|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Nov 16 2007, 11:23pm
Post #1 of 40
(881 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"The reader's imagination, of course, has long been one of the banes of cinema."
|
Can't Post
|
|
Here's an excerpt from the Manohla Dargis's review of Beowulf, in the New York Times. No spoilers here, and very few in the full review.
For the poet Seamus Heaney, whose gorgeous translation of the poem became an unexpected best seller after it was published in 1999, Grendel “comes alive in the reader’s imagination as a kind of dog-breath in the dark.” The reader’s imagination, of course, has long been one of the banes of cinema. Any filmmaker who takes a stab at literary adaptation has to compete with those moving pictures already flickering in our heads, the ones we create when we read a book. The solution for many filmmakers is to try to top the reader’s imagination or distract it or overwhelm it, usually by throwing everything they can think of at the screen, including lots of big: big noise, sets, moves, effects, stars and, yup, even big breasts.
Would you say that Peter Jackson, in confronting the imagination of LotR readers, tried to "top", "distract", or "overwhelm" it? Or did he have a different approach? What about Ralph Bakshi?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Nov. 12-18 for "A Shortcut to Mushrooms".
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Nov 16 2007, 11:52pm
Post #2 of 40
(649 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Peter Jackson started out well.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And to his credit, he didn't even go the "big breasts" route.
But I do think that by ROTK, he had become a little bit enamoured by his special effects. I don't think he was intentionally trying to "distract" or "overwhelm" anyone. I just think he lost sight of his main purpose--to present an incredible story written by a literary genius--and focused instead on making it big and flashy.
I believe it was in one of the extras on the ROTK Extended DVD where the Weta people talked about how they spent the last two or three months before ROTK was released trying to catch up on PJ's request list of special effects, and that they created more fx in that period than they had done for the entirety of FOTR.
Oh Moon, lovely moon, with thy beautiful face,
Careering throughout the boundaries of space,
Whenever I see thee, I think in my mind,
Shall I ever, oh ever, behold thy behind.
--Edmund Gosse's house maid
http://mallika.vox.com/
|
|
|
Penthe
Gondor
Nov 17 2007, 12:03am
Post #3 of 40
(630 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, I think he started pretty well
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The good thing about PJ and team is that they had a real vision of what Middle-Earth was like. It wasn't my vision, but it felt real to me, as if I were watching the film inside someone else's head as they read the book. That's the main reason I like the films, it's the only time I've ever strongly felt that.
I think the LOTR films go wrong, then, when that vision is compromised by events or behaviours that seem inconsistent with the vision. The scrubbing bubbles of death, for example, seem too overtly magical for the rest of the way the world is set up. Orcs and Nazgul fit in 'naturalistically' so to speak, but the ghosts are too unreal even in the terms of the fantastic realm in the film.
I quite like cheese, you know.
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
Nov 17 2007, 1:56am
Post #4 of 40
(629 views)
Shortcut
|
|
hmm...I guess it depends what part of the reader's imagination you are talking about...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In terms of settings, Jackson and company were focused on providing something that "matched" what the reader imagined, and really went above and beyond to do this. Hiring Lee and Howe, building Hobbiton years before they filmed there so it would look "lived in", all the tricks to make the hobbits look small, building the Golden Hall on the top of a mountain (and the tearing it all down and restoring the place), etc. All of that was certainly more than I expected from a film making team and it was very gratifying that somebody went through all that trouble to "delight" me, as a reader, in terms of bringing Middle Earth to life.
Jackson's alterior motive in doing this could be interpreted as trying to "distract" us -- as he says in the commentaries many times, his hope was that if he got the "look" right, if Middle Earth felt like a "real" place and was presented in a book-loyal way, then fans of the books would be less critical of the changes they felt they had to make to the story line and characters. In that area, Jackson and company tend to "up the ante" on the book story -- additional conflicts are added, characters have arcs they didn't have in the book, Boromir is made more sympathetic, Faramir more tragic, Galadriel is more "overtly" dangerous, etc. In this case, Jackson could be accused of trying to "top" the reading experience, though they tend to defend their decisions by saying that they just wanted to bring out the drama of the story, or that the book wouldn't work as written.
