"The Fellowship of the Ring" Film Versions
Jacob's Thoughts (12/20/14)
Per Ben's suggestion, I post now about the film versions of Fellowship of the Ring--both the 2001 Peter Jackson version that we've ragged on relentlessly throughout this blog, and the 1978 Ralph Bakshi animated version--before we continue on to The Two Towers.
The Jackson was a revisit for me, but I had never seen the Bakshi before. As such, it intrigued me to track how much the Jackson is indebted to the Bakshi, viz: the massive data dump that opens each film (which I think Jackson succeeds at better than Bakshi, though both are still stupidly confusing to the uninitiated, to the point where I just wanted to shout at both a la Homer Simpson, "NEEERRRRRRD!!!"); also, the utter elision of The Old Forest chapters; Gollum's voice; the green cloaks; the Hobbits hiding under a tree root at the first appearance of the Black Rider, right down to the same camera angles; and of course the decision to portray 50+ years old Frodo Baggins as some sort of child.
The Bakshi version especially presents the Hobbits as, in effect, the sort of goofy, naive adolescents that I can only assume the producers thought all LoTR fans must be like. Baby-faced Elijah Wood looks positively adult compared to the children-Hobbits of Bakshi.
Also, I couldn't help but observe a curious note of homoeroticism about the Hobbits in both cinematic versions--recall the way it became a cliche to say Sam and Frodo were almost too friendly in the Jackson films; not to mention the almost feminine movements and giggly smiles of Bakshi's Hobbits (I can't get out of my mind the spazzy way Frodo first greets Gandalf). These are intriguing choices given how often Frodo in the novel almost openly lusts after other men's wives (as Eric oft pointed out)--the Hobbits of the novels may be domestic, but that does not make them feminine or unmanly; they may be small, but that does not make them childish; they may be inexperienced, but that does not make them naive. It's telling to me that male Hollywood producers so often subconsciously equate the former with the latter.
But now I've covered enough of how the two films are similar; now I want to track how they diverge. For starters, though Bakshi's Hobbits still look like children to me, they don't exactly look human. For a film that engages in so much rotoscoping, tracing human actors directly onto the animation, that is no mean feat. The Hobbits' eyes are just a little too big, their general bodily proportions just a little too off, for them to just look like little human beings (like in the Jackson). They are indeed some sort of totally different species in this film, which adds to the sense of otherworldiness about this space. This is the sort of effect one can only accomplish in animation.
Bakshi's Nazgul, too, are more of a kind with the creeping, inhuman creatures described in the novels, as opposed to the more martial figures presented by Jackson. This is not to claim one version as better than the other (I think both interpretations have their charms), but simply to observe another moment where animation allows for portrayals that one can't do with live actors.
This is not to claim myself a convert to the Bakshi; for though the many dreamlike, nay, nightmarish animated sequences were a-times genuinely inspired in my estimation, ultimately the film lacks a cohesion or comprehensibility for anyone who has never read the books before (and even for those of us who have). In his attempts to adapt this massive novel, I think Bakshi finally fails; but at least he fails in interesting ways. I can totally understand why this fascinating failure has such a cult following.
The film is also interesting in how it foreground the, well, campiness of this story! LoTR really is sort of campy, isn't it; Elves and Wizards and Hobbits and Invisibility Rings--in its barest elements, this is a story that can invite its own kind of winking fun (Bakshi making Strider look like a He-Man extra certainly doesn't stop the campy feeling, either). I do not mean this as a knock against the story, simply as another manner by which to approach it, as less a grave epic than as pulpy fun.
For campiness is most certainly not the M.O. of the Jackson films, is it. From the opening shot to the last, you are meant to take this movie as seriously as possible. Even in Galadriel's overly-dramatic scenes, I found it impossible to smirk, for Jackson's directing and Cate Blanchett's acting simply would not so permit me to do so. For better or worse, the Jackson films demand that you take this story as grimly as possible. To quoth the Joker, why so serious.
Of course, that super-self-seriousness is helped by the quality acting, more important than any CGI. There's Sir Ian McKellen most obviously; but also Viggo Mortenson, Bernard Hill, John Rys-Davies, Rudy (er, Sean Astin), Liz Taylor, and yes, even Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood, all bring their A-Game to this film, to which I tip my hat. New Zealand, likewise, is a character in this movie--and a good one, too. Watching all these ringers run across this breathtaking landscape can make one utterly forget that this, perhaps, can also be approached as a campy piece of pulp fiction.
