|
Having seen the movie, I experienced feelings very similar to what I have found in this thread. I really enjoyed reading Downers' reviews and notes and do not want to repeat them as my own impressions are pretty much the same.
I went to see the movie for two reasons. Firstly, I wanted to look at the landscapes of Middle Earth one last time. Secondly, I was curious how Peter Jackson was going to sort out the peculiarities of the story line in order to reach the beginning of his own LoTR exactly where it started.
I was indeed quite satisfied with the settings and, on the other hand, was not disappointed by the content as my expectations were pretty low. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that Jackson avoided showing another epic battle in Dol Gudur (though there was one in the book); I was also quite surprised that both Tauriel and Radagast survived. We have not obtained an idea of how Thrain's map came to Gandalf, neither we have learnt much about Saruman's corruption.
Overall, my biggest question is why Jackson needed altering the original storyline ceaselessly? Viggo Mortensen, I believe, highlighted the key point. Jackson proved to be a messy director. He hadn't had a clear idea of what he was going for at the start of the shooting. Or, may be, the scale of both trilogies overwhelmed his ability to master consistent plans. There is nothing wrong with such attitude in general. As we all know, in the case of Apocalypse Now Francis Ford Coppola had a very vogue idea of the movie he was directing even after the shooting had ended; he basically worked it out only in the process of cutting. However, Coppola was creating a narrative from the scratch – he was not attempting to screen a piece of literature that had by that time obtained a status of classics for both the quality of story telling and the way the story was interwoven with the imaginary universe of Tolkien's myth. To achieve this, one needs to be extremely tidy with the ends and means.
Well, I am not writing off a chance that a brilliant director can get away with a radical alteration of a narrative, even of a classical one. Apart from the Benedictine Sherlock S.-S. Holmes, I dare mention Le Notti Bianche by Luchino Visconty and Hakuchi by Akira Kurosawa, both based on the novels by Dostoevsky (a writer on par with Dickens, I believe, and a dedicated admirer of the later). This, nonetheless, requires deep knowledge of Tolkien's universe in order to keep the story faithful to the context – unless a director goes for a universe of his own (which doesn't seem realistic, taking the scale of the task into account). In any case such an egg-dance is possible for one who can clearly see the purpose of the undertaking, the way to achieve it, and the boundaries that must not be violated – from the very beginning to the very end.
Having said that, I am not going to claim that Peter Jackson totally lacks talent or, in particular, imagination. It is rather vision that is missing. Without the big picture, imagination tends to led the narrative astray: one alteration for the sake of a moment that would look pretty on screen leads to characters changing their “characters” and roles in the story; and, in the end, the logic of the whole is gravely compromised.
I wonder how it all would work for a novice who watches all six movies in chronological order. Is LoTR trilogy going to be of any interest to such a viewer or would it rather seem predictable and unclear at the same time?
Happy New Year!
|