'War Of The Rohirrim' Producer Philippa Boyens Attempts To Defend Destroying Tolkien's Lore: "We Can't Ruin" Tolkien's Books
The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim producer Philippa Boyens attempted to defend her desecration of Tolkien’s lore in the film by claiming she and the people who worked on the film “can’t ruin” Tolkien’s books.
In an interview with IGN, Boyens stated, “Professor Tolkien stated in his letters that the most compelling story is the untold story.”
She also added, “We can’t do anything to those books. Those books are going to stand as these masterpieces, hopefully, ‘til the end of time. We can’t ruin them. So people who come at you saying, ‘Oh you ruined this or you ruined that.’ ‘No, all we did was we presented you with an adaptation of this work. And some people will come to it and relate to it and some people won’t. And sometimes the criticism is justified. And sometime it doesn’t.”
Nevertheless, Boyens also explained why they decided to completely eschew the books, “What I think you will see unfold, hopefully, because this is where we work from … is that don’t just change something arbitrarily. If we’re going to change something do it for good storytelling reasons. And anything you bring to it, make it feel real, make it feel authentic.”
She later added, “Make sure you know what that reason is and it’s a really good storytelling reason why you are having to make that change. If you’re adding make it as authentic as you can possibly make it. So we didn’t just draw upon Eowyn for Hera, we drew upon women from early English history that Tolkien himself would have been familiar with.”
“So there’s nothing woke about this, guys, if you’re out there,” Boyens declared.
Nevertheless, she also admitted, “It’s an interesting piece of storytelling even if you just follow the bare threads that are in the book, and that’s because it starts out huge and quite epic.”
She also wildly misinterpreted Tolkien’s comments about wanting other individuals to work within and expand on the mythology he created in The Lord of the Rings.
She said, “Tolkien didn’t just write books. He wrote an entire mythology. A vast, incredible work, which is so detailed and so complex and works on so many different layers. And you can just leave that alone and not touch it. But he himself did not want that. And he himself said that he wanted other minds to come to it. … Bringing music and art and drama to it. So he had a sense of that at some stage. Because what he knew about myths is that it cannot be immutable.”
It’s unclear where she gets this claim that Tolkien wanted other minds to come to his work. In Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, Tolkien was rather blunt about his thoughts, “It is not possible even at great length to ‘pot’ The Lord of the Rings in a paragraph or two …. It was begun in 1936, and every part has been written many times. Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered. I do not say this in recommendation. It is, I feel, only too likely that I am deluded, lost in a web of vain imaginings of not much value to others — in spite of the fact that a few readers have found it good, on the whole. What I intend to say is this: I cannot substantially alter the thing. I have finished it, it is 'off my mind': the labour has been colossal; and it must stand or fall, practically as it is.”
And to the point that she or anybody else cannot ruin the books, that is likely true, albeit we’ve already seen publishers attempting to insert woke edits to classic books.
Nevertheless, she can shape the narrative around what people think the characters and books are about for those who have not read them. Especially in this day and age when the medium of film and television is much more popular than books.
This was done with Aragorn in Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Aragorn is depicted as an individual who is reluctant to claim the crown as king and fears making the same mistake as his ancestor Isildur did. However, in Tolkien’s books this is nowhere near the truth.
Case in point, Aragorn carried around the shards of Narsil with him and even showed it off to the Hobbits. Tolkien wrote, “‘But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name.’ He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. ‘Not much is it, Sam?’ said Strider. ‘But the time is near when it shall be forged anew.’”
At Rivendale, Aragorn informs Boromir, “But now the world is changing once again. A new hour comes. Isildur’s Bane is found. Battle is at hand. The Sword shall be reforged. I will come to Minas Tirith.”
Furthermore, he makes it clear he takes pride in being a Chieftain of the Dúnedain and protecting people from the evils haunting the world, “But my home, such as I have, is in the North. For here the heirs of Valandil have ever dwelt in long line unbroken from father unto son for many generations. Our days have darkened, and we have dwindled; but ever the Sword has passed to a new keeper. And this I will say to you, Boromir, ere I end. Lonely men are we, Rangers of the wild, hunters – but hunters ever of the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only.”
“If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds,” Aragorn continued. “Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us. Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us. What roads would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the Dunedain were asleep, or were all gone into the grave?”
What do you make of Boyens’ comments?
NEXT: 'The Lord Of The Rings: The War Of The Rohirrim' Bombs In Its International Box Office Debut
I know there are a lot of people, especially those younger than me, that think the Jackson trilogy is brilliant, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly. Despite some good bits and the visual splendor of the films, they actually did a lot of damage to the lore, and much of that is clearly down to Walsh and Boyens. Once again, women ruin everything.
Unclear where she got it? This is to say nothing about the quality of adaptation—I have no doubt based on the summary that War of the Rohirrim is a stinking mess. But she gets it from Letters 131: “I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story - the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths - which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. ... I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.”