Have either of you guys rewatched either or both films yet? What are your thoughts?
Ben's Thoughts
- On Ralph Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" (1/19/15)
The Ralph Bakshi animated "Lord of the Rings" movie has a special place in my heart. I discovered it a few years after reading LOTR, lurking among the mountains of old VHS tapes at my grandparents' cluttered home in Bronte, Texas (a tiny west Texas town). It was like finding buried treasure. I watched it over and over again, drinking up Middle-earth as much as I believed possible, sometimes rewinding it and watching it again from the very beginning as soon as it was over, all while sitting in one of the two comfy recliners in the cozy, dimly lit back room of the old house.
So part of why I wanted to rewatch the film for this re-read is to recapture some of that wonder that a young boy felt all those years ago. Alas, it was probably better left as a beautiful memory of my childhood than as something to be appraised and picked apart as both a film of its own merits and an adaptation of "Fellowship" and most of "Two Towers." Because, boy, is this movie bad.
Well, it's not all bad. There's some good to be had, primarily in the Black Riders in the first third of the movie and, somewhat surprisingly, in Frodo and Sam's meeting with Galadriel at her Mirror in Lórien. I'll discuss both of these segments in greater detail, but we just have to get the bad out of the way right off the bat and get it out of our systems. Taken as a whole, this film has few redeeming qualities, either as an adaptation of Tolkien and as a stand-alone film.
First, the pacing. I understand there was something of a studio battle surrounding the production of this film, and they never signed up for a second one, leaving it with a somewhat stilted feeling (after all, it ends most of the way through "Two Towers," but, awkwardly, not all the way through it), but c'mon. The first half of the movie, from the Shire to Rivendell, feels like there is an arc and a plot progression, but the second half, from Rivendell to Helm's Deep, simply feels like scenes cobbled together. There's no arc to speak of -- the climactic decision for Frodo to take the Ring to Mordor, alone if need be, which is the pinnacle of the plot of "Fellowship," is completely muted and flashes by in an instant. The other possible arc, that of Boromir, never takes off the ground, because this Boromir has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, unlike Jackon's and Tolkien's Boromir, and is basically a huge dick to the whole Company and Frodo in particular, and then he dies.
These structural problems basically doom the movie as a film on its own merits. Especially the last fourth of the film just drags on and on, with orc chase and battle scenes lasting for 5 minutes at a time or more. I understand that rotoscoping was an interesting new technology, and it certainly saved the film a lot of money, from what I understand, but there is simply no need for rotoscoped orc scenes to last as long as they did. Watching orcs move past the camera with no variation or purpose is just wasted space. The merits of the early parts of the film are completely subsumed by the time that the viewer slogs through that final fourth -- it's little wonder that I watched the first two-thirds of the film in two sittings, but it took me four or five sittings to get through that last little bit. It was that painful. Even otherwise successful portions of the film are brought down by the rotoscoping -- Moria built up tension admirably, I thought, especially with Gollum's creepy eyes shining in the dark and the quiet, subtle tapping Pippin awoke after dropping the stone down the well (something that I wish Jackson had kept in his adaptation. It works better, I think, for the Company to have awakened the orcs prior and have them spring the trap than how it pans out in Jackson's film), but when the rotoscoped orcs show up, obviously just goofy extras in ridiculous costumes, it punctures the tension like a balloon. In the scene where the Balrog is roaring and swaying about (more on that in a minute), there is an orc standing next to him that is obviously just a guy wearing a ratty old sheet.
Beyond the structural problems, there is just a lot of silliness that could have been avoided with someone critical and evaluative taking a closer look at the film. I know it was the 70's, but, c'mon, Aragorn and Boromir have no pants! Even when they're hiking in the snow! How does this make any sense at all? The film is full of extremely quick cuts to the hobbits' faces, showing unnecessary reaction shots or basically just them wiggling around for interminable periods of time. The scene where Merry and Pippin are being carried by the Ent comes to mind in particular -- it's 5 minutes of exposition, and the viewer isn't even able to see the Ent for most of that time, as the camera is focused solidly on the visually identical Merry and Pippin and their random grins (not timed to anything Treebeard is actually saying), claps (why would they clap when he says he does not like orcs?) and glances at one another. And -- it has to be mentioned -- while Aragorn is telling the hobbits the tale of Beren and Lúthien under Weathertop, Frodo and Sam are clutching one another, stroking each others' arms, and gazing into each others' eyes. Bakshi may have subscribed to that particular slash pairing, but I'm certain that Tolkien didn't, so leave it out! Gandalf, as well, enjoys a totally unnecessary pedophilic moment with Pippin in Moria, where he's stroking his face like a total creeper.
