Watching Lord of the Rings (2001-2003, Peter Jackson), part one
It is that time.
As already mentioned, I saw the films before I've read the books. After reading I felt compelled to watch them again, because I liked them the first time (and I do like to repeat pleasant experiences) and also because some time had passed and I didn't remember the films much. Luckily, boyfriend was keen to see them once more, too. And to show you how diligent we were, let me tell you that we watched them all in one week.
I liked Fellowship of the Ring, the first film, immensly. (I like the trilogy, yes, ill-advised, trilogy :) immensly.) It does a good job of summing up the plot, introducing the Ring, its history and it shows clearly what is to be done with the Ring. Such memorable quotes as "A Wiz(z)ard is never late" make the experience all the more enjoyable. It's ironic that at first, Peter Jackson didn't want to do the prologue, yet I feel that the prologue does a fine job introducing the twelve-hour-long saga and it summarizes the history (of Sauron) neatly. The prologue sets the atmosphere and so it's essential to the film/trilogy.
I cannot complain much about Fellowship. It follows the book, it is (essentially, not by fan standards) correct and the storyline is clear. The acting is believable and the story also has a few humorous bits ("What about second breakfast?", "It comes in pints? I'm getting one."), which work well in easing up the tense atmosphere.
Fellowship also has very good pacing, you don't feel the story is rushed or slowed down for no reason; the anticiaption, the excitement, the fear are all well timed and make you feel with the characters. The music, is nothing short of fantastic. (When in good mood, I hum Return of the King theme.)
All that aside, there are two issues I have with Fellowship. Gimli (to me) sounds clueless about Moria. He doesn't know what happened to Balin, whether he's still alive (he expects him to be) and kicking or not. This does create a big change of the mood, as the viewers expect an easy pass through the mines, but are unpleasantly surprized. However I would have expected a "Durin" to be better informed. He could say that Balin went there, but no one knows what became of him, however, he expects him to be well, although he finds the silence around him upsetting. This, in my opinion, would work well, it would create a sense of foreboding, an anticipation mixed with fear.
The second issue I have with Felloship is Boromir suggesting (much towards the end of the film, before they fight the Orcs) that Aragorn fears his destiny. This is downright outrageous. Aragorn is careful in his approach; he doesn't feel he can simply walk into Minas Tirith and claim the throne, he wants to do it in a noble way, a way which will present him as the King, that will be representative of his power, ability and wisdom. I do not know whether the film makers tried to show Boromir oversimplfiying complicated matters or they truly felt Aragorn's afraid of his destiny. I do not find Aragorn a man who is easily frightened, but he is a strategist. Something Boromir is, too. Anyway, that quote oversimplifies, but exactly why it is there, I do not know.
The Two Towers is the film I'm most undecided about. It takes off where Fellowship left, but it fails to create such drama. There are no innocent beginnings in the Hobbitton, no birthday to celebrate and no kind hearted, white beared wizard. The story begins to unfold, but the problem film makers have, is that there is only one climax - the battle at the Helm's Deep.
While the film itself continues to display the qualities seen in the first film, the story gets more complex. The script writers have, in my opinion, fiddled with the time-lines a bit too much. They change the sequences of events and make the plot suit their needs, they change facts and make some bigger mistakes along the way. I do not mind, however, that they make Legolas slide down the stairs on a pliece of wood, thus making him the first known skateboarder.
What I do mind is that Aragorn gets hurt in battle. He is Isildur's heir, he is destined to be King, he wields Narsil, he is not, by all means, easily defeated and much less easily hurt in a fight. This is not his "ranger" training anymore, this is where he will prove himself worthy of the throne. If they made a slit down his cheek, I wouldn't have minded in the slightest. Since they almost make him pass away, was it not for his faithful horse, I do mind.
Before Aragorn gets hurt, they fight with the wild wolves. (This is not in the book, at least not in such a context, however they want to show Saruman's many defences and armies. Oh, and I just love the bit where Grima speaks about an army of ten thousand.) The problem here is that the "wolves" look much more like overgrown hijenas to me. Additionally, the army is also helping move all the people of Edoras to Helm's Deep. Why would they do that? Edoras is only one of the villages; by moving the people of Edoras, they would have only saved a tiny percentage of all the Rohirrim (if indeed they feared Saruman might want to hurt or kill them). Where would the other villagers go?
Also, elves coming to help at Helm's Deep was a bit of an exaggeration. It would take elves days (if not weeks) to come to Rohan and Helm's Deep and the decision to go to war against Saruman (Don't you just love Christopher Lee with his overgrown brows and his deep, mysterious voice?) was made by Theoden only a couple of days ago. Even if the elves knew, they couldn't have come at such a short notice. Let's also leave aside the fact that elves only fought when the enemy was basically on their doorstep.
Another time when I couldn't sustain myself from saying (even though it sounds crude it's true) "bullshit" at the top of my voice was when Faramir suspects Frodo and Sam (and Gollum) and takes them to his father in Osgiliath. Not only does this go completely against Faramir's character, it also endangers the Ring by placing it within the reach of Denethor.
(Join me in a couple of days for part two, where I will write more extensively about The Two Towers and also about Return of the King.)
13 Comments:
Are you watching the theatrical or the extended versions?
