Tolkien

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I disagree. It is simply easier today with the internet to check fud or spread fud. Hard to truly know what is fact or fiction. As for entertainment I rather be entertained than bored to death. One possible exception might be "How it is made" and spinoffs thereof. Documentary style that doesn't fail to entertain (me).

ETA: Depending on how you meant it, we possibly do agree on this. The damage is easier discovered, so in a way more damage is done, possibly?

Not clear where your disagreement is, but no worries. I'll try to clarify what I was getting at.

My earlier couple of posts did not mean to suggest that in these genres that intend to be historical, they should be boring or dry. Surely you do not think that "historically accurate" fiction must necessarily equate with boring or dry, any more than you'd think that "historically distorted or inaccurate" fiction must necessarily be entertaining. To the contrary, I'd suspect that good and entertaining storytelling could happen happen in either case--whether the subject matter was true or distorted. I mentioned earlier that I have no problem with employing artistic license, where the purpose is to make a story entertaining and memorable. I love historical fiction, especially in book form! One example of a favorite and exemplary modern writer in this genre is Jeff Shaara, who wrote, among other things, a number of historical fiction novels about the American revolution and Civil War. I found these novels really helped to get a better, more memorable grasp of the complex events and cast of characters in these epic wars. In some ways I found it was good complementary reading to actual history books. Because Shaara worked very hard, did a lot of historical research, and tried to remain true to the historical record and even the character of the individuals. While still weaving the whole thing into a compelling story, dramatizing and fictionalizing (is that even a word? :-)) some details and conversations.

My concern in this thread would be with the case where a film that claims, or intends, to be mostly historical, perhaps the right genre is 'biopic' as suggested earlier. The concern is when a biopic film intentionally distorts key details about the subject, for ideological reasons. And my further point, which you might be reacting to, is that with modern film, and cinematic techniques, and the web, it is much easier in our time to make a distorted story seem convincing and compelling, and to spread it far and wide really fast. Much faster than in earlier times where all you had was printed books.

Because I admire Tolkien the man a lot, and love his writing and the imaginary world he created, I guess you'd call me a Tolkien fanboi. He almost feels like a friend, though I of course never met him. My point for the thread was only that I hope the film is both 'good' (in the sense of being dramatic, entertaining, and compelling, so that it draws people in and makes them want to read Tolkien), but also that it will be more or less accurate about the key events, themes, and beliefs that shaped his life.

[hollowpoint]

Movie is out:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...506-story.html

Tolkien estate and biographer have disavowed:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nicholas-hoult

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

Movie is out:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...506-story.html

Tolkien estate and biographer have disavowed:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nicholas-hoult

Yea, kind of what I expected. Most biopics play fast and loose with the facts. It's a bit like talking to someone whose knowledge of the Hobbit is based on the movies and doesn't understand that the movies are only very loosely based on the book.

On one hand, I totally understand Christopher Tolkien's desire to avoid more movies simply because they simply can not capture the essence of the books. On the other hand, I can appreciate the Hobbit movies as a series of movies suggested by the Hobbit, rather than a film adaption of the book.

[hollowpoint]

Yes fictional adaptations seem more acceptable, though I understand the son's desire to have people interact with Tolkien's world in its full unaltered glory.

Haven't seen the biopic, but from a handful of reviews, it doesn't sound egregious in the sense of distorting reality. The impression you get is a ho-hum, not-too-bad but not-too-great dramatization of Tolkien's life. Even so, as in previous comments in this thread, with a form like 'biopic' where the intent is to be historically grounded, omissions, fabrications, or faulty impressions created about the subject's life can really distort the impression the public has. Especially since most viewers will never bother to read a real, reputable biography and learn the facts.

For my part, I plan to avoid the film altogether and take the advice of the biographer in the Guardian article, to read an actual biography:

"Biopics typically take considerable license with the facts, and this one is no exception. Endorsement by the Tolkien family would lend credibility to any divergences and distortions. That would be a disservice to history,” he said. “As a biographer, I expect I’ll be busy correcting new misconceptions arising from the movie. I hope that anyone who enjoys the film and is interested in Tolkien’s formative years will pick up a reliable biography."