Media Research (A)
M.F.C 6074
by
Liam Whetstone
Exploring Film Adaptation Theory
Through an Analysis of The Lord of the Rings(2011)
10,000 words
This dissertation will explore film adaptation theory through an analysis of The Lord of the Rings. The aim is to discover how the differences between the original novel and the film can be effectively explained using film adaptation theories. Stam writes,
“The Traditional language of criticism of filmic adaptations of novels, as I have argued elsewhere, has often been extremely judgemental, proliferating in terms that imply that film has performed a disservice to literature. Terms such as ‘infidelity’, ‘betrayal’, ‘deformation’, ‘violation’, ‘vulgarization’, ’bastardization’, and ‘desecration’, proliferate, with each word carrying its specific charge of opprobrium. Despite the variety of the accusations, their drift always seems to be the same-the book was better”
(Stam, 2005, p3)
Peter Jackson and his co-adapters created films that were significantly different when compared to Tolkien’s novel. Both the novel and the film have significant cult followings but are individual texts.
“The novel is by far and away one of the most popular ever written, in terms not only of its breadth of readership (there seems to be no Tolkien readers, only re-readers), but the enthusiasm of its fan-base, which is global, cross generational, and highly productive in fanzines, small press publication and online fan fiction” (I.Q. Hunter cited Cartmell, &Whelehan, 2007, p155)
Two scenes from The Lord of the Rings film and their corresponding chapters in the novel have been selected for analysis; The Shelob’s Lair and The Choices of Master Samwise (Scenes, 38 and 43 Lord of the Rings Return of the King Disc 2 Extended DVD edition) (Tolkien,2002,Two Towers Film Tie-in edition, p406-439).
The Shelob’s Lair scene is different in terms of specific detail when compared to the chapter in the novel. The Choices of Master Samwise scene is a compressed version of the chapter in the novel, but there are some detailed differences between this scene and its corresponding chapter. This is why these two scenes have been selected for theoretical analysis. These sequences have not just omitted details from the novel or shortened the sequences, as is the case with other scenes in the film. There are differences in narrative significance between the scenes in the film and the chapters in the novel in terms of where they are, characterisation, the environment and the action within the scenes, such as the fight between Frodo and Gollum, (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene 38, 0:06:56) and the confrontation between Shelob and Frodo (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene, 38, 0:05:10). Sam’s character and role in the scenes and chapter will be analysed using selected film adaptation theories. Gollum’s role in the scene will also be analysed in the context of the film trilogy as a whole. Along with the Shelob’s Lair and The Choice’s of Master Samwise sequences, other scenes will be briefly analysed to illustrate how the contrasting build ups to the selected scenes and chapters create differing drama in the novel and the film.
“Of course, in setting out to adapt a novel to the screen, a film maker usually makes many choices along the same lines as those of the novelist. For all the changes people can cite in a host of adaptations, a novel and its adaptation rarely share no more than the title – and one could argue such an ‘adaptation’ exemplifies no more than hastily purchased property.”
(Griffith, 1997, p41)
Griffithsays that it is very rare that a film adaptation shares no more than the title of the original novel. The theories and examples used in this essay will consider this idea. The doctrine of fidelity in film adaptation studies has been described as follows, Christophe Collard writes “Historically adaptation-criticism has been plagued by the doctrine of ‘fidelity” The Adaptation Journal of Literature on Screen Studies, (V 3, I 2, 2010, p83.) (See Appendix-1)
The aspects of the scenes to be analysed will be characterisation, plot point differences, and Tolkien’s descriptions will be compared withJackson’s cinematography and mise- en- scene. Specific examples of these aspects will be analysed using the following theories: Stam`s Fidelity Theory, Bluestone’s Mutation Theory, the Psychic Concept of adaptation as explained by Kamilla Eliot, Stam’s Critique Theory, Seger’s Second Original Theory, Griffith’s Imitation Theory, and the De- Recomposing concept as explained by Kamilla Eliot.
The fidelity theory is outlined by Stam as follows,
” Fidelity theory does not always name itself as such. It sometimes takes the disguised form of respect for the “spirit” but not the “letter” of the text (a notion that implicitly inscribes Christian notions of “going beyond” the literalism of the Jewish Bible). Or it can take the form of ‘equivalency’ theory, the idea that the filmmaker finds the “equivalents” in a new medium for the novelist’s style or techniques. But, in fact, there can be no real equivalence between source novel and adaptation” (Stam, 2005, p18). With this in mind the Lord of the Rings films did have to try to remain faithful to the novel because of the novels sizable fan base.
I.Q. Hunter writes,
“The Lord of the Rings films had to stay faithful to the novel- or rather work within a discourse of fidelity- because of its extraordinary and paradoxical standing in modern popular culture” (I.Q Hunter, cited Cartmell & Whelehan 2007, p155) As Hunter says here the Lord of the Rings films do work in a discourse of fidelity to previous media adaptations of Lord of the Rings. These include the BBC`s radio adaptation and the concept art of John Howe and Allen Lee, which were used as reference points for the mise- en- scene in the films. Some of these paintings were replicated as frames. This was in addition to Tolkien’s novel but not necessarily the complete content. Even with this constraint Jackson and his co-adapters were able to make multiple additions and changes to all the aspects of the novel, whilst still working within this discourse of fidelity to the novel.
Stam’s theory of fidelity as equivalency serves to explain the changes in the sequence involving Shelob crawling back into the tunnel, after she has been wounded and defeated by Sam. (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene 43, 0:18:08) In the novel Tolkien describes this as follows ” She reached the hole, and squeezing down, leaving a trail of green yellow slime, she slipped in, even as Sam hewed a last stroke at her dragging legs.” (Tolkien, 2002, Two Towers Film Tie-in Edition, p423) In the film she drags her wounded defeated body to the entrance of the tunnel without leaving a trail of green slime. She then disappears down the tunnel and nothing more is ever heard of her again. This could be described as the equivalent of Tolkien’s writing.
Frodo and Sam are the main two hobbits in the film. Frodo played by Elijah Wood and Sam played by Sean Astin, Gollum is the character played by Andy Serkis. The most noticeable difference is the fact that Frodo enters the tunnel without Sam. This in turn means that the rest of the sequence is different from the chapter in the book. In the film Frodo is left to fend for himself in Shelob’s tunnel (Return of the King Extended DVD edition, Scene 38, 0:04:17) fighting and struggling through the cobwebs. Although significant but subtle changes have been made some of Tolkien’s dialogue has been transferred into the film, lines such as, “Don’t go where I can’t follow! “spoken by Sam (Tolkien, 2002,TwoTowers, Film Tie in edition, p423) (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene 43 0:18:43). This retention of dialogue could be described as being faithful to Tolkien’s novel, the dialogue in the novel is quite archaic so only a minimal amount of this was retained in the film. Most of the dialogue in the film is different from the novel to enable it to function as a modernHollywood film. It is better for a film maker to create a cinematic version of a novel rather than attempt to recreate a complete copy of the novel on screen, Leitch writes.
