Posted on 12/20/2002 3:38:38 AM PST by JameRetief
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the wargs of fandom!
Peter Jackson's "The Two Towers" brings the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy around the bend. We're in the home stretch now, and as a wondering world begins to judge the second movie with a variety of opinions, the purist in me cries out: Ick. Of course, no one really cares what the purists think. Frankly, I don't, either. It's a good movie.
And that is my review. Now for the analysis.
I liked Treebeard. I liked him a great deal. My only disappointment with the Ents was that there seemed to be too few of them in the Entmoot. But I couldn't help thinking, as the Moot ensued, that there just wasn't enough room in the dingle (that's The Derndingle to you purists out there) to show 50 or so Ents as Tolkien describes in the book. However, we do get to see there are far more than a handful of Ents left later on, so I think the scene worked as it was.
I liked the wargs. People have been unhappy with what they've seen of the wargs in advance images. But now that the movie is in full release, people will be able to see the wargs in all their CGI glory. Or lack thereof.
Do the wargs look like wolves? Not really. Do they look like demonic wolves? Yes, I believe they do. What's the difference? Well, demonic wolves don't really exist, so the CGI artists had no baseline to compare their work with. In any event, Tolkien described his wargs as "demonic". I think Peter Jackson's wargs are "demonic". Are they Tolkien's "demonic"? I have no idea. I don't really care. They looked cool.
The whole movie is a showcase for film magic ala CGI. It's amazing how well the actors (especially the Hobbit actors) were able to perform against bouncing tennis balls, or whatever visual cues they were given. In the scene where Frodo and Sam subdue Gollum, I had to ask myself several times, "How did they do that?" Now, maybe the answers are just a mouse-click away, but I didn't want to know those kinds of details before I saw this movie.
CGI dominated the heart of the movie (or, perhaps I should say, "the hearts of the movie"). Gollum hams it up in scene after scene, looking more like the love child of Samuel L. Jackson and Yoda than a depraved Hobbit. I mean that in the kindest way. Gollum is an exaggeration, and by the time the movie ended, I had realized something terribly important: exaggeration is the uncredited movie magic which helps to make this movie work.
As I mentioned to the lady sitting next to me when the film had ended, I think I understand what they are doing with these movies better, now. There is indeed a lot of compression, but there is also a lot of exaggeration. In fact, one of my growing concerns was the performance of John Rhys-Davies in the first movie.
JRD is a fantastic character actor. I love watching him work. But there are some scenes in "The Fellowship of the Ring" (and "The Two Towers") which make me cringe. Why? Because he serves as the comic relief. They almost turn Gimli into a buffoon, and a lot of people have reacted badly toward that (at least in private discussions with me -- I have no idea of what the general audience thinks).
And yet, watching Gimli and Legolas bond in the second movie just a few hours ago, I realized that JRD was probably the only actor whom Peter Jackson could ask to bite the bullet, take the shot, and pull off his performance with credibility. Gimli isn't just comic relief. Rather, he is the counterweight to the extremely tense presentation of certain scenes.
Were it not for Gimli's grumbling running commentary during the highly anticipated Helm's Deep sequence, the audience would have passed out from self-inflicted asphyxiation. They needed reasons to burst out laughing. They needed opportunities to breathe. The site of 10,000 Uruk-hai as they assemble on the battlefield, beat their spears into the ground (in what seemed a subtle homage to the wonderful battle preparation scenes in "Zulu"), is stunning. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater (which would have been quite a feat, considering just how noisy 10,000 Uruk-hai can be).
Except for the dwarf-tossing joke (which leads one to wonder if they are going to beat that horse into China by using it in the third movie), Gimli's lines are very useful. They break up the intense pacing of the action. And the dwarf-tossing joke actually moves the story forward, although it seems to me that they could have achieved their end without it.
One of the curious scenes in the film came when Eomer met Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. All I should say is that the storyline was substantially altered from this point onward. I wondered why, at first, but gradually realized that Eomer had been given a more important role than he plays in the book.
Strange as it seems, when you go back through the book, Eomer doesn't do a whole lot from the time Gandalf heals Theoden until Theoden's death. Eomer is just there to fill in some gaps in the information presented to the reader. Technically, he is bonding with Aragorn, but even that plays through a bit weakly.