In terms of technology, I don't think they had any standard by which to measure some of what they did. Motion capture was a new thing, so they did try to see just how far they could go with Gollum. The Massive program was written for LOTR, and they seemed to have had a lot of fun with seeing what it could do. And there are times where things were done just because it would be fun or cool -- cascading skulls, Denethor's flame dive, etc. In some cases, they just got tired -- Jackson talks about how the Army of the Dead was just a real problem for him, for example. In the commentaries they do acknowledge that some moments are "over the top" or just didn't work because of these kind of factors.
Finally, in terms of action, I know I felt "overwhelmed" by the TTT battle in the theaters -- it took me several viewings to take it all in. Jackson and company speak to this in the commentaries, saying they felt that they should have balanced out the battle with more "character" moments, and how they took pains to add some of that back into ROTK.
So, I'd say it's a mixed bag in terms of whether they distracted, topped, overwhelmed or even underwhelmed the story -- they are guilty of some of all that in different ways and at different times, but not across the board. Whether or not that is a problem, or the kind of thing that's acceptable in terms of a film adaptation, depends on whether you agree with the way these film makers brought the story to life.
Weaver
|
|
|
Eledhwen
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 17 2007, 2:52am
Post #5 of 40
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOTR is a pretty big story though
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Perhaps the special effects did get a bit much in places - but I do think Jackson kept to the heart of the tale - so you have the Gandalf and Pippin moment in Minas Tirith amid the trolls and the Nazgul, that sort of thing. And we'd all have been disappointed without good Mumakil! I think his problem perhaps was that the scale of our fannish imaginations when it comes to Middle-earth was pretty big, so matching it meant "big" too.
HM Bark Endeavour at anchor in Broken Bay, NSW Australia, October 2007
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Nov 17 2007, 5:17am
Post #6 of 40
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
Looking back, particularly with the hindsight provided by the EE commentaries, I think Peter and most of his team was simply punch by then: overworked, exhausted, and no longer able to think clearly. There are logical lapses, critical omissions, botched and unnecessary inclusions, etc.
It's still one of the best movies I ever saw.
Son of Elizabeth in Frodo's tree
March, 2007
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Nov 17 2007, 1:00pm
Post #7 of 40
(621 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think confronting the imagination
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is the major part of any film, let alone an adaptation of well-known literature. The book leaves the reader to develop their own vision; but how much of that is influence by past readings or films? I think all of us are contaminated/endowed by the vision of others. We do tend to glean from the exposure of others' works what appeals to us or speaks to our fantasy-mind, and I think Peter Jackson (+ Philippa Boyens & Fran Walsh) did an incredible job of honouring the voice of Tolkien while taking us on a fantastic ride with his own vision of the world.
I've always looked at Jackson's adaptation as his version of telling the story and not an attempt to re-create the text. Yet when he DOES present pieces of the text with such precision and care, it makes the literary form more powerful, imho. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone spoon-feeding "the book" to me. I like having my own personal Middle-earth and its characters intact without a lot of distraction from the films; but I find the films have enhanced my read. I have trouble with the audio adaptations for this reason (and Bakshi's version). They're following the book in a truer fashion, but really intruding on my own interpretation.
Jackson threw everything he had into these films, and it shows. That doesn't mean it's detracted from the story. It was a distraction from the books with his new pieces thrown in (seeing the Ents attack Isengard; the stairs of Khazad-dum; the lighting of the beacons).
It was overwhelming with the emotion, grandeur, sensitivity, and beauty of the visuals (Frodo carried over the lava in an eagle's talon; Arwen's vision of her son; Theoden rallying his army at Pelennor) contributed largely by Alan Lee/Joh Howe's artistry and the sound/emotions of Howard Shore's music and the characters having a voice.
It did top any expectation I had and squelched any hesitation/foreboding I held. The beauty of these films, for me, is staggering; and I thank Jackson for confronting my imagination... and topping it.
 
Trust him... The Hobbit is coming!
