Gandalf, the Churchwarden Clencher

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

35 Fresh Nørding Pipes
12 Fresh Castello Pipes
60 Fresh Savinelli Pipes
New Cigars
3 Fresh Austin Quinlan Pipes

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

dctune

Part of the Furniture Now
Beats me, but wait till someone tells him Gandalf detested latakia... ?
I know The Country Squire’s edition of Old Toby made it an aromatic (which is VERY good, I might add). But I refuse to believe the “finest weed in the Southfarthing” was sans Latakia. Surely Tobold Hornblower would never have committed such a crime.
 

Chasing Embers

Captain of the Black Frigate
Nov 12, 2014
45,380
120,163
But more importantly, I got mad love for all you burly burley gentlemen, & you Virginian, Latakian, & Periquean ones too. I even love you Deertongueans.
No love for the Oriental smokers? I'm appalled, appalled I tell you! See if you can smoke it better!??
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: SBC and dctune

SBC

Lifer
Oct 6, 2021
1,640
7,746
NE Wisconsin
Since we're all showing ourselves mature enough to engage in such banter productively...

The meaning of a text consists partly in what is included, what is omitted, what is given priority, etc. It is probably impossible to translate many texts to film. Details like lighting and shadowing, foregrounding and backgrounding, the length of one shot with respect to the length of another, etc., all contribute to the meaning of a scene, and the odds of this matching authorial intent perfectly are slim.

When we read an author, he invites us to see what he sees on his own terms. (A prerogative which any author deserves, don't you think?)
When we watch some other producer's dramatic enactment of the text, we let that producer do our imagining for us. (And if the original author is dead, he can't tell us whether or not he approves.)

And this is assuming that the director is interpreting the narrative rightly, himself. There is the additional probability that no director himself imagines a narrative perfectly (as regards shades of feeling, etc.) unless he views the world from all the same assumptions as the original author.

(Jackson was incapable of conceiving of an Aragorn figure as Tolkien conceived of him, for one thing. Jackson confuses humility with hesitance, and sees a tension between gentleness and authority. I am no better a man than Jackson is. Tolkien was a better man than either of us.)

It is not to me a foregone conclusion that great literature should be put to film. (I am not concluding that it should not be. I am simply stating that it is not a foregone conclusion.) When you point out that artistic license is not only permissible, but in fact inevitable and required, when putting a text to film, I agree with you completely. That is exactly why I am not certain that it should always be attempted.

A related question regards the ethics of making adjustments (including even the inevitable and necessary adjustments) to somebody else's story. To my mind -- and I don't expect anybody else to agree -- it is not obvious that either death or an arbitrary duration of copyright protection satisfy a moral obligation to leave an artist's work as created.

But I am just putting ideas and questions on the table. Not concluding anything.

Perhaps none of us are taking metaphysical dream seriously enough. It is nothing short of everything. Tolkien was a traditionalist Catholic who shouted the mass in Latin after Vatican 2 changed it to the vernacular. Tolkien swam in Anglo-Saxon, had self-admitted anarchist leanings, and eschewed technological advances, not in ideological theory like some neo-luddite, but out of personal roots in a way of life in the English countryside which he saw disappear in his lifetime. On the level of his deepest and most unconscious sentiments he was a pre-modern who assumed the inter-penetration of the material and spiritual in a way that few of us can grasp, even if we agree on paper. In his personal posture towards God he was characterized by a piety which the most devout among us will spend the rest of our lives hoping to cultivate, and he hadn't soiled himself in all the little failures in integrity that the rest of us shrug or chuckle at, or take for granted. He didn't ask us to believe in anything good originating in ourselves, but believed that men are fallen in Adam and enslaved to temptation. Hence Boromir, etc.

Having said the above, I'll also say (maybe to your surprise):
Jackson's films, considered in themselves, are in my opinion head-and-shoulders more valuable than most other films. At any rate I like them an awful lot. They're probably my favorite films.

