San Diego Union Tribune Review LOTR: Two Towers

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 12-18-2002 | David Elliott

[BenLurkin]

" Sometimes a multitude loves a movie and you don't. You feel lonely, until you start meeting all the other people who also disliked it.

That happened to me a year ago, with the first epic in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy made in New Zealand, and may happen again with the second. In 2001, I made a negative comparison of Peter Jackson's epic with the first "Harry Potter" show, and though I think the second Potter movie isn't quite up to its predecessor, it is far more colorful, witty, inventive and humanly enjoyable than "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers."

What a creepy death kit this big movie is."

[Interesting Times]

The notion that violent warfare is sometimes right and necessary is also inconvenient to the leftists just about now...

[cornelis]

violent warfare is sometimes right and necessary

It is, but the presentation of violence for viewing is another kind of fruit (like apples and oranges, you know)

[Paul Atreides]

I had never read the book until last year (I am generally not into fantasy). After I read the book, and then sat down in the theater, it was amazing how much they had to cut. I think that it is a sad commentary on our culture that we cannot have pauses in movies. I remember, on TCM, host Robert Osborne stated that the cropdusting scene in North by Northwest could not work today because a whole ten minutes passes without dialog or action.

[Paul Atreides]

Yep, gotta have those infamous "gray areas."

[cornelis]

we cannot have pauses in movies

I watched Fields "In the Bedroom" and the pauses are there. I was mildly surprised. It seemed misplaced, and un-American. I personally think he was influenced by Tarkovsky's "The Sacrifice" and for that he was nominated for best picture. Fields plot, taken from a book, turns basic and insipid in comparison to good literary works.

[cornelis]

how much they had to cut

He cut Bombadil, and why? My guess, either he doesn't understand Bombadil (a big mistake) or Bombadil is not essential to the box office value (a big success).

[Paul Atreides]

Our culture disdains reading books. We are a society that needs instant gratification. Just playing Devil's advocate for Peter Jackson, I imagine in order to even get LOTR made, he had to play the game. To use David Lynch's Dune as an example, one of the reasons it flopped (aside from bad direction) was that the studio heads chopped the think from a four hour movie down to a two hour movie. I'm not slamming these directors, but Hollywood's bottom line is money.

[montag813]

The thing about the film Boromir is, they delete the scene in which Galadriel bestows a gift upon him.

I believe this scene (as well as a full 40 minutes) was added back on the DVD version.

[Paul Atreides]

re: Bombadil

I say that it is the latter.

[Paul Atreides]

In the special edition, it shows her giving all of the fellowship gifts, except Boromir. In the book, did she give him a shield? I can't remember, as I have only read the book once.

[BenLurkin]

Boromir was conflicted between knowing the need for the quest(good) and desiring the power of the Ring (evil). I give Bean credit for taking the role seriously. His performance was perhaps even above the call of duty for a fantasy film.

[Paul Atreides]

And, he had the weight of his people on his shoulders. That is why Boromir is one of my favorite characters. He is somewhat like Hamlet, in his conflict.

[motzman]

He cut Bombadil, and why? My guess, either he doesn't understand Bombadil (a big mistake) or Bombadil is not essential to the box office value (a big success).

On the extended DVD Jackson explains that Bombadil does not move the story forward, and needed to be eliminated.

He's right.

[cornelis]

somewhat like a Hamlet

In what way? Hamlet is an honest ignoramus trying the bear the world on his shoulders while thinking about being love.

[cornelis]

Bombadil does not move the story forward

Perfect description, and rings true with the pacing Jackson has for the film. In short, Tolkien recognizes a depth to time that is off the screen for Jackson. In moving the story along for box office value, the whole concept of power is shifted. Bombadil plays with the ring. Jackson is no Bombadil. There is no Bombadil for Jackson.

[Paul Atreides]

Hamlet is in conflict about his stepfather/uncle's murder of his father and marriage to his mother. Each time he intends to "rectify" the situation, he talks himself out of it. In the end, he becomes the hero, only at the cost of his own life.

In the case of Boromir, I believe that he knows the ring must be destroyed, but he knows that it could help his people. In the end, he also becomes the hero, at the cost of his own life.

[cornelis]

becomes the hero

Yes, if we wished him well, sympathized with his frailty, had pity on his ignorance. And all of this we understand from the book. It is very difficult to cast such depth of character.

[Paul Atreides]

Another thing about LOTR, one really has to pay attention to all of the names and characters mentioned. It is the same with the book. Like you said, Boromir's conflict is very difficult to represent in the film.

[motzman]

Since The Hobbit will be made into a film, and Silmarillion, (maybe even parts of Unfinished Tales some day) I hold out hope that Tom and Goldberry will make it to the big screen...

[an amused spectator]

I had never read the book until last year (I am generally not into fantasy).

I've never classified Tolkien's works as "fantasy".

After I read the book, and then sat down in the theater, it was amazing how much they had to cut.

I consider myself a "Tolkien scholar". I am content with Jackson's treatment of the Red Book. FYI, & IMO, the concept of Bombadil is beyond the experience of most of the intended audience. For my take on this current treatment, try reading Tolkien's On Faery Stories and Leaf by Niggle. You should gain some insight into the crafting of his stories. Many of the footnotes in Tolkien's own appendices in LOTR (and elsewhere - The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales are prime examples) emphasize the ambiguous nature of the "telling of the story". I think that Jackson "told the story" on the screen to my satisfaction, finally and at long last.

A fascinating read is The Hoard, which casts some dim but illuminating light on the nature of Tolkien's worlds. I like to think about that one every once in a while.

On another note - I see that Children of Dune is slated for release within the next year. What do you think? I read House Atreides last year, and it was a good read. Haven't got hold of House Harkonnen, but I can wait [they're a crowd of vile bastards anyway]. ;-)