"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
TORn's Observations Lists
My DragonCon 07 Report
My JRRT Map Moot Report
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
Nov 17 2007, 3:42pm
Post #8 of 40
(626 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In the words of no less than Anthony Lane (film critic for 'The New Yorker')...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in his review of ROTK (January 5, 2004), he wrote,
".....As I watched this film, an eager victim of its boundless will to astound, I found my loyal memories of the book beginning to fade. It may be time to halt the endless comparisons between page and screen, and to confess that the two are very different beasts. Moments that lurk deep in the body of the novel are brought into the light. I had never fully clocked the subplot of Éowyn (Miranda Otto), King Théoden’s niece, until she turned up in the movie, clad in a man’s armor, and dared to confront the chief of the Nazgûl. He hisses that he fears no man, whereupon she whips off her helmet, shakes her tresses, and utters the Shakespearean cry “I am no man,” following it up with a solid jab on the Naz. I wish Laurence Olivier were alive to see that. It was he who realized that to film Shakespeare was not enough—one had to dig for what was filmlike in Shakespeare, to shock his words into becoming the natural flesh of a movie. "
(Emphasis mine.)
Here is the link to the excellent, entertaining, and quite lengthy full article:
http://www.newyorker.com/...cinema?currentPage=1
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Nov 17 2007, 11:45pm
Post #9 of 40
(576 views)
Shortcut
|
Particularly this:
The book leaves the reader to develop their own vision, but how much of that is influenced by past readings or films?
Still, an original (i.e. non-adapted) film at least won't be compared by readers to its source material.
I like having my own personal Middle-earth and its characters intact without a lot of distraction from the films; but I find the films have enhanced my read.
As one of the films' most eloquent advocates, could you say a little more about where Jackson's films differ from your own view of Middle-earth? (Which I agree, needn't be any sort of flaw with Jackson's work.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Nov. 12-18 for "A Shortcut to Mushrooms".
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Nov 17 2007, 11:52pm
Post #10 of 40
(593 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That is one of the best film reviews.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Lane is a good critic, and I remember his review of RotK being discussed here at the time. Thanks for linking to it again. However, it is odd that he writes:
I had never fully clocked the subplot of Éowyn (Miranda Otto), King Théoden’s niece, until she turned up in the movie, clad in a man’s armor, and dared to confront the chief of the Nazgûl.
That is one of the book's best-known moments, a favorite scene of many readers, and not much changed in the film, excepting one significant detail that many readers probably forget: as written, the first half of the encounter between Dernhelm and the Witch-king, until after Éowyn declares her identity, is only heard, not seen.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Nov. 12-18 for "A Shortcut to Mushrooms".
|
|
|
Morwen
Rohan
Nov 18 2007, 12:30am
Post #11 of 40
(578 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bigger isn't always better, but it's not always worse.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can't deny that Jackson's production was big, but the Middle-earth of my imagination was bigger. There weren't many times when I felt distracted or overwhelmed by the special effects, although some worked better than others for me. The Mumakil, Trolls and Eagles, for example, seemed just right, while nuclear Galadriel and glowing dead guys were just off. I appreciated the huge battle scenes because I've always had trouble visualizing the big battles in the book. Seeing them on film was helpful. All in all, I found it very easy to sustain the belief that I was in Middle-earth. I just rewatched all three movies, and I don't believe that the "big" special effects took me away from the story in any significant way. The flashy special effects didn't stop me from crying when Sam and Frodo sat on the rocks amid the boiling lava and held on to each other, or when Frodo took Gandalf's hand and walked onto the ship to the Grey Havens, nor did they stop me from laughing when Pippin's eyes got as big as saucers at the sight of Treebeard's face. The first times I watched the films, I felt like I had come home to Middle-earth, and I still do.
That said, I have to admit that no real movie, no matter how well done, will ever quite match the LoTR movie that has been playing for years inside my head. Jackson's version came much closer for me than Bakshi did, but it's still not my "inner" movie, and, even if I was given unlimited resources to put "my" movie on film, I'm sure it wouldn't match anyone else's inner movie either.
I love the Jackson movies, I never seem to get tired of them, but for me the books will always be a little bit better, a little bit more real, and I think that it is because books leave more room for imagination. The movies enhanced, rather than spoiled, the story for me, but, as much as I love and appreciate them, nothing on film can quite equal the story on the printed page.
