Gandalf, the Churchwarden Clencher

[SBC]

As Gandalf makes his first appearance in the film, he is, naturally, smoking a rugged, long-stemmed pipe. And he is clenching. And not just clenching. The wizard is doing so while driving a horse-drawn cart. Across bumpy terrain. Sans shocks or struts.

Unless Jackson is a pipe smoker -- and I am not aware that he is -- there is approximately no reason to take anything pipe-related in the films seriously.

In the words of Christopher Tolkien,

"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."

the most likely cause is his pipe is imbued with magic

or perhaps it just sits happily clenched because he wills it to

LOL!

However, smoked while seated in a chair with arms, a 'warden is the penultimate of ease as you can sip the smoke with the slightest movement of your hand.

Yes! The churchwarden is as convenient for one thing as it is inconvenient for anther. It is a sitter's and holder's pipe, and for that it is the pipe par excellance.

Clenching a 'warden? Only momentarily, if I have to shift gears whilst turning or performing another manoeuvre which would be awkward or risky whilst holding a churchwarden (or any pipe) bowl in one hand.

Same. If I'm sipping a churchwarden whilst reading in a comfortable chair, I may clench it momentarily by my front teeth (perhaps resting the bowl on my trunk if slouched) while I turn the page.

I often see Ian McKellen when I go over to Battersea Park. A very pleasant fellow.
He always gives me a smile and bids me a good afternoon

You swim in celebrated waters, Mr. Morrison. If I ever make it back to your side of the pond, I'd like little better than to puff a pipe with you in Battersea Park.

I always found it interesting that churchwardens were so prominent in the LotR films. They were much less so in the books, where shorter pipes predominate.

Correct.

I also seem to recall churchwardens being in a late ‘70s animated version of the Hobbit.

Yeah, that endearing little foray into D&D-styled Hobbit-dom featured several Tyroleans:

 

[judcole]

I have great sympathy for the views expressed by Christopher Tolkien, as SBC quoted them. There is so much in those novels that never made it into the films...
I saw LotR once, in the theater, on first release. Never watched it again. Don't see a need to do so. Totally refused to go see The Hobbit - no reason except greed to make a trilogy out of that little tale. If you enjoy it, that's great - but it's not for me...

 

[dctune]

I have great sympathy for the views expressed by Christopher Tolkien, as SBC quoted them. There is so much in those novels that never made it into the films...
I saw LotR once, in the theater, on first release. Never watched it again. Don't see a need to do so. Totally refused to go see The Hobbit - no reason except greed to make a trilogy out of that little tale. If you enjoy it, that's great - but it's not for me...

I personally enjoyed the LotR films. It was neat to see the world come to life on the screen. Though, much of the casting I found…off. And after a lifetime of reading the books, it did pain me what was not included.

As for the Hobbit, I don’t know if it was “cinematic franchise fatigue,” or what, but I saw the first movie & was thoroughly repulsed. Have never seen the films that followed. I was particularly bothered by the White Orc as a mechanism to move the story along. Completely unnecessary.

 

[telescopes]

I found Jackson‘s films to be brilliant. I can’t imagine how difficult it truly was to bring those novels to film. Did he make choices. Yes and so would anyone. I doubt few could have kept in the film events from the books as much as he managed to do.

 

[telescopes]

I also was impressed with what he just did with the Beatles.

 

[SBC]

I want to remain respectful of this forum's focus, but if it's permissible to compare and contrast Tolkien's LOTR with Jackson's (since the subject seems to have arisen naturally from the OP), I'd like to mention that, to some of us traditionalist Catholics, it's not the failure to include this or that scene which we find most concerning, but what amounts to a different vision of reality (what Richard Weaver called a "metaphysical dream").

My favorite short reflection on Jackson's films from this perspective is Donald Williams', which you may read here.

 

[dctune]

Regardless of all our varying feelings about the films, I believe we can all agree that pipes were warmly
smoked in the films, & that tobacco was not vilified on the big screen.

I actually keep this nearly 20-year-old issue on my Tolkien shelf…

 

[olkofri]

I want to remain respectful of this forum's focus, but if it's permissible to compare and contrast Tolkien's LOTR with Jackson's (since the subject seems to have arisen naturally from the OP), I'd like to mention that, to some of us traditionalist Catholics, it's not the failure to include this or that scene which we find most concerning, but what amounts to a different vision of reality (what Richard Weaver called a "metaphysical dream").