(I refer here to the LOTR films, not the Hobbit films. The LOTR films are "close enough" to be worth talking about -- close enough to consider the contrasts -- which is extremely high praise. The Hobbit films, on the other hand, can barely even be compared to the book of the same name. That conversation couldn't even get off the ground.)

But in this conversation we're not considering the films in themselves. We're considering them as enactments of Tolkien's imagination. And many of those who most closely share Tolkien's deepest assumptions and sentiments think that there are whiffs rooted not in artistic license but in Jackson's caliber with respect to Tolkien's.

And on that matter I'll say that Christopher's career did not amount to rehashing and rearranging his father's work. It consisted in collating and bringing to publication a small fraction of the mountains of additional notes which his father couldn't collate and bring to publication in one lifetime.

Christopher was raised in his father's home and knew his father's mind, sentiments, and intentions in a way that nobody else can. So if Jackson and Christopher disagree about what does and does not reflect and perpetuate Tolkien's vision, Christopher gets the benefit of the doubt.

(And in case anybody isn't accustomed to traditional banter and isn't sure whether I'm feeling friendly -- I am! If we were having this conversation in person, I'd buy the next round.)
 

Chasing Embers

Captain of the Black Frigate
Nov 12, 2014
45,380
120,163
I know The Country Squire’s edition of Old Toby made it an aromatic (which is VERY good, I might add). But I refuse to believe the “finest weed in the Southfarthing” was sans Latakia. Surely Tobold Hornblower would never have committed such a crime.
The tobacco used on set is said to have been Stokkebye's Nougat.
 

SBC

Lifer
Oct 6, 2021
1,640
7,746
NE Wisconsin
I know The Country Squire’s edition of Old Toby made it an aromatic (which is VERY good, I might add). But I refuse to believe the “finest weed in the Southfarthing” was sans Latakia. Surely Tobold Hornblower would never have committed such a crime.

I've always had this sense that the major Southfarthing offerings were Straight VAs. But I couldn't argue for that.
(Except maybe that Tolkien smoked Capstan Blue.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dctune

timt

Lifer
Jul 19, 2018
2,844
22,739
Since we're all showing ourselves mature enough to engage in such banter productively...

The meaning of a text consists partly in what is included, what is omitted, what is given priority, etc. It is probably impossible to translate many texts to film. Details like lighting and shadowing, foregrounding and backgrounding, the length of one shot with respect to the length of another, etc., all contribute to the meaning of a scene, and the odds of this matching authorial intent perfectly are slim.

When we read an author, he invites us to see what he sees on his own terms. (A prerogative which any author deserves, don't you think?)
When we watch some other producer's dramatic enactment of the text, we let that producer do our imagining for us. (And if the original author is dead, he can't tell us whether or not he approves.)

And this is assuming that the director is interpreting the narrative rightly, himself. There is the additional probability that no director himself imagines a narrative perfectly (as regards shades of feeling, etc.) unless he views the world from all the same assumptions as the original author.

(Jackson was incapable of conceiving of an Aragorn figure as Tolkien conceived of him, for one thing. Jackson confuses humility with hesitance, and sees a tension between gentleness and authority. I am no better a man than Jackson is. Tolkien was a better man than either of us.)

It is not to me a foregone conclusion that great literature should be put to film. (I am not concluding that it should not be. I am simply stating that it is not a foregone conclusion.) When you point out that artistic license is not only permissible, but in fact inevitable and required, when putting a text to film, I agree with you completely. That is exactly why I am not certain that it should always be attempted.

A related question regards the ethics of making adjustments (including even the inevitable and necessary adjustments) to somebody else's story. To my mind -- and I don't expect anybody else to agree -- it is not obvious that either death or an arbitrary duration of copyright protection satisfy a moral obligation to leave an artist's work as created.

But I am just putting ideas and questions on the table. Not concluding anything.

