already have a pre release controversy about the presence of Galadriel in The Hobbit. About which Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are utterly unrepentant. To quote from the article linked above:


In Tolkien’s largely female-free “Hobbit,” Ms. Boyens said, “The lack of feminine energy becomes very evident.”

“And oppressive,” Ms. Walsh added.

To work toward a solution they added a “Lord of the Rings” character — the ethereal elf Galadriel, played by Cate Blanchett — to the “Hobbit” story. The move prompted a dust-up among some Tolkien fans, but Ms. Walsh and Ms. Boyens said it was important to them, both as storytellers and as women, to add a female character who could bring more emotional depth to the spectacle.

I hear you, ladies. Now I can't say yet anything about Galadriel's scenes, whether they'll do anything for me or not, since I haven't watched the film; but the principle of adding more women to Tolkien, I have zero problems with.

4.) Elrond. Not as controversial as his daughter, but still, I remember complaints from a decade ago. Now me, I was thrilled when we got the Elrond and Isildur scene in FotR, the film, not least because I hadn't expected to get a glimpse at Mount Doom that dearly, but also because giving Elrond Isildur issues resulting from Isildur's failure to cast the wretched thing into the lava back in the day suddenly gave that bit of backstory an emotional impact which for me, until then it hadn't had. Giving him problems with his daughter giving up her immortality for a mortal life with Aragorn (again, something from the Appendix which got moved in the main story and made more prominent there instead of a backstory stage he's already gotten over in LotR, the book) also made something that had felt very abstract in the book come to emotional reality for me (both the whole immortal-becoming-mortal concept and the fact that Elrond loses his daughter for good when he and the rest of the Elves go into the West in the end).

Now, none of this means I'm guaranteed to be delighted by however the Walsh/Boyens/Jackson team ended up transforming The Hobbit into three films. But it means I look forward to watch it, the first part at any rate, on Thursday.