Writer & Editor
Beginning with a stirring choral piece sung in one of Tolkien’s Elvish languages, Howard Shore immerses the listener in Middle-earth. Rather than composing themes for each of the characters, as per John Williams leitmotifs, Shore adds atmosphere to a story already rich in history.
It’s just as well he eschews character-specific creations; at nine members of the Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien’s cast was just getting started. The film’s score isn’t monolithic by any means.
If you’ve been Puttin’ the Blog in Balrog this summer, and taking part in the group read of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, you may have been brave enough to take part in the live-tweeted movie drinkalongs organized by SJ.
Every Friday, whoever uses the hashtag #PtBiB can join in for an hour of snark (and drinking). This past Friday marked the third week, so the group is done with Peter Jackson’s version of The Fellowship of the Ring.
It’s often said by readers, “The book is always better.” But is it? Are some works of literature impossible to translate to such a visual medium as film? Or do they just need some tweaking to let their stories run free on the silver screen?
I wrote this piece some years ago; my opinion still stands, though I’m interested to hear what readers and fans of Tolkien have to say, since I’m well aware opinion is divided on what Jackson did with Tolkien’s work.
Much is made of the differences in tone between J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and its eventual sequel, The Lord of the Rings. One was written for children, the other clearly was not. But what is the defining characteristic of Tolkien’s epic (and there may be more than one) that sets it apart from its child-friendly origins?
I’d venture to say it’s that Tolkien brings horror to Middle-earth.
