Meletaure
Registered User
Jan 12 2011, 12:59am
Views: 2350
|
... What you're saying is that because a particular character is narrating an opening bit of info, then it would make no sense, since the character obviously does not have that learned knowledge yet in the story? Well what about all the other movies in many genres that start with a character giving us some opening info, (mysteries do this all the time) then proceeding to have that character "catch up" and learn during the course of the story what he's already told us. We know he already knows it, but HOW did he get to know it? To me, it seems that the narration device sits outside of the framework of the movie's timeframe. That's why we accept it. Good examples are Robert the Bruce in Braveheart beginning the opening narration, and periodically coming back to us, filling us in, even though his character doesn't know anything of what he's talking about when we first see him -- but he catches up to the narrative, and we go on the journey to see how he does, just as we would have with Gandalf. Another example is our own Faramir, David Wenham, who gives us the entire history of raising and grooming Spartan warriors in 300, until we meet his character, Dilios. Now, with the FOTR prologue, because its so long and has to cover so much history and convey so much information, yes, it probably would have had to be slightly rewritten to not sound so ridiculously redundant if Gandalf did it, but I don't see a problem with that. For all the flack Bakshi's LOTR movie gets, I think he did a pretty good job of having Gandalf narrate that opening prologue-- another example, by the way, which employs the very narrative structure you are saying won't make sense--- at the end of that prologue, Gandalf still had to confront Bilbo, let him go, then go and find out years later if the Frodo's ring was the One or not, just like in the Jackson movie.
|