I don't think the fact that Jackson cast attractive males in many roles, which I suppose is the reverse equivalent, in a way, of "big breasts", spoiled the movies for me much, either. :-)
Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you; you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Nov 18 2007, 3:51am
Post #12 of 40
(555 views)
Shortcut
|
Very little of it matched my vision, but that might be because I don't have a very vivid reading imagination. Characters don't even have faces when I read.
However, the look of Jackson's Middle-earth -- settings, clothes, weapons, even the cast -- was more than acceptable.
Where he diverged the most (and the most disappointingly) was with the characters -- reluctant Aragorn, indecisive Gandalf, Denethor the Mad, Merry and Pippin the juvenile delinquents, evil Galadriel, Gimli the stand up comedian, the list goes on. Of course, I think changed characters are flaws in the film, but we've had spitting matches here with people who disagree.
I think I could have forgiven the other issues I had, the unnecessary non-Tolkien additions and the over-the-top effects, if the characters had been true.
Oh Moon, lovely moon, with thy beautiful face,
Careering throughout the boundaries of space,
Whenever I see thee, I think in my mind,
Shall I ever, oh ever, behold thy behind.
--Edmund Gosse's house maid
http://mallika.vox.com/
(This post was edited by RosieLass on Nov 18 2007, 3:53am)
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Nov 18 2007, 8:28am
Post #13 of 40
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
that the critic didn't "fully clock" the subplot of Éowyn before. It does appear to be not much changed from the book, as you say. The difference that makes it stand out more clearly in the movie, perhaps, is that Éowyn's character has been explored and developed more fully beforehand, and we know from the start that she is riding with Théoden in disguise. One of the best moments in RotK for me is the moment before the charge of the Rohirrim, and it's Éowyn's gradual understanding of what she's let herself in for, and then her full-throated acceptance of it, that raises this moment to its epic emotional height.
As in many other cases, the filmmakers dug deeper into Tolkien's quite emblematic, externalized character, and turned her into a more rounded, human one. You can figure out the underlying desperation in Éowyn in the book if you're a careful and frequent reader, but her plight is perhaps not fully-developed enough to stand out memorably amongst all the other action on first reading. The movie does the work for you, and so the scene stands out in all its full humanity.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Nov 18 2007, 9:54am
Post #14 of 40
(565 views)
Shortcut
|
I think of as fundamentally like Tolkien's: he too wants to create a believable secondary world, "To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief." Jackson's originality in trying to achieve this aim was to present a fantasy story as if it were history. Fantasy in the cinema has a quite different tradition from fantasy in print, I think. Cinema was the heir to much of the oral storytelling and folktales that never made it into mainstream "literature", so a fantasy film has a different set of expectations to overcome than a fantasy book. Fantasy has a long history in the cinema, but mostly as a children's medium. Jackson's aim was to make a fantasy for adults, and so his approach was to present the fantasy as realistic long-lost history. In the way that languages were Tolkien's his most basic inspiration, Jackson's seems to be imagery, and especially the use of special effects to enhance a sense of realism rather than just to impress with their cleverness.
As Anthony Lane points out, adapting a work for film is more than just putting a camera in front of the original work, even when the work is already in dramatic form (as in his example of Shakespeare's plays.) Adapting a novel is doubly difficult, unless you are content to reproduce not the effect but just the nuts-and-bolts plot of the story. But Jackson's overarching aim was to reproduce the effect of LotR, the Fantasy, Escape, Recovery, and Consolation that Tolkien descibes in On Fairy Stories. To do this, he had to take it apart, like a "jigsaw puzzle", in his own words, and put it together again in way that would create this effect on film.
As Tolkien says, this "require(s) labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode."
Personally, I think Jackson did accomplish that rare achievement, especially for viewers who were new to the book, or had only read it once, perhaps when they were younger. For them, the full effect of Tolkien's work was magically potent in the films. For longtime readers, there's a strange conflict at first - something like an interference effect as the shifted storyline conflicts with the familiar one. It takes several viewings, in my experience, to learn to hold the two storylines independently in one's head, at which point the interference resolves into a powerful resonance, and the films become, not a distraction from or challenge to the book, but a vivid commentary on it that actually contributes to the reading experience.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Kdgard
Bree
Nov 18 2007, 5:58pm
Post #15 of 40
(546 views)
Shortcut
|
Hi, NEB. You said, "Still, an original (i.e. non-adapted) film at least won't be compared by readers to its source material."
