Artikel in "Le Monde" Christopher Tolkien spricht

[Avor]

Interessanter Artikel aus der französischen Presse. Meines Erachtens gut recherchiert und geschrieben.

Unter dem englischen Artikel gibt es einen Link zur französischen Originalversion.

Christopher Tolkien über Peter Jacksons Filme

[Gast Mithrennaith]

Man lese auch hier: https://www.facebook.com/groups/29802749079/#!/groups/29802749079/10151135785719080/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

[Gast Dunderklumpen]

Ich habe den Artikel in seiner ganzen Länge gerade durchgelesen. Teilweise erschütternd.

Man lese auch hier: https://www.facebook...p_comment_reply

Könntest Du das vielleicht hier reinkopieren, Mith? Ich müsste sonst erst Mitglied von facebook werden, um das zu lesen...

[Gast Mithrennaith]

Issa Bissl viel ...

[Gast Dunderklumpen]

Oder kurz skizzieren?

[Gast Mithrennaith]

Josh Renaud

I wanted to revisit that Le Monde Christopher Tolkien interview... Some members of this group mentioned they were awaiting permission to publish their own translation of it into English. Were these permissions ever secured?

Gefällt mir · 24. November um 00:15

Gesehen von 59

Pieter Collier und Becky Dillon gefällt das.

■

David Doughan No, because another translator jumped the gun and put it up online.Here: http://sedulia.blogs...first-felt.html

24. November um 00:17 · Gefällt mir

■

Josh Renaud So they wouldn't grant permission because of the Sedulia one?

24. November um 00:19 · Gefällt mir

■

David Doughan No, just that those who had tried to do the honest thing gave up. There was now no point.

24. November um 00:22 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Troels Forchhammer Does that mean that the Sedulia translation is every bit as good as what we might otherwise have had? If securing permissions would mean a better translation that Christopher Tolkien would at least nod to, then I would very much prefer to have that (i.e. I should think that there was indeed a point).

24. November um 00:39 · Bearbeitet · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Harm Schelhaas Plus that Christopher made clear he wouldn’t give permission to anyone. Not mainly because of Sedulia, but because he and the interviewer thought the french too subtle to translate well ...

24. November um 01:06 · Gefällt mir

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles To stay in the good graces of all parties involved we have not made our translation publicly available. As the three translators in question (Pieter Collier, Jonathan Fruoco and me) have tried all avenues possible and have only met with a clear 'no' on all sides we have been fairly disappointed, as you may imagine, but do understand the need to respect the relevant copyrights.

And yes, it has been clearly stated, both in the interview and from other parties that the subtletly of the French language would not translate easily (a saying that I consider a commonplace, being a professional translator myself ;)) - the translation available on the web is very good proof as many journalists have interpreted Christopher's words rather wrongly, probably because of it, and, alas, also many fans, particularly of the film ilk ;)

It is particularly with the last quote from Christopher where that translation is fairly wrong and does not, indeed, achieve the same subtlety of meaning you would expect of someone like him.

24. November um 05:38 · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Josh Renaud I'm sorry that you haven't been given permission to make your translation available. I would love to read it.

24. November um 05:51 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Jonathan Fruoco Well you all know the old saying, "traduttore traditore"... I've never found the courage to read the Sedulia translation, mainly because Marcel, Pieter and I had worked very hard indeed to reproduce as faithfully as possible both Christopher and the journalist's words. In the end, it would have been in the interest of the Estate to grant us permission to publish our own work; I'm pretty sure nobody would have misinterpreted Christopher's words that way. Anyway, live and learn!

24. November um 09:06 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles One thing is clear - thanks to this translation many people think Christopher to be a greedy British snob who would keep them from buying all sorts of **** which is a rather nasty thing to do ;) And he does it all for the money.

I have just posted a comment there and am wondering whether the blogger will actually accept it ;)

24. November um 09:49 · Gefällt mir · 3

■

Jonathan Fruoco I'm seriously fighting an impulse to post this message on the blog: "The thieves! The thieves! The filthy little thieves! They stole it from us!"