The movie simply gives Eomer something more useful to do, although the audience was wondering where he'd got off to for a while. The movie is fast-paced enough that people cannot dwell on any one anomaly for very long.
If anything, it's a little too fast-paced for the first 30-40 minutes. But I couldn't see any way to tighten it up or slow it down. Peter had to give the audience the equivalent of "Meanwhile, back at the ranch" three times in a row. He tackled part of that problem by having Aragorn figure out what happened to Merry and Pippin (as in the book but with visual cues to the audience). I was very reminded of Prince Humperdink in "The Princess Bride". I almost expected Viggo Mortensen to pick up a bamboo phial and say, "Iocaine powder. I'd stake my life on it."
But Viggo plays a very good Aragorn. He clearly takes the role seriously and works with the material he is handed. One of the criticisms which has been leveled at the first movie (even by me, when people insist I analyze this aspect of it), is that Viggo's Aragorn starts out with less self-assurance than Tolkien's Aragorn.
In the book, Aragorn expresses self-doubt only when the mantle of leadership has passed to him. And then he pretty quickly gets past that stage. After he decides to follow the Orcs who have snatched Merry and Pippin, his resolve and his decision-making ability increase rapidly. Aragorn grows stronger.
In the movie, while Viggo is clearly very comfortable in his performance, his character is plagued by inner turmoil. He doesn't believe he can be any better than Isildur. He is not simply humble, as the book Aragorn is on at least one occasion -- the movie Aragorn honestly believes he is set up for failure.
But now I see that Aragorn has been compressed, as have so many other characters -- and so many events -- as a means of editing out a lot of the narrative exposition which Tolkien relied upon. Cinematic story-telling tends to suffer when you rely upon narrative exposition. Some people actually complained about Cate Blanchett's voiceover for the Prologue to the first movie -- but if that is not the way to present all that history, what is?
My point is that the movies are compensating for the lack of narrative exposition by sending characters into unexpected directions. A lot of people in the audience were wondering why Viggo was dropped off a cliff, for example. Well, that reason became clear once we saw Viggo again. He gave the audience a change in perspective which helped Peter avoid having a character see too much from too far away.
The same principle is at work with Eomer. His literary role is not followed closely. Instead, we see him ride off and slowly other characters tell us a little bit about where he is. By the time Eomer returns to the action, he is more important to Rohan than his literary counterpart is at the same juncture in the book.
Of course, there are some things I find a little puzzling. For example, why does Theoden have only a few hundred Rohirrim. And why are none of them Riders of Rohan? I suppose the answer must lie in the fact that Elves do indeed show up to fight with the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep (but Arwen does not).
As I watched the Elves march into the fortress, it occurred to me that by showing the Elves standing side-by-side with Men, Peter Jackson was including some of the back-story which Tolkien had to relegate to the appendix. You don't learn until you get to the appendix that the Elves of Lothlorien actually fight several battles in the War of the Ring (and they bring down Dol Guldur, a fortress about as strategically important as Isengard).
And that leads me to Arwen's expanded role in the movies. We don't see nearly enough of Liv Tyler in "The Two Towers" for my taste, but we see enough of her to learn that A) she and Aragorn truly love each other and B) she is watching over him from afar. That is crucial to her character. For, you see, Tolkien stipulates that Arwen does just that in "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen".
Arwen is actually being more faithful to Tolkien than Eomer. And no one should see that as a fault or a sin. Rather, it's the fault of the people who complain about Arwen's expanded role -- they don't bother to acknowledge Arwen's expanded role in the appendix.
Am I saying that Liv Tyler's performance at the Ford of Bruinen is therefore justified? No. What I am saying is that I understand why Glorfindel may not have made the cut. His function is mostly Elvish. That is, it's his part to be a wise and powerful Elf. Well, if Arwen is going to be portrayed as the wise and powerful Elf Tolkien said she was, then why can she not take on Glorfindel's role?