My favorite short reflection on Jackson's films from this perspective is Donald Williams', which you may read here.

Coming from the same direction, I have to admit that I like the films because, in a cultural environment where Hollywood (anti)values have turned everything upside down (Is 5:20 ), they succeded—or managed—to maintain right and wrong in their proper places. Ditto The Hobbit, although this last one does definitely include quite the number of woke elements, not so much in the story as it does in the scenography.

It is, however, undeniable that the LotR films do contain modernist elements that, whilst not really twisting the story, do water things down. Some of them are mentioned in that article you cited—which I haven't read in full as I type this, but I did read the "Two Divergent Traditions" section. Personally, I'm always sickened by diffident heroes who are beating around the bush avoiding their birthright of greatness because they "don't want this destiny". Some heroes. Aragorn does this in the movies. Long time ago I was reading another quite notorious fantasy series and the main character, right in the first novel, was behaving likewise—I was repulsed.

I think it's fair to mention that I hadn't read the books before seeing the first film. I got to read them anon, and still wasn't so put off by the artistic licence. My biggest pet peeve with the movies was Arwen, who from saying not a word in the books was turned into such a sassy character.

 

[SBC]

Regardless of all our varying feelings about the films, I believe we can all agree that pipes were warmly
smoked in the films, & that tobacco was not vilified on the big screen.

I actually keep this nearly 20-year-old issue on my Tolkien shelf…
View attachment 113419

Sam was cast well, BTW, and there's no denying that the films were good for public perception of pipe smoking.

And, for all my ideals, I may or may not sometimes play the shire theme while smoking a churchwarden...

 

[anotherbob]

I hated those movies tried rereading the books and thought I wouldn't love these if I found them now not when I was 13.

 

[SBC]

Coming from the same direction, I have to admit that I like the films because, in a cultural environment where Hollywood (anti)values have turned everything upside down (Is 5:20 ), they succeded—or managed—to maintain right and wrong in their proper places. Ditto The Hobbit, although this last one does definitely include quite the number of woke elements, not so much in the story as it does in the scenography.

It is, however, undeniable that the LotR films do contain modernist elements that, whilst not really twisting the story, do water things down. Some of them are mentioned in that article you cited—which I haven't read in full as I type this, but I did read the "Two Divergent Traditions" section. Personally, I'm always sickened by diffident heroes who are beating around the bush avoiding their birthright of greatness because they "don't want this destiny". Some heroes. Aragorn does this in the movies. Long time ago I was reading another quite notorious fantasy series and the main character, right in the first novel, was behaving likewise—I was repulsed.

I think it's fair to mention that I hadn't read the books before seeing the first film. I got to read them anon, and still wasn't so put off by the artistic licence. My biggest pet peeve with the movies was Arwen, who from saying not a word in the books was turned into such a sassy character.

You and I ought to be acquainted. PM probably forthcoming.

 

[trouttimes]

I am a fan of LOTR and I think the films did the justice. No film I have ever seen followed the book to in every detail. I greatly enjoyed what Jackson did and talking to several B&M’s, Jackson’s films gave pipes a good kick in the butt with the smoking public. Several shops have told me they sell a ton of churchwardens even today because of the films.

 

[anotherbob]

I am a fan of LOTR and I think the films did the justice. No film I have ever seen followed the book to in every detail. I greatly enjoyed what Jackson did and talking to several B&M’s, Jackson’s films gave pipes a good kick in the butt with the smoking public. Several shops have told me they sell a ton of churchwardens even today because of the films.

representation matters or in other words out and proud is going to save our lifestyle and i am available as a pipe consultant and can do stunt smoking for film and tee vee

 

[dctune]

He's a wizard which means an invisible hand could be holding the pipe for him.

“What new devilry is this?”
—Boromir

 

[Chasing Embers]

I hated those movies tried rereading the books and thought I wouldn't love these if I found them now not when I was 13.

I didn't know who Tolkien was until I was in my mid twenties. Tried to like LOTR but couldn't bring myself to.

 

[telescopes]

Obviously, no one on this forum has tried making a movie based on a novel. Artistic license is a must and elements of a story must be cut.

