Tolkien on Film: Essays on Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a 2004 collection of essays edited by Janet Brennan Croft on Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings in his 2001–2003 film trilogy based on J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy book.
The collection was seen as quite negative by scholars. The film scholar Kristin Thompson felt that the book's denigration of Jackson was disappointing, and that too many of the essays were catalogues of differences between film and book, complete with adverse commentary. In her view, these made the error of assuming that Jackson was trying to be as faithful as possible to the book, and failing; whereas he was instead aiming to please a modern audience, with intentional changes. Other scholars gave mixed responses, while noting that the collection represents the many Tolkien scholars and fans who do not feel that the films succeeded in representing Tolkien's book.
Tolkien on Film was published in 2004 in paperback by the Mythopoeic Press. The book is not illustrated.[1]
Reviewing the book for Tolkien Studies, the film scholar Kristin Thompson wrote that the book was the first of several books on Jackson's The Lord of the Rings to appear in print. She notes that it indeed came out before the authors could see the special extended edition of the last film of the trilogy, making its publication appear somewhat hasty, if not unscholarly. Thompson notes that "several of the contributors" dislike Jackson's film trilogy, and that few of the contributions are by film scholars, so that not many are "actually about Jackson's film as such."[2] She notes that the field of "cinema studies" has diverged from older literary criticism with its "adaptation studies" that existed until the 1970s; and that some of the essays in the book are "more like lists of complaints" than "classic adaptation studies".[2] She suggests that the "frequent denigration" of Jackson will disappoint film fans who read the book.[2]
Some years later, Thompson noted in Picturing Tolkien that a contributor on TheOneRing.net described the book as "a mix of pro/con articles related to the films, mostly con though as I recall."[3] Thompson immediately continued by saying that "the condescension and dismissal that the film has sometimes met in scholarly circles reminds me somewhat of the disdain many of Tolkien's colleagues felt for his fiction", as to them the point was not whether his books were any good, but that "they were broadly popular and hence frivolous."[3]
Janice Bogstad and Philip Kaveny, introducing their 2011 scholarly collection on the same subject, Picturing Tolkien, wrote that Croft's edited collection finds Jackson's films "wanting", adding that the book "speaks both to and from the sizable body of Tolkien scholars and enthusiasts who do not believe this film series succeeded, and/or that any film version could succeed."[4]
On the contributions, Thompson finds Smyth's essay odd, only focusing on the film in its last two pages, and disagreeing with its view that the film is imperialist, as it is the opposite, as Sauron not Aragorn is the imperial aggressor. She comments that an overview of the background to the film's making, or its relationship to the fantasy genre, would have been more useful. She thinks Bratman's and Croft's essays are regrettable catalogues of differences between film and book, complete with "adverse commentary thereon". Paxson's analysis is more positive, seeing "changes as revision rather than adaptation" and welcoming the sequence on the lighting of the beacons (to warn Rohan of the attack on Gondor). She finds Wiggins and Timmons just as "disapproving" as Bratman and Croft, stating that all of them suppose that Jackson was trying to be as faithful as possible to Tolkien's "story, tone, and meaning", but "largely failed". In Thompson's view, Jackson's team instead aiming to please a modern audience, so they made changes intentionally, and explained their rationale in interviews on the extended DVDs. She criticises the reviewers as naive for not grasping the "corporate forces and financial pressures" on Jackson.[2] Thompson is more accepting of the essays on women in the films, finding them thoughtful, except for Chance's, which she thinks makes the trying-to-be-faithful assumption.[2] She thinks the two fan fiction essays richly informed and apparently the first to focus exclusively on The Lord of the Rings. She finds their introductions to fan fiction terminology useful, but doubts whether their Google searches have yielded accurate statistics.[2] Thompson concludes that rather than trying to "catch flies with vinegar", Croft and her authors would do better to tell fans that if they like the films, they may also enjoy the book if they try reading it, stating "Many [of them] already have."[2]
James Davis praises Thum for seeking to show that the films can help people understand the book, in contrast to taking one side or the other on Jackson's merits. He notes Thum's well-argued case that Arwen is following in the footsteps of Lúthien, "who was indeed a 'Warrior Princess'", and that Jackson brings out her place in Middle-earth better than Tolkien does in The Lord of the Rings.[5]
Yvette Kisor writes that in her essay Mithril Coats and Tin Ears, Croft focuses narrowly on the "immediate effects" of Jackson's changes, such as the "loss of dramatic irony" from Jackson's intercutting in place of Tolkien's suspenseful interlacing. Kisor contrasts Croft here with Cara Lane's "less outwardly negative ... assessment ... [but] perhaps more significant losses to the core meaning of the novel", namely that interlace "allows plot threads to dangle for prolonged periods and forces readers to make connections between events on their own", whereas intercutting "substantially alter[s] the structure and tone of the story." The activity required of the reader makes them share the confusion and incomplete knowledge of the characters, bringing out "an important theme of the novel".[6][7]
Tobias Hock and Frank Weinreich note that Bratman finds the films' emphasis on violence excessive, largely replacing "Tolkien's moral sense". They dispute the excessiveness, while agreeing that some instances of the loss of Tolkien's moral attitude, like Aragorn's "Show them no mercy" before the Battle of Helm's Deep are "serious" because these "go completely against the religious and ethical worldview" of the book. They similarly endorse Bratman's argument about Gandalf's character.[8]