While I understand the point you are making here, it makes me wonder if it is even possible for anything to be truly "original" anymore. Everything seems to get compared to something else. That's how we define the world around us. If you come across something new, you try to understand this new thing by comparing it to things you already know. We often make decisions based on past experiences. So, is it even possible to write a book, or a poem, or a song, or make a movie that somebody, somewhere out there, isn't going to say, "Hey! That reminds me of this other (insert book, poem, song, movie here)."?
Kdgard
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Nov 18 2007, 6:11pm
Post #16 of 40
(550 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh. I had to do some thinking on this one.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The book and the films have settled so deeply into my heart and mind, it took some revisiting to put into words.
Right away, I can say the films are more have more components than the book simply because of their makeup. They demand my attention and define my journey when watching them. It's impossible to ignore the audio and visual stimulation from the films and their impact on me. That's how it's supposed to be. That's why so many things work in film that doesn't work in print, and visa versa. So there's a perceptual difference right there.
The books are more personal and intimate by nature because I have only my own fantasy compass influencing me. My view of Middle-earth is character-driven. I'm drawn to the individuals and their relationships more than their surroundings and the impact events have on them. While the events of the story are poignant and have a strong effect on my involvement, it still goes back to how they impact my characters. I have a firm picture in my mind of what Frodo looks like and how his voice sounds. That's the same for Sam, Strider, Gandalf... all of the characters.
What first blew my hair back was how much Jackson's cast members resembled my book images. Their mannerisms, tone, energy... spot on! His choices of who represents those characters are dead right for me and each of them holds the heart and soul of their counterparts (which I believe they are) magnificently. They are what carry the personal stories with so much strength and enables me to latch onto them. I will never say the films haven't influenced my read. I will hear the voices from the films at those moments lifted straight from the book. I'll see the midgewater marshes or the mines of Moria as seen in the films. But I'll also say the images by Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith and John Howe (to mention a few) have already melded into my mind's eye of Middle-earth.
While Jackson's telling embraces the individuals so incredibly well, for the most part his films are event-driven, imho. Right there is my clearest example of the difference. The intensity of the events, especially those he added, were astounding and became the focus of the story plot for that moment. What was incredible was the way he could still bring in the emotional affect on the characters, but the stimulation of the juggernaut of the mûmakil; the attack of the Watcher in the Water; Gandalf charging down the hill with Éomer and the Rohirrim are all major WOW factors for me and became the focal point. It's like having MORE Tolkien!
I don't think I've had as much of a problem as many keeping the book and films separate. I've been reading the story for so many years, I don't think I could ever shake the impression it's left on me. Even now when I read it, I can remember and relive the emotions or reactions I had.
It would make sense that the sections that now have even more of a firm fix in my mind are areas NOT addressed in any of the films. Frodo discovering himself in the mirror in Rivendell; Pippin as he's holding the palantír in the dark; Frodo looking up at Legolas silhouetted against the evening sky as the Elf is poised to shoot across the river; Gandalf face to face with the Nazgûl at the gate; Frodo the Wanderer standing on the hill in Lothlórien... all WOW moments untouched... for which I'm deeply grateful :)
Trust him... The Hobbit is coming!
"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
TORn's Observations Lists
My DragonCon 07 Report
My JRRT Map Moot Report
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Nov 18 2007, 6:28pm
Post #17 of 40
(534 views)
Shortcut
|
I've even used the same argument: I could pretend that the film of The Lord of the Rings is not an adaptation but a separate work, but I'd still want to point out that it shares a lot with that book by Tolkien.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Nov. 12-18 for "A Shortcut to Mushrooms".
|
|
|
Sunflower
Valinor
Nov 19 2007, 11:27am
Post #18 of 40
(562 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What FarFromHome and Gramma said.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You guys said what I was going to try to say, but in far fewer words. I applaud you:).