But beyond the structural problems and the silliness still lies the fact that the film does not succeed as a faithful Tolkien adaptation! First, I can understand why you would want to change the name from Saruman to "Aruman" ("Saruman"? "Sauron?" Too similar, Tolkien, too similar), but can you just be consistent with it? Half the time the characters are saying "Aruman" and half the time it's still "Saruman." The pronunciations are all wrong, from "Sauron" to "Celeborn." Flavor was cut where it should not have been -- for example, compare Gandalf's speech to the Balrog in Jackson's film to this one, where Gandalf's lines are identical to those in the book; "Flame of Ûdun" and references to "Anor" may mean nothing to the uninitiate, but reveal to everyone that Gandalf is wielding powers beyond that of just an ordinary sorcerer. The fact that they were cut from Bakshi's version deflates an already lackluster scene: the Balrog's too-large money head, elephant feet, tiny eyes, and goofy disproportionate wings do not a frightening villain make.
Just a bit on the Black Riders, by far the most successful elements of the film. The first scene where a Rider appears, where the Nazgûl senses the Ring while the hobbits are hiding under the tree-root, is so effective that Jackson copies it almost in its entirety for his film version. The rotoscoped costumes, once the Riders are finally revealed, do not quitehit the mark, but are outlandish and interesting. When the Riders present themselves in force and attack the inn at Bree, they are almost terrifying in their syncronicity. And finally, I found the use of background removal to be very powerful. Did you notice that there are actually 3 layers going on in those scenes? The normal landscape is removed to reveal the shattered moonscape in dark pastel colors, and then in the final confrontation at the Ford, that landscape too flickers in and out in time with the lightning bolts cracking behind the Riders as they appear to almost be riding against an utter void. Powerful stuff, in my opinion. Then as Frodo is finally vanquished and the Riders appear triumphant, the stark red background that replaces all the others is superimposed behind black horses' legs and bodies, with the red eyes of the horses and riders sometimes flashing across the black mass. This was all very striking imagery. These completely inhuman Riders I prefer, I think, to the brute-force warrior Riders that Jackson presents.
To sum up, there's a lot of bad in this film, but some good as well. I don't think I'll ever want to spend 2 and a half hours of my life watching it again. As we'll see, Jackson's "Fellowship" is head and shoulders above this mess any day of the week. But I think it was worth a re-watch, just this once, to revisit those childhood memories of mind and discover that… oh dear… that I wasted countless hours in front of the television ingesting this drivel… Well, when you put it that way, I'm not so sure anymore.
- On Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring" (2/1/15)
I can still remember the feeling I experienced when I saw a trailer for Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy in theaters. I have no idea what movie I was in the theater to see, but I sure remember this teaser trailer. I was probably a freshman in high school; I hadn't watched the Bakshi film in years; and here all of a sudden was a live-action movie showing some of my favorite characters from literature in the flesh.
Eric's Thoughts on Jackson's "Fellowship" (1/24/15)
So here I am again! Surprise!
Now, I didn't actually watch the Fellowship of the Ring again, because I've seen the movie quite a few times, and to be frank, I'm sick of it. I have seen the extended special edition, as well as the regular edition.**
**When I was younger, I thought special extended versions were cool because it meant more movie. Now I know special extended versions are a bad idea. Let's take George Lucas's edits, for example, to his classic trilogy. A really bad idea.
Anyway. Let's talk about the Fellowship. The movie stays pretty true to the books except for a few parts.
The Fellowship is by far the best movie. I jumped the first time I saw Bilbo reach for the Ring, and his face becomes distorted. In the book, it's more of a shadow, but the movie version of an evil face works too.