“Yet it should be clear by now that fidelity itself, even as a goal, is the exception to the norm of variously unfaithful adaptations. Instead of constantly seeking answers to the question, “why are so many adaptations unfaithful to perfectly good sources? Adaptation studies would be better advised to ask the question, “Why does this particular adaptation aim to be unfaithful?”
(Leitch 2009, p127) An adaptation could aim to be unfaithful to the novel to enable it to function as a film. There are several reasons why these two scenes appear in part three of the film, Return of the King with their corresponding chapters in the second part of the novel, the Two Towers. This cannot be described as the equivalent cinematic element at first glance. At the time that Frodo and Sam enter Shelob’s Lair in the Two Towers novel the battle at Minas Tirith in Gondor (Tolkien 2002,Return of the King, p82-141) is in progress, not the battle at Helms Deep (Tolkien, 2002,the Two Towers,p154-176). Tolkien explains this with descriptions and Frodo’s internal dialogue as he witnesses the huge orc army issue forth from the gates of Minas Morgul, on its way to Osgiliath in Gondor.
“So great an Army had never issued from that vale since the days of Isildurs might; no host so fell and strong in arms had yet assailed the fords of Anduin; and yet it was but one and not the greatest of hosts that Mordor now sent forth. Frodo stirred. And suddenly his heart went out to Faramir. `the storm has burst at last` he thought. `This great array of spears and swords is going to Osgiliaith. Will Faramir get across in time?” (Tolkien, 2002, Two Towers Film-Tie in edition, p393-394) This takes place during the Cirith Ungol scene in the Return of the King film and in the corresponding chapter in the Two Towers novel, just before the Shelob’s Lair scene and chapter.
This Fidelity Theory of Stam’s as an equivalency theory serves to explain this difference between the novel and the film. It could be argued that this first initial change to the story is faithful to what Tolkien intended. Stam writes,
“it is important to move beyond the moralistic and judgemental ideal of “fidelity”. At the same time, we have to acknowledge at the outset that “fidelity” however discredited theoretically, does retain a grain of experiential truth. Fidelity discourse asks important questions about filmic recreation of the setting, plot, characters, themes and style of the novel. When we say an adaptation has been “unfaithful” to the original, the very violence of the term gives expression to the intense sense of betrayal we feel when a film adaptation fails to capture what we see as the fundamental narrative, thematic, or aesthetic features of its literary source” (Stam, 2008, p14) Although these two scenes are very different to their corresponding chapter, they are quite faithful in general terms when considering this theory. In the chapter Frodo is stabbed by Shelob and Sam defeats the spider, but believes Frodo is dead when he discovers him bound in cords. When the orcs approach Sam he then takes cover and spies on them. This is basically what happens in the novel, but there are several differing details between the scene and its corresponding chapter.
When more detailed examples are analysed Stam’s Fidelity theory as equivalency does not seem to be as effective in explaining the differences. During the Choices of Master Samwise (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, Scene 43) in the film the events of the chapter have been compressed. The chapter in the novel when the two orc captains discover Frodo have a long conversation to decide what they should do with him. At the end of the scene in the film these two same orcs do have a conversation, but it is very short and there is no elucidation to the possibility that, “It won’t sound too pretty to say you’ve caught the kitten and let the cat escape.” (Tolkien, 2002 Two Towers Film tie-in Edition, p437). In the novel the two orc captains have a long argument about whether or not there might be a large elf warrior loose, this does not happen in the film. The conversation in the scene lasts no more than twenty seconds, whereas in the novel it goes on for several pages. Whilst this conversation is underway in the film, Sam is watching from the exit of Shelob’s tunnel as one of the orcs explains that Frodo is not dead, as Sam previously supposed.
” This fellow ain`t dead she jabs him with her stinger and he goes as limp as a boned fish” (Return of the King, Extended DVD, Scene 43, 0:19:45 ) In the novel whilst this conversation is in progress Sam is hiding behind a rock wearing the One Ring and as a result he is invisible. As he listens in to what the Orcs are saying about Frodo he is deciding what he should do. In the film he does not put on the One Ring to spy on the Orcs. When Shelob stabs Frodo in the novel the reader discovers that Frodo has been stabbed in retrospect.
”Frodo was lying face upward on the ground and the monster was bending over him, so intent upon her victim that she took no heed of Sam and his cries, until he was close at hand. As he rushed up he saw that Frodo was already bound in cords, wound about him from ankle to shoulder, and the monster with her great forelegs was beginning half to lift, half to drag his body away.”(Tolkien 2002, film tie in edition, The Two Towers, p 420)
In the film the audience witnesses Frodo being stabbed in the stomach by Shelob (Return of the King, Extended DVD edition, Disc 2 scene 43, 0:15:28). This could be described as the equivalent of Frodo being stabbed in the neck in the novel. In this particular instance the equivalency theory serves to explain this change.Griffithwrites about what he regards as the audience’s perception of fidelity.
“The average audience regards fidelity as a question of how much is left in: how much of the plot and how many of the characters survive the usual condensing of the novel’s action. Even to critics thinking in terms of form and content, this question of quantity isolates content and, to that extent, illegitimately ignores form.” (Griffith, 1997, p41) This notion of the audience’s perception of how much is left in the film in terms of characters and plot content as fidelity, is in fact discounted by Stams fidelity theory taking the form of equivalency. By the mechanisms of this theory a film can never be a replica of an original novel without illegitimately ignoring the form of film. Although Stam’s theory discounts these audience notions of fidelity, Griffith is right to point out that the audience regards fidelity as what is left in of the film, when a novel is adapted for the screen.
Stam’s Fidelity theory does serve to explain some of the changes made by Peter Jackson and his co writers. However, it is not useful for explaining all the differences in both of the selected scenes. The Choices of Master Samwise scene is the equivalent of the longer chapter in the novel, whereas, Shelob’s Lair differs more significantly, than its corresponding chapter in the novel. This cannot be completely described as a faithful equivalent of the chapter. The subsequent theories tested in this essay will attempt to explain that there is a more appropriate approach, than simply discussing the level of fidelity of a film adaptation to its source novel. A more appropriate question to ask would be why is the Lord of the Rings film adaptation significantly different from Tolkien’s original novel, rather than asking why is it not a replica of the novel?
Bluestone outlines his Mutation Theory as follows.