I might also add that PJ was, IMO, wise enough to leave certain passages in the book alone, as if he recognized that they were things which either could never be adapted to film form and have the same effect, or they were too complex to put on film. For example, I used to be disappointed that the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman was reduced to mostly a fight, but I realized that there would have been no real way to adapt "Saruman of many colors" to film. The special effects required to do this would have diminished the dynamics of the scene....a similar thing was tried in the Mirror scene and "nuclear" Galadriel is controversial. The wonderful Shakespearean dialogue in that scene, the stately denouments and ringing prose "The white page can be overwritten...in which case it is no longer white" etc) would have looked good on film, but later on it would have disappointed in a cinematic sense; for just as the full Voice of Saruman is unadaptable to the screen, so it would have been impossible for the viewer to appreciate the full range of the treachery...take this or leaveit as you will.
I am glad also that the book's central passage, IMO, the "desolation before Mordor" was never attempted to be rendered to film. This is the indelible passage where Frodo and Sam come upon the volcanic hell of bleached cones, the "mountains vomiting their entrails" etc. The language in that passage is simply unadaptable to film. "a land defiled, diseased beyond all healing, until the Great Sea should enter in and wash it with oblivion." PJ wisely left this alone. I always sit back and let my mind wander a few minutes when I come to that page. You can never get the full picture on screen.....the hobbits and Gollum sitting there as the dawn comes and the sin slowly rises, revealing more and more, and how tiny they were and how hopeless it seemed. ("See the sun rise over her skin....don't change it....see the sun rise over her skin...dawn changes everything". Sorry, old U2 lyric. Bono wrote this while sitting in a car stopped in the Cali desert....he was comparing America to a beautiful but demented woman....excuse ref. After 1987 whenever I got to this chapter this lyric came to me whenver I read this!)
Sometimes film does great things. For example, I never understood until seeing the films what was meant when it was said that Frodo had an "Elvish air" about him. After several viewings it struck me beginning in the Dimrill Dale sequence, where everyone else collapsed and burst into tears, but Frodo simply stands silently with a tear trickling down his cheek .And his tragic air as he goes on and his suffering increases. It's his air of worldy wisdom and unearthly reserve. PJ really brought this out and I didn't notice it at the time, but now I do and to me it is incredibly moving. Maybe it;'s b/c in my life I've found reasons to identify with him since 2003, and I never thought I would. Ignorance is bliss, and in suffering is knowledge. Knowledge of death,I mean.
I guess this goes back to the age-old debate about which form of art is superior and why....literature, or films? You may as well debate what is superior: painting or photography. It's a complex question. You can argue that painting is superior b/c it is completely origional, not only must the images be from the artist's own head but he or she mixes the pigments and thus creates the template, the colrs, the means as well. Whereas with photography you are only capturing the essence of what is already there. Would the world have been a better place if the camera had never been invented? Even in grainy black and white there was a harshness, an unholy intimacy, a lack of romance, about the camera...how it seemed to strip its subject bare, exposing all its secrets. Whereas with a painting, the people and places they captured was only as fine-tuned as the abilities of the painter. And how the personality and personal style of the painter bound it in apocryphal chains...there would always be intrinsic quirks, little inconsistencies. There could never be in essence a true likeness b/c the personality of the painter, and their skill, influenced the work in a way that something as speedy as a camera never could. One thinks of the great portrait painters of centuries ago....Rembrandt, etc. How can you judge? Are we the poorer for having a technology that can render the subject exactly as they are? This question is not as simple as it seems b/c since its invention, of course, photography itself has evolved and so much more is possible.
As for cinema vs origionality, it can be said that at its best the cinema is to its own an form all its own. Yes, at its best it can be an enhancement. I can never read T.S Eliot's "The Hollow Men" without picturing Francis Coppola's nighmarish Cambodian dreamscape from "Apocolypse Now" in my head. Which helps me to understand the poem better actually. It's something about what he shows us in that sequence, as well as clever dissolves, fades, and other camera techniqies...I can;'t explain it here. How would you novelize Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"? Citizen Kane? "2001: A Space Odessy"? Sergei Eisenstein's "The Battleship Potemkin"? Would "War And Peace" be any less or more for Sergei Bondarchuk's incredible 4-film version from 1966-68? (I often think that LOTR would work for you, NE Brigand, if Bondarchuk had made it. Its the film LOTR is most often compared to....but the Russian mentality and feel is one that you would have been more pleased with. You can Google Bondarchuk and find some clips of "War And Peace." Natasha Rostovya puts Audrey Hepburn in the dust.)
|
|
|
Sunflower
Valinor
Nov 19 2007, 12:13pm
Post #19 of 40
(514 views)
Shortcut
|
Darn it---I tried to edit this to add it,and I have to repost it....