What elements would you critics of Jackson have cut from the novels? What elements did he keep that you would have kept? Moving a story along via film is a masterpiece of story telling. It is script, words, music, scenery.... and yes, it is also portraying the characters in a way that is accessible to the times in which they are being viewed - or does that matter? Should movie makers create a movie for the 5 percent who want to argue over the actual tobacco in Gandalf's pipe? Appears it was modern in the film. Or, should movie makers do what Jackson did - create a movie that tells a story that is accessible to modern cinema ticket purchase holders and allows them to enter the world Tolkien created in a way that is possible and accessible. Or, should he please Christopher Tolkien - a man whose career amounts to rehashing and rearranging everything his father did. There is a place for Christopher, but there is just as much a place for Jackson. The movie was pure, clean, idyllic, and asked us to believe in what is best about ourselves and to fight against the worst parts of what we might become. What more do you want?

@sablebrush52 You work in the industry. I am sure you have an opinion about what is and is not possible about telling a story via the media of film.

 

[sablebrush52]

Obviously, no one on this forum has tried making a movie based on a novel. Artistic license is a must and elements of a story must be cut.

What elements would you critics of Jackson have cut from the novels? What elements did he keep that you would have kept? Moving a story along via film is a masterpiece of story telling. It is script, words, music, scenery.... and yes, it is also portraying the characters in a way that is accessible to the times in which they are being viewed - or does that matter? Should movie makers create a movie for the 5 percent who want to argue over the actual tobacco in Gandalf's pipe? Appears it was modern in the film. Or, should movie makers do what Jackson did - create a movie that tells a story that is accessible to modern cinema ticket purchase holders and allows them to enter the world Tolkien created in a way that is possible and accessible. Or, should he please Christopher Tolkien - a man whose career amounts to rehashing and rearranging everything his father did. There is a place for Christopher, but there is just as much a place for Jackson. The movie was pure, clean, idyllic, and asked us to believe in what is best about ourselves and to fight against the worst parts of what we might become. What more do you want?

@sablebrush52 You work in the industry. I am sure you have an opinion about what is and is not possible about telling a story via the media of film.

As far as I'm concerned, you're 100% spot on. A feature lasts for anywhere from 80 minutes for 3 hours. There are a number of reasons for this, but the bottom line is that no one is going to cover a novel with perfect fidelity in a couple of hours of time.

They're completely different art forms and follow different rules to achieve the purpose of telling a story.

With a book, the reader creates the visuals in his minds eye. The reader creates his own voices for the characters, In a movie, the director and other creative heads he has chosen create the visuals and choose the cast.

It's NEVER going to be the same thing, whether or not every little detail is retained. More than likely it will become an intolerable survival test. You watch a movie in one sitting. You read a book in several sittings.

If you expect a movie to reproduce your experience of reading a novel you are going to be disappointed.

Bananas are not marsupials.

 

[Chasing Embers]

Obviously, no one on this forum has tried making a movie based on a novel. Artistic license is a must and elements of a story must be cut.

What elements would you critics of Jackson have cut from the novels? What elements did he keep that you would have kept? Moving a story along via film is a masterpiece of story telling. It is script, words, music, scenery.... and yes, it is also portraying the characters in a way that is accessible to the times in which they are being viewed - or does that matter? Should movie makers create a movie for the 5 percent who want to argue over the actual tobacco in Gandalf's pipe? Appears it was modern in the film. Or, should movie makers do what Jackson did - create a movie that tells a story that is accessible to modern cinema ticket purchase holders and allows them to enter the world Tolkien created in a way that is possible and accessible. Or, should he please Christopher Tolkien - a man whose career amounts to rehashing and rearranging everything his father did. There is a place for Christopher, but there is just as much a place for Jackson. The movie was pure, clean, idyllic, and asked us to believe in what is best about ourselves and to fight against the worst parts of what we might become. What more do you want?

@sablebrush52 You work in the industry. I am sure you have an opinion about what is and is not possible about telling a story via the media of film.

Who's post provoked such ire?

 

[olkofri]

Who's post provoked such ire?

Beats me, but wait till someone tells him Gandalf detested latakia... ?

 

[dctune]

Who's post provoked such ire?

I’m not sure either lol. My point was that our beloved wizard was the pimpest clencher the Shire had ever seen. (And that’s only because you weren’t in the Shire, as I promptly learned in your first reply to this thread.)

Suffice it to say, I (who created the original post) got mad love for Tolkien, the books, and the films (though I wasn’t a big fan of The Hobbit movies - still got love though).

But more importantly, I got mad love for all you burly burley gentlemen, & you Virginian, Latakian, & Periquean ones too. I even love you Deertongueans.