#see also lotr!

[anghraine]

A more coherent part of the adaptation+Darcy post I was threatening to release from drafts purgatory:

While I think all adaptations' versions of Darcy are pretty bad at representing Austen's character, though sometimes compelling in their own right, I think the various choices made are all ways of addressing the same problem with the character as written.

It's not a problem in the novel—indeed, I'd say it's a remarkable achievement there—but I think we don't always realize how extremely ambiguous the presentation of Darcy is through the first half of the novel. It's easy to read him as basically hostile because he was when he first appeared and because Elizabeth, our smart, likable POV character, gets stuck in that perception of him for half the book. So it's only on re-reading that most audiences realize Elizabeth drastically misread his real feelings and the original interpretation of his manner is thrown into question, at the very least.

But as I said in the other post, Austen plays fair: it is entirely possible to realize that Elizabeth is mistaken about some things (esp about how he feels towards her), it is possible to realize that particularly observant characters find his expressions and behavior difficult to interpret, it's possible to notice that we are rarely told how he's speaking or smiling, and scenes typically cut off before we can be told. And it's possible to notice the many issues with Wickham's account of him.

But it's also entirely possible to read everything he says and does as Elizabeth does, and the narrative gently encourages us to do so without often committing to actual description that would guide us in those ambiguous scenes. Austen might have, for instance, described his smiles in the Netherfield scenes as contemptuous, polite, or pleasant. But she just repeats that he's smiling while drawing very little attention to the fact and rarely committing to an indication of what his smiles or presentation of dialogue are like. So it's mostly up to us to decide, with the occasional (dubious in some respects) interpretation from Elizabeth.

And we're likely to reach different conclusions on re-reading—the earlier presentation of Darcy rewards re-reading a lot, because a lot of the time, we don't even realize how much we're not being told until the letter or even the Pemberley scenes, where Elizabeth identifies the smile we saw in his earlier scenes as the same one in the painting done during his beloved father's lifetime—making, say, the "contemptuous" reading very unlikely.

Now, getting away with that level of ambiguity and obscuring that the ambiguity is happening in the first place, as Austen manages to do in the novel, is both impressive and a hell of a lot harder in visual form. Not impossible! But if we see and hear him ourselves we're less likely to form judgments shaped by Austen's tricks of narration and Elizabeth's POV, and this typically involves commitment to a particular aspect of his presentation in the novel.

And if you think about it, the four major adaptations of Darcy are essentially committing to some part of his depiction.

Laurence Olivier's Darcy is smiling, witty, and charismatic—which are a part of his personality, but skewed so far out of proportion that he's virtually unrecognizable. And there's no attempt to obscure his place in the narrative as the actual love interest (I assume because duh, it's Laurence Olivier—but it was a pretty unrewarding role for him as written).

David Rintoul's Darcy is (in)famously "robotic"—the 1980 version of him leans into the withdrawn, inexpressive, difficult to read but clearly uncomfortable version of Darcy. The smiles in the earlier part tend to be tight, a matter of form, and/or unconvincing, by contrast to the later Darcy's comportment towards the Gardiners and Elizabeth, esp after the second proposal.

Colin Firth's Darcy is, well—okay, I'm biased because of my intense dislike for the 1995 production, but I do think it's also struggling with the same issue, but responds in the opposite way as the 1980. Where the 1980 tried to replicate the ambiguity in a way that retained Darcy's tendency towards a certain severity and dignity and mostly ended up at expressionless, the 1995 transforms it into visibly intense, sexualized brooding. This is coupled with Elizabeth's perception of Darcy's hostility being much more validated than in the novel; he snaps at her, most of his textual smiles are removed, even his letter is rearranged with an eye to half-dressed angst rather than the subtle charity of the omitted "God bless you", and generally his angst and passion!!! are played up rather than down ("I shall conquer this!!" / the melodramatic pond dive and shift in focus from Elizabeth's shame to Darcy being barely dressed / Darcy being grim in London, etc).

If the 1995 version of Darcy commits to Darcy's behavior being largely how Elizabeth sees it, the 2005 drastically reverses that. Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy is also struggling with passion, but tbh he seems like he's kind of struggling with everything. He's visibly consumed with anxiety, he's obviously shy where Darcy has to explain his discomfort or experience it as a POV character in the novel, he seems sweet despite occasional classism, and at times his arc seems more about learning to relax than anything else. That is, instead of representing Darcy as more or less accurately seen by Elizabeth, it leans into emphasizing the extent of her misunderstanding, with Darcy's behavior both more sympathetic than she sees it and clearly comprehensible if she weren't so biased against him (fwiw, The Lizzie Bennet Diaries also emphasizes Elizabeth's misjudgment to a considerable extent and deals with the ambiguity by keeping him literally offstage).