I think that the cinema adaptation that LOTR can be most compared to is Jean Cocteau's 1946 adaptation of Beauty And The Beast. I think most of us have actually read the 17th-century (or is it 18th century?) fairy tale at some point, and the archetypes have become as ingrained in our culture as the mythic male hero was in the ancient world, it has had that big of an impact, though the author (I can never remember her name, her name is 6 words long!) undoubtedly was herself drawing upon the older archetypes. Cocteau's version strays from the origional in some aspects but is true enough to the origional while "enhancing" the tale, as FarFromHome and others say, in the best possible way. The dream-like set-pieces of the castle, the gorgeous and lyrical score, the complex and sympathic rendering of the Beast (or actually his complex character arc), and Josette Day's tender yet fiery Belle (anticipating a quarter-century of strong-willed femenist heroines, yet outdoing many of them) with her fantastic costumes, not to mention the brave decision by Coctueau not to tone down what Freudian overtones of the story makes for a cinematic tale that many say is better than the origional, though to me it only enhances it. (This is what the Disney people called the "dark, twisted, phsycological stuff" and while they left most of it out of the animated version, they kept some of it in, enough to make a darned good movie, not just a cartoon. And their Broadway musicial version was just as great inits way, just as true to the tale. There's a topic for debate: when a story has more than one great interpretation--and there aren't many--should we say which is better? Maybe one caN never be, as they're totally different creatures? Before you rush to judgement on Disney vs Cocteau, check out the New York Film Festival rough draft of the film from the Special Edition DVD.I have no doubt that the film's well-deserved Best Picture nomination in 1992 came from this version. You have to see it to see what I mean--it has twice the emotional power of the theatrical version.)
Does the fairy tale suffer from this wonderful and timeless film being made from it? Or does watching this movie--and.or the Disney version-- get people to want to read the origional? A case can be made against Disney perhaps (who even remembers Collodi's Pinocchio anymore?) but not great live-action adaptations. I think this is why Tolkien feared a cartoon version--he recognized the unholy power of Disney in subverting the popular memory. The process of "enhancement" seems not to occur with animatrion, for the most part; "subjugation" instead occurs. Though sometimes enhancement occurs here too- in a non-Disney setting. Like with the animated version of Watership Down,one of the great animated films of all time. Watership Down is, of course,simply not adaptable in a live-action form (the protagonists being rabbits. I think a "Babe"-like version would be ridiculous.) But there too is a case of enhancement. Fiver's visions are powerfully rendered onscreen. Who can forget the electric tower morphing into a spiderweb, and then into tree branches, dancing in the sunset? Which is an image not described in the book, BTW.
Finally, consider this: The Wizard of Oz had been around, in various play adaptations, including a Broadway musical, and a silent film, for almost 40 yrs, BEFORE the movie we all know and love. Who remembers them? Would we even be reading the Oz books today if we did not have the movie to make us want to read them? It is likely the Oz books would have started to fade after a century. At best they would have lingered like the Tales From The Looking Glass. We would have studied the Alice tales as political satire ; of course--just as we do with the works of Jonathan Swift. But it seems that to make them live on in the popular memry these days, in a world ever more crowded with more form of entertainment, a grand cinematic "enhancement" is perhaps needed.
It would interesting to speculate if the Harry Potter books could have ended up facing literary ghettoization in 50 yrs time like the Oz books if the films hadn;'t happened. I don't know...they are far less "cinematic" I'd say, more like the Alice books.
But I;m getting off subject here....
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Nov 20 2007, 9:41am
Post #20 of 40
(506 views)
Shortcut
|
Since Peter Jackson & crew had a consistent vision of what their Middle Earth landscapes, cultures and artefacts were going to look like and added to it a set of musical themes and repeated images, it felt more like someone presenting their own idea of Middle Earth for me to see, rather than trying to top my imagination (except by relying too much on the music at times). Often they presented ideas of the look of things that I had not imagined or thought of at all, which gave me lots of beautiful details – like the landing space for the boats on the Great River, the classical images on the gates of Minas Tirith and the list could go on and on..
