Turl Street in Oxford. Old haunt of Tolkien's college days.
Posted on 12/10/2001 2:57:51 AM PST by maquiladora
Friday night here in Toronto, I had the privilege of watching Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring." Alliance Atlantis, the film's distributor in Canada, kindly invited me to the press preview screening. Given the enormous challenge Peter Jackson and his team faced, we should commend them for a wonderful piece of film-making.
To convey the vast and mythic scope of Tolkien's masterpiece in a three-hour film would have made most directors (and studios) recoil in dread. Yet Jackson and the other talented individuals have set out to present the greatness of "The Lord of the Rings". The film is magnificent visually. For instance, the opening draws on the history of the One Ring from various parts of the book and, with grandeur, dramatizes the essential information and establishes the serious epic tone. Throughout the entire film, we see key aspects of Tolkien's "sub-creation," his invented history and world. There are the necessary points, such as the wretched background of Gollum, and the more obscure, such as the origin of the different races of orcs.
The flim also portrays effectively the idyllic pastoral life of the hobbits. Jackson seems equally at home in the deep, dark dungoens of Isengard or in the light, lovely land of Lothlorien. (If the film doesn't win the awards for art direction and cinematography, a fix must be in.) There is a vivid blend of actual landscape, animation, and computer generated graphics. Readers will always have their own unique visions of the Middle-earth realms. Jackson and his great crew of artists, artisans, and crafts people created a spectacle that does reflect the essence of Tolkien's masterpiece.
Another strong feature is the sound. The score never seems to dominate the action or dialogue, but rather nicely augments the scenes. When the music is silent, the breathing, grunts, and clash of weapons heighten the tension. The ballads by Enya sound lovely. Many of us in the cinema stayed throughout the closing credits mainly to enjoy the music.
The acting, overall, was polished and genuine. Elijah Wood's Frodo appeared vulnerable and frightened, while still displaying inner fortitude. Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf was indeed majestic. Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean, and Cate Blanchett also performed well. All the actors appeared committed to their roles and endeavoured to bring out the best in them.
The pace of the film is brisk. As a Tolkien scholar, I would have preferred more reflective and poignant moments. When Gandalf convinces Bilbo to give up the Ring is in the film, and it's very moving. Other scenes, such as those with Gandalf and Frodo, or Aragorn and the hobbits, or Gimli and Legolas are quite abbreviated, which may impinge on character development. I'm sure it was agonizingly difficult for the screenwriters to cut and condense so much of Tolkien's great text. Perhaps some of the action sequences could have been trimmed and more time given for calm reflection. A number of key moments do appear, such as Gandalf's words to Frodo about having pity for Gollum. The Saruman subplot receives significant screen time, with some added spectacular scenes, yet the time in Rivendell and Lothlorien was briefer than I would have wished.
Further, many Tolkien fans and scholars might object to the alterations and additions to the author's text. They would understand that screenwriters must edit and paraphrase the book's dialogue and scenes, especially with a work as rich and extensive as Tolkien's. Perhaps the writers were concerned that some of Tolkien's wordings might seem too archaic or formal to a general movie audience, one that hasn't read the books and doesn't know (or appreciate) the august nature of works like the Anglo-Saxon "Beowulf" or the Old Norse "Poetic Edda".
For many Tolkien enthuasists, "The Lord of the Rings is like a sacred text: you modify it at your peril. It remains to be seen if some changed scenes, such as the attack of the Ringwraiths at the edge of Rivendell or the Gandalf and Saruman confrontation, will upset Tolkien fans. When Tolkien's own wordings essentially remain, such as in the Gandalf and Balrog battle or in the Aragorn and Boromir scene near the end, they come across exceedingly well.
In the final analysis, anyone can find flaws and quibbles with any film, great or otherwise. Given the monumental task of bringing to the screen Tolkien's vast epic masterpiece, New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson have done an amazing and admirable feat. The film does display the lofty and serious tone of the books of "The Lord of the Rings" and honours its subject matter. Some people may quarrel with certain scene changes and dialogue choices. Still, the look, the feel, the overall impression is Tolkienian. And for that, this Tolkien admirer is grateful. Daniel Timmons, Ph.D.