24. November um 10:11 · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Ferre Vincent yes, it was quite a tricky situation, with copyright issues (Le Monde), and translation issues... My conclusion : let's come to Paris & learn French (and German, Italian, Spanish...)

24. November um 10:34 · Gefällt mir · 4

■

Jonathan Fruoco Quite true, but if we all became plurilingual, poor Marcel would suddenly find himself unemployed! (Not to mention my own dream of one day translating a few things.) ^^

24. November um 10:39 · Gefällt mir · 3

■

Michal Pekarik May your dream become true, sooner rather than later, Jonathan! BTW, I bet my pension that your work is superior to the pirated one. Proper translators are few and far between I reckon and it shall not change in our lifetime I believe. No matter how hard they try at Google they are most of the time in dippers or nearly bare cheeked I feel

24. November um 11:01 · Bearbeitet · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Troels Forchhammer Marcel, Sedulia has answered your post, saying "What, exactly, are you criticizing? It sounds as if you think the article should just have been left alone in its pristine French."

24. November um 16:10 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Jonathan Fruoco Here's a little something related, where one can read "Tolkien had sold the rights for £10,000 in 1968 to pay a tax bill, and Christopher Tolkien was unhappy that the family would have no role in, or financial benefit from, the films." http://m.guardiannew...le&type=article

24. November um 16:33 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Michal Pekarik Sedulia, would benefit from taking in account fine nuances of languages other than American English. With all due respect to its effort good translator not only has good command of the source language but more importantly knows intimately his own. No flame intended, just my two cents as they say.

24. November um 17:56 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Just in case she does not accept my next comment here it is ... ;)

"Dear Sedulia,

thank you very much for accepting my comment into your blog.

No, I wouldn't want this article to remain in its "pristine French"; I belong to a group of translators who had translated this article directly after its publication but as there are at least three copyright holders involved we had officially asked for permission which was, of course, not granted, for the reasons I outlined above - that by a translation misunderstandings would arise. And that has happened.

Although your translation is in many places not wrong it unfortunately portrays Christopher Tolkien and the other persons quoted in this article as rather "snobbish" - the number of negative responses to your translation is proof enough of this.

This is not true, though, to the original French text where the Tolkien Estate and its work over the last few decades is being shown in a very favourable light; understandably, as you would imagine Christopher after at least two decades of public silence (his last major public appearance has been the 1992 conference in Oxford) not to accept the publication of an interview which would not be able to show the intricacies and obstacles of the Tolkien literary heritage due to the Jacksonian merchandising deluge.

Particularly the last paragraph with the longer quote by Christopher Tolkien himself is off the mark and prone to make people believe that he is, excuse my French, a snobbish English old fart who is miffed at not making billions out of his father's heritage - which considering the history of his work in the last 40 years is indeed laughable. This is not about money but the protection of the integrity of a most influential literary heritage being distorted beyond the point of no recognition.

That should have been made clear in your translation and that has not happened. It would have been better to add an explanatory note to the translation inviting the readers to actually have a look at the facts involved - the readership of "Le Monde" is obviously expected to read between the lines and that is something which really is difficult to explain in a simple one-to-one translation. "

24. November um 18:21 · Gefällt mir · 6

■

Michal Pekarik Thank you, Marcel for putting this forth.

24. November um 18:27 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

David Doughan A tangential comment to the respected M. Ferré: when I wish to brush up my French, I don't go to Paris (too many immigrants) but to Tours. Which means I can also have the odd glass of Vouvray!

24. November um 18:46 · Bearbeitet · Gefällt mir · 5

■

Jonathan Fruoco Marcel, I bet you a beer she won't accept the comment.

24. November um 18:47 · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles It's a bet Always in for a beer. Preferrably an ale but I am open to new experiences *g* As she has written to the Professor when a young girl I do hope she is truly interested in talking this one through.

24. November um 18:52 · Gefällt mir · 3

■

Ferre Vincent @DDoughan : what do you mean by 'too many immigrants' ?

25. November um 15:01 · Gefällt mir

■

David Doughan The ones who drive the taxis (very well, by and large). In fact, that was just an attempt at humour. The fact is that these days when I'm in France (too seldom, alas) in Paris I just stop for a night near the manufacture des Gobelins before making my way to the provinces (usually south west).

