LotR1-FotR-Seq02

[The Saucepan Man]

One of the primary aspects, to my mind, of Tolkien's opening chapters in LotR is the establishment of the Shire as a comfortable, homely place, one that is worth saving, albeit one which is not without its faults. I also feel that he seeks to establish Hobbits in general (and the main characters in particular) as characters that we the readers can identify with, so that we can feel more involved in subsequent events, as portrayed from their perspective. Certainly, there is much in the Shire that readers can identify with, and this would have been even more true of English readers at the time Tolkien was writing - place-names, familiar landscapes, pubs, mail service etc. (See the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion of the early chapters for more detail.)

How well do you think that Jackson manages to achieve the same effect, if at all? Clearly, the Shire is portrayed as an idyllic place, although again not utterly perfect. But it seems to me to be a place that many in today's audiences will find difficult to identify with. Perhaps it is sufficient that it is presented as a desirable place to live. What do people think?

Also, do we get the feeling here that the Hobbits are to be the central characters in this tale? Are they the ones that we feel that we, as viewers, will be able to identify with the most? Are they the humble "everymen" of Tolkien's book travelling out of a safe, homely place into an unknown faery/heroic world where they will meet danger and find themselves ennobled by it? Or simply just some of the main characters that we will meet in the film. I get the sense that, since Aragorn, Faramir and some of the other principal characters are less "idealised" in the film than they are in the book, that Jackson was not so concerned to establish the Hobbits as the viewers' main point of reference.

Of the principal Hobbits in the film, I suppose that it is Sam who most closely takes on the role of providing "viewer perspective", but I wonder if that is because he is probably the film character who most closely resembles his book counterpart. In the book, Merry and Pippin, less the comedy characters of the film, take on part of this role too and the reader is therefore able more closely to identify with their development as characters. Do you think that their "slapstick" portrayal here (as alatar astutely puts it) contributes to or detracts from the more serious roles that they take on later in the film trilogy?

[Mithalwen]

Have I just been corrupted by watching the French and Saunders skit or does anyone else just think "Tellytubby land" during the beginning of this sequence? Maybe they wer trying too hard or maybe they wanted it to seem "story book" English countryside. Yes the Shire is a pleasant land but it seemed excessively idyllic, as if designed by Marie-Antoinette. Perhaps it was made extreme to greaten the contrast with the outside world.

I thought the opening exchange was a trifle forced but then I find Ian McKellen a bit mannered generally. He never quite disappears into the role as much as one might wish.

Ian Holm on the other hand - well he just is a hobbit.... he was just about flawless as Frodo in the radio version and he looks right as well.

I think the itself was done well and I think Merry and Pippin are introduced well. Although it is an "invention", it sets their characters well and especially the relationship between them.

[Cailín]

I generally love this sequence - I think the Shire looks very good and when I was reading the books, it was hard to not see the Shire as PJ depicted it in the movies. The Hobbit children especially were very adorable. Though Narrator Bilbo insults Hobbits along the way, he does it with a certain fondness I really enjoy. I do love Bilbo in this scene and Ian McKellen (as has been pointed out before) makes a remarkably good Gandalf.

What I did not like was how the relationship between Bilbo and Frodo was portrayed. Though they express their regard for each other more than once, the fact that Frodo was not in on the plan seems strange to me, less like they're together in their strange behavior. Though this does make Bilbo come across as an even more eccentric character, I think it does little credit to Frodo. I'm not sure how to explain.

Sam was Sam and Merry and Pippin were - though different - still very recognizable.

By the way, just to point out the effect of the prologue, the moment when Gandalf bumped his head, my mother (who is not familiar with the story) was already so tense she gasped and flew up about a mile in the air. So that moment still amuses me greatly, besides the fact that it makes Gandalf look like a very approachable wizard. The moment with his thundering voice later on only seems the more impressive because of it.

Have I just been corrupted by watching the French and Saunders skit or does anyone else just think "Tellytubby land" during the beginning of this sequence?

I had the same feeling first time I saw the movie.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Cailín

Sam was Sam and Merry and Pippin were - though different - still very recognizable.

In what way? Do you mean that the characters were recognizable through their actions (i.e. Frodo would act thus, the movie character acts a certain way, and so it must be Frodo) or by their visage (i.e. Frodo looks like Frodo as the Book-Frodo is to have such and such garb, hair, face, stature, etc). To me there was little difference between Merry and Pippin at this point in the movie; surely I knew who was who, but initially we just see two fools.