Perhaps none of us are taking metaphysical dream seriously enough. It is nothing short of everything. Tolkien was a traditionalist Catholic who shouted the mass in Latin after Vatican 2 changed it to the vernacular. Tolkien swam in Anglo-Saxon, had self-admitted anarchist leanings, and eschewed technological advances, not in ideological theory like some neo-luddite, but out of personal roots in a way of life in the English countryside which he saw disappear in his lifetime. On the level of his deepest and most unconscious sentiments he was a pre-modern who assumed the inter-penetration of the material and spiritual in a way that few of us can grasp, even if we agree on paper. In his personal posture towards God he was characterized by a piety which the most devout among us will spend the rest of our lives hoping to cultivate, and he hadn't soiled himself in all the little failures in integrity that the rest of us shrug or chuckle at, or take for granted. He didn't ask us to believe in anything good originating in ourselves, but believed that men are fallen in Adam and enslaved to temptation. Hence Boromir, etc.

Having said the above, I'll also say (maybe to your surprise):
Jackson's films, considered in themselves, are in my opinion head-and-shoulders more valuable than most other films. At any rate I like them an awful lot. They're probably my favorite films.

(I refer here to the LOTR films, not the Hobbit films. The LOTR films are "close enough" to be worth talking about -- close enough to consider the contrasts -- which is extremely high praise. The Hobbit films, on the other hand, can barely even be compared to the book of the same name. That conversation couldn't even get off the ground.)

But in this conversation we're not considering the films in themselves. We're considering them as enactments of Tolkien's imagination. And many of those who most closely share Tolkien's deepest assumptions and sentiments think that there are whiffs rooted not in artistic license but in Jackson's caliber with respect to Tolkien's.

And on that matter I'll say that Christopher's career did not amount to rehashing and rearranging his father's work. It consisted in collating and bringing to publication a small fraction of the mountains of additional notes which his father couldn't collate and bring to publication in one lifetime.

Christopher was raised in his father's home and knew his father's mind, sentiments, and intentions in a way that nobody else can. So if Jackson and Christopher disagree about what does and does not reflect and perpetuate Tolkien's vision, Christopher gets the benefit of the doubt.

(And in case anybody isn't accustomed to traditional banter and isn't sure whether I'm feeling friendly -- I am! If we were having this conversation in person, I'd buy the next round.)
Excellent post, my friend! You've definitely sparked my interest in learning more about Tolkien.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBC

judcole

Lifer
Sep 14, 2011
7,484
39,379
Detroit
Oh, I enjoyed the movies, too - I thought they were exceedingly well done. I just don't have any desire to see them again. If I am going to journey back to Middle Earth, I would rather do it via the printed page, that's all.
ea710edbd697ac60f0fceb412e4a2d06.jpg


Had that on my dorm wall in college...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBC and dctune

telescopes

Pipe Dreamer and Star Gazer
Since we're all showing ourselves mature enough to engage in such banter productively...

The meaning of a text consists partly in what is included, what is omitted, what is given priority, etc. It is probably impossible to translate many texts to film. Details like lighting and shadowing, foregrounding and backgrounding, the length of one shot with respect to the length of another, etc., all contribute to the meaning of a scene, and the odds of this matching authorial intent perfectly are slim.

When we read an author, he invites us to see what he sees on his own terms. (A prerogative which any author deserves, don't you think?)
When we watch some other producer's dramatic enactment of the text, we let that producer do our imagining for us. (And if the original author is dead, he can't tell us whether or not he approves.)

And this is assuming that the director is interpreting the narrative rightly, himself. There is the additional probability that no director himself imagines a narrative perfectly (as regards shades of feeling, etc.) unless he views the world from all the same assumptions as the original author.

(Jackson was incapable of conceiving of an Aragorn figure as Tolkien conceived of him, for one thing. Jackson confuses humility with hesitance, and sees a tension between gentleness and authority. I am no better a man than Jackson is. Tolkien was a better man than either of us.)

It is not to me a foregone conclusion that great literature should be put to film. (I am not concluding that it should not be. I am simply stating that it is not a foregone conclusion.) When you point out that artistic license is not only permissible, but in fact inevitable and required, when putting a text to film, I agree with you completely. That is exactly why I am not certain that it should always be attempted.