I had a weird-ed out / embarrassed to be in the theater moment when Galadriel shows Frodo the mirror, and then when Frodo offers her the ring, she turns gray and speaks in that weird voice. Rather than scare me, it just made me feel riiiighhhhtttt, this is really weird. I think it was the weird voice that should have been changed.
Of course, to someone who hasn't read the books, the movie is incredibly confusing. There's a huge cast of characters, and the movie without explanation jumps to Mordor where you hear a voice screaming Shire, Baggins, and then these Riders come out. People were scratching their heads. Why was that necessary? Wouldn't it have been better for Gandalf to warn Frodo, and then these creepy Riders show up? The way they look tells you immediately that they are not friends.
Ok. So that's the bad stuff. There's some very good stuff too. Moria of course is excellent, and the high point of the movie. The opening scenes in the Shire are great too, because Jackson takes his time. And, the movie opens with an epic battle scene so you know that stuff will be happening. The party allows you to identify and care about Frodo. The movie is in no rush to begin action, and when it does begin, you hope Frodo doesn't die.
My biggest gripe about those movies is how much CGI there is. People in Hollywood are learning that CGI just doesn't look real, and it takes the viewer out of a movie. Some directors are moving back towards stunts. In the Fellowship, the CGI really looks dated.
But, of course, it's never as bad as this --
No surprise that Pierce Brosnan's contract wasn't renewed.
Per Ben's suggestion, I post now about the film versions of Fellowship of the Ring--both the 2001 Peter Jackson version that we've ragged on relentlessly throughout this blog, and the 1978 Ralph Bakshi animated version--before we continue on to The Two Towers.
The Jackson was a revisit for me, but I had never seen the Bakshi before. As such, it intrigued me to track how much the Jackson is indebted to the Bakshi, viz: the massive data dump that opens each film (which I think Jackson succeeds at better than Bakshi, though both are still stupidly confusing to the uninitiated, to the point where I just wanted to shout at both a la Homer Simpson, "NEEERRRRRRD!!!"); also, the utter elision of The Old Forest chapters; Gollum's voice; the green cloaks; the Hobbits hiding under a tree root at the first appearance of the Black Rider, right down to the same camera angles; and of course the decision to portray 50+ years old Frodo Baggins as some sort of child.
The Bakshi version especially presents the Hobbits as, in effect, the sort of goofy, naive adolescents that I can only assume the producers thought all LoTR fans must be like. Baby-faced Elijah Wood looks positively adult compared to the children-Hobbits of Bakshi.
Also, I couldn't help but observe a curious note of homoeroticism about the Hobbits in both cinematic versions--recall the way it became a cliche to say Sam and Frodo were almost too friendly in the Jackson films; not to mention the almost feminine movements and giggly smiles of Bakshi's Hobbits (I can't get out of my mind the spazzy way Frodo first greets Gandalf). These are intriguing choices given how often Frodo in the novel almost openly lusts after other men's wives (as Eric oft pointed out)--the Hobbits of the novels may be domestic, but that does not make them feminine or unmanly; they may be small, but that does not make them childish; they may be inexperienced, but that does not make them naive. It's telling to me that male Hollywood producers so often subconsciously equate the former with the latter.
But now I've covered enough of how the two films are similar; now I want to track how they diverge. For starters, though Bakshi's Hobbits still look like children to me, they don't exactly look human. For a film that engages in so much rotoscoping, tracing human actors directly onto the animation, that is no mean feat. The Hobbits' eyes are just a little too big, their general bodily proportions just a little too off, for them to just look like little human beings (like in the Jackson). They are indeed some sort of totally different species in this film, which adds to the sense of otherworldiness about this space. This is the sort of effect one can only accomplish in animation.
Bakshi's Nazgul, too, are more of a kind with the creeping, inhuman creatures described in the novels, as opposed to the more martial figures presented by Jackson. This is not to claim one version as better than the other (I think both interpretations have their charms), but simply to observe another moment where animation allows for portrayals that one can't do with live actors.
This is not to claim myself a convert to the Bakshi; for though the many dreamlike, nay, nightmarish animated sequences were a-times genuinely inspired in my estimation, ultimately the film lacks a cohesion or comprehensibility for anyone who has never read the books before (and even for those of us who have). In his attempts to adapt this massive novel, I think Bakshi finally fails; but at least he fails in interesting ways. I can totally understand why this fascinating failure has such a cult following.