I know what you mean. While watching "Guys and Dolls" yesterday and all I could think of was Aragorn and Arwen:
When you see some guy reach for stars in the sky
You can bet that he's doing it for some doll.
By their deeds you shall know them!
I don't really have one favorite book. I enjoy different things, or even the same idea expressed in different ways. For example, some of Robert A. Heinlein's fiction is as enjoyable and engaging as any literature on the planet, while some of it is complete garbage and/or polemic disguised as literature. The same goes for Frederick Pohl, Orson Scott Card, Frank Herbert, Gibbons, Michael Shaara, Shakespeare, Keith Laumer, James Fenimore Cooper, and others whose works grace my bookshelves.
If you found Lord Of The Rings to be such a lowly tome, then I am deeply anxious to know what class of book you find entertaining?
I don't find LOTR to be all that "lowly" - just inpenetrable and tedious to read. I even have a copy of LOTR on my bookshelf - I bought it in trade paperback earlier in the year, just to see if Tolkien had become any easier to read. He hadn't, but at least I made it to Page 30 this time before giving up.
Except for Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (which I inherited from my grandfather), I don't have a complete set of any one author's works in my library at home. I tend to buy the works that interest me in some way and dispose of the drek or use it as trade bait at Half-Price Books.
No. I have been as polite and respectful as I know how to be on this thread. But I get to have an opinion too, and my opinion is that life is too short to try to parse any of Tolkien's tedious prose.
I hope you enjoy the movie, and may your popcorn remain warm and buttered.
People like their portrayals of evil to be sanitized. I'm sure the Devil likes it too.
Turl Street in Oxford. Old haunt of Tolkien's college days.
LOL! Tolkien was canonized years ago. The movie had better not be shlock, and judging by the advance reviews, avoided that - a previous attempt by a fellow named Bakshi did not.
As for thee, wretch, I have this curse (courtesy of Bored of the Rings):
Tim, Tim Benzedrine
Hash, boo, Valvoline
Clean, clean, Clean For Gene,
First, second, neutral, park,
Hie thee hence, you leafy narc!
Harrumph!
Heck, I think your post was okay.
And the screwiest thing about the LoTR hype is that people aren't just talking about it as a movie. They constantly present it as some kind of mystical experience, the battle of good versus evil...
HEY -- it's a kid's story about monsters and magic, people! Get real! Look out the window! There are no monsters in real life. There is no magic in real life.
In real life, the battle of good and evil is fought within each of us. In our heart. And in real life the battle of good versus evil isn't fought on some quest for a magic ring. In real life the battle of good versus evil is fought on the quest to make it through the day.
Sheesh!
Look: It would be crazy to market, say, the movie Full Metal Jacket as a kid's film. Because that film was an artisitic comment on reality. It was serious. It dealt with serious issues.
It's equally crazy to market LoTR as an adult movie because it's TRIVIAL CHILDISH NONSENSE about fantasy creatures in a fantasy realm engaging in fantasy activities. THAT'S FOR KIDS, PEOPLE, NOT ADULTS!!!
Joker & Harman & Animal Mother are characters engaged on a quest, too. Do yourselves a favor: Instead of wasting ten dollars or more on LoTR, just rent FULL METAL JACKET -- the "magic" that Pyle discovers the "full metal jacket" can do inside his head compared to the "magic" that Joker discovers the "full metal jacket" can do around his heart is INFINITELY more real than the LoTR stuff...
Of course, this is all IMHO...
Mark W.
I think the more dangerous personifications of evil are those where the evil is more hidden behind gleaming smiles, perhaps dressed in smart wool pantsuits.
Yeah, that may be true about the younger kids, but there's a HUGE audience of teens, young adults, and baby boomers who grew up with this material, and are JAZZED that Peter Jackson seems to have made a successful transition to the screen of things they've only imagined for years. They were not interested in Harry Potter unless they had children who were into the books. LOTR followers are a big crowd, and remember, unless they go to the matinees, the prices for adult tickets will be higher, thus increasing the revenues. And far from not having the merchandising, there are action figures at many stores and Burger King has LOTR goblets or something like that you can buy with their meals.
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.