|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The One Ring Forums:
Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
But unfortunately wholly irrelevant to the viewing experience:
Edit Log
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Feb 23 2019, 7:06am
Views: 30914
|
|
But unfortunately wholly irrelevant to the viewing experience
|
|
|
The third part of her video series, on the labour laws, is the clearest explanation I've seen of that entire brouhaha.
As much as one ought to separate the art from the artist, one ought to separate the art from the artistic and commercial process. In watching the films, I couldn't give a dead dog for labour laws being abused.
Lindsay's breakdown of breaking the book into three parts, and then needing to create content for the three acts of those movies, put into words a lot of my dissatisfaction with the films.
The more I think about Lindsay's body of work - on these films and in general - the more of a dislike I acquire for it. She infuses everything (in this case, especially the Tauriel subplot) with her brand of social doctorine.
I had a particular dislike for her harping on bygone Colonalism, to the point that she declared that, in King Kong, "its not beauty that killed the beast - its colonialism." I mean, come on! which is to say nothing of her misinterpertation of Tolkien's quote about "least lovelly Mongol types." For a person who spills out so much intellectualized terminology, you'd think she knew he meant the murderous 14-century Mongols....
And really, from a professional point of view, she's a screenwriter, and her critique comes from the point of view of a screenwriter. I find people like Chris Hartwell or Garrett Stiger - who write and direct - to be much more insightful, as well as less overbearing.
Her three-act breakdown of both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is all wrong, too. I seem to recall that she put the first act of Fellowship of the Ring ending with the formation of the Fellowship and/or the second act ending with Gandalf's death - both of which are wrong.
Besides, the three-act structure isn't the end-all measure of a good narrative. Lots of great films don't use it: Does Braveheart have a three-act structure? Does The Good, The Bad and the Ugly have one? Lawrence of Arabia and other old epics have three-acts, but per each of their two parts.
There are other issues (like her impression that the payoff to Thorin and Bilbo's relationship at the end of An Unexpected Journey is premature) but I'm already woefully verbose, not unlike her.
As for why people like AUJ best, I think it's because most of the stuff that really bothers people like the romance, Alfrid, the Smaug fight, and the overuse of Legolas is in the later movies.
I think its more nuanced than that. I think the first film in any series has a slightly "magical" quality when one first views it. Because you're yet to see the continuation of the story - but you know there is one. It lets you imagination run wild as to what's going to happen next, and gives the film a sense of expanse.
When the actual vision for the next film turns about to be grimmer than one imagined for one's-self, it can come off as disheartening. However, what I think many people who systematically like the first film (Chris Hartwell is actually one) ignore is that, when drama is derived from that state, the film is all the better for it.
For instance, I've said that The Desolation of Smaug starts out still in a lighthearted mode, and later turns on a dime. That moment is pretty clear to me: its when Thorin is finally being ferried across to Erebor. The first film, and the first part of the second film have exemplified the yearning of Thorin and company to their homeland, but when we actually get there, Jackson makes it dour. The color is desaturated, the music is ominous and the landscape is threatening.
Many people - especially those attached to the tone of the book - rather than the existence or lack of a dragon fight or barrell-ride -will find this distastefull. I find it wonderfully tragic, and its in fact my screensaver.
One thing I'll say is that I've been watching the Star Wars prequels (though I haven't done III quite yet), so some actually terrible movies are fresh in my memory. I know better now after rewatching I and II than to casually make comparisions between The Hobbit movies and the prequels ! 
I don't mind those awfully, either. But than, I don't just like movies, I like liking movies.There's some good action and adventure in there, and at the end, some good tragedy.
But I do dislike the comparisons that people make - because the two filmmakers and the way they went about creating a trilogy - could not be more different. The comparison can therefore never exists beyond the superficial.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Feb 23 2019, 7:19am)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by Chen G.
(Mithlond) on Feb 23 2019, 7:14am
|
|
Post edited by Chen G.
(Mithlond) on Feb 23 2019, 7:15am
|
|
Post edited by Chen G.
(Mithlond) on Feb 23 2019, 7:16am
|
|
Post edited by Chen G.
(Mithlond) on Feb 23 2019, 7:17am
|
|
Post edited by Chen G.
(Mithlond) on Feb 23 2019, 7:19am
|
|
|
|