The film is also interesting in how it foreground the, well, campiness of this story! LoTR really is sort of campy, isn't it; Elves and Wizards and Hobbits and Invisibility Rings--in its barest elements, this is a story that can invite its own kind of winking fun (Bakshi making Strider look like a He-Man extra certainly doesn't stop the campy feeling, either). I do not mean this as a knock against the story, simply as another manner by which to approach it, as less a grave epic than as pulpy fun.
For campiness is most certainly not the M.O. of the Jackson films, is it. From the opening shot to the last, you are meant to take this movie as seriously as possible. Even in Galadriel's overly-dramatic scenes, I found it impossible to smirk, for Jackson's directing and Cate Blanchett's acting simply would not so permit me to do so. For better or worse, the Jackson films demand that you take this story as grimly as possible. To quoth the Joker, why so serious.
Of course, that super-self-seriousness is helped by the quality acting, more important than any CGI. There's Sir Ian McKellen most obviously; but also Viggo Mortenson, Bernard Hill, John Rys-Davies, Rudy (er, Sean Astin), Liz Taylor, and yes, even Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood, all bring their A-Game to this film, to which I tip my hat. New Zealand, likewise, is a character in this movie--and a good one, too. Watching all these ringers run across this breathtaking landscape can make one utterly forget that this, perhaps, can also be approached as a campy piece of pulp fiction.
Have either of you guys rewatched either or both films yet? What are your thoughts?
Ben's Thoughts
- On Ralph Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" (1/19/15)
The Ralph Bakshi animated "Lord of the Rings" movie has a special place in my heart. I discovered it a few years after reading LOTR, lurking among the mountains of old VHS tapes at my grandparents' cluttered home in Bronte, Texas (a tiny west Texas town). It was like finding buried treasure. I watched it over and over again, drinking up Middle-earth as much as I believed possible, sometimes rewinding it and watching it again from the very beginning as soon as it was over, all while sitting in one of the two comfy recliners in the cozy, dimly lit back room of the old house.
So part of why I wanted to rewatch the film for this re-read is to recapture some of that wonder that a young boy felt all those years ago. Alas, it was probably better left as a beautiful memory of my childhood than as something to be appraised and picked apart as both a film of its own merits and an adaptation of "Fellowship" and most of "Two Towers." Because, boy, is this movie bad.
Well, it's not all bad. There's some good to be had, primarily in the Black Riders in the first third of the movie and, somewhat surprisingly, in Frodo and Sam's meeting with Galadriel at her Mirror in Lórien. I'll discuss both of these segments in greater detail, but we just have to get the bad out of the way right off the bat and get it out of our systems. Taken as a whole, this film has few redeeming qualities, either as an adaptation of Tolkien and as a stand-alone film.
First, the pacing. I understand there was something of a studio battle surrounding the production of this film, and they never signed up for a second one, leaving it with a somewhat stilted feeling (after all, it ends most of the way through "Two Towers," but, awkwardly, not all the way through it), but c'mon. The first half of the movie, from the Shire to Rivendell, feels like there is an arc and a plot progression, but the second half, from Rivendell to Helm's Deep, simply feels like scenes cobbled together. There's no arc to speak of -- the climactic decision for Frodo to take the Ring to Mordor, alone if need be, which is the pinnacle of the plot of "Fellowship," is completely muted and flashes by in an instant. The other possible arc, that of Boromir, never takes off the ground, because this Boromir has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, unlike Jackon's and Tolkien's Boromir, and is basically a huge dick to the whole Company and Frodo in particular, and then he dies.
These structural problems basically doom the movie as a film on its own merits. Especially the last fourth of the film just drags on and on, with orc chase and battle scenes lasting for 5 minutes at a time or more. I understand that rotoscoping was an interesting new technology, and it certainly saved the film a lot of money, from what I understand, but there is simply no need for rotoscoped orc scenes to last as long as they did. Watching orcs move past the camera with no variation or purpose is just wasted space. The merits of the early parts of the film are completely subsumed by the time that the viewer slogs through that final fourth -- it's little wonder that I watched the first two-thirds of the film in two sittings, but it took me four or five sittings to get through that last little bit. It was that painful. Even otherwise successful portions of the film are brought down by the rotoscoping -- Moria built up tension admirably, I thought, especially with Gollum's creepy eyes shining in the dark and the quiet, subtle tapping Pippin awoke after dropping the stone down the well (something that I wish Jackson had kept in his adaptation. It works better, I think, for the Company to have awakened the orcs prior and have them spring the trap than how it pans out in Jackson's film), but when the rotoscoped orcs show up, obviously just goofy extras in ridiculous costumes, it punctures the tension like a balloon. In the scene where the Balrog is roaring and swaying about (more on that in a minute), there is an orc standing next to him that is obviously just a guy wearing a ratty old sheet.