“What happens, therefore, when the filmist undertakes the adaptation of a novel, given the inevitable mutation, is that he does not convert the novel at all. What he adapts is a kind of paraphrase of the novel- the novel viewed as raw material” (Bluestone, 2003, p 62). The sequence involving Sam fighting Shelob after the huge hideous spider has stabbed Frodo (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, disc 2 scene 43, 0:16:18) in the film it is similar to how it is described by Tolkien in the novel.” (Tolkien, 2002, Two Towers Film Tie-in edition, P420) In terms of the sequence of blows exchanged between the two characters during the fight. However, the dialogue in the scene is significantly different from the dialogue in the novel. The lines spoken by Sam in the film “Come on and finish it”(Return of the King, Extended DVD Edition Scene, 43,
0:16:15) and “You will not touch him again” (Return of the King Scene Extended DVD Edition, 43, 0:16:09) are all that is required at this point in the scene, because the fight sequence is visual and needs no more explanation in the form of dialogue from Sam, as the visual version of this fight speaks for itself. In the book Tolkien has to describe this fight using the written word, whereas in the filmJackson is able to show this sequence to the audience. This cannot be described completely as a mutation example of adaptation when attempting to use Bluestone’s Mutation theory to explain the differences between the scene in the film, and the chapter in the novel.
During the Choices of Master Samwise sequence when the two orcs discover Frodo’s body; they have a short conversation from which the audience learns that Frodo is not dead. This also acts as a means to motivate Sam and spur him on to rescue Frodo from the orcs, after they have taken him to the tower of Cirith Ungol. The reason this particular scene has been included in the film, is not because Jackson and his production team are trying to be faithful to Tolkien’s novel. It is because it is required to enable Jackson and his co adapters, Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens’ version to function as a film. This scene can be described as a mutation of the chapter in the novel when the Mutation theory is considered, as explained and outlined by Bluestone. At the beginning of the Shelob’s Lair scene at the entrance to Shelob’s tunnel Gollum is trying to convince Frodo to enter the tunnel. Frodo is unsure and anxious about whether or not he should enter and Gollum says, “Master must go inside the tunnel.” In an almost condescending tone of voice (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, Scene, 38, 0:01:15) Frodo replies, “Now that
I am here I don’t think I want to.” (Return of the King, Extended, DVD Edition, Scene, 38, 0:01:20). In a very unsure tone of voice, to which Gollum replies, “It’s the only way, go in or go back.” (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene 38, 0:01:24). To this Frodo replies, “I can’t go back.” (Return of the King scene 38, 0:01:37) Then Frodo enters the tunnel with Gollum following him close behind. Frodo asks Gollum, “What’s that smell?” (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene 38, 0:01:52) he is still very nervous and unsure about entering the tunnel, Gollum replies, “Orcses filth, orcses come in here, sometimes.” (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene 38, 0:01:53). This line deepens the tension within the scene and is an attempt by Gollum to reassure Frodo that there is nothing worse than orcs in the tunnel. In the chapter in the novel Sam is present and the two hobbits accompanied by Gollum, approach the entrance to the tunnel. (Tolkien, 2002 Two Towers, film tie-in edition, p 406-407) At this point in the film the absence of Sam causes Frodo’s feelings of vulnerability. Again in terms of the story that Jackson is trying to tell, this change has been made to contribute to the telling of it, and is not simply because Jackson is making changes to Tolkien’s novel for the sake of it. This could be described as a cinematic mutation according to this theory. The sequence within the chapter in the novel has mutated into the sequence as it appears in the film. The entirety of the Choices of Master Samwise scene can also be described as a mutation according to this theory. Bluestone’s theory only serves to explain the differences between the novel and film, when a sequence in a scene in the film has some resemblance to its original passage in the novel. The Shelob’s Lair scene is completely different from its original chapter in the novel. It cannot be explained generally using the mutation theory, however this theory
can be used to explain some of the differences within this particular scene, such as Gollum attacking Frodo instead of Sam, but not the sequence at the entrance to the tunnel where Gollum is urging Frodo to enter the tunnel. (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, disc 2 scene 38, 0:01:15)
The Psychic concept of adaptation is explained by Eliot as follows.
“The persistent critical ghosting of content in the twentieth century is largely responsible for a psychic concept of adaptation that understands what passes from book to film as “the spirit of the Text” (Elliot, 2009,p136).
This explanation by Kamilla Elliott shows that the essence, feel and atmosphere of the novel passes from the novel to the film, but makes significant alterations to the narrative, the dialogue, and the characters.
However, there are some definite details that serve to retain the essence, feel and atmosphere of Tolkien’s novel. Frodo is stabbed by Shelob and Sam believes he is dead, both in the film and in the novel these details remain the same with many other details being different. The music and sound effects at this point in the film reflect the feel, atmosphere and essence of the chapter in the novel. Tolkien’s spirit and theme of the constant threat of danger, desperation and near hopelessness of the success of the quest are retained in the film. Tolkien’s visual description of the environment of the interior of Shelob’s tunnel is as follows “Out of it came a stench, not the sickly odour of decay in the meads of Morgul, but a foul reek, as if filth unnameable were piled and horded in the dark within.” (Tolkien, 2002,TwoTowers, Film Tie-In Edition, p406). This is represented in the film through Frodo’s point of view shot as he looks into the tunnel before he enters. The chapter in the novel could be best described as a journey sequence, as the two hobbits attempt to escape from Shelob and her filth infested home. Whereas, the scene in the film could be best described as an a horror action sequence, in which Sam is re-motivated to go back up the stairs to the tunnel, after seeing the food that Gollum threw over the edge during a previous sequence. Sam initially decides to go and confront Gollum, however when Sam is next on screen he notices that Frodo has been bound in cords by the spider. He then attacks the spider in an attempt to avenge Frodo’s implied death.
As opposed to in the novel where Sam is Frodo’s servant and his motivation is completing the quest, in the film Sam is Frodo’s friend and the stronger of the two characters. There are three possible reasons for the alteration to the friendship relationship dynamic; one, to make the story culturally acceptable and bring it in line with the attitudes of modern society. Two, because this might make the relationship between the two friends more believable to modern audiences, and three, it helps to make Gollum’s pay off, of splitting the two hobbit friends up more dramatic, as the camera cuts to a shot of Sam crying, and Gollum follows Frodo up the stairs. (Return of the King, Extended DVD, Scene 27, 1:25:12) The two hobbits’ being split up not only gives Gollum his pay off, it also serves to explain Sam’s emotional connection to Frodo. At this point in the film their friendship means more to Sam than the quest. This change in the friendship dynamic of the Frodo and Sam relationship could be described as a psychic adaptation when considering the concept as explained by Eliot. What is retained here is the two characters close friendship, and Sam’s constant motivation to help his companion, the difference is the dynamic of the relationship. The psychic concept of adaptation serves to explain some of the differences between the chapters and the scenes, but it does not serve to explain all of them.
