LotR1-FotR-Seq02

[Mister Underhill]

I don't know -- I think even a successful ensemble film has to pay close attention to POV within its various storylines. And your typical action movie doesn't have nearly so many important characters to handle. But leave that alone for now. I think it's interesting simply on the basis that the book is deliberately written from a very limited, hobbit point-of-view. I'm not arguing yet that Jackson's more omniscient point-of-view is necessarily good or bad -- just making an observation that we're a bit all over the map POV-wise so far, and wondering how this affects movie watchers who are fans of the books. Is this the reason, or one of the reasons, why you don't identify so closely with the hobbit characters?

EDIT: That's sort of a rhetorical question that you need not answer.

EDIT 2: Guess I hit "reply" before I'd really thought this one through. I'd also like to point out that I'm not saying that a limited point-of-view is better or worse than an omniscient point-of-view, just pointing out that it's an important choice, and different choices produce different effects in the audience. Hence, a skilled filmmaker will deliberately employ a POV, or shift POVs, to produce desired effects on the audience, whereas a sloppy shifting of POV may produce unintended effects. I can't say whether I'd argue one way or another in Jackson's case yet, just, again, making an observation. How does Jackson's use of POV here affect the storyline?

Erm, rhetorical question again...

[alatar]

I must say that I'm very surprised that persons do not find PJ's presentation of the Shire to be the spot-on perfect paradise that I do - and you know how much I complement PJ! One note, though I have a black thumb when it comes to plants, it would seem to me that the smaller gardens should be a bit more orderly and less looking like they were dropped amongst patches of weeds/grasses. And that one hobbit looked as it that were the first in which he/she used a hoe.

And I've never considered that it was an urban vs burb versus rural thing - green grass is green grass.

And regarding the POV: is the reason that we may be jaded to PJ's mixed narration/POV is that the books give us more time to get into one POV whereas the movie, by necessity perhaps, flits around a bit. Just think if the movie were limited to one perspective, and it was one that didn't hook you? You'd be sitting in the theater wondering why everyone else was mezmerized while you had the time to look around at their faces.

[Mister Underhill]

I'm not even suggesting that an extremely limited POV is called for, but it's interesting to imagine the alternatives.

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire. We start with Frodo. He's taking a walk around the Shire, so we still get an idea of hobbit-life and what the Shire is like; also, we start to get the idea that Frodo is a bit different than these simple rustic folk.

Then here comes Gandalf.

Frodo jumps in his cart, their dialogue is much the same, except now we focus on Frodo's reactions to Gandalf. Frodo mentions Bilbo's weirdness, sees Gandalf's troubled reaction, presses him on it -- but Gandalf is reticent. "Fine, keep your secrets!" or whatever the dialogue is.

At Bag End, Bilbo and Gandalf greet. Now, when Gandalf gives his "haven't aged a day" line, Frodo is there -- and he takes note of Gandalf's slightly puzzled/troubled reaction. Gandalf wanders off to supervise party/fireworks preparation or something. Inside Bag End, Frodo and Bilbo have a scene that conveys much the same information as the Gandalf/Bilbo scene, but instead it's from Frodo's point-of-view, reacting to Bilbo's "butter scraped over too much bread" line. Certain things are starting to seem strange to him, especially after Gandalf's reactions and mysterious silence...

And so on. You see? So far things aren't too far different in terms of the sheer plot information in each scene, but the choice to focus on Frodo as the POV character shifts the story a bit, has a different effect on the audience.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

I must say that I'm very surprised that persons do not find PJ's presentation of the Shire to be the spot-on perfect paradise that I do ...

I think that's probably why it doesn't quite ring precisely true with me. The Shire should be a "working" place, a place where Hobbits live out their everyday lives. Jackson's Shire is almost too perfect ...

But I'm really being nitpicky here. I cannot deny that I was delighted to see it there on screen the first time that I saw the film.

What's this? Alatar defending the film while I pick holes in it! What is the world coming to ...?

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire.

Fine, but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between characters. Jackson chose (or perhaps just instinctively followed) the course likely to appeal to the greatest number of people. Perhaps he did take the easy option, but who can blame him?

Hmm, I think that might become a common refrain from me as this discussion develops ...

