Bilbo the Liar

When Tolkien wrote Th he had no concept of LotR. When he came to write LotR it became apparent that for the Ring to be the focus some scenes, notably Riddles in the Dark, would have to be rewritten to account for the changes. This meant there were two versions of Bilbo and his getting of the Ring and of Gollum and his reactions, depending on how old your copy of TH was.
In typical fashion Tolkien took this real world change and made it part of his subworld. Bilbo lied to the dwarves and Gandalf about the Ring and put the lie in his own version in the Red Book, and it was this version which was mistakenly published as TH and later corrected. But Bilbo told the truth to Frodo, and Gandalf eventually got it out of him.
The question is how will they deal with this in the film, or will they just ignore it? Bilbo should lie to the company, Gandalf included. And it should be some time after the return home before Gandalf finds out the truth.
So will the film show Bilbo the liar or not?

Mmmmmm.. Set me thinking. Bilbo lying is something that never really struck me with the book. I know it is there, but I suppose having read it with the truth it never struck me as important. From my personal point of view and in light of affecting the hobbit story I don't feel it needs to be there. However as a prequel to LOTRs I can see the need. I am trying to remember if the 'lie' is referenced in the films. Obviously if it is then TH will need to reflect this. With the WC stuff being in these films it is possible they may want to play that up a bit and it could be what, makes Gandalf suspicious of Bilbo's ring in the first place. On the other hand it is quite a subtle thing to get across on film, the compulsion to lie and lay claim to the ring without overplaying it at this point!

eek scary thought alert. If PJ wants this to truely lead into LOTR we could get Gandalf and Aragorn searching for Gollum (making this before Bilbo's party would not affect the LOTR timeline) etc as the end of the second film... leading to FOTR!!!

"This meant there were two versions of Bilbo and his getting of the Ring and of Gollum and his reactions, depending on how old your copy of TH was." - Petty

Interesting, I never knew that! I hope they portray Bilbo as a liar. I never really thought that Bilbo was lying deliberately, though, more that the ring was making him lie, if you follow me. So I hope they don't portray him as a scumbag liar, more a "little white lie" liar

If they do include it it will be tricky to balance. The Ring can't be obviously bad in TH or Gandalf would have twigged long ago. The same goes for Saruman, Gandalf has no idea Saruman has gone so far when he rides to Isengard so they can't have him too obviously bad in it.
If they overplay Bilbo lying it would make Gandalf suspicous sooner. If I remember right it took Gandalf years to get the true story out of Bilbo and it temporarily strained their friendship.

I think it's an important part of the broader story, but it needs to be done with subtlety. (There's that word that PJ doesn't like... ) I agree with Petty on this. It shouldn't be overplayed and it might not be terribly obvious to people unfamiliar with LOTR (though I think that a majority of the audience will be through the books and/or films), but I would still like to see it present.

I thought it might be helpful (for those who were unaware of the differences) to give some of the comments from my copy of the annotated Hobbit on the differences between the original and the rewritten version (or in Tolkiens conceit between Bilbo's lie and the later truthful version he gave Gandalf and Frodo).

'In the first edition of TH (1937) Gollum uses the phrase "my precious" to refer only to himself. In the later edition, in which Gollum's role was significantly altered the phrase might be taken to refer to the Ring, as is often the case in LotR.'

'Constance B. Hieatt has noted that 'Old Norse gull/goll, of which one inflected form would be gollum, means 'gold,treasure, something precious' and can also mean 'ring', a point which may have occurred to Tolkien.'

1937 -'before the goblins came, and he was cut off from his friends far under the mountains.' 1951- 'before he lost all his friends and was driven away, alone, and crept down, down, into the dark under the mountains.'

1937- 'and we doesn't answer, we gives it a present, gollum' 1951- 'and we doesn't answer, then we does what it wants, eh? We shows it the way out, yes!'