A related question regards the ethics of making adjustments (including even the inevitable and necessary adjustments) to somebody else's story. To my mind -- and I don't expect anybody else to agree -- it is not obvious that either death or an arbitrary duration of copyright protection satisfy a moral obligation to leave an artist's work as created.

But I am just putting ideas and questions on the table. Not concluding anything.

Perhaps none of us are taking metaphysical dream seriously enough. It is nothing short of everything. Tolkien was a traditionalist Catholic who shouted the mass in Latin after Vatican 2 changed it to the vernacular. Tolkien swam in Anglo-Saxon, had self-admitted anarchist leanings, and eschewed technological advances, not in ideological theory like some neo-luddite, but out of personal roots in a way of life in the English countryside which he saw disappear in his lifetime. On the level of his deepest and most unconscious sentiments he was a pre-modern who assumed the inter-penetration of the material and spiritual in a way that few of us can grasp, even if we agree on paper. In his personal posture towards God he was characterized by a piety which the most devout among us will spend the rest of our lives hoping to cultivate, and he hadn't soiled himself in all the little failures in integrity that the rest of us shrug or chuckle at, or take for granted. He didn't ask us to believe in anything good originating in ourselves, but believed that men are fallen in Adam and enslaved to temptation. Hence Boromir, etc.

Having said the above, I'll also say (maybe to your surprise):
Jackson's films, considered in themselves, are in my opinion head-and-shoulders more valuable than most other films. At any rate I like them an awful lot. They're probably my favorite films.

(I refer here to the LOTR films, not the Hobbit films. The LOTR films are "close enough" to be worth talking about -- close enough to consider the contrasts -- which is extremely high praise. The Hobbit films, on the other hand, can barely even be compared to the book of the same name. That conversation couldn't even get off the ground.)

But in this conversation we're not considering the films in themselves. We're considering them as enactments of Tolkien's imagination. And many of those who most closely share Tolkien's deepest assumptions and sentiments think that there are whiffs rooted not in artistic license but in Jackson's caliber with respect to Tolkien's.

And on that matter I'll say that Christopher's career did not amount to rehashing and rearranging his father's work. It consisted in collating and bringing to publication a small fraction of the mountains of additional notes which his father couldn't collate and bring to publication in one lifetime.

Christopher was raised in his father's home and knew his father's mind, sentiments, and intentions in a way that nobody else can. So if Jackson and Christopher disagree about what does and does not reflect and perpetuate Tolkien's vision, Christopher gets the benefit of the doubt.

(And in case anybody isn't accustomed to traditional banter and isn't sure whether I'm feeling friendly -- I am! If we were having this conversation in person, I'd buy the next round.)
I agree with everything you have stated. In regards to Christopher, my comments are not a criticism of him, but a recognition that he is not a filmmaker, nor is he known as a storyteller of his own original work. My point being that his criticism of Jackson’s take on LOTRs is his own, but as it relates to the world of cinema, it isn’t worth much else - not to say that he isn’t entitled to his opinion. Jackson‘s take on the source material is amazingly brilliant. Not that it is beyond criticism, but criticism that he left out parts of the book is ridiculous. Of course he left things out and of course he included aspects that were not in the work. A filmmaker‘s job is to make something cohesive and that means adding creative choices. And yes, his choices reflect his take on the work as well as his take on what he believes works best for the audience to whom he will tell the story. But ultimately, if the inner truths of the story are told, does it matter the color of the wallpaper in the room he told it? I just rewatched the extended version and was amazed at how elk it still holds up after two decades.
 

olkofri

Lifer
Sep 9, 2017
8,181
15,027
The Arm of Orion
I refuse to believe the “finest weed in the Southfarthing” was sans Latakia
Some of the hobbits' leaf did have latakia: that's what Saruman had in his cellar—evil leaf is smoked by evil characters—not surprising—whilst all the time snubbing Gandalf for smoking aromatics ("the hobbit leaf has clouded your mind!"). ?

?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dctune