The point of all this is that there is a core issue of adaptation here—the difficulty of representing subtle novelistic ambiguity while making Darcy emotionally compelling at the same time. Adapted Darcys are often given extra scenes, altered dialogue, or (where described in the novel) altered mannerisms/emotions to try and achieve this. And all lean so hard into the aspect they choose to emphasize that they tend to sacrifice most of the rest of his personality to the interpretation they're committing to, and his feelings for Elizabeth tend to be incredibly obvious to the point that it sometimes strains belief that she wouldn't see them, even with all her investment in not seeing them.

I guess the thing is that I think just stopping with "this is an issue of the different media and can't be represented on film" is boring and underestimates the potential of film as a medium. There are plenty of performances that can only be fully appreciated on re-watching or re-listening to something with a fuller knowledge of what is revealed later. And to some degree, the adapters do have to choose how much they want to incorporate Elizabeth's perception of Darcy vs the bare narrative and what they're willing to give away about him to preserve what seems most important.

These are all active choices with actual significance, IMO. They imply priorities about the production and their production's take on Darcy that are intriguing in a way that gets lost by just giving them a free pass by way of the challenge of the medium.

[cosmicwar]

why did they ever even attempt to try and make another actor wear a white-blonde wig after orlando bloom in the lotr trilogy. don’t they understand that we peaked 20 years ago and everything else has looked like shit after that

[fluentisonus]

i've seen several variations on this meme with legolas & gimli but no one but me gets which way around it should be it should be like this:

[mrkida-art]

A redesign of Thorin Oakenshield

[rosefires20]

My brainrot today is thinking about just how incredible for a character Eowyn is.

Genuinely. The series might not have many female characters but the ones we do get go so fucking hard.

To me, Eowyn is literally the definition of defining being a woman for oneself. She rejects the roles she is given despite acknlowdging the importance and its mostly because she knows part of the reason is that she is a woman.

The reason why she is obsessed with Aragorn isn't because she loves him but because she wants what he has. She wants the freedom and courage and bravery that Aragorn has at every turn. She literally has multiple conversations during the Two Towers about how what she fears most is a cage. All this girl wants is the freedom to be and not be forced into a role. The best thing is that she literally gets that.

The segment of Return of the King about Eowyn and Faramir is literally about her piecing together what she truly wants. She doesn't want Aragorn. She wants freedom and the ability to choose. Faramir does nothing but encourage that in her. Their love story is literally one of the healthiest love stories I've seen in a long time because at the heart of it, their love is a place to return home to for both parties. Both go off to lead and help their people for a considerable amount of time before returning to each other but that does not diminish their bond. Even Faramir, I believe, falls in love with her bravery and dedication to her loved ones. The reason she went to Pelenor Fields and Gondor with the troops of Rohan was because she had things she wanted to fight for. She wanted to fight for herself, her people, and her loved ones. She is the one who protects Theoden after he is killed so that his body gets the treatment it deserves. She encourages Merry and helps him go to the battle because she sees her struggle in Merry. They feel helpless standing around when there are things to be doing.

Let's also not forget the fact that she was around Grima Wormtounge just as much as the King was. She was exposed to the same poison and awful words that eroded the king. It's even implied that her care for him is part of the reason why Theoden was savable when Gandalf showed up. She had the same power and bravery as everyone else even if she didn't see it in herself.

Then at the end of the day, SHE decides where she wants to go and what path she wants to walk. She walked the path of a warrior. The path of a princess/ruler. The path of a caretaker. But in the end she decides which elements truly mean something to her outside of gender definitions. That is what makes her character so incredible to me. In this she literally kills one of the biggest enemies in that battle with such a badass line.

[milesasinmorales]

Thinking about that headcanon that Thranduil is blind in one or both eyes bcs of the dragon fire (hobbit movies) so that’s why Legolas just says what he sees out loud all the time bcs he’s used to doing that for his dad

[la-pheacienne]

George Martin, 2013: "In a very basic level winter is coming for all of us. I think that’s one of the things that art is concerned with: the awareness of our own mortality. “Valar morghulis” – “All men must die”. That shadow lies over our world and will until medical science gives us all immortality… but I don’t think it makes it necessarily a pessimistic world. Not any more pessimistic than the real world we live in. We’re here for a short time and we should be conscious of our own mortality, but the important thing is that love, compassion and empathy with other human beings is still possible. Laughter is still possible! Even laughter in the face of death… The struggle to make the world a better place… We have things like war, murder and rape… horrible things that still exist, but we don’t have to accept them, we can fight the good fight. The fight to eliminate those things.There is darkness in the world, but I don’t think we necessarily need to give way to despair. One of the great things that Tolkien says in Lord of The Rings is “despair is the ultimate crime”. That’s the ultimate failing of Denethor, the Steward of Gondor, that he despairs of ever being able to defeat Sauron. We should not despair. We should not go gentle into that good night".