Beyond the structural problems, there is just a lot of silliness that could have been avoided with someone critical and evaluative taking a closer look at the film. I know it was the 70's, but, c'mon, Aragorn and Boromir have no pants! Even when they're hiking in the snow! How does this make any sense at all? The film is full of extremely quick cuts to the hobbits' faces, showing unnecessary reaction shots or basically just them wiggling around for interminable periods of time. The scene where Merry and Pippin are being carried by the Ent comes to mind in particular -- it's 5 minutes of exposition, and the viewer isn't even able to see the Ent for most of that time, as the camera is focused solidly on the visually identical Merry and Pippin and their random grins (not timed to anything Treebeard is actually saying), claps (why would they clap when he says he does not like orcs?) and glances at one another. And -- it has to be mentioned -- while Aragorn is telling the hobbits the tale of Beren and Lúthien under Weathertop, Frodo and Sam are clutching one another, stroking each others' arms, and gazing into each others' eyes. Bakshi may have subscribed to that particular slash pairing, but I'm certain that Tolkien didn't, so leave it out! Gandalf, as well, enjoys a totally unnecessary pedophilic moment with Pippin in Moria, where he's stroking his face like a total creeper.
But beyond the structural problems and the silliness still lies the fact that the film does not succeed as a faithful Tolkien adaptation! First, I can understand why you would want to change the name from Saruman to "Aruman" ("Saruman"? "Sauron?" Too similar, Tolkien, too similar), but can you just be consistent with it? Half the time the characters are saying "Aruman" and half the time it's still "Saruman." The pronunciations are all wrong, from "Sauron" to "Celeborn." Flavor was cut where it should not have been -- for example, compare Gandalf's speech to the Balrog in Jackson's film to this one, where Gandalf's lines are identical to those in the book; "Flame of Ûdun" and references to "Anor" may mean nothing to the uninitiate, but reveal to everyone that Gandalf is wielding powers beyond that of just an ordinary sorcerer. The fact that they were cut from Bakshi's version deflates an already lackluster scene: the Balrog's too-large money head, elephant feet, tiny eyes, and goofy disproportionate wings do not a frightening villain make.
Just a bit on the Black Riders, by far the most successful elements of the film. The first scene where a Rider appears, where the Nazgûl senses the Ring while the hobbits are hiding under the tree-root, is so effective that Jackson copies it almost in its entirety for his film version. The rotoscoped costumes, once the Riders are finally revealed, do not quitehit the mark, but are outlandish and interesting. When the Riders present themselves in force and attack the inn at Bree, they are almost terrifying in their syncronicity. And finally, I found the use of background removal to be very powerful. Did you notice that there are actually 3 layers going on in those scenes? The normal landscape is removed to reveal the shattered moonscape in dark pastel colors, and then in the final confrontation at the Ford, that landscape too flickers in and out in time with the lightning bolts cracking behind the Riders as they appear to almost be riding against an utter void. Powerful stuff, in my opinion. Then as Frodo is finally vanquished and the Riders appear triumphant, the stark red background that replaces all the others is superimposed behind black horses' legs and bodies, with the red eyes of the horses and riders sometimes flashing across the black mass. This was all very striking imagery. These completely inhuman Riders I prefer, I think, to the brute-force warrior Riders that Jackson presents.
To sum up, there's a lot of bad in this film, but some good as well. I don't think I'll ever want to spend 2 and a half hours of my life watching it again. As we'll see, Jackson's "Fellowship" is head and shoulders above this mess any day of the week. But I think it was worth a re-watch, just this once, to revisit those childhood memories of mind and discover that… oh dear… that I wasted countless hours in front of the television ingesting this drivel… Well, when you put it that way, I'm not so sure anymore.