The entire chapter from the line "He knew,of course, that the riddle-game was sacred," to "stooping low with their hands almost on the ground" was abandoned and rewritten for the 1951 publication. Its too long to type out here but the changes back up what's above. Gollum offers his 'present' as the prize rather than offering to show the way out. And Gollum seems sincere in showing him the way out and does so, Bilbo only slips the Ring on when spotted by the Goblins at the back door not when persuaded by Gollum, which doesn't happen in the original version.

(From Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire)
1937- "So I asked for my present, and he went to look for it, and couldn't find it. So I said, 'very well, help me to get out of this nasty place?' and he showed me the passage to the door. 'Good-bye' I said and I went on down."
1951- "So I said: 'What about your promise? Show me the way out!' But he came at me to kill me, and I ran, and fell over, and he missed me in the dark. Then I followed him because I thought I heard him talking to himself. He thought I really knew the way out, and so he was making for it. And then he sat down at the entrance, and I could not get by. So I jumped over him and escaped, and ran down to the gate."

I've always loved the idea of two versions --- and the link between Bilbo's present and Smeagol's Birthday Present is a wonderful detail. Only Tolkien, as far as I know, ever had two versions of the one book, not just a rewritten version (as such). Tolkien tended to severely bend the writing rules, didn't he? It's why his works stand out above the also-ran fantasy writers who tell (substantially) the same fantasy quest story. A quest is a quest is a quest is a quest - but Tolkien still seems fresh, and every time you read him. He did not always obey the rules, and he more than successfully got away with it. Luckilly, the reader is the judge, not literary critics (back then) or (most) editors today. Hey! Imagine what a great Director could do when making movies? I'm sure great movies become so (partly) because they do things in non-sterotypical ways! Here to help!

odo banks wrote:Tolkien still seems fresh, and every time you read him. He did not always obey the rules, and he more than successfully got away with it.

That's one of the biggest problems with the film-makers approach: they tried to shoehorn Tolkien's story into a largely by-the-rules adaptation. There were a lot of superficial similarities and they copied a fair bit of dialogue verbatim (though often changing its meaning drastically by changing the context), but in a lot of ways it was quite formulaic. Every important character had to have a journey to go on. Every important character had to have personal flaws to grapple with in angsty scenes. Scenes and even sets need to be structured around melodrama, rather than anything else (and certainly not realism). And so on and so forth.

The ultimate irony of course is that a number of people interviewed for the documentary features talk at great length about how Tolkien broke the rules and got away with it in a featurette included in the EE DVD release. But switch over to the featurette about adapting the book and you'll get PJ and Philippa Boyens talking about how they had to change the story to fit the rules of drama, or cinema, or whatever their excuse of the moment is.

I like this Eldo! Stick the boot in where its deserved! I can't watch those interviews, its crabbit explosion time if I try.
The worst of it is if you don;t concentrate they start to sound plausible, then you actually stop and analysis it and realise they are talking formulaic sh*t, the very sort as you correctly point out, the extras about the book talk about Tolkien not making. Tolkien wrote what he thought felt right- and he was right as the huge success of his work showed. What the script of the films lack is the balls to follow Tolkiens lead. Faramirs a good example, Tolkien realised that as well as flawed people like Boromir you get good ones too, no big journey, no introspection, people who k now what they are and what they stand for, like Faramir- the whole 'journey' he goes on is a waste of 40minutes of film time.

That reminds me of their excuse (more for Aragorn than Faramir, though both characters went through similar changes) that audiences can't relate to characters who are too good. Apparently self-assured characters without enough angst are just arrogant to modern audiences. The angsty anti-hero is certainly one type of hero, and it can be done good (in fact, I think the LOTR writers did decent with Aragorn's characterization, within the bounds of the 'reluctant King' formula), but it's hardly necessary, and seeing something different is refreshing.

I should probably stop going on unrelated crabbit rants in multiple different threads now.