Funny anecdote regarding your mother.

[Cailín]

Originally Posted by alatar

In what way? Do you mean that the characters were recognizable through their actions (i.e. Frodo would act thus, the movie character acts a certain way, and so it must be Frodo) or by their visage (i.e. Frodo looks like Frodo as the Book-Frodo is to have such and such garb, hair, face, stature, etc). To me there was little difference between Merry and Pippin at this point in the movie; surely I knew who was who, but initially we just see two fools.

I was merely talking about Merry and Pippin, not Frodo. Actually, Frodo wasn't at all how I pictured him to be, though there are some moments where I do like him. But that's not for now.

What struck me is that though Merry is the more intelligent one in the books - at least, he seemed quite sophisticated to me as opposed to Pippin - there is not much difference between them. But as a pair, they seemed recognizable to me in such a way that, although their job is not merely making mischief in the books, they are established as carefree hobbits who are perhaps a little more adventurous the regular hobbits. For me, the most important feature of Merry and Pippin at the start of the story was just that, their adventurous side together with their relative ignorance. And I think the movies did capture that. That made them recognizable to me, though their function throughout the first movie is quite different than in the books.

[Boromir88]

Here's another little picture comparison that I found interesting. We have Bilbo's "story-writing study" in Bag End, and Frodo's, which of course is the same room.



Right away we see Bilbo's "study" is more cluttered, with papers everywhere, maps, the room's just a mess. But, also the room looks a lot brighter, the sun's shining through, it's bright and radiant.

Frodo's room this is of course him finishing the Red Book in ROTK, it's a lot darker, there's a glimmer of light, but even Frodo's clothes are more, sort of somber looking. Also, it isn't as messy as Bilbo's.

I notice this and there's a lot to compare between these two pictures. First, the clutterness of Bilbo's room, and the relative emptiness of Frodo's. Does this go to show that Frodo sort of cleaned up Bilbo's mess? He cleaned up both literally (the room- Bilbo's notes, and the Red Book) and symbolically (the ring) what Bilbo left behind?

Also, Frodo's much darker room. It's kind of sad to look at, how dark the whole setting is. Does this display Frodo can't find hapiness in Middle-earth? In the Shire? Where Bilbo's room is more "exuberant."

[Lalwendë]

Never mind the prologue, this was the important bit for me. If they had got The Shire and the Hobbits wrong, I'd have been out of that cinema. I've always very much pictured The Shire as Tolkien's own art portrays it, and this portrayal was a little different. I often think how messy the gardens look, and as a keen gardener like a Gamgee, I know that they would probably be a lot tidier. But strangely, I was very taken with this view of The Shire indeed. In fact I watch it with no small measure of nostalgia.

Those messy gardens are like the gardens I knew when I was a child, haphazard and slightly wild, their owners being too busy farming to be fussy about the flowers. The characters all seem to make me think of some mad character I knew when growing up, including the chap with the ear wax problem. Mr Proudfoot makes me smile because he's like my father but with more hair, secretly enjoying the fireworks but feeling he has to appear disapproving. I like the group of Hobbits sat round doing some hardcore smoking, and I love the Hobbit who cracks up with laughter when he draws himself a pint off from the barrels - he's having fun!

Ian Holm is splendid as Bilbo. Interestingly, he's an actor who can 'do evil' very well, as anyone who has seen From Hell will know. He also interacts very well with Ian McKellen; I'm sure they will have worked together before in the theatre. I have to say here, imagine if they had chosen Sean Connery as Gandalf? Noooo! But to see both of them together as soon as possible after the start of the film was important to me, not just as it matched the book, but because it just seems right that Hobbits and Wizards are seen together, they go together like cheese and apple pie.

Interesting point on the design - I was watching a travel documentary about New Zealand on one of Sky's 500 channels of tripe and they showed the farm where The Shire was filmed. That big tree is still there, in fact it was a major selling point in choosing that location. The son of the farmer said in typically breezy antipodean style that they had actually been thinking of chopping it down before they chose the location!

The detail again is one of the things which grabs me. I liked how the hillsides had lychets marked into them, the remains of old terraced fields; you see these all over the place in Yorkshire, so it gave it an authentic touch. I also like Bag End, and I laugh when I se the books all over the place. That's like my house.

[radagastly]

He also interacts very well with Ian McKellen; I'm sure they will have worked together before in the theatre.

Actually, I believe one of them said in the commentaries that they were aware of each other's work, but had never had the opportunity to work together before "Lord of the Rings."