- On Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring" (2/1/15)
I can still remember the feeling I experienced when I saw a trailer for Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy in theaters. I have no idea what movie I was in the theater to see, but I sure remember this teaser trailer. I was probably a freshman in high school; I hadn't watched the Bakshi film in years; and here all of a sudden was a live-action movie showing some of my favorite characters from literature in the flesh.
"Fellowship," Jackson's first foray into Middle-earth, met my expectations. There is some camp -- Eric rightly notes Galadriel's much-maligned transformation into some kind of deep-voiced banshee, which just does not work the way it should, with her wiggling arms and silly voice (Christian Bale's equally ridiculous "I'm Batman" voice sprang to mind as I watched that scene this time around) and the bombastic music playing in the background -- but most of this movie is adapted perfectly from the book with visuals equal to any a Tolkienite could have conjured from their imaginations.
I won't give a blow-by-blow comparison of movie to book, because it's been done before and at length. However, I do want to make a few observations about character. Jackson, in my opinion, takes what Tolkien provided in terms of character and, for the most part, fleshes it out into fully realized movie-long and trilogy-spanning arcs. In "Fellowship," Aragorn, Boromir, and Frodo each have notable arcs that, I believe, work very well. I'll touch on each of those in a minute.
The one other crucial element that Jackson manages seamlessly is the introduction of characters. When each character is introduced, it is with a character beat that is just long enough to give a sense of who these individuals are and what they represent within the framework of the film. For example, Merry and Pippin's characters are introduced with the clever scene of the duo stealing and igniting the dragon firework -- it preserves a nice moment from the book and puts the personalities of the two youngest hobbits front and center. While Pippin comes across as an utter moron in this film, at least he is distinguishable from Merry, which is something Bakshi utterly failed at and Tolkien himself had trouble with in "Fellowship." Similarly, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli have short monologues within the "Council of Elrond" scene that marvelously introduce their characters and signal to the audience the roles they will be playing throughout the rest of the film. Interestingly enough, the only character whose introduction does not really work well is Sam's -- having him hung up on Rosie Cotton and then getting shoved into her face by a giggling Frodo doesn't really encapsulate his character very well; he really doesn't get to show his true colors until maybe the scene where he takes one step further "than he's ever been" (in his ridiculous faux-English accent) or the scene in Bree where he calls Strider "Longshanks." Sean Astin, as goofy as he seems sometimes, really makes lemonade out of some treacly dialogue in this film. Slow clap for Rudy, guys.
Before I talk about character arcs, I just want to mention scenes that are visually marvelous. The Balrog scene, of course, with the red fire, smoke, and shadow -- I can't think of a better translation of Tolkien's vague descriptions (although I did note this time around that movie Balrog clearly has wings… something I won't get into right now). The final chase of the Black Riders to the Ford, Liv Tyler's defiance (I really can't think of her as "Arwen," since she's so different from book-Arwen), and the rising of the river to destroy the Riders -- whoever choreographed the movement of the horses and whoever rigged the cameras to pan and track and move the way they did to capture this chase scene did a marvelous job. The introduction of the Shire, with Howard Shore's marvelous "Shire theme" song playing in the background -- what a way to explain to the viewer what this is all about, what the hobbits are trying to protect; it makes the vision in Galadriel's Mirror of the Shire's destruction all the more poignant. The orcs pouring over the hillsides in the closing scenes of the film. The Argonath; the Fellowship going by the giant feet in their tiny boats; the slow pan back from the statutes' faces to reveal the great lake and the waterfall. I could probably go on.
Character arcs -- Boromir. A solid if fairly predictable arc. His arc is mostly intertwined with Aragorn's, and Jackson made the absolute right call in finishing off Boromir in this movie. I know Tolkien thought of LOTR as one big book rather than three, but he puts Boromir's death in Book 3 -- completely out of place. Jackson brings the Fellowship to a close with the close of the movie, and gives Boromir a proper send-off along the way.
Aragorn -- I know some complain about how Jackson changed Aragorn from the stoic hero returning to his kingdom to a reluctant hero who has to be slowly convinced to assume the throne of Gondor. I'm ok with it, as I think it makes Aragorn more dynamic and relatable. In this film, he struggles with his belief that he is too "weak" to resist the lure of power, and by the end of the film makes the conscious choice to let Frodo and the Ring go -- far better than the passive, acted-upon Aragorn of the book. Interestingly, I did note this time around that Jackson's Aragorn never has any question or doubt about going to Minas Tirith rather than going with Frodo to Mordor; at the camp on the banks of Nen Hithoel, he tells the Fellowship that they will cross the lake to the Mordor side at first light. Jackson is also careful to not totally resolve Aragorn's arc in this film -- he promises Boromir that he will not let Gondor fail, but that is not the same thing as reclaiming the throne.