Seger (1992, p77) outlines and explains her Second Original theory in her chapter, Creating the Second Original, as follows, a film adaptation is usually a filmmaker’s Second Original version of the “First Original” the novel. She also points out that “There is only one kind of impossible adaptation-the one where the producer and writer do not have creative license” (Seger, 1992, p8). The adaptation that this theory would best describe and explain would be a very loose and unfaithful adaptation. A film maker would use the novel as a reference point for the film. The film maker writes a new and original text based on the story, content, characters, descriptions and themes in the first original, the novel, as opposed to being a filmic equivalent of the novel. As Peter Jackson is an auteur director it was important that he put his own artistic stamp on these films, as well as trying to be faithful to Tolkien I.Q. Hunter writes,
“Furthermore, for the minority of film fans (like me), The Lord of the Rings was not simply an adaptation of Tolkien: it was the latest film by the auteur Peter Jackson, an accomplished director of fantasy movies from the splatter-comedy Bad Taste (1987) to the psychological drama Heavenly Creatures (1994). How Would Lord of the Rings adapt to and extend his distinctive vision? Was the quirkily subversive New Zealander at last selling out to Hollywood?” (I.Q.Hunter, Cited, Cartmell and Whelehan, 2007p 157) had Jackson and his co- adapters simply adapted Tolkien’s novel into an almost replica film version, and not created their own film as they did, Jackson and his co adaptors would have been no more than servants to Tolkien’s novel, as opposed to the creative artistic film makers they are.
Lynnette Porter has the following to say about how different audiences can appreciate the alternative versions of Lord of the Rings.
“Readers who enjoy J.R.R Tolkien’s the Lord of the Rings and filmgoers who thrill to Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the books are not always the same people. Some fans of the book have been dismayed, if not downright angry, at the differences between the books and the latest nonbook version of Tolkien’s epic. Fans of the films may not like the books because they are long and lack the rapid action sequences common on screen. Then there are those who enjoy both tellings of the story but appreciate the differences and similarities of the adaptations of Tolkien’s text into other media most recently as films” (Porter, 2005, pxi).
Porter’s idea is a reasonable way of understanding the differences between Tolkien’s novel and the film. Peter Jackson’s auteur film is the latest version of Tolkien’s novel that sits along side the previous media adaptations of The Lord of the Rings.
Seger’s Second Original theory serves to explain some specific differences between the novel and film. In the film at the entrance to the tunnel Frodo enters the tunnel without Sam, (Return of the King, Extended DVD Edition, Scene, 38, 0:00:58) in the novel they both enter together and get split up by Gollum who attacks Sam; in the film Gollum attacks Frodo. In the novel the reader discovers that Shelob has stabbed Frodo when he is found by Sam being bound in her cords. In the film the audience sees Frodo being stabbed by the spider. With these differences in mind the Shelob’s Lair scene could be described as a Second Original based on the theory outlined by Seger. However, there are some aspects of the Shelob’s Lair scene that are the same as they are in the novel. One is the fight sequence between Sam and Shelob, and it is almost a replica of the passage in the novel. Had the Second Original theory been able to completely explain the changes in this part of the scene, maybe Frodo would have defeated the spider himself, or maybe Jackson could have chosen to have Frodo actually killed by Shelob as is suggested in the novel? One of these two additional alterations to the sequence would have made it a complete Second Original as outlined by Seger, as opposed to a partial Second Original as it appears in the film. Had this second original theory served to explain all the differences between the Choices of Master Samwise sequence and the novel, maybe Sam would have attempted to kill the orcs, instead of watching on as they took away Frodo’s body. Jackson could have decided to represent both of Tolkien’s chapters however he so wished. It could be argued that it is incidental that some sections of these two scenes are the same as they are in the chapters in the novel. Generally Seger’s Second Original theory is very useful for explaining the majority of the differences between the chapters in the book, and the scenes in the film. A film adaptation of this nature would be the filmmaker’s original text very loosely based on the novel, the first original. Although Jackson and his co-adapters aimed to be faithful to Tolkien’s novel their films hardly resembled their corresponding novels.
Leitch writes “Yet the parallel between each of Tolkien`s three books and its corresponding film adaptation remained minimal.” (Leitch, 2009, p136)
The Critique theory is outlined by Stam as follows,
” Thus “metatextuality” evokes the entire tradition of the critical rewritings, whether literary or filmic, of novels. Adaptations, in this sense, can be “readings” or “critiques” of their source novel” (Stam, 2004, p28) Stam is explaining that a film adaptation can be a cinematic critique, a screenwriter’s interpretation of the original novel. So the screenwriter and filmmaker reads the novel and then the original story passes into his hands. He then writes up in the form of a screenplay what he sees as being the most important aspects of the novel that should be included in the film version. This is similar to the Second Original theory, but where it differs is that the film maker has seemed to have tried to retain certain aspects of the original novel in the film when there are more similarities than differences between the film and its original novel, in an attempt to remain faithful to the original novel, whereas, the Second Original theory of Seger’s is not concerned with fidelity.
The short sequence involving the conversation that the two orc captains have when they discover Frodo’s body, as stated before is quite a long passage in the book. In the film it has been compressed and condensed down to what is required for the telling of the story in the film. Stam’s critique theory does serve to explain this compression of the chapter in the novel into the shorter scene in the film. One sequence in the Shelob`s Lair scene that could not be described as a critique of the passage in the novel is the battle sequence between Sam and Shelob. This sequence is almost a replica of the section from the novel.
With regards to Shelob’s Lair and Choices of Master Samwise scene being in the Return of the King film, it could be argued that Jackson has critiqued these two chapters, and placed them in their rightful place in the narrative structure of his film. Another reason that the two scenes appear in the Return of the King film as opposed to the Two Towers is the visual geographical context of where in middle earth the events of Shelob’s Lair and the Choices of Master Samwise take place. So under the critique theory it is necessary to have the Shelob’s Lair sequence in the third film. There are several narrative threads underway during the second and third parts of the novel. So when considering the Critique theory it would make sense that these individual narrative threads were inter cut with each other. It could have been quite confusing for the audience had the Two Towers film been exactly the same as the novel, with the main narrative threads being presented in two separate sets of scenes, one set of scenes following Aragorn, Gandalf etc, and the second set of scenes following Gollum, Sam and Frodo. Inter cutting the narrative threads of the second and third parts of the novel, and structuring the narrative in the film as it should be as a film so that it makes sense, could be described as Jackson’s critique of the scenes. Had the two narrative threads in the Two Towersbeen structured as two separate stories in the film as they are in the novel, it would have seemed like there were two completely different stories being told during the same film, when in fact both of these two narrative threads are linked to the final conclusion of the film.