Extended. Theatrical is for losers. ;)
Enjoyed the performances, I did, although the films are not of the kind as A Few Good Men for example that bets mainly on the acting. These films build the atmosphere on the scenery - with the help of the stunning New Zealand as Middle Earth (that reminds me of Slovenia here and there) -, and they also own a lot to the fantasy world that Tolkien imagined. I can be instantly absorbed into it. However, the acting is also appealing to me. I like Gandalf the most, and then Bilbo and the other hobbits, Aragorn a bit less, Boromir is also very good. But I reject Legolas (Orlando Bloom). His acting is horrible. He looks handsome, but then every elf does, he really knows how to use his bow and he's mostly remarkable going over the mountain pass ahead of the others without making holes in the snow, sort of tiptoeing on the surface, when others are getting almost drowned. He's sleek in motion and all, but the acting of Orlando Bloom is really bad. Can he be the most untalented actor of his generation, yet starring in such huge motion events. I've seen the Elizabethtown recently, and I much regret that. I liked Vanilla Sky and Almoust Famous of the same director before, but Elizabethtown is no good, and I would say this is mainly because Orlando Bloom must lead it, - he doesn't of course. Such is my opinion of the LOTR films: unforgetful, with solid performances and warm charisma of Gandalf and mostly harmless foolishness of Bilbo.
The screenplay is ok, it is very Tolkien, but that is ok, - Tolkien is the master of the world lore. I have two favorite quotes: "It abandoned Gollum" - of Galadriel in the introduction voice over; and "(Great) They have a cave troll!" - of Boromir when attacked by orcs (and a troll) in the mines of Moria.
I happen to have my favorite moment in the film which is when the fellowship enters the great hall of Moira (and then the chamber of Balin), Gandalf says: "Let me risk a little more light", and the score reaches a peak and everything feels utterly remarkable.
Such is my general notion of these films: remarkable. Perhaps you don't understand why I am recalling only bits from the first of the film, while this post concerns all of them. They are all remarkable, but the first one is by far the dearest to me, then comes the third and then the second as the least memorable. They all had great scenes, pretty much the same actors, and build remarkable moments, and it was great to watch Gollum in full and be paralized by Shelob, but had I to make a choice and see only one of the films, I would insist on seeing the first one, not really regretting for missing the others. The Fellowship of the Ring encapsulates the Middle Earth wonderfully and the sequels don't really add much to that in my opinion. So I really won't mind if the Hobbit never makes it to the big screen.
What about experiencing the theatrical versions versus the extended ones? I've seen all myself as well and I prefer the extended versions. The cuts are more rough, but also more enjoyable, more juicy. A lot more on Gandalf and Aragorn. Very enjoyable.
The lengths of the theatrical editions are: 178min + 179min + 201min, equals 558 min or 9h18' total; while the extended editions add to that: + 30min, + 44min and + 50min respectively, which makes the extended editions 678min or 11h18' long in total.
There is a list of the big changes from the theatrical to extended editions for the: first, second and the third film.
FotR is my favourite as well - both versions are great. I'm not particularly fond of TTT and even though the extended version is an improvement, it's still the weakest part. RotK benefits from the extension the most: the theatrical version feels a bit rushed despite its formidable 201 minutes, but the extended version is very good.
Gentlemen - you both raise some valid points, but because it would take too much time I will adress those issues when (hopefully tomorrow) I write Lotr, part two.
But don't rush, take your time, and come up with the ultimate LOTR post in the world blogosphere. Looking forward to that, I am.
Ultimate LOTR post? That would be exaggeration. I'm no expert, I just write about my thoughts concerning the films and books.
To aspire for the ultimate one must first watch all three movies in one go, without as much as a bathroom-break. Anything short of that is blasphemy!
Ah...yes! I have often observed that men show preference for quantity rather than quality and your comment rather proves that.
While watching all the films in one go would undeniably be a prime example of preference for quantity; watching them one at a time would give more time for reflection and assessment, which was what I wanted.
It's not so clear-cut. If it were a work of high-art, absolutely, but is it? As much as I like fantasy-fiction, I do not think it can be. While it is a very entrancing and perhaps even powerful narrative, the more one scrutinises it, the more flaws become apparent, many of which you yourself have outlined in your review.
Even generically (high-)fantasy (and SF for that matter) always require the reader (viewer) excepting certain very fundamental premises about the world they depict. In doing so, one looses most tools of epistemology, leaving only consensual theory of truth. This can be clearly seen from assertions such as "It follows the book, it is (essentially, not by fan standards) correct". How can one hope to reflect clearly, when one a priori excepts an interpretation as (absolutely) correct? The problems presides even if fandom is non-existent. Premises mentioned above rob the work of many means of expression. Absurdity, ridicule, intentional contradiction, neither of these can be seamlessly entangled into the narrative considering a diligent reader will not allow oneself to assume enough to find a fix-point to weigh one's scales of judgment upon.
Therefore I ask, why compromise a potentially thoroughly enjoyable experience for illusions of grandeur? The ancient Greeks acknowledge this with their marathon dramas. Can you honestly say watching LotR in fragments, making it one among thousands, will provide you with catharsis?
Watching the LOTR films one at a time is not bad. At least in my case it's also impossible for me to take off 11h or so straight hours. I can't imagine how my back would feel about that either ... Perhaps one could on the continuing viewing play himself the end of the previous part, and so not loose the sense of continuity? But memory serves me just fine.
Nadezhda, with my previous comment I only suggested not to loose the quality and humor of your posts so far. And NEVER plan to be average, because then you will be. So, go on and finish that ultimate review ... :)
Correcting the phrase, I should've said: "Never plan on being average, ..." But I have no idea why I am saying this to YOU, since you are the one with your colors air born. Nice, detailed 2nd LOTR review, also very lengthy.
[ Post a Comment ]