Rape

[Marv]

i'm sure its been discussed somewhere else but how does everyone feel about the rape seen being portrayed on the silver screen. i've known people to stop reading the book shortly after that section and you would have thought that there would be far more room for explaining his actions in the books. if it gets cut out of a film then you might as well call it lord of the rings without the small people as far as i'm concerned. its the main reason i struggle to see how it will ever get made-what certificate will it get?

if this discussion is somewhere else then i apologise.

[High Lord Tolkien]

You have to have it. imo.
Otherwise the whole Elena thing is kinda weak.
Although if they had TC and Lena having consenting sex and then have the issue with TC be devestating Lena by refusing her continuing love it might be enough.
There'd have to be some kind of universal custom setup in the Land that says if you have sex you must get married or something.
It would rewrite and water down the whole thing but if done right it could work.

But if they went with the rape it could be done tastefully enough too.
Just fade to black with a horrified look on Lena's face as TC nears her.
No nudity and no violence.
Leave it to the actors to impart how wrong it is.
That way it keeps within PG-13 boundaries.

[dlbpharmd]

IMO the rape of Lena must be included in any film adaptation, exactly as it was written in LFB. That one scene is too central to the entire story to leave out or water down. Having said that, I believe that this central issue is the prevailing reason why TCoTC will never make it to the big screen.

[Marv]

on film things like right and wrong, good and bad tend to be more clear cut especially in the sort of big budget fantasy epic this film would most likely be. if aragorn had raped arwen or if there was even the suggestion that he had would people have cheered at the end when he became king. this sort of rollercoaster ride following your hero through thick and thin until at the end he reigns triumphant is what action/adventure movies are all about, do you think non-donaldson fans would be prepared to care about a rapist?
the idea about TC not marrying Lena against her custom might work in a practical sense but if the rest of the film(s) was true to the book i think people might struggle to understand its huge significance given that generally its not a custom we share.
the only alternative i see is to call the film TCoTC and set it in the land and keep the principle characters but come up with an almost entirely new plot.

[ur-bane]

I agree with dlb, for the most part. Except the actual rape itself can be alluded to, as HLT suggests. There's no need to witness the act. Fade out when Covenant attacks her, fade back in with him finished, and show the blood. We'll all know what happened, as will other viewers.

The plot is too contingent on Covenant raping Lena to do it any other way. Too many characters' actions/reactions are based on that one event.

Triock would not have hunted Covenant, Atiaran would not have loathed Covenant and would have continued on to Revelstone. Trell would not have fallen into despair. Hile Troy would have reacted differently when he found out Elena was Covenant's daughter. And that's just to name a few. Lena's rape affected Covenant throughout the Chronicles; every subsequent encounter was colored by that one act.

It would be akin to making the movie Titanic and the ship sinking without having hit an iceberg.

If a screenplay is going to be written that changes the plot, then don't even bother calling it TCOTC. Covenant and the Chronicles deserve better than that.

[Akasri]

Whether they actually show the rape or not is irrelevant. Most people have problems with the main character actually committing the act, not whether they show it or not.

Watching a movie is all about connecting with the main character(s). If that connection isn't there, the movie suffers.

[Waynhim Wedge]

If/When TCoTC is made into a movie the rape aspect will be totally cut out. The powers that be, needed to give the green light for this project, will require it. Fantasy movies are doing so well because they promote corny heroism and paladin-type morales to drive the "good" guys. For example: Dragonheart, LotR, Narnia, Harry Potter, Shrek, etc. I am sure that there are arguments to counter this point (and I realize it is cynical), but I am just calling it as I see it. They may replace the act with consentual love, refusal of marriage, or maybe something like totally changing the history of Triock, Lena, and Elena (possibly even excluding Atiaran and Trell) so that the same ending can come about, but the rape and its aftermath will be "unneeded". I mean, when I read that "Saturn and his representatives" would be the primary antagonists in the initial movie reviews, I thought that the integrity of the Chronicles would be on the back burner and the general movie formuals produced by the powers that be would be boiling on the front burner. Saturn, huh? What about Chevrolet and his hatchbacks? I think I'm gonna be sick.