There would also have been a confusing clash of the two narrative threads at the end of the second film, had Shelob’s Lair been put into the Two Towers film. This is explained by Philipa Boyens in an interview on the Two Towers DVD extras
”As it was an easy decision to inter-cut these two stories, it was also a really easy decision to not put Shelob in this film, Peter knew it right from the word go, and that is that you don’t inter-cut the huge climax of Helms Deep with the huge climax of the confrontation with Shelob, and the reason you don’t do that is because if you try to inter-cut them and demand that emotional connection for both sets of stories, of the audience you just end up with a mish mash, and both would kill each other they’d cancel each other out” ( Two Towers Extended Edition Disc 3, From Book To Script: Finding the Story, 0:01:55)
Therefore, it is better that the audience witnesses the events within these multiple narrative threads running parallel to each other, to enable them to understand these two story lines in context with each other. This was one of the aspects of the adaptation that caused Jackson and his co- writers some concern Leitch writes.
“Their concern for chronology, counterpoint, and dramatic effectiveness led Jackson, Walsh and Boyens to move many of the events presented in the last four chapters of Tolkiens book Three and the last four chapters of book four of The Two Towers to The Return of the King. The resulting lack of drama and incident in The Two Towers-Jackson complained that no major characters die in this second film- required the introduction of new dramatic developments. Faramir, who had easily resisted the temptation to take the Ring from Frodo in Tolkien, now takes Frodo, Sam and Gollum captive and frees them only after much soul-searching. Frodo, inflamed by Gollum’s innuendos against Sam, turns against his old friend.” (Leitch, 2009, p136). It is these innuendos that cause Frodo to send Sam away, one of these innuendos is Gollum’s suggestion that Sam wanted the ring for himself; the other is when Gollum convinces Frodo that Sam has eaten their remaining food ration. This theory serves to explain more of the differences between the novel and the film than the psychic concept, the fidelity theory and the Mutation Theory.
Griffith’s explains his Imitation Theory as follows.
“Forced to imitate diction, films would fall short in some details, a few of them important to the work. Nonetheless, setting material questions in the proper perspective and allowing films to imitate those “worlds we experience,” we can understand that the material difference between novels and films becomes a small limitation” (Griffith, 1997, p44)
(Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, 0:05:03) In the film Frodo is alone when he is first seen confronting Shelob with the spy glass. This could be described as an imitation of the events in the novel.
“Then suddenly, released from the holding spell to run a little while in vain panic for the amusement of the eyes, they both turned and fled together; but even as they ran Frodo looked back and saw with terror that at once the eyes came leaping up behind. The stench of death was like a cloud about him. “Stand! stand! he cried desperately. “running is no use”. Slowly the eyes crept nearer. (Tolkien, 2002, The Two Towers Film Tie-in Edition, p411) It is significantly different with the absence of Sam, and the fact that Frodo flees from the spider and does not stand and fight it, as he and Sam do in the novel. The film has retained the elfish speech spoken by Frodo in the novel.
“Aiya Earendil Elenion Ancalima! he cried, and knew not what he had spoken; for it seemed that another voice spoke through his, clear, untroubled by the foul air of the pit” (Tolkien 2002 The Two Towers Film tie-in edition, p410) (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, disc 2, Scene 38 0:04:55). In the film Frodo speaks these words in panic, whereas in the novel he speaks them with a sense of confidence even though in the film and the novel it is clear that he does not know what he is saying. This can be described as an imitation of this passage in Tolkiens Shelob’s Lair chapter. In the film Frodo flees from Shelob and does not stand and fight her as he does in the novel with Sam at his side. This can be described as an imitation of what happens in the chapter in the novel when considering Bluestone’s theory.
During the Choices of Master Samwise chapter Sam puts on the ring to spy on the orcs. In the scene in the film he does still spy on them, but not wearing the Ring. The shot of him spying on the orcs as they discover Frodo could be described as an imitation of Sam being invisible to them, without being invisible but being out of sight. The orcs are unaware of Sam’s presence in the film, but in the novel when they discover Frodo’s body they are suspicious of the potential presence of another intruder, but not sure what or who it is, whilst being unaware of the fact that they are actually being spied on by Sam. This could be described as an imitation of the passage in the chapter. In the novel Gollum attacks Sam, in the film he is seen attacking Frodo. This could be described as an imitation of Gollum trying to strangle Sam in the novel whilst Shelob is attacking Frodo. It is significantly different from the film the similarity is the fact that in both versions Gollum attacks one of the hobbits. When Gollum tries to strangle Sam in the chapter in the novel it is to prevent him from rescuing Frodo, he creeps up behind him, as Tolkien’s description would suggest.
“A long clammy hand went over his mouth and another caught him by the neck, while something wrapped itself about his leg. Taken off his guard he toppled backwards into the arms of his attacker. `Got him!’ hissed Gollum in his ear. `At last, my precious, we’ve got him, yes, the nasty hobbit.” (Tolkien, 2003, Two Towers Film tie-in edition, p 417-418) When Gollum attacks Frodo in the scene in the film he leaps on him aggressively (Return of the King, Extended DVD Edition, scene 43, 0:06:56). This difference could be described as a partial imitation of Gollum attempting to throttle Sam in the novel. However it cannot be totally identified as a total imitation. This Imitation theory as outlined by Griffith is useful for explaining some of the clear differences between the two chapters in the book and the two scenes in the film. However, it is not as useful for explaining the significant detailed differences, such as the fact that Frodo enters the tunnels without Sam. This cannot be described as an imitation of the corresponding passage from the book. (Tolkien, 2003 film tie-in edition, The Two Towers, p406-407) When considering the imitation theory according to Griffith it is able to explain some of the differences between the book and the film but not all of them. The differences between the Choices of Master Samwisescene and chapter can mostly be explained using Griffith’s Imitation theory. The conversation between the two orc captains can be described as an imitation of the long conversation in the corresponding chapter. The fight between Sam and Shelob in the film could also be described as an Imitation of the corresponding event in the novel. The rest of the scene is significantly different from the novel, and cannot be explained using Griffith’s Imitation theory.
The De re composing concept of adaptation is explained by Kamilla Eliot as follows,
” Under the de-(re)composing concept of adaptation, novel and film decompose, merge, and form a new composition at “underground” levels of reading. The adaptation is a composite of textual and filmic signs merging in audience consciousness together with other cultural narratives and often leads to confusion as to which is novel which is film.” (Elliot, 2009, p157)
This popular film adaptation concept, in the opinion of the author of this essay could be described as a merging and emptying out concept that also creates scenes that are not chapters in the book. As the title of this theory suggests that the novel and the film merge, with the narrative structure and content of the film taking the position of priority, whilst bringing it in line with other cultural narratives. Elliot goes on to explain.