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between characters

Not necessarily. You could shift the exposition to later sequences, as Tolkien did (you've saved 8 or 9 minutes by starting with Frodo in my hypothetical which can be used elsewhere). I'm not saying "This is the way it should have been done!", just thinking about a way it could have been done.

Rather than get into a "He took the easy option!"/"Who can blame him?" argument, which is rather played out by now, I'm more interested in looking at what the implications of Jackson's choices are, and in some cases how they might have been different. Isn't that what this discussion is for? Not just as a scene-by-scene rehash of the "Jackson did a great job!"/"This part doesn't match the books!" argument.

I know we're all used to capturing a position and then holding it against all attackers, and I am historically as guilty of that as anyone, but I hope we can investigate how the films might have been different without always arousing counter-attacks from Jackson defenders.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Rather than get into a "He took the easy option!"/"Who can blame him?" argument, which is rather played out by now, I'm more interested in looking at what the implications of Jackson's choices are, and in some cases how they might have been different.

I don't disagree, although I think that this may be difficult, since any suggested alternatives will need to be thought through. Like Jackson's own changes, they will have knock on effects, possibly throughout the trilogy. For example, omitting the Prologue would fundamentally affect the (non-book) audience's attitude to, and relationship with, the Ring. "What's all this fuss about a little Ring" might be one reaction without having seen it's history and past "deeds". The exposition could be inserted by "flashback" early on, say in Gandalf's discussion with Frodo (as in the book), but what effect would this have on the pacing?

I am most certainly not planning on defending the films for the sake of it. But, if we are to look at why Jackson made the choices that he did, we have to take into account all of the factors influencing his decisions. And "played out" though the argument may be, mass marketability is undoubtedly a major factor.

[radagastly]

Mister Undrhill:

It's interesting how slippery Jackson's grip on POV is this early in the film: Galadriel narrates the prologue, Bilbo tells us about the Shire, Gandalf's POV dominates most of the rest of the scenes up to this point, though we also have a few Frodo-POV scenes to warn us that he will be an important character.

I'm not so sure he loses his grip, so much as setting up the shifting of POV that we inevitably encounter in TT and RotK. He discusses POV in the commentary during the prologue (the POV is from the Ring's perspective), so he's not unaware, or, I think, out of control. I think the shifting is deliberate, at least in the EE.

I don't know -- I think even a successful ensemble film has to pay close attention to POV within its various storylines. And your typical action movie doesn't have nearly so many important characters to handle. But leave that alone for now. I think it's interesting simply on the basis that the book is deliberately written from a very limited, hobbit point-of-view. I'm not arguing yet that Jackson's more omniscient point-of-view is necessarily good or bad -- just making an observation that we're a bit all over the map POV-wise so far, and wondering how this affects movie watchers who are fans of the books. Is this the reason, or one of the reasons, why you don't identify so closely with the hobbit characters?

An omniscient POV tends to distance the viewer, a handy technique, if that's what you want. Very effective in the middle of a film, if it's an action scene, where you want to see everything going on, enjoy the 'eye candy'. It's also the film version of literary exposition short of the old mathom of the one-sided phone conversation, where the speaker repeats everything out loud from the other end of the dialoque. Phones were (clearly) not available in the Shire for this purpose. Not so good at the beginning, though, where you want to grab the audience. The audience needs to relate to someone. I think one of the issues here is that in the theatrical version, our introduction to the Shire is strictly from Gandalf's POV, whereas in the EE, PJ took advantage of the "Concerning Hobbits" narration already done by Ian Holm, inherently shifting the POV to Bilbo at the outset. I think it may have been been a mistake, to start the story from Gandalf's POV, as this story is, ultimately, the story of the end of the Ring, and of the Elves from the perspective of the Hobbits. He should never have decided to tell this part of the story from Gandalf's POV. We should have been more related to at least one of the Hobbits, preferably Frodo. I don't think anyone would argue that he is the hero of the next twelve hours.

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire. We start with Frodo. He's taking a walk around the Shire, so we still get an idea of hobbit-life and what the Shire is like; also, we start to get the idea that Frodo is a bit different than these simple rustic folk.

Then here comes Gandalf.

Frodo jumps in his cart, their dialogue is much the same, except now we focus on Frodo's reactions to