[The Somberlain]

Well, hang on. Even if it seems unnecessary, it's a pretty big step to go from "They're changing Foul's name" to "They're going to totally change the plot".

Personally, I think that the rape aspect is the one thing that could GET the film made. Without it, you've got something that the studios really can say is too much like LOTR. With it, it becomes much more than a standard "Epic Fantasy"; it's darker, it's more adult, it's got much more to do with guilt and self-loathing and redemption - than just courageous heroes looking rugged and manly.

[matrixman]

First, we should stop perpetuating that silly story of "Saturn and his representatives." That was an obviously erroneous report from a bad news source that has already been emphatically discredited by both SRD (on his website) and John Orloff, the producer who is part of the team attempting to get a Covenant film project off the ground. For those of you who missed it, Mr. Orloff actually posted here back on Dec 31/04 to set the record straight and address our fears. Let me post his message again:

So listen, I have been lurking here recently, and noticed everyone is leaping to conclusions.

The Hollywood Reporter article was, as Stephen Donaldson said, " both premature and misleading" (as well as kooky-- where they got "Saturn", we'll never know).

It is a fact that Mark Gordon (producer of "Saving Private Ryan", "The PAtriot") and Peter Winther (prodcuer of "Independence Day", "The Patriot") and myself (writer of "Band of Brothers"), are attempting to figure out how to make a movie out of TCTC.

Peter and I have each been fans of the books for over 20 years-- and we take the respnsibity seriously. We are not going to re-invent them, nor are we going to change them in any major way. We LOVE these books.

Film IS, however, a different medium than literature, and as such, things must be adapted. For example, as some one else mentioned, to shoot LFB as written, would in itself require about 8 hours of film. So we will have to in the least, shorten...

We have every hope to stay as true to the book, and Mr. Donaldson's vision, as possible. In fact, I hope that Mr. Donaldson will be very involved in this adaption. I am sure at some point he will tire of my phone-calls to come.

I of course understand your nervousness and trepidation.

I don't know if any of you saw "Band of Brothers". It was an adaptation that was extremely faithful to the source (in this case the real men more than the book). We even got some criticism as TOO faithful to the truth (for comparison, take a look at "Pearl Harbor"). I take the responsibilty of TCTC with the same level of seriousness.

And Mark Gordon is no slouch, having been nominated for an Oscar for "Ryan". And Peter's understanding of effects is gigantic-- and his passion for, and knowledge of, the material matches anyone's on this site.

There is still a huge hurdle to get past though-- namely, finding a studio willing to develop the project. That is why the article in the Reporter was premature. And this is, given the nature of TC as a character, not a no-brainer.

So, everyone calm down.

I don't think it appropriate at this time to have a full blown conversation at this site, though once we go forward, I hope that can change-- I think Peter Jackson was very right to include other fans in the process. TCTC is not mine, it is OURS.

But I will tell you this-- our plan at this moment is to do LFB alone as the first film. The Chronicles are MUCH too rich to try to stuff into one or two films. So we'll start at the beginning-- a good place to start, no?

Breathing easier I hope?

I think we Covenant fans can all breathe easier knowing that Mr. Orloff and his partner have been fans of the books for a long time, and that they take their responsibility of translating the books to film very seriously.

Let us not pounce on the filmmakers like a pack of rabid kresh before they've had a chance to prove themselves, eh?

[ur-bane]

Thanks, MM. I had completely forgotten about that address to Watchers' concerns.

If Gordon/Winther/Orloff are going to make the film, I know we'll get the best possible adaptation. And just like Band of Brothers, I'll get the collector's edition if it ever does make it to film.

