Tolkien's house in north Oxford. 20 Northmoor Rd.
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.
Tolkien's house in north Oxford. 20 Northmoor Rd.
Your quote: Personally it's my view that while quite a few women do appriciate JRRT, and even greater number don't have the mental acumen to grasp it. "The Hobbit" was about as far as their attention span allowed their interest journey.Had I waited, a better example that some males may also not possess the mental acumen to "grasp" Tolkien would appear in this very thread:My Reply: This is such obnoxious drivel. There are a lot of people who fit that category. I guess you have never heard a football player interviewed.
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.
-MarkWar
So...let me get this straight: fiction is automatically for children? And it's impossible to show any real life values through fiction, it's just for entertaining the kiddies? Uh...OK. Whatever.
I think you can remove the "H". Humble you ain't.
I think lots of people, especially women , have no desire to expose their kids or themselves to orcs and Raiths, and all the other dark creatures of Middle Earth. HP was about as deep as they'd willingly go into that forbidding realm .
But from what I've heard from the Mom's and other women in my area, not to mention not just a little input from listeners at the woman oriented radio station where I work, quite a few don't care a whit about JRRT, LOTR, or anything of that genre. Instead they're ready for a "Fried Green Tomatos ".
Personally it's my view that while quite a few women do appriciate JRRT, and even greater number don't have the mental acumen to grasp it . "The Hobbit" was about as far as their attention span allowed their interest journey.
Are you a complete moron or are you just trying to incite a riot among women on FreeRepublic? A large part of my masters degree was spent studying classic mythology and philosophy. (For your clarification the classics predate JRRT by a few thousand years...but I managed to get my simple little female brain around it.
If the "Mom's and other women" in your area really think like the way you say they do then you should move. You're obviously far too smart to work in the company of such dolts.
Posters like yourself make me quite ill.
Card's Ender's Game appeals to a certain audience - smart, lonely children and those who remember being smart, lonely children - ie most science fiction writers. I have to conclude that you either did not understand the novel or you sniffed too much glue in sixth grade and have forgotten what it was like to be a child. I do not like most of Card's works; Ender, Speaker for the Dead, Ender's Shadow, and Shadow of the Hegemon are the exceptions. And since he's won both the Hugo and the Nebula for the Ender books, and they're bestsellers, I think your opinion is a minority.
I won't argue over Dune. They got really odd. Frank Herbert was on some drug, I think.
And Tolkien is obviously not for everyone, but for some, it touches something deep down. You may not like our choice, but don't come here and say we're infantile, please.
Fried Green Tomatoes was okay, but I certainly wouldn't have paid to see it.
Give me Bruce, Arnold, or Carrey anyday. ;)
Last movie I watched more than once - Pulp Fiction. I could watch it 100 times and still pick up something new. That's my idea of entertainment. :)
I did in fact see full Metal Jacket and thought it a great film. I enjoy movies quite a bit but prefer to read because my feeble female mind is far superior in creating the characters and the scenes than most Hollywood film makers can rival.
For the record...I did see Harry Potter with my hubby yesterday and thought that it was wonderful. My nephew is too young now but I'll collect the books for him and give them to him when he's old enough for us to read them together.
[laughs] Good ones. But, you know, Full Metal Jacket was "made-up stuff" too.
I hate to mix threads, but since you brought up the title "Paradise Lost" in your reply to me, have you seen the movie "Scream 3?" One of the characters in that movie is named "John Milton." And, as the characters attempt to puzzle out all the plot difficulties, one of them observes, "Milton's the key to all this!" (If you've visited my thread inspired by my _first_ post to a LoTR thread (Movie Subliminals -- The Rate of God (Accident? Purposeful?)) , SCREAM 3 is the movie that begins with a character named Christine being killed by a character named Roman... (For lurkers who don't know "Paradise Lost" it's a rather absurd attempt to re-tell sections of Genesis in the "style" of the Illiad.))
Anyway, back to this thread, I didn't think my point was too obtuse or very strained. There are widely accepted notions for what passes as "adult stuff" and what passes as "kid's stuff." Unless nobody told me, there are no hard and fast definitions of such things, but hard and fast definitions are not needed.
I only mentioned Full Metal Jacket as an example of _real_ adult stuff to contrast it with the attempt to pass off LoTR as adult stuff.
Mark W.
Ummm, have you actually read the books?
Its about good vs. evil, and not the cheesy Hollywood version of good vs. evil either. The setting is almost besides the point.
I'm sorry but from your comments it sounds like all you know about LOTR is what you've seen on those Burger King comercials. This ain't Willow on a grander scale.
LOL
Now prisoner6 is another animal all together. He's the "I like my women barefoot and pregers" type. Probably make the little woman wear an apron with her pearls like June Clever. That way he can imagine that he's a real man like Ward instead of the little guy like the Beeve.
Ummm, it's tempting to say that ANY TIME you have characters who are intrinsically evil (i.e., monsters of any kind) -- as opposed to people who are evil by choice -- then you're talking about cheesy Hollywood stuff or one-dimensional kid's stuff. I wouldn't offer that as a hard & fast rule -- Dracula isn't really kid's stuff and it's not cheesy, yet he's a monster -- but it's a good guideline and, in the case of LoTR, I think it holds up.
Mark W.
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.