If I were to emphasize Arwen's role in the primary story, I might indeed do something similar. That is, in compressing actions or even characteristics, I'd like for literary characters whose attributes and functions are similar. While the literary Arwen never faces down the Nazgul, she does provide some wise counsel and healing. She also motivates Aragorn to aspire to great heights.
Tolkien's Arwen is a mover and a shaker in the back-story. Peter simply chose to make her a mover and a shaker in the main story. I believe that some of the experimentation with Arwen failed during filming. Liv Tyler reportedly hid behind Viggo, for example, as several Orcs charged at them. Of course, we could always see something like that in the third movie. I suppose it's too early to write it off. But I feel certain that no such scene will be included.
On the other hand, there is an interesting scene between Arwen and Elrond in "The Two Towers". People were asking why that scene is necessary. I couldn't help but answer the question silently: It's necessary because there can be no appendix to the movies. Everything which Tolkien revealed in the appendices must either be cut or somehow included in the primary action of the films. The Elrond-Arwen scene offers a way of slipping an appendix into the middle of the movie. I felt it was a rather clever method of being extra informative.
Unfortunately, all this compression has one undesirable side effect. It tends to diminish the scope of Peter Jackson's Middle-earth. It seems like, if he cannot make reference to someone or something, even obliquely, then his canon is trimmed. Hence, we hear nothing about the Kings of Arnor. They don't seem to have ever existed (after Elendil and Ilsidur).
Hence, we lose the Beornings and Woodmen, the Men of Dale and the Long Lake, and all the Dwarves of the Ered Luin because they cannot be smoothly included in the movie action. Do these peoples and places exist in Peter Jackson's Middle-earth? He seems to be careful not to exclude them on the maps, but neither does he go out of his way to tell the audience they are there.
The compression serves to tell the story of a great war in a place called Middle-earth, but it's not necessarily the same story that Tolkien told us. That is, we all know the "Battle of the Bulge" movie isn't entirely faithful to real history, but it does get the point across. The same is true of "The Longest Day".
Peter Jackson is trying to depict the significant events of an entire fictional war in three movies. But if you had only three movies in which to tell the tale of World War I, or World War II, could you be comprehensive? Of course not. No one could. So, you would resort to compressing characters and events in order to cover as much ground as possible. You would also use a little smoke and mirrors when necessary.
Let's take a look at one of my pet peeves: Peter Jackson's Middle-earth is way too much like Medieval Europe. Tolkien's Middle-earth bears little resemblance to Medieval Europe, and drew upon many classical (pre-Medieval) and modern (post-Medieval) influences, from Greco-Roman history and mythology to Victorian/Edwardian England.
But Tolkien had the luxury of reminding the reader the in every other chapter that there had once been an ancient civilization which surpassed the civilization of the Shire-folk. The movies had to make do with a prologue and an occasional glimpse of ruins. By dressing up the ancient Elves in Greco-style armor, Peter implies that the Second Age is to the Third Age as the Greco-Roman classical period is to the Medieval Europe period.
Suddenly, the pseudo-Medieval motif makes a little more sense. We are seeing Peter Jackson's Middle-earth in a period of decline and decay. It isn't so much that the Time of Men is at hand as the Time of the Elves is passing. Of course, it could just be that John Howe was given overwhelming authority to depict Middle-earth as he sees it and since he distorts Middle-earth heavily toward pseudo-Medieval fantasy, that's just the way it came out. But I want to believe that the theming is a little more purposeful than that.
Having seen "The Two Towers" at last, I can say that some things are starting to look a little better for me. They do not satisfy the purist's yearning for a faithful rendition of Tolkien's Middle-earth, but I never expected to receive anything like that. There were too many obstacles in the way.
But I must concede that there is a level of faithfulness I did not notice before. It obscures the obvious faithfulness, and though some might be quick to claim that compression cannot in any way be deemed "faithful" to the hand of J.R.R. Tolkien, I must be just as quick to point out that, if that is really the case, then why the heck are you people reading (and enjoying) The Silmarillion? It doesn't matter who composed the published Silmarillion. Christopher Tolkien himself has repudiated the authority of the book.
