Here's The Critical Drinker's paean to Peter Jackson's never-to-be-equalled magnum opus: his The Lord of the Rings trilogy:
I've talked before about how 2001's "The Fellowship of the Ring" didn't really grip me. The movie felt like a blizzard of names and events that I barely remembered, with characters I didn't feel capable of relating to. (I remember when Aragorn cried, "The Horn of Gondor!" near the end of the movie, and I had no idea why I should give a fuck about that horn.) I hadn't reread the trilogy in a long, long while when I saw the film, and I had, frankly, forgotten almost everything, so it was a lot like going into the experience totally fresh. Fast-forward to 2003's "The Return of the King," and by this point, the names and places were more firmly in my head, and I'd become invested in every encounter, every battle, every moment of pain and sadness and joy. By that time, I was rooting for the main characters, and I think I had even picked up Tolkien's trilogy and reread it in the interim.
The lesson, for me, was that "The Fellowship of the Ring" had laid down the necessary groundwork for the rest of the story. Without that beginning, nothing that came after would have made much sense, and when "Fellowship" was viewed as part of the larger cinematic whole, I could finally see how well it fit into the trilogy. Also: "Fellowship" gained something in the rewatching; seeing it a second time was an unalloyed pleasure, and I could finally appreciate the film on its own terms.
Peter Jackson wasn't always faithful to the text (especially obvious in "The Two Towers," e.g., the Aragorn-over-the-cliff interlude, and the conspicuous absence of Tom Bombadil in "Fellowship"), but he successfully evoked an eldritch fantasy world that anyone with a heart would ache to inhabit. And the man did this by adopting the risky strategy of making all three films in one fell swoop, then releasing them a year apart. The making of the filmic trilogy was as epic as Tolkien's story, and by all accounts, the enormous cast and crew bonded deeply. As much as I might have liked to have had a small (or large) role in the movies, the thing I envy most is what I imagine to be some amazing and long-lasting friendships. A bunch of people came together and birthed something good, something that, I think, made the world a better place for a short while.
I don't always do this every year, but when I remember to do it, I normally engage in an LOTR-viewing marathon around Easter. Our family used to watch Eastertide TV specials like "The Ten Commandments" (more for the Passover crowd, I came to realize) and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Watching LOTR is my own way of keeping that tradition alive. I definitely need to remember to do my marathon this coming Easter.
Twenty years since "Return"! How time flies.
__________
Humorous addendum: I occasionally gripe about how the talented Brits always end up usurping American roles in American films. LOTR somewhat flips this on its head by having two leads—Frodo and Sam—played by Americans sporting admittedly dodgy British-esque accents. And yet, whatever you might say about those accents, the casting somehow works. Take that, UK! Take that, Australia and New Zealand!
I'm a big fan of the books and really enjoyed the movies. It would have been a different experience seeing the film version without having read the books. I, too, was more than a little disappointed about the absence of Bambadil in the Fellowship, but overall, Jackson did a fantastic job.
ReplyDeleteYep, I need to sit myself down and watch the trilogy again. With my advancing Biden disease, it will seem like the first time!
I've discussed this before (although I don't remember if I've discussed it here), but for as much as we miss ole Tom, that whole scene never would have worked on screen. It's the same reason we didn't have the Scouring of the Shire (which is just as important as the Bombadil interlude, if not moreso, and yet people somehow often forget to mention it); you can't just bringing your film to a screeching halt to go chasing some subplot.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that Tolkien's books as written are unfilmable. You can't just follow one group of characters for an extended period of time with only passing mention of what might or might not be happening to another important group of characters. Structuring aside, there were so many changes that Jackson made: having the elves show up at Helm's Deep, completely changing the character of Faramir from someone who would not touch the Ring even if he found it lying by the side of the road to someone who struggles with the same temptation that led to his brother's demise, having the Ents refuse to help Merry and Pippin until they actually see the destruction of the forest for themselves, having Gollum actually succeed in tearing Sam and Frodo apart (if only temporarily)... the list goes on. But we forget most of these things because the films are that good, and they live as separate entities in our minds. That's how I think of it: The books are one thing, and they will always be there for me to read, and the films are another thing, and they will always be there for me to watch.
(Funnily enough, while I have come to terms with almost all of the many changes that Jackson and Co. made, the one sin that I will never forgive is the way he treated the Ents. Having the Ents decide that they have no part in the troubles of the greater world, only to have them see the destruction of the forest and change their minds in the blink of an eye, with no deliberation, goes against everything we know about the Ents. It makes them entirely different beings, and I think (if I may be so bold as to presume) that Tolkien himself probably would have found this change the most difficult to swallow. Worst of all, it wasn't even necessary. Sure it provides for a dramatic moment, but think of how dramatic it would have been for a stillnes to fall over the forest as the Ents gathered at the Entmoot, only to erupt in a great roar moments later as the Ents decided to go to war. And, yes, I know that the justification is that it gives Merry and Pipping "something to do" (because Pippin tricks Treebeard into taking them toward Isengard so they can see the destruction of the forest for themselves), but arggghhh! You're missing the point! You think Treebeard doesn't know what's going on?!)
OK. Deep breaths.
I'm good.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteYeah, you wrote a comment here fairly recently that covered some of the same points. My mention of Bombadil this time wasn't because I ignored what you'd written last time; everything you said then sounded reasonable to me. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that there's a large contingent of people who wanted to see Bombadil (and the Scouring of the Shire, etc.) in the films. As you said in that previous comment: "All Tolkien fans feel the same way about Bombadil..." So that's the only reason for me to mention Bombadil again: to grant that a lot of people wanted to see him on screen. Otherwise, I agree with you that his inclusion would have made things unwieldy plot-wise.
Now, convincing John that leaving Bombadil out was the way to go... that's another matter entirely. Good luck changing his mind.
Well, Charles makes some points that are hard to argue with, so I'll concede a filmed version of LOTR of necessity must differ from the universe Tolkien created. I'd forgotten about how the Ents were changed in the film--poor Treebeard!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Jackson did a better job overall than I expected, and I was quite impressed after my first viewing despite the omissions. And the extended version of "Return of the King" was most excellent.
I think we can all agree that a Jackson film featuring Tom Bombadil would be a worthwhile project and all would be forgiven.
It is truly unbelievable that Soviet television could include Tom and Goldberry in their version, but even with all the millions and extended run-time, Jackson could not.
ReplyDeleteJohn from Daejeon,
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the Soviet production (have you?), but I'd guess that the addition of Tom and Goldberry probably led to the narrative bogging-down that Charles talked about.
Surreal is the best way to sum up watching it, especially those Soviet production values of 1991 without proper English translation. Also, without big bucks, the casting was miscast from what my ideal book cast would have looked like, but even Jackson let me down in his casting of certain characters.
ReplyDelete