“What one discovers is that many so-called “unfaithful” adaptations are operating under a De (re) composing model. They are condemned as unfaithful because critics read only one way – from novel to film- and find that the film has made changes.” (Elliot, 2009, p157) There is a sequence in which Gollum attacks Frodo in a desperate attempt to retrieve the ring and kill Frodo, this results with Gollum being thrown over the edge seemingly down an endless pit, (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition , Scene, 43,0:08:05). This violent exchange does not happen in the chapter in the novel because Gollum is pre occupied with trying to strangle Sam, (Tolkien, 2002,TwoTowers, Film Tie-in edition, p417-418). In the scene in the film Sam is not on screen. During this sequence in the film Frodo manages to pin Gollum down by his throat. Being subdued by this, Gollum then protests that it was the Ring or the Precious as he calls it that made him attack Frodo, Frodo then lets go of Gollum’s throat and stands back. Then the camera cuts to a shot of Frodo, telling Gollum that he has to destroy the ring for both their sakes. Being rather annoyed by this comment Gollum lunges at Frodo and is thrown over the edge. This sequence in the film can be explained using the de-recomposing concept as explained by Elliot. This sequence could be termed as an addition that has paid no lip service or attention to being faithful to the original source material, but that has de-recomposed the events in the novel to how they appear in the film. Having Gollum attack Frodo is more logical in terms of the motives of this individual character at this specific stage in the film. A novel can be picked up and put down by the reader and read in several sittings. A novelist is able to indulge in unnecessary details, characters and plot deviations in order to psychologically transport the reader into another world as Tolkien does with his very long expansive and detailed novel.
This particular addition does have an important narrative function in the overall context of the film, Gollum’s lunging and desperate attack on Frodo sets up the next scene in which Gollum is seen on screen. When he attacks Frodo at the beginning of the Mount Doom (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition Scene 68) sequence he is picking up where he left off before he was thrown down that seemingly endless crevasse, after attacking Frodo in the
Shelob’s Lair scene. At the beginning of the Mount Doom scene (Return of The King Extended DVD Edition Scene 68, 1:15:52) there is a shot of Gollum stood high on a rock outside the fiery mountain, he is looking over Sam who is carrying Frodo on his back, Sam walks uphill towards the entrance of the mountain unaware of Gollum’s presence. Gollum then lunges at them in the same way he did in Shelob’s Lair (Return of the King Extended DVD Edition, scene 38). Therefore, Gollum attacking Frodo instead of Sam in the Shelob’s Lair scene serves to set up the actions and events in the films climax. This addition of Gollum attacking Frodo in the Shelob’s Lair scene also transforms and develops Gollum’s character arc, whilst deepening the drama as the film builds towards its climax.
When analysing the Choices of Master Samwise and Shelob’s Liar scenes using the De-recomposing theory as explained by Elliott, this theory is effective for explaining the differences between the chapters and the scenes. The scenes do have some resemblance to their original chapters without being replicas. In some respects this concept is similar to the Second Original theory in so much as it serves to explain unfaithful adaptations, Leitch explains,
“When Peter Jackson approached the adaptation of J.R.R .Tolkien`s epic fantasy The Lord of the Rings- originally published in three volumes, The Fellowship of the Ring (1954), The Two Towers (1954), and The Return of the King (1955)- his movies were profoundly different. “(Leitch, 2009, p128)This also applies to the chapters and their adapted scenes that have been analysed in this essay. The content in the novel has been de-recomposed to create the scenes in the film. Although the film is profoundly different when compared to the novel, it is faithful to the spirit of Tolkien, but at the same time it could be described as being unfaithful to the novel because of numerous differences in content between the chapters in the novel and the scenes in the film.
Generally both of the scenes analysed in terms of adaptation could be described as De-re compositions of the original chapters in the novel, details have been omitted, compressed and some elements have been added. Had the Lord of the Rings film been a carbon copy of the novel it would have been a very slow, confusing and plodding film. The narrative threads in part two and three, The Two Towers and The Return of the King had to be De-recomposed along with many other details. The styles in which these two chapters are written in the novel to some extent affect how the scenes appear in the film. I.Q. Hunter writes,
“The films reorganised it into a relatively classical narrative that draws on established Hollywood genres (the action film, the buddy movie, the war film). The solution with the Fellowship of the Ring was to make the story “Frodo centric,” as Jackson and his collaborators explain in the audio-commentary, and streamline it as a quest or road movie narrative; events are focalized through Frodo, who, like Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter, becomes the source of most of the story information. The second and third films also reshape the books into more propulsive and linear plots. The story of The Two Towers, which in the book is hewn into blocks of self- contained narrative that relate, in turn, to different groups of protagonists, is straightened out into chronological, cross-cut parallel story arcs; these climax with the action sequences of Helm’s Deep, the Ent’s attack on Isengard, and Frodo and Sam’s sojourn in Osgiliaith (invented for the film), which are spliced together like the finale of The Empire Strikes Back (1980). This default linearity makes for some awkwardness, notably the sudden abandonment of Saruman at the end of the theatrical cut of The Two Towers. On the other hand, cross- cutting pays of superbly when Gandalf and Pippin, in Minas Tirith, and Sam, Frodo and Gollum, at the foot of the stairs of Cirith Ungol, simultaneously watch a column of green fire explode from Minas Morgul; this brilliantly unites storylines otherwise separated by many miles and in the book by many chapters.” (I.Q.Hunter, Cited Cartmell & Welehan, 2007, p158). Inter cutting between the separate narrative threads in the film not only ensures that all the separate events make sense to the audience, it makes the third and final film very dramatic, and fast paced in terms of the frequency of the significant events during the narrative. It also ensures that there are more significant action sequences and events in the final film than there are in the novel. In the Return of the King novel Frodo and Sam do not have much to do before they reach Mount Doom. Had the Return of the King film been a carbon copy of the novel it would have seemed quite empty and very confusing, with all the other main characters involved in several significant events, it would seem very odd that the films most important characters were only involved in one important scene in the final film. Several chapters from the end of the Two Towers novel, (Tolkien, 2002,TwoTowers, p376-439), appear as scenes in
the Return of the King, as a result ofJackson and his co-adapters choosing to inter-cut the two separate narrative threads to ensure that the film functions as a film. Taking all this into consideration it seems logical that the separate narrative threads in the final two parts of the novel were de-recomposed to be inter-cut between each other.
The long winded Choices of Master Samwise chapter appears as a very short De – Recomposed scene in the film. With the Shelob’s Lair scene as a de-re composed action scene, which serves to enhance and deepen the narrative of the film and arcs of the main characters. The seven theories tested in this essay will now be summarised, evaluated and compared to each other.
The fidelity theory as explained by Stam served to explain that it would be almost impossible for the Lord of the Rings film adaptation of Tolkien’s novel to be a complete replica novel. It also serves to explain that the concept of trying to be faithful to a novel is not very appropriate for analysing the Lord of the Rings film adaptation.