Finally, I have to say something about the tobacco. They cut back on it. Only Aragorn smoked in "The Two Towers". The reduction in tobacco use is good, but not good enough. Although an essential part of Aragorn's character (in the book) is his fondness for smoking a pipe -- particularly when he needs to think -- this is not Tolkien's Aragorn. It cannot be Tolkien's Aragorn because of the compression and the changes in the storyline. Hence, what is the point to including gratuitous pipe-smoking?
One cannot discuss Middle-earth in depth without discussing tobacco. Tolkien was completely unaware of how deadly tobacco is. He is therefore excused for having advocated its use as a result of his ignorance. Those who advocate the use of tobacco today cannot claim any excuse. They are wrong to do so. Period.
Other than that, I am eagerly awaiting the third film. I hope the rest of you are, too.
The real reason, of course, that Elrond did not take the ring from Isildur, is that Tolkien didn't want him to. He wanted to write a longer story.
But throwing that aside, as we can ;~D, I have speculated about the how the fact that Elrond was a ring bearer, the keeper of one of the three elven rings, would impact his ability to take and destroy the One.
On the surface, it would give him power. What kind of power, I am not sure of. I can look that up if others don't know.
But would it also make him unable to act against the One? - or the wielder of it? Tolkien didn't broadcast the fact that Elrond and Gandalf both bore those rings, but what would be your instinct be on how it would change the confrontation between the two?
That is an example of where "that happened, but not quite like that." Glorfindel was replaced by Arwen. I can handle that.
Granted, the Aragorn "death" was a total change, but it was used to work in material from the Arwen relationship, which is in the books.
Yes, that material is in the books, and I'm glad to see it. But Aragorn's absence had consequences to the story. Now Legolas, Gimli, Theoden, and Eowyn have to spend time remarking on his absence (which didn't happen in the books) and going over the issues of doubt and rekindling one another's hope (that didn't happen in the books, either. At least, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas had great faith, having seen Gandalf returned to them.) Aragorn could have dreamed about Arwen anytime he slept between Edoras and Helm's Deep. Even on the eve of battle. That's an example of "That didn't happen. At all." And that is much harder for me to accept.
And the warg attack was something that could have happened in the books, but been ommitted for editing reasons.
Well, a Warg attack did happen in the books. To the Fellowship on the way to Moria. That could have been placed in the DVD. I didn't mind seeing it as a part of Tolkien's story per se, but it did eat up time and served only to set up the disruptive and questionable necessity of the Dream Sequence.
Likewise, the trip to Osgiliath was not in the books, but it works in material and dialogue that were in the books, and ties it together thematically with what is going on in Gondor, which the viewer would otherwise be unaware of.
But you missed another disruption: Sauron knows where the Ring is and who has it. It will take some new tale-telling (re-writing Tolkien's story) to make him believe that Aragorn has it (or will have it)
I suspect that PJ's changes will make a lot more sense once we have seen ROTK and can judge the series of movies as a whole.
But Tolkien already handled all those issues. Peter didn't have to change or invent parts of the story to account for those things. I don't deny that Jackson will create a rousing Return of the King. But it's no longer Tolkien's story that we'll be enjoying in 2003. It'll be Jackson's own conclusion to Tolkien's story.
But you missed another disruption: Sauron knows where the Ring is and who has it. It will take some new tale-telling (re-writing Tolkien's story) to make him believe that Aragorn has it (or will have it)
This changes nothing at all. So, Sauron "knows" the ring is in Gondor, and he assumes that someone powerful will step forward and seize the ring and try to use it against Sauron. And then Aragorn announces himself to Sauron via the Palantir, confirming Sauron's worst fears, and causing him to unleash his armies before he was fully ready.
How has PJ's changes effected any of this? Not at all, except in the books, Sauron is guessing, whereas in the movie, we see a visual representation of how Sauron comes to think that the ring really has arrived safely in Gondor (he would not expect the ringbearer to head immediately for Mordor, let alone that the Gondorians would let him go). So it works out the same as in the book, in spite of the changes.
PJ's changes aren't ones I would have made, probably, but I think they will work out just fine once ROTK is in theaters. Some people just need to chill out and enjoy the movie. I trust PJ's movie making instincts more than I trust the abilities of the Tolkien purists to produce workable cinema. PJ's changes are not my changes, but then I know squat about making films.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.