JRR Tolkien, 1962 : "One reviewer once said, this is a jolly jolly book, all the right boys come home [...]- this isn't true of course, he can't have read the story. [...] Human stories are practically always about one thing, really, aren't they? Death. The inevitability of death. . . . . . (He quotes Simone de Beauvoir) 'There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that ever happens to man is natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die, but for every man his death is an accident, and even if he knows it he would sense to it an unjustifiable violation.' Well, you may agree with the words or not, but those are the key spring of The Lord Of The Rings".

"Lotr is all rainbows and unicorns and Asoiaf is nihilistic and grimdark". Wrong, and wrong. In all its hope and radiance, lotr often gets very dark, and despite all the death and suffering, the hopeful moments in asoiaf shine bright. The meeting point of these two is this: having hope while in despair, and even better, refusing to give up because you have to go on despite not having any hope left.

[thelien-art]

Elrond my one and only<3<3<3

I decided to give him a swallow brooch with a four-point star, symbolizing his mother and Ereinion, and the Feanorian star. I don´t think he was close to Earendil, so there are no relics from there.

The jewelry is silver and mithril since the Feanorian stars are said to be white and red, and I think the Sindar likes silver more as it´s close to the stars. Tolkien made it sound as if the Elvers liked silver more. Lastly, silver was chosen to avoid blending with orange/yellow tones, as I always draw him in.

[fukutomichi]

Sam Hazeldine as Adar S2.E3 ∙ The Eagle and the Sceptre

[the-moon-ate-my-stardust]

Okay literally no one asked but as a former Hobbit movie hater who has since experienced character growth, I feel compelled to share my thoughts on the movies on my gay little blog.

Listen. There are legit reasons to be critical of these movies. They were made on a rushed timeline, at time where CGI overuse was the thing and there are definitely unnecessary moments. But despite those issues, these movies still have a lot of heart and character and some really wonderful acting! To compare them to LOTR, is unfair I think because LOTR was such an unimaginable success and I truly believe no other movie franchise can do what those movies did. To expect the Hobbit movies to be the same caliber considering the behind the scenes drama and massive difference in timeline is just not it.

Truly I think that the Hobbit could have been much more than it was and it’s sad to see the amazing moments and realize that we could have had movies that were maybe closer to the level of LOTR, but that doesn’t take away from all of the great things that the movies gave us! Despite what he may be like irl, Martin Freeman was a great young Bilbo, Richard Armitage was insanely good as Thorin (despite the change in age) and the other dwarf actors brought a great sense of loyalty, brotherhood and shared loss to their roles. The music is still dope as hell and there are some beautiful shots despite all the CGI.

This is way too long and I’ve not said anything that hasn’t been said before but honestly, I’m so glad that I stopped hating on these movies and have seen the special things about them. Nothing will ever compare to LOTR, but that doesn’t make these movies bad. They’re fun, they’re emotional, they have great characterization and it’s super valid to enjoy them.

Final gay thoughts because I’m obligated, but I struggle with people who argue against Bagginshield with the whole “why does everyone have to make everything gay?” thing. Because Hollywood is so deeply homophobic that we see so little genuine queer representation, so forgive us for enjoying the chemistry we find and making it our own since our society gives us breadcrumbs. If you’re not into Bagginshield, totally legit and fine, but don’t hate on other people (especially queer people) trying to find some romantic love in media that we enjoy. Also no one can convince me that Richard Armitage wasn’t at least somewhat intentionally putting his queer energy into this role, I will die on this hill.

Anyway, TL;DR there’s no shame in liking or loving the Hobbit movies despite their faults and there are lots of things to appreciate and enjoy and I for one, am glad to leave my LOTR purist hater days behind me

[mossattack]

varric is not a redhead anymore (the iron bull greatly disapproves)

[anghraine]

For years, I've had a firm policy of nursing my grudge against a fictional character by only tagging Pharazôn as #pharazôn and not #ar-pharazôn and in general trying to always refer to him as Pharazôn alone. Tar-Míriel is the only final monarch of Númenor acknowledged in this house!!

S2 of ROP is not budging me on that point, I've got to say.

[olessan]

PLEASE someone get her a blanket. She's fuckin freezing. Stop chanting for 2 seconds and find a cloak. Give her your highly expensive gold thread damask cloak Pharazon

[naarisz]

The Seduction of Mairon

[inthiskingdomwewillendure]

Sauron's armor + the one ring in 4k

[braxix]

Finarfin: Hello, what's going on?

Elrond: No more guests! Go home!