Jackson & crew has a feel for the grand and impressive spaces, that much was clear from the movies, and it often served them well. However the tendency to use special effects for the sake of the effects felt both distracting and too much of a show off. To this I also add the unchecked rejoicing in what I would call the roller coaster camera function – cameras following the flight of arrows, going from the top of a tower to the bottom of a cavern and so on.
I think the most exaggerated use of “let’s think big” was clearly seen in the battle of Pelennor Fields vs. the battle of Helm’s Deep. I found the Helm’s Deep battle more well conceived and more moving, they used the momentum and the build up to a better effect. The degenerated orcs in RoTK, with their tumours, also looked rather ridiculous.
Even if I was sometimes confused by the change in the characters, they generally went for a more inward-looking and psychological approach which was consistent throughout. After having seen the movies a number of times, I’ve got used to the changes, some of which were due, I suspect, to the need to reduce the difference between separate storylines. The things that still don't work for me are the characters that don’t get to have any independent role, like Merry, or were made into absurd caricatures, like Denethor.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Nov 21 2007, 2:37pm
Post #21 of 40
(505 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The best thing Jackson did was play it straight.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
By treating LotR as history, he grounded the fantasy. However he did get carried away with the cinematic fighting, and in my opinion lost track of Tolkien's spiritual tale.
Actually, I think the fact that so many people already had imagined Middle-earth helped Jackson immensely, since he drew heavily on the experience and imagination of Lee and Howe and (indirectly) Nasmith. Jackson may have played it fairly straight precisely because he knew so many people had preconceived ideas about Middle-earth.
On the other hand, I can't imagine Zemeckis was really worried about our preconceived notions of Beowulf. Perhaps English majors turned movie critics have studied the poem, but most people, I would guess, have not read it, or, if they read it for school, did not fall in love with it. Therefore Zemeckis could play fast and loose with the story without worrying about the reaction of the popular audience.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Nov 21 2007, 3:49pm
Post #22 of 40
(489 views)
Shortcut
|
"By treating LotR as history, he grounded the fantasy. However he did get carried away with the cinematic fighting, and in my opinion lost track of Tolkien's spiritual tale".
Interesting comment about losing track of the spiritual tale. It seems to me that Jackson perhaps didn't connect so much to this aspect of the tale, at least not the magical aspects, but was more inspired by the the actual sacrifices made by the characters and how they dealt with the issues of hope and fear/despair. Perhaps he felt that the fights and battles were the most effective and meaningful means of highlighting the sacrifices made? There is such a wealth of themes to choose from in LoTR, and Jackson & co. chose the themes that suited his particular style and take on the story. I would have been happy to see more focus on the spiritual elements of the tale myself, but I just don't believe that this was compatible with Jackson's principal talents. Still we got scenes like the Eagles, the Gates of Argonath, the passing of the Elves in TT etc.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Nov 21 2007, 4:35pm
Post #23 of 40
(478 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Jackson thought the fight and battles were great fun.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And judging by the audience reaction, he was right. But something was lost when he placed so much emphasis on the fighting, and substantially expanded upon all the fights, while drastically cutting everything else.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Nov 21 2007, 4:57pm
Post #24 of 40
(482 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The fights are part of the story
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Swordmaster Bob Anderson made sure that every fight told part of the story and that every character's fighting style revealed a part of their personality. To regard the fighting and battles as meaningless would be the same as dismissing Howard Shore's music as irrelevant. They both work to bring Tolkien's story from a written medium to a visual medium.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Nov 21 2007, 5:30pm
Post #25 of 40
(472 views)
Shortcut
|
The more I watch the films the more I'm impressed by how Jackson and Co. managed to bring to life so many moments of Eucatastrophy in just three hours. Often I'm left breathless by a viewing of any of the films. Plus he totally succeeds in making a cynical and jaded audience ranging from Baby Boomers and Gen X-Y-Zers believe in Honour and The Green Sun. And his subtle but wholehearted attention to Tolkien's beloved languages is absolutely unbelievable.
Of course, one has to admit that Bakshi followed the story far more faithfully.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
|
|
1