25. November um 15:07 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Michal Pekarik Did Sedulia approve of Marcel Aubron-Bülles comment?

25. November um 15:19 · Gefällt mir

■

Troels Forchhammer Yes, Marcel's latest comment was accepted, and Sedulia has some interesting comments to offer - I don't agree entirely, but invoking the prior belief of the reader is a valid point (though the suggestion that Marcel's English is inferior for not being a native speaker rubs me up the wrong way)

25. November um 15:34 · Gefällt mir · 3

■

Michal Pekarik You and me, Troels. I would respond rather harshly to such accusation were I in Marcel Aubron-Bülles shoes, but junkies shall be junkies I feel. Never major linguists beyond their pale to put it rather bluntly.

25. November um 15:43 · Gefällt mir

■

Michal Pekarik Anyway, concerning the article in question could anybody tell the title of the "untranslated essay" by Thomas Alan Shippey?

25. November um 15:51 · Gefällt mir

■

Jonathan Fruoco I obviously find Sedulia's allegation about Marcel's English preposterous, but I'm shocked by her answer to the copyright issue. "I didn't ask for permission because Le Monde might have said no" - of course, Le Monde might have said no! That's the thing with asking, isn't it? You're never certain what the answer will be. I'm pretty sure that if I stop paying taxes - thinking "oh, if I ask the government'll say no" - I'll get into trouble. This kind of justification is immoral. (And I've lost my bet with Marcel!)

25. November um 16:14 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Michal Pekarik What is the cost of a beer-ale over there I wonder?

25. November um 16:20 · Gefällt mir

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Actually, I find it very gratifying of her to ask about me being a native speaker. In my evil little mind there might indeed have been a jab at the quality of her translation ;) but I am very happy that she is accepting of my remarks in general.

25. November um 16:36 · Gefällt mir · 4

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Jonathan Fruoco - I won't forget the beer. Should definitely visit France more often in the future And shape up on both my English and French. ;)

25. November um 17:05 · Gefällt mir · 4

■

Ferre Vincent David Doughan >that was just an attempt at humour.

ok !

Marcel Aubron-Bülles I agree with your comments (but not the last one, about your English

25. November um 18:15 · Gefällt mir · 3

■

Becky Dillon As a native speaker and fluent in several of the dialects, I have never found Marcel's English to be lacking in any way. Even his knowledge of heavily dialected speech patterns, does not want for any lack of understanding. Marcel is exceptional and Sedulia's intimation was completely uncalled for, although I must say that Marcel has a point in his "evil little mind!" ;)

26. November um 19:27 · Gefällt mir · 2

■

David Doughan Ditto.

26. November um 19:37 · Gefällt mir

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Thank you ever so kindly. *cough, cough.*

26. November um 20:13 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Becky Dillon Anyone who can find their linguistic way through drunken Geordie immediately gets my admiration as an English speaker. ;)

26. November um 20:15 · Gefällt mir · 4

■

David Doughan Some denizens of southern England have difficulty with sober Geordie.

26. November um 20:21 · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Harm Schelhaas ‘Verra awkward indeed, for ’t coo’.

27. November um 03:55 · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Harm Schelhaas For the record, I’m someone who has had to make do with Sedulia’s translation, not because I can’t read French, but because I couldn’t get hold of the original (except by going throug a lot of commercial hoops).

27. November um 23:55 · Bearbeitet · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Troels Forchhammer There is now what appears to be a legitimate (i.e. in agreement with Le Monde) English translation available. I'd be very interested to hear the opinion of our French-speaking experts on whether this one is better (though the use of the evisceration expresssion in the headline makes me suspect the worst).

vor 12 Stunden · Gefällt mir

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Where, Troels?

vor 12 Stunden · Gefällt mir

■

Vivien Stocker http://www.worldcrun...9/#.UMBq_ayoGSo

vor 12 Stunden · Gefällt mir

■

Troels Forchhammer Thank you Vivien - I can't imagine how I forgot that ;)

vor 12 Stunden · Gefällt mir

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Thank you, indeed. I won't have the time to go through this with this ... film thing coming up. I hope this one is close to the mark.

vor 12 Stunden · Gefällt mir

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Just to show you the differences between the translators with the paragraph I consider the most important.