My problem with the Aragorn thing is it really is a fundamental change. Its not a little thing like they try to make it seem.
For Aragorn of the book the War of the Ring is the worst and best thing that could happen. He could, as all his predecessors have done, live his whole life and there be no opportunity to regain his throne nd status. But at the same time the War means the end of so much for him, his home in Rivendell, his surrogate father in Elrond ( whom he is going to part from his daughter for all eternity). He is about to be tested as none of his forefathers were before him. And that's before he take sin the very likely possibility they will lose and everything will be destroyed.
For me there is more than enough there to create and effective, emotive character- they just abandon it in favour of an old tried and tested theme of reluctant King. Pathetic really.

Must (slightly) demur about Tolkien's Faramir going or not going on a journey. He does you know, Mr Tyrant. Faramir has a journey (don't we all) but PJ just got it wrong. Faramir has issues with both Denethor and Boromir while still loving them. His goodness is based on a commonsense open-eyed view of what is good or bad, and his reaction to the wiles of the Ring are those of a strong man knowing what's right. Strong people standing up to evil has always made good cinema. Faramir does not resist the Ring easily, it's a hard decision for him, and a wise and a brave one. If one listens to Faramir's dialogue in the book, you actually see the Struggle come out of his own mouth. In the film, depict Faramir's receipt of the cloven horn, depict his admiration but also his criticism of Boromir's over-confidence (seems wrong somehow to say arrogance), and don't forget his love for his brother, and you'll have plenty of fodder to make this filmographic - and Tolkienish. Works in the book for me. Not particularly melodramatic, but realistic and hugely effective and moving.

As to Aragorn, I agree.

Eldo, not sure about the "change" you suggest Faramir and Aragorn went through. They adapted to circumstances, had their fears to overcome, but they did not really "change" - maybe they "grew" in stature, as a boy becomes a man, but is that actually "change" in the context we discuss? They were wiser and stronger at the end, yes, life's a journey (quest?), but there was no "change" to what they were as people; not that I can see anyhow.

I was using the word 'journey' in the context of the cliqued cinema variety.
I agree there is emotional development in Faramir throughout his time in the book, right up until his falling in love with Eowyn. In fact they both have an emotional upheaval that leads to understanding and brings them both to the point where they can fall in love with each other, even in the midst of despair (another of Tolkiens ucatastrophes?).
Surely that's enough for a film and better than what was offered?

Mmmm....

odo banks wrote:Eldo, not sure about the "change" you suggest Faramir and Aragorn went through. They adapted to circumstances, had their fears to overcome, but they did not really "change" - maybe they "grew" in stature, as a boy becomes a man, but is that actually "change" in the context we discuss? They were wiser and stronger at the end, yes, life's a journey (quest?), but there was no "change" to what they were as people; not that I can see anyhow.

I think this is largely semantics. The film-makers said they wanted a number of characters - including Aragorn and Faramir - to each have a "journey" (one of their favourite words) to go on, and whatever you want to call it, it's not hard to see the progression each character goes through.

This begs the question (in my mind at least), is life (1) a continouous "journey" or (2) a continuous "state of change"; or are they the selfsame thing? Or, to put it another way, does everything that happens to us change us? For instance, I go on a walk in the bush, and see all sorts of things that I had not noticed before, so have I been "changed" by the walk by the time I get home? Maybe, but if someome says, "You've changed" they usually mean a marked distinctive change. I would argue that Aragorn and Faramir, in the book, don't change in any marked distinctive way, but they do go on a "journey", both metaphorically and physically. Semantics! Nuh. Don't agree.

I don't agree either!

Spammer!!!

I suppose i can't call you that because as of now, I am all over the threads. fun fun fun!

hehe, I've taken the spam-a-thon torch of spam!

Rats. I was the spam holder for about two mnutes.

You'll just have to try again. I recall racing up and down the forum with someone else (not sure who though) trying to get all the forums.

Spamming is so ho-hum...

No call for that attitude, Ally. You know EXACTLY what I'm getting at!