[Waynhim Wedge]

Wow. That makes me feel a little better. Kinda let out some steam there, huh? Maybe I should actually take the time to look into these things a bit more. I've read some of the GI, but it's difficult to absorb it all. Anyway, thanks for the update.

[exnihilo]

I am sorry for posting something somewhat redundant elsewhere. Whatcha gon' do.

I think the rape problem is a substantial barrier to getting the films made. A large portion of this problem is that the audience, as we all know, will not tend to sympathize with a rapist. One might conclude from this that they will tend to stay away from the theaters then. However, perhaps we are thinking of the formula a bit wrongly.

I think TC could be thought of as an antagonist -- at least in part -- in LFB and TIW. Who is the audience going to identify with, then?

What do we all love. The Land, and the people of the Land.

I was young when I first read the books, but I recall hating -- hating -- Thomas Covenant at first. This did not affect my enjoyment of the series, though. No doubt it ultimately enhanced it.

You can't avoid this problem without changing the entire significance of the series: the series seriously challenges the soul of its audience. This is both its value and its flaw (commercially speaking). Are people going to pay money in order to confront themselves? Jung thought self-confrontation was man's single greatest fear, and the origin of all others. Which, if you think about it, creates a lot of potential energy for the "horror" aspect of the chronicles -- TCTC are definitely "scary" at times.

Could TCTC also draw in the "horror" market? Perhaps that might be a partial solution to the marketing problem. If you've got an "R" already, you might as well mine it for all it's worth...

[wayfriend]

If anyone ever undertakes filming the Chronicles, they will only succeed if they realize that they are not making the next D&D-type fantasy movie, but they are instead taking it to the next level. It's not just a fantasy, set in a mythic realm, with swords and sorcery. That, if you will, is the background for the real story, which is the spiritual journey of a man.

The difference between the Chronicles and, say, Conan, Lord of the Rings, or Narnia, is akin to the difference between King Kong (2005) vs Godzilla, or Dances with Wolves vs The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, or The Godfather vs. the Sopranos. It's more than just an excercise of the genre, where you can say that the movie is about good vs evil and fluff like that. It's a serious statement about finding yourself in the face of adversity, the hard way, and the genre is a vehicle and not a destination.

So, yes, the rape needs to be filmed. It needs to be harsh. And it needs to leave Covenant getting the angry eye from everyone who hasn't walked out of the theatre at this point. (How can it compare to the book if half the people don't quit it in disgust?)

Because it's not about making the Chronicles fit the movie genre. It's about the Chronicles surpassing the movie genre. And if whomever holds the rights doesn't know that deep in his soul, this movie will never get made.

[exnihilo]

So are you saying The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a good or bad movie? Careful, them's fightin' words! jk

On the real I am a bit bemused by that element of your comparison enumeration. I liked both Dances With Wolves (in some ways, my favorite movie), and GB&U. GB&U has an operatic quality that still blows me away at the end. And it is a movie with *something to say* about war, greed, and violence. (Think about the graveyard sequence, for example.)

DWW is, to my mind, virtually a work of fantasy, in the way that Donaldson describes in his essay "EPIC FANTASY IN THE MODERN WORLD: A Few Observations (link)". DWW is more about our wish for atonement for the past than it is about historical accuracy. A man with modern (anachronistic) attitudes encounters a highly idealized tribe of Sioux and is accepted by them. I think it has unfairly been castigated for this historical inaccuracy, because this inaccuracy is its whole merit: it is a spiritual journey, not just for Lt. Dunbar, but for us the audience. We get to see our collective guilt writ large then come to symbolically atone for it by supporting -- at a minimum -- the death of a virtually unsympathetic group of caricatures: our presumably wanton and cruel ancestors. Within this mistreatment of our ancestors, however, we do learn a few salient points about the alienation and spiritual disconnection that comes with a modern society in the west. The Native way of life, while ultimately unable to compete economically or militarily with what the modern world brings, does recall a time when society was family, government was the wisdom of the elders, religion was collective spiritual experience, and war was about survival. In this we learn to aspire to a new form of existence that is both modern and spiritually alive...