Sedulia:

"This divorce has been systematically reactivated by the movies. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialisation has reduced the esthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: turning my head away."

Le Monde/ Worldcrunch:

"This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

Certain translators you may know:

"The divorce between the literary work and all the rest will systematically be expedited by the films. “Tolkien has become a monstrosity, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of our times”, Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. “The chasm that has opened up between the beauty and the seriousness of his works and what has become of them is beyond imagination. This level of commercialisation eviscerates the aesthetic and philosophical vigour of his literary creation. There is only one thing left to me: to turn away from it all.”

vor 11 Stunden · Gefällt mir · 4

■

Michal Pekarik Thank you so much for this, Marcel. I was longing for THIS ever since La Monde published the interview. Note the subtlety of expression in the "collective effort" version. Put it line bellow line with that from Sedulia and weep... thanks people, you know who you are.

vor 11 Stunden · Gefällt mir · 3

■

Troels Forchhammer This quite interesting, thank you!

I tried to also look at that passage in the original French (though I have never learned French, going through a short paragraph with the help of on-line dictionaries and three different translations seemed feasible — blame my arrogance )

So, please bear in mind that my thoughts on this are the result of spelling through the paragraph with a dictionary, and may very well be completely out of the question for anyone actually understanding French!

The one spot where I became unsure was the translation of the word "portée". Translated either 'impact' or 'vigour' in the above, other suggestions in on-line dictionaries, besides the 'impact'/'significance' group, are 'range', 'reach' or 'scope'.

Using this latter group of possible translations, or concept, would imply a philosophical and aesthetic 'width' and 'depth' that had been reduced to nothing ("réduit à rien") by the commercialisation (or, possibly, in the commercialised version?).

To my mind (and actually regardless of whether this was, or could possibly be, Christopher Tolkien's intention with his words here) this would be a very true statement with regards to the commercialised Tolkien monstrosity: The films generally have only one aesthetic (here the Jackson films could perhaps be commended for at least retaining some hints of e.g. the force of alliterative poetry) and the philosophical scope of commercialised products is in general so narrow as to make the difference to zero insignificant.

Tolkien, on the other hand, explores or incorporates a very broad range of philosophical ideas in his work (in particular in the Silmarillion work), and there is also a wide range of aesthetics in play: just a short look at the poetry of The Lord of the Rings (see e.g. Phelpstead's article in a "Tolkien Studies V") will quickly convince you of the range of poetic aesthetics that Tolkien uses in the characterisation of peoples and persons in his book.

As I said — I really have no idea whether such an interpretation of the French text is at all possible, but I felt that the point was worth making even if Christopher Tolkien could not possibly have meant this.

vor 11 Stunden · Gefällt mir · 2

■

Michal Pekarik Regarding Tolien aestetics and philosophy of his work has anyone read this:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1586170252

Would you consider it is helpful?

vor 10 Stunden · Gefällt mir

■

Jonathan Fruoco Well, everything has been said about this translation, hasn't it? I'm just fascinated by the fact that the credits for the photograph states "Photo by - Youtube screenshot" with a link to one of the videos of my Youtube channel (where you can clearly see the address of our little Christopher Tolkien group).

vor 9 Stunden · Gefällt mir · 4

■

Marcel Aubron-Bülles Hilarious, isn't it

vor 9 Stunden · Gefällt mir

■

Jonathan Fruoco I've sent them an email to correct their credits. "Youtube screenshot" isn't appropriate, isn't it? I've given them the name of the documentary and so on and so forth. By the way, their translation is official because they paid the sum of money Le Monde asked us to pay? What about the Estate?

vor 8 Stunden · Bearbeitet · Gefällt mir · 1

■

Troels Forchhammer Well, as can be seen above a lack of knowledge doesn't particularly hold me back from having an opinion ;) In this case I would be inclined to believe that the copyright to the article belongs to Le Monde and securing permission from the Estate would be a matter more of courtesy that legality (courtesy to the Estate meaning rather more to us than to those others . . .)

vor 7 Stunden · Gefällt mir · 3

■

Jonathan Fruoco Thanks for the clarification!

vor 7 Stunden · Gefällt mir

[Gast Dunderklumpen]

Danke vielmals, Mith.

