Never as good as the books *sigh*
I watched the second half of the Earthsea miniseries tonight. What the writers tried to do was meld the first two books, "A Wizard of Earthsea" and "The Tombs of Atuan" into one continuous story. In the books, they probably take place 10 years apart. I think the adaptation of "Wizard of Earthsea" was very successful. Though there were some changes (like an egalitarian adaptation of the school of Roke, the inversion of Ged/Sparrowhawk as use/real names), the story managed to stay true to the spirit of novel, and Shawn Ashmore (even though he didn't look quite as I imagined Ged to be) did an admirable job in the role. Danny Glover was also very believable as Ogion. They got that "accepting your own dark side is the beginning of wisdom thing".
However, I question their cosmetic makeover of the priestesses of Atuan. LeGuin's portrayal of the priestesses and of the temple was much darker, more sinister, than anything alluded to in the film. Though Kristin Kreuk (Smallville) was a perfect choice for Tenar, the writers eviscerated the role. Tenar, as LeGuin writes her, is an incredibly powerful character. She wields and safeguards the power of the nameless ones, but can only withstand them (and becoming evil) through her own remarkable inner strength. That Tenar is revealed, slightly, but only gets about 2 minutes of screen time, while another, sanitized smiling Tenar gets the rest of the lines.
Why did they have to make the priestesses bulwarks of goodness against evil? I guess that is a legitimate interpretation of their role, but they themselves aren't really conscious of it. The very strangeness of their ritual, the heavy, permeating power of the nameless ones...is subsumed by the political machinations which play only a very small role in the book. Other small cosmetic changes include making Tenar an orphan, instead of little girl taken from her family and folding the role of Manan, her faithful eunuch, into that of Thar, the high priestess. It's not a lot, but it takes away a little of gloom.
The nameless ones were a lot more scary when they were only uneven, unearthly pillars of basalt. Those bat things don't really cut the mustard.
Finally, I can understand the impulse of the screenwriters to give the story a happy ending where it seems that Ged and Tenar end up together. Damn, that was the ending I wanted when I finished "Atuan", so I guess I'm not the only one. The strictures of a celibate, completely dedicated mage society where Ged drops Tenar off on Gont to study with Ogion while he gets to gallivant around being the Archmage of Roke, talking to dragons and getting his magery thing on don't really make for a happy, Hollywood ending. Hell, they don't make for any ending, which is why I think LeGuin went ahead and wrote "Tehanu" to try to get some closure. (Since it's my favorite, I'm glad she did.)
I know its always this way with movie adaptations...excited to see how someone interpreted a story you love, a little sad at the changes, a little shocked by the changes you would not have made. Sometimes, the translation to film works better for them (like Daniel Deronda). Maybe portraying the priestesses as LeGuin wrote them would have made the movie too scary for kids.
However, I question their cosmetic makeover of the priestesses of Atuan. LeGuin's portrayal of the priestesses and of the temple was much darker, more sinister, than anything alluded to in the film. Though Kristin Kreuk (Smallville) was a perfect choice for Tenar, the writers eviscerated the role. Tenar, as LeGuin writes her, is an incredibly powerful character. She wields and safeguards the power of the nameless ones, but can only withstand them (and becoming evil) through her own remarkable inner strength. That Tenar is revealed, slightly, but only gets about 2 minutes of screen time, while another, sanitized smiling Tenar gets the rest of the lines.
Why did they have to make the priestesses bulwarks of goodness against evil? I guess that is a legitimate interpretation of their role, but they themselves aren't really conscious of it. The very strangeness of their ritual, the heavy, permeating power of the nameless ones...is subsumed by the political machinations which play only a very small role in the book. Other small cosmetic changes include making Tenar an orphan, instead of little girl taken from her family and folding the role of Manan, her faithful eunuch, into that of Thar, the high priestess. It's not a lot, but it takes away a little of gloom.
The nameless ones were a lot more scary when they were only uneven, unearthly pillars of basalt. Those bat things don't really cut the mustard.
Finally, I can understand the impulse of the screenwriters to give the story a happy ending where it seems that Ged and Tenar end up together. Damn, that was the ending I wanted when I finished "Atuan", so I guess I'm not the only one. The strictures of a celibate, completely dedicated mage society where Ged drops Tenar off on Gont to study with Ogion while he gets to gallivant around being the Archmage of Roke, talking to dragons and getting his magery thing on don't really make for a happy, Hollywood ending. Hell, they don't make for any ending, which is why I think LeGuin went ahead and wrote "Tehanu" to try to get some closure. (Since it's my favorite, I'm glad she did.)
I know its always this way with movie adaptations...excited to see how someone interpreted a story you love, a little sad at the changes, a little shocked by the changes you would not have made. Sometimes, the translation to film works better for them (like Daniel Deronda). Maybe portraying the priestesses as LeGuin wrote them would have made the movie too scary for kids.