Frodo -- the "choice" scene on the banks of the lake at the end of the film is beautifully shot, orchestrated, and acted by Elijah Wood. It brings Frodo's arc in Fellowship, where he is frustrated and reluctant to be the Ring-bearer, to a satisfying close with his final acceptance of his role. Throughout the film, he tries to pawn the Ring off on others, from Gandalf to Galadriel, and here he finally realizes that he is the only person that can take the Ring to Mordor.
I really enjoyed watching "Fellowship" this time around; it's been long enough since I watched it last that many of the scenes were more of a delightful re-discovery than previous re-watches. I really think these films stand up well; there's less CGI here than Eric thinks, as Jackson's "LOTR" and his extensive use of Weta Workshop was in stark contrast to George Lucas' prequel trilogy that was airing at the same time. Jackson pulled it off in this film. I don't think he succeeds half as well in the other two films, but here he really does do it and do it well.
Eric's Thoughts on Jackson's "Fellowship" (1/24/15)
So here I am again! Surprise!
Now, I didn't actually watch the Fellowship of the Ring again, because I've seen the movie quite a few times, and to be frank, I'm sick of it. I have seen the extended special edition, as well as the regular edition.**
**When I was younger, I thought special extended versions were cool because it meant more movie. Now I know special extended versions are a bad idea. Let's take George Lucas's edits, for example, to his classic trilogy. A really bad idea.
Anyway. Let's talk about the Fellowship. The movie stays pretty true to the books except for a few parts.
- Namely, the Hobbits trek through the old forest is cut, Tom Bombadil is cut, and the Wights are cut. The Hobbits go straight to Bree. Much better.
- Frodo waiting around in the Shire for awhile after Gandalf's warning is cut in the movie.
- Aragon's love interest in Steven Tyler's daughter is intensified in the movie. While the scenes are cheesy and melodramatic, what do you expect. It's a Hollywood movie, and Jackson has producers to please.
- The Fellowship waiting around in Rivendell is cut, as are the smoking scenes.
- The final change is the ending, where the Hobbits get captured and Boromir dies to the orcs, which in the books doesn't happen until Two Towers. I think this was a good decision, because it completes the arc of Boromir, and shows that he really isn't all that bad. Just the ring is.
- Minor changes like where the Watcher in the Water comes from, etc.
The Fellowship is by far the best movie. I jumped the first time I saw Bilbo reach for the Ring, and his face becomes distorted. In the book, it's more of a shadow, but the movie version of an evil face works too.
I had a weird-ed out / embarrassed to be in the theater moment when Galadriel shows Frodo the mirror, and then when Frodo offers her the ring, she turns gray and speaks in that weird voice. Rather than scare me, it just made me feel riiiighhhhtttt, this is really weird. I think it was the weird voice that should have been changed.
Of course, to someone who hasn't read the books, the movie is incredibly confusing. There's a huge cast of characters, and the movie without explanation jumps to Mordor where you hear a voice screaming Shire, Baggins, and then these Riders come out. People were scratching their heads. Why was that necessary? Wouldn't it have been better for Gandalf to warn Frodo, and then these creepy Riders show up? The way they look tells you immediately that they are not friends.
Ok. So that's the bad stuff. There's some very good stuff too. Moria of course is excellent, and the high point of the movie. The opening scenes in the Shire are great too, because Jackson takes his time. And, the movie opens with an epic battle scene so you know that stuff will be happening. The party allows you to identify and care about Frodo. The movie is in no rush to begin action, and when it does begin, you hope Frodo doesn't die.
My biggest gripe about those movies is how much CGI there is. People in Hollywood are learning that CGI just doesn't look real, and it takes the viewer out of a movie. Some directors are moving back towards stunts. In the Fellowship, the CGI really looks dated.
But, of course, it's never as bad as this --
No surprise that Pierce Brosnan's contract wasn't renewed.
No comments:
Post a Comment