Die Facebook-Diskussion geht offenbar ausschließlich um die Übersetzung oder Übersetzungen des Artikels aus dem Französischen ins Englische

Insofern ist es vielleicht sinnvoll, den originalsprachigen Artikel hier ausdrücklich zu verlinken, damit eventuelle Auswerter von Christophers Worten ihnen möglichst gerecht werden können:

http://www.lemonde.f...29858_3246.html

[Avor]

Teilweise erschütternd.

Nuja, als ich mich heute Morgen auf Fb drüber beklagt habe, dass der neue Film nach der neuen und sehr enthusiastischen Spiegel-Online-Kritik vermutlich nicht viel Tolkien enthalten wird, hat mir Frank Weinreich geanwortet: " Aber es war doch klar, dass wir es mit einer Verfilmung nach Motiven von Tolkien zu tun bekommen werden. Wie schon beim HdR. Viel Original erwarte ich nicht."

Und vermutlich muss man es genauso sehen, das Thema Tolkien in den Filmen einfach abhaken, sich über die tollen Spezialeffekte freuen und das Spektakel einfach genießen. Ist ja auch nicht die erste Filmreihe, die sich weit von dem zugrundeliegenden literarischen Original entfernt.

[Gast Dunderklumpen]

Teilweise erschütternd.

Nuja, als ich mich heute Morgen auf Fb drüber beklagt habe, dass der neue Film nach der neuen und sehr enthusiastischen Spiegel-Online-Kritik vermutlich nicht viel Tolkien enthalten wird, hat mir Frank Weinreich geanwortet: " Aber es war doch klar, dass wir es mit einer Verfilmung nach Motiven von Tolkien zu tun bekommen werden. Wie schon beim HdR. Viel Original erwarte ich nicht."

Das meinte ich nicht mit dem "teilweise erschütternd". Ich bezog mich da auf Christopher Tolkiens Text, der mich teilweise sehr ergriffen hat. Aber ich werd' darauf noch ein andermal zurückkommen.

Und vermutlich muss man es genauso sehen, das Thema Tolkien in den Filmen einfach abhaken, sich über die tollen Spezialeffekte freuen und das Spektakel einfach genießen.

Nein, ich lass' die nicht aus ihrer Verantwortung. Sie werden gemessen werden, und zwar nach verschiedenen Kriterien. Ich höre seit Wochen, dass man seine Ansprüche zu senken habe. Warum? Je mehr gefordert wird, dass man die doch einfach machen lassen soll und es als billige Massenware zu akzeptieren habe - ich meine jetzt nicht Dich, Avor - desto klarer wird mir, dass ich sie nicht aus ihrer Verantwortung gegenüber Tolkien und seinem Anliegen entlasse. Auch nicht in der Verantwortung gegenüber dem Niveau von Filmgenre überhaupt.

Das, was durchsickert, ist, dass mit dieser Verfilmung offenbar tatsächlich ein Deutungsversuch von Tolkien unternommen wird. Also messe ich das genau daran. Ich würde das auch sonst daran messen, denn hier liegt ja nun einmal Tolkienrezeption vor. Spezialeffekte interessieren mich nicht, nerven mich höchstens.

Aber das, was Christopher andeutet: dass für ihn das Tolkiensische Anliegen gar nicht in den Werken "Hobbit" und LotR liegt - sie seien nur ein Randphänomen, schreibt er in etwa -, das ist für mich das Hauptthema des von Dir verlinkten Artikels. Aber dazu wirklich ein andermal.

[Gast Mithrennaith]

Und vermutlich muss man es genauso sehen, das Thema Tolkien in den Filmen einfach abhaken, sich über die tollen Spezialeffekte freuen und das Spektakel einfach genießen.