Which is similar in effect to the Land, actually...

[wayfriend]

I'm just saying, there's genre movies, and then there's genre movies. Some are nothing more than that. Some are. I picked DWW (quickly, perhaps uncarefully) of a movie that has more to it than just being a Western (IMO).

[Avatar]

Some good posts folks, and thanks to MM for reminding us of that post, (not that I'd forgotten. )

FWIW, I pretty much agree with Dlb about the rape scene, it's an integral part of the story of the anti-hero, and can never be left out, or even glossed over.

Interesting post by ExNihilo too, I've never much liked DWW, and have often described it as an American Guilt Trip. You have though raised some points which which I hadn't considered before.

And in conclusion, I agree with WayFriend too. It's about transcending the genre.

--A

[Matthias]

it is sooth that the rape scene can not be ignored--it has too many consequences that contribute to the overall story of both 1 and 2 chrons.

But i've said this in another thread:

Rape can be implied. In MY own opinion, morally, i would not see the movie if it is rated R for that reason. That's my ownly hope, that the produce and director would be considerate.

[Findail]

The rape scene will definitely be problematic, but I think an even larger issue is that Covenant doesn't really do anything to redeem himself in LFB (except for commanding Ranyhyn to visit Lena). It might be difficult for people to admire a main character who has done something very bad, and then passively drifts through the first two movies, and doesn't start to accomplish anything good until more than halfway through the third one. (I'm not criticizing the books; I'm just pointing out a difficulty in adapation.)

I can imagine the script writers changing the ending of LFB, so that Covenant makes the decision to summon the fire-lions, instead of Bannor doing it for him. (I don't know if this would be good or bad, though.)

I think they would need to start showing Covenant's guilt and shame of the rape long before the Plains of Ra.

[Brinnor]

The problem with the covenant books is that they're so densely plotted, and everything is so inter-reliant.
As well as small actions having multitudes of consequences, practically everything that happens is a consequence of Covenant's mindstate at that particular moment.

If you were to change the story so that Covenant felt Lena-guilt before the plains of Ra, where would you do it? It can't be while he's still with Atiaran - realising the consequences of his actions would surely lead him to refuse her help, or possibly even LET HER kill him.
So maybe in Revelstone somewhere... but then, that fundamentally alters Convenant's state of mind on the whole journey from that point onward. For example, in Soaring Woodhelvinn ... would he really regret killing a couple of cavewights if he had the weight of Lena's rape hanging around his shoulders?

And then, what's going to happen at Manhome to make him call the Ranyhyn and bargain with them? So you have to start making up filler material to create a new chain of reasoning.
To be fair, Covenant's state of mind is so random and illogical at times that this shouldn't be particularly hard, but you see what I'm getting at...

Also, any number of little details that are left out of the movie (by sod's Law) will undoubtedly have huge plot consequences in the as yet unwritten books of the Last Chronicles.
Trust me, the whole plot of the next one is bound to hinge on just one particular word Hile Troy said during the battle at Doom's Retreat...

--

Of course, this is getting away from the plot point of the rape.
Sure, people are gonna walk out of the cinema, and it's gonna lose revenue.
Covenant's not a likeable character, and the book really makes you think about his morality. That's just another thing that puts the chronicles above standard fantasy pap.
And if the studio doesn't believe they're gonna make money from the diehard fans, they should perhaps look at the sales of the books over the past 20-odd years. THAT MANY people bought the books, rape scenes included. And that many people would be pissed off should the studio alter the plot substantially.

[wayfriend]

Of course, this is getting away from the plot point of the rape.
Sure, people are gonna walk out of the cinema, and it's gonna lose revenue.

If that happens, then it wasn't marketted correctly. No one should see the preview for this movie and think Chronicles? Like Narnia!