Bluestone’s Mutation Theory is more effective in explaining the changes in the Lord of the Rings film adaptation than the fidelity theory. As the title of Bluestone’s theory suggests that the Lord of the Rings film could be a mutated version of Tolkien’s novel. It implies that changes to the content of the novel will be made, with the style, story structure, content, characterisation and details of the novel mutating into cinematic ones. However, this theory is not the same as Stam’s idea that the Fidelity theory takes the form of equivalency. This mutation theory of Bluestone’s is not particularly concerned with being faithful to Tolkien’s novel, Frodo entering the tunnels on his on his own cannot be described as faithful even in terms of equivalency. However, it can be described as a mutation that deepens the drama within the film. The Mutation theory of Bluestone’s is more applicable to Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film than the Fidelity theory as explained by Stam.
The Psychic concept of adaptation as explained by Elliot is concerned with ghosting forms of adaptation. The idea of the retention of the spirit of the novel in a film adaptation, does serve to explain the fact that the scenes in the Lord of the Rings film are different from the novel. However, this concept does not serve to explain any of the specific contrasting aspects of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film and Tolkien’s novel. The way in which the film has retained the spirit is through the use of the music ofHowardShore at specific points during the scenes, and the visual design of the scenes, some of which were based on concept paintings by Alan Lee and John How, which were based on Tolkiens descriptions, working within a discourse of fidelity. The music and sound effects create atmosphere within the environment that the scenes are set in, and reflect the emotions of the characters at particular points in the scenes.
Stam’s Critique Theory of adaptation that a film is a director’s critique and interpretation of an original novel serves to describe and explain some of the specific contrasting details in these scenes, and their corresponding chapters in the book, such as Gollum attacking Frodo instead of Sam as he does in the novel. This theory is similar to the Imitation theory and the mutation theory, in that it implies that some sort of methodological approach is taken by the filmmaker during the adaptation process. However, it is also similar to the Second Original theory in so far as it implies that the film maker creates their filmic interpretation of a novel. Where it differs from the Second Original is it’s implication of a methodological process of adaptation.
Seger’s Second Original Theory serves to explain very unfaithful adaptations, and serves to explain some of the detailed changes in the two scenes selected from Lord of the Rings film adaptation. It is not concerned with ideas or notions of Fidelity. It is not appropriate for explaining all the changes in the two scenes selected from Lord of the Rings film adaptation; however it definitely explains more of the changes than the fidelity theory is able to. The Second Original theory is not at all concerned with notions of fidelity and could apply to nearly every film based on a novel. It serves to explain most of the differences between the scenes from the Lord of the Rings films and the chapters in the novel analysed in this essay, as it is not concerned with imitating, critiquing or mutating the content and story of the novel into a film, because it does not imply that any methodology has been used during the adaptation process. This is probably the simplest of the theories explored in this essay because according to this theory a film can be a screenwriter or filmmakers own version of a novel. However, it could also be argued that this simplicity is also the downside of the theory as it can serve to explain almost every film based on a novel. The lack of specificity of this theory of Seger’s means that it serves to explain the same examples of film adaptation from the Lord of the Rings scenes as Bluestone’s Mutation theory, Stam’s critique theory, and the Psychic concept of adaptation as explained by Elliot. However, these three particular theories and concepts are more appropriate for explaining complex examples from the Lord of the Rings scenes. These theories are more specific than the Second Original theory, in terms of the type of adaptation they are concerned with. Even though the Second Original theory is concerned with unfaithful adaptations, any adaptation could be described as unfaithful. With that in mind any adaptation could be described as a Second Original. The entirety of the scenes from Peter Jackson’s the Lord of the Rings could be described as Second Originals, because they are significantly different from their corresponding chapters in the novel. However, more specific theories were required to explain more clearly, the detailed differences between the scenes in the film that were selected for analysis, and their corresponding chapters in Tolkiens novel.
Griffith’s Imitation Theory is similar to Bluestone’s Mutation theory in that it is a specific and methodological theory. Where it differs is that it serves to explain and describe Imitated and almost replica sequences of their equivalent passage in the novel, within the Shelob’s Lair and the choices of Master Samwise scenes. However, the Imitation theory is also similar to Stam’s idea that the Fidelity theory is in fact an equivalency theory. The idea that the scenes in the film could imitate specific aspects of chapters in a novel implies some notions of fidelity, in the form of imitating literary techniques into cinematic ones. Whereas, the Mutation theory of Bluestone’s implies notions of changes to the content of the novel in order to create a mutated film version of Tolkien’s novel.
The De- Recomposing concept as explained by Eliot is the most appropriate for explaining all the differences between the Shelob’s Lair, The Choices of Master Samwise scenes and their corresponding chapters. It is a methodological concept of adaptation, but it is a flexible concept in so far as that it explains less faithful adaptations. It is not concerned with notions of Fidelity; and it is not as simplistic as Seger’s Second Original theory. It serves to explain the changes in the scenes from the Lord of the Rings films analysed in this essay, because of its methodological flexibility. It effectively explains the detailed differences between the Shelob’s lair scene and its corresponding chapter, whilst it also explains the simpler differences between the Choices of Master Samwise scene and its corresponding chapter.
In the final analysis the particular theories that served to explain more of the differences between the Lord of the Rings novel and film are; the Second Original theory as outlined by Seger, the Mutation theory as outlined by Bluestone, and the De- Re Composing theory as explained by Kamilla Elliot. The Second Original Theory because the Shelob’s Lair scene that Jackson has produced can be described as his scene, as opposed to a definitive film version of Tolkien’s chapter. However, it is not as effective for explaining the Choices of Master Samwise scene. All the changes Jackson and his co-writers made were instinctive to ensure thatJackson’s version functions as a film. He explains this as follows.
” if you see these movies now you would understand why we did what we did, I mean It seemed like a natural thing to do, It wasn’t really, It wasn’t those big dilemmas, I mean, It was actually quite simple and it happened at the beginning and we never changed it, and we, and I think it was the smartest thing to do” (Jackson, Return of the King, Extended DVD Edition, From book to Script Disc Three 0:2:29) Jackson’s approach to the adaptation of the novel could be described as a new Instinct theory of adaptation. Although there are major differences between the film and the novel,Jackson’s decisions took a natural course when adapting the novel into a film. He and his co writers did not have long debates about the “changes” that they made. They instinctively, created aHollywood film version of Tolkien’s novel.
The theories tested in this essay have one thing in common; none are concerned with complete replica cinematic visualisations of the chapters in the book. The fidelity theory itself as outlined by Stam is not concerned with creating a carbon copy of the story, theme, characters, visuals, dialogue, style, structure and presentation of the plot.
I.Q Hunter writes, “In film terms, the novel of The Lord of the Rings is badly put together” (I.Q. Hunter, cited Cartmell &Whelehan, 2007, p157). Hunter is referring to the clunky and slow narrative of the novel, with the final two parts split into two separate sections. Hunter goes on to say that “the novel is not remotely like a screen treatment” (Ibid, p158). This is why it makes sense that the film is significantly different from its source novel.