Nein, ich lass' die nicht aus ihrer Verantwortung. Sie werden gemessen werden, und zwar nach verschiedenen Kriterien. Ich höre seit Wochen, dass man seine Ansprüche zu senken habe. Warum? Je mehr gefordert wird, dass man die doch einfach machen lassen soll und es als billige Massenware zu akzeptieren habe - ich meine jetzt nicht Dich, Avor - desto klarer wird mir, dass ich sie nicht aus ihrer Verantwortung gegenüber Tolkien und seinem Anliegen entlasse. Auch nicht in der Verantwortung gegenüber dem Niveau von Filmgenre überhaupt.

Das, was durchsickert, ist, dass mit dieser Verfilmung offenbar tatsächlich ein Deutungsversuch von Tolkien unternommen wird. Also messe ich das genau daran. Ich würde das auch sonst daran messen, denn hier liegt ja nun einmal Tolkienrezeption vor. Spezialeffekte interessieren mich nicht, nerven mich höchstens.

Gut gebrüllt, Löwe.

[Seoman]

Hm, ich habe gerade einen Artikel dazu gelesen:

http://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-tolkien-hates-the-movies-2012-12

Ich finde, man sollte die Kirche im Dorf lassen, wie man so schön sagt. Die Bücher werden immer da sein, um für alle, die es wissen wollen, die originalen Geschichten bereit zu halten. Und offensichtlich wollen es viele wissen, wie die immens angestiegenen Buchverkäufe nach der Veröffentlichung des ersten Films zeigen.

Filme, die derartig teuer in der Produktion sind, müssen für einen Massenmarkt akzeptabel sein, sonst kämen die Kosten ja nicht wieder herein.

Zum Hobbit kann ich nichts sagen, weil der ja noch nicht draußen ist, aber die HdR-Filme empfand ich nun nicht gerade als Tolkien-Vergewaltigung. Sicher waren da einige Entscheidungen, die mir persönlich nicht gefallen haben, wie z. B. die Ersetzung von Glorfindel durch Arwen und überhaupt die etwas aufgeblasene Rolle von Arwen, aber das sind eher Kleinigkeiten.

Insgesamt finde ich die Bücher recht werktreu im Gegensatz zu manch anderen Verfilmungen.

Ich habe kürzlich ein längeres Interview mit J. K. Rowling gesehen, in dem sie sich unter anderem über notwendige Veränderungen äußert, die Filmemacher zwangsläufig machen müssen. Sie hat ein ganz entspanntes Verhältnis dazu, was mir sehr gefallen hat.

Natürlich sind Filme eine Interpretation von Büchern, genau so wie es z. B. auch die Bilder von Howe, Lee, Hildebrandt oder Nasmith sind. Was daran so schlimm sein soll, erschließt sich mir nicht.

[Gast Dunderklumpen]

Natürlich sind Filme eine Interpretation von Büchern [...] Was daran so schlimm sein soll, erschließt sich mir nicht.

Und mir erschließt sich im Moment nicht, wieso Du meinst, dass Christopher Tolkien das nicht weiß (dass Filme Interpretation von Büchern sind) und dass er sagt, dass das schlimm sei.

Könntest Du das vielleicht mal mit Zitaten von Christopher belegen? Dann kann man sich an Fakten orientieren.

[Seoman]

Ich habe nicht gesagt, dass C. Tolkien das gesagt hat, wenn wir schon beim Haare spalten sind ...

Im Wesentlichen verstehe ich das nicht:

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

Er scheint also schon so seine Schwierigkeiten mit den Filmen zu haben. Sei ihm ja auch gegönnt. Ich verstehe es trotzdem nicht.

[Gast Dunderklumpen]

Hast Du den ganzen Artikel gelesen?

Ein aus einem langen Artikel herausgerissener Absatz ist doch per se nicht zu verstehen.

Bearbeitet 9. Dezember 2012 von Dunderklumpen

[Bregalad]

Gibts den Artikel auch auf deutsch irgendwo? so sicher bin ich mir mit meinem englisch dann nämlich doch nicht...

