You’re right, Rhud, that both the pro and con views of the movie have been covered quite exhaustively. I’ll try (try, mind you!) not to belabor points that have been made (and remade), but will endeavor instead to add some fresh grist for the mill. For the record, I thought the movie was an excellent adaptation of a challenging book, one whose virtues far outweighed its flaws. <P>The main point I want to explore has to do with the relationship between the books and the movies. Movie optimists have been saying for years now that the movie shouldn’t be compared directly to the books. We all know the salient points of that argument, which I will not repeat here. Rhud and other movie detractors have counter-proposed that the movie, then, should stand on its own, without reference to the books. I admit that this argument has some merit, and indeed when I saw the movie for the first time, I tried to detach myself from my knowledge of the books and experience the movie on its own terms. I’ve tried to analyze how I would view the movie if I hadn’t read the books. Now I ask myself, why should this be so? <P>The relationship between the books and the films is one that is unique in film history. In the case of a movie set in an obscure historical period, moviegoers usually have at least some dim understanding of the period. And original movies that present an elaborate imagined world (I can think of very few -- <I>Star Wars</I>, perhaps, which isn’t nearly as elaborate as Middle-earth) are a case where the audience experiences the new world all at the same time and level of understanding. The only case that I can think of that even comes close is <I>Dune</I>, from which only horrendous movie/TV adaptations have been made, and whose imagined world in any case isn’t nearly as compelling or as broad in scope and ambition as JRRT’s creation is. Only in the case of an LotR movie are you likely to have an audience composed of people who, on the one hand, are intimately familiar with the particulars of the imagined world, and on the other, have no knowledge of it whatsoever. The filmmakers had a mandate to satisfy (as far as possible) both. <P>It seems to me that PJ’s movies can be experienced in three different ways: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>as one who is completely uninitiated<LI>as one who is somewhat familiar with the conventions of the genre but not specifically with LotR<LI>as a <I>bona fide</I> fan</UL>The last category is the one that I fall into, and really the only one that I can address. There are the obvious downsides to the last experience – deviations from the story, things they “didn’t get right”, etc. On the upside, though, we get added shadings to characterizations, settings, and scenes, and special moments that non-fans don’t get – the Stone Trolls from <I>The Hobbit</I> in the background of one scene for instance, or the most delightful feeling one gets of anticipated payback when the Orcs deforest Isengard (Kate: “Ooh… I can’t wait until Treebeard hears about this!”). <P>Just for fun: my biggest quibbles with the movie revolved around Rivendell. Exteriors – great. Inside – I always picture Rivendell with less marble and more wood; Rivendell as the ultimate summer camp. And I don’t know about all the statuary. It doesn’t seem to fit. Sculpture is a way of immortalizing the subject – something the Elves don’t really need to do. <P>Unlike some of our recent posters, I felt that Hugo Weaving is the least successful casting in the picture. Who knew? I was sure I’d have the biggest problem with Liv. Not that Weaving isn’t a talented actor, but he doesn’t fit the essence of Elrond to my mind. On the other hand, I’ve been having trouble coming up with a suitable replacement. Perhaps Kenneth Branaugh, with the right hair and makeup?
|