“Film reviewers today are often unconcerned as to whether a film adaptation is `faithful` to its literary source, in the sense of attention to detail and inclusiveness. Rather than what’s left out, more attention is cast on what is added; it is the additions, not the deletions to the source that are largely responsible for an adaptation’s box office and critical success”
(Cartmell & Whelehan, 2010, p73)
This definitely applies to the Lord of the Rings films, the additions and possibly some of the deletions made it a box office and critical success. The changes were required to ensure that the film functioned. The film that Jackson and his co adapters created can be best described as a De-Re-composition according to the concept explained by Kamilla Eliot, (2009, p157) or a new Instinct theory, based on how Peter Jackson explains his approach to the adaptation in interviews on the Lord of the Rings DVD extras.
Word Count 10,195
Bibliography
Books: Film Adaptation Theory and Story Structure
Altman R (2008) A Theory of Narrative Columbia, University Press
Aycock W & Schoenecke M (1988) Film and Literature: A Comparative Approach to Adaptation Texas, Tech University Press
Bluestone G (2003) Novels into Film Baltimore & London John Hopkins Press, University Press
Boozer J (2008) Authorship in Film Adaptation Austin University of Texas Press
Brady B (1994) Principles of Adaptation for Film and Television Austin University of Texas Press
CampbellJ (1993) the Hero with a Thousand Faces:LondonFontana Press
Carroll R (2009) Adaptation in Contemporary Culture: Textual Infidelities London& New York Continuum International Publishing Group
Cartmell D (1999) Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text London& New York Routledge
Cartmell D & Whelehan I (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen Cambridge University Press
Cartmell D & Whelehan I (2010) Screen Adaptation: Impure Cinema Macmillan HampshireNew York Palgrave
Cartmell D (2000) Classics in Film and FictionLondon, Pluto Press
Cutchins D (2010) Redefining Adaptation Studies PlymouthUK N
The Scarecrow Press Inc
DeBona G (2010) Film Adaptation in The Hollywood Studio EraUniversity ofIllinois Press
Elliot K (2009) Rethinking the Novel/ Film Debate CambridgeUniversity Press
Field S (1994) Screenplay: The foundations of Screenwriting. Delta,New York
Geraghty C. (2008) Now a Major Motion Picture: Film Adaptations of Literature and Drama,Lanham,Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
GriffithJ (1999) Adaptations as Imitations: Films from Novels Cranbury LondonOntario Associated University Press
Hutcheon L (2006) A Theory of Adaptation Oxford Routledge
Krevolin R (2003) How to Adapt Anything into A Screenplay New Jersey John Wiley & Sons
Leitch T (2009) Film Adaptation and its Discontents: from Gone with the Wind to Passion of the Christ. Baltimore JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press
MacArther M &Wilkinson L& Zaiontz K(2009) Essays & Conversations on the Theory and Practice of Adaptation Performing Adaptations Cambridge, Scholars Publishing
Maccabe C Murray K & Warner R (2011) True to the Spirit: Film Adaptation and the Question of Fidelity OxfordUniversity Press
Mckee R (1999) Story London, Methuen
Seger L (1992) The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction into Film New York Owl Books
Stam R (2004) Literature and film: A Guide to the theory and practice of film adaptation .London, Blackwell Publishers
Stam R (2005) Literature Trough Film: Realism, Magic, and the Art of Adaptation London, Blackwell Publishing
Stam R (2008) A Companion to Literature and Film,London, Blackwell Publishing
Straczynsky J M (1996) The Complete Book of Scriptwriting:New York,USA Titan
Synder M H (2011) Analyzing Literature-To-Film Adaptations: A Novelists Exploration and Guide. New York. Continuum International Publishing Group
Volger C (2007) The Writers JourneyLondon .Pan
Welsh J A & P Lev (2007) The Literature/Film Reader: issues of adaptation Plymouth UK & New York, Lanham MA Scarecrow Press.
Zatlin P (2005) Theatrical Translation and Film Adaptation: A Practitioner’s Clevedon Buffalo Toronto View Multilingual Matters Ltd
Books: on The Lord of the Rings
Barker M& Mathis E (2008) Watching Lord of the Rings: Tolkiens World Audiences New York, Oxford, Baltimore, Berlin, Brussels, Vienna, Peter Lang Publishing inc
Mathis E& Pomerance M,(2006)From Hobbits to Hollywood: Essays on Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings Amsterdam New York, Radopi
Porter L R (2005) Unsung Heroes of “The Lord of the Rings”: From the Page to the Screen Westport, Connecticut, London Greenwood Press
Robinson J M (2008) J.R.R. Tolkien: The Books, The Films, The Whole Cultural Phenomenon, Including a Scene By Scene Analysis of the 2001-2003 Lord of the Rings Films Maidstone Kent Crescent Moon Publishing
Sibley B (2002) The Lord of the Rings: The Making if the Movie Trilogy London Harper Collins
Smith J & Matthews JC (2004) The Lord of the Rings: The Films, the Books, the Radio Series London, Virgin Books
Thompson K (2007) The Frodo Franchise: Lord of the Rings and Modern Hollywood California & London University of California Press
Novels
Tolkien J.R R (2002) Lord of the Rings; the Fellowship of the Ring Suffolk London Harper Collins (film-tie in edition)
Tolkien J .R R (2002) Lord of the Rings; the Two Towers Suffolk London Harper Collins (film tie-in edition)
Tolkien J.R R (2002) Lord of the Rings; the Return of the king Suffolk London Harper Collins (film tie-in edition)
Media Research Methodology books
Altheide D.L. (2007) Qualitative media analysis, London& New Delhi, Sage Publications Thousand Oaks
Bertrand I& Hughes P (2005) Media Research Methods, Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Academic Writing Guides
Stott, R. (2001) Making your case Harlow, London & New York, Longman an imprint of Pearson Education
Swetnam D& Swetnam R (2009) Writing Your Dissertation:Oxford How to Books
Documents
Script for Lord of the Rings (found on www.simplyscripts.com )
Journals
The Journal of Literature on Screen Studies: Adaptation, Volume, 3 Issue 2 2010OxfordJournalsOxfordUniversityPress.
Films
Lord of the Rings. Fellowship of the Ring Extended DVD Edition (2002)
Lord of the Rings. TheTwoTowersExtended DVD Edition (2003)
Lord of the Rings. The Return of the King Extended DVD Edition (2004)
Websites
http://www.decentfilms.com/articles/tolkien.html
Date Visited2/3/11
http://www.theonering.com/page3-25/TheMoviesTheCompleteListofFilmChanges
Date Visited2/3/11
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy
Date Visited2/3/11
http://www.rilstone.talktalk.net/lotr-movie-review.htm
Date Visited2/3/11
Date Visited2/3/11
http://escholarship.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/SSE/article/viewFile/572/541
Date Visited2/3/11
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20040118a
Date Visited2/3/11
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20040118a
Date Visited2/4/11
Liam Whetstone 