Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalaith
My complaints are more to do with characterisation. Tolkien used the terse, non-psychological writing style of heroic/mediaeval literature. Motives and inner dialogue are NOT spelt out, part of the magic is speculating for yourself what is going on beneath the surface of action. Having motivation either discussed on screen, or simply fabricated in an attempt to give the characters more 'texture' to appeal to a generation reared on psychobabble, did rather dispel the magic for me.
|
I think we have to understand, here, that film and novel are two different experiences. A film that had everyone acting like the heros of a Nordic mediaeval saga would fall flat. We have to care about the characters - and I should add that one of the things I loved best about the novel is that I did care deeply about them, admittedly the hobbits being easiest to care about, but all of them, yes.
Think of the film as an interpretation, like a piece of music or a painting or sculpture. It might or might not work for you, but it's valid. Now, me, I wouldn't have pictured Viggo M as Aragorn, who is not, to my way of thinking, meant to be a hunk (though there was the case of the woman whose husband wrote an annoyed letter to Tolkien basically complaining he was having to compete with a fictional character... [g]). But once I saw him and heard that melodious voice, watched his interpretation, I accepted him - he has become Aragorn for me.
And I also think that while it's fair enough to say, "Cate Blanchett's Galadriel didn't work for me", there's no point in blaming the poor woman for not being like a genuine Elf! Sorry, we don't actually HAVE any Elves to act in our films, or I'm sure PJ would have hired some.
In the end, it's just going to be a matter of how we see them ourselves, in our minds, and I think, guys, we will all have to agree to disagree.