 

Ich persönlich halte die PJ-Filme (zumindest HdR) mit für die gelungensten Buchverfilmungen der letzten 20 Jahre (die ich kenne) und auch für relativ nah am Werk. Natürlich mit eigenen Schwerpunkten, aber trotzdem...

Außerdem gibt es bestimmt einige, die sich erst über die Filme mit Tolkiens Werk auseinandergesetzt und ihn mitlerweile lieben gelernt haben.

Bearbeitet 21. März 2013 von Bregalad

[Gast Dunderklumpen]

Gibts den Artikel auch auf deutsch irgendwo?

 

Nicht, dass ich wüsste.

Und schon die englische Übersetzung ist, sagt man, verfälschend. Also sollte man besser auf Französisch lesen. Zumindest an den Stellen, wo man falsche Übersetzung diagnostiziert hat.

 

Vielleicht kommt ja irgend jemand noch mal dazu, die wichtigsten Argumente auf Deutsch wiederzugeben.

 

Man sollte diesem Great Old Man zuhören, unbedingt. Er ist der letzte, der Tolkien wirklich kannte. Seine Argumente sind von ungeheurem Gewicht.

[Bregalad]

Ok, dann werd ich mich wohl doch mal aufs Englische stürtzen. Mit Französisch ist mir nämlich noch weniger geholfen ;)

 

Aber nicht nur, dass Christopher der letzte ist, der J.R.R. wirklich kannte, er war auch am Schaffungsprozess für die Werke beteiligt, wenn man Wikipedia glauben darf.

[Berenfox]

Eine Diskussion zu diesem Artikel kam auch heute wieder auf Facebook auf, konkret über Christophers Satz: "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25, And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film.” Ich fühlte mich genötigt, einen Beitrag zu schreiben, und obwohl er auf Englisch ist, möchte ich ihn euch nicht vorenthalten. Vielleicht kommt ja eine Diskussion auf.

 

 

Though I very much like the LotR-movies, I think Christopher is quite right with his statement. Christopher is not only his father’s son, but responsible for and representing the LITERARY estate of his father. Of course, the movies are not bad, but from Christopher’s point of view (as the one who has to protect the LITERARY sources) there are several critical points which are worth to think about. Watching a movie destroys imagination. For so many people it is hard to read the book and NOT to see the faces of Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, not to see New Zealand landscapes and WETA designs; some people even do not WANT to see anything else than what they think is THE one and only interpretation of Middle-earth; and some of them never touch the books again because (and this is so often the undertone of the popular question: “When will this or that book be made into a movie?”) books are deficient, while a movie can make you see it all as it is. As it is?! Wake up, there is nothing like THE interpretation of Middle-earth, even less of “The Lord of the Rings”, and anyone who claims so is like Sauron with his One Ring! For this reason I am quite sure J.R.R. Tolkien would have very much disliked the fact, that modern computer generated effects can make visible all the things that his imagination created. Tolkien was all for imagination and fantasy, and he was utterly in conflict with the means of modern technology – precisely because it tries to actualise desire. A Hollywood-like interpretation of his work has without doubt its great moments, and I like them very much too, but one should never forget the negative aspects. The movies have created “a sort of parallel universe […] around Tolkien's work, a world of sparkling images and of figurines, colored by the original books of the cult, but often very different from them, like a continent that has drifted far from its original land mass. […] Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising. Soon, by a contagious effect, the book itself became less of a source of inspiration for the authors of fantasy than the film, and then the games inspired by the film, and so on.” It is this point, Christopher so heavily dislikes. Along with it he observes a huge commercialization, which “has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing” – because it instrumentalizes, even exploits, Tolkien’s work for the exact opposite of what it stands for. Even if his sentence may be harsh, there is some truth in it, when Christopher says: “They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25”. The Hollywood-iconography IS of this kind, compared with other styles (just compare the Acadamy Awards ceremony with, say, the Cannes Film Festival). When I read this statement, I do not hear an angry old man who is set in his ways – I can hear a lot of sadness, when he explains what he means: “Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time. […] The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. […] There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away.” I personally like the movies, and I’m very glad they exist. But I totally empathise with a man who points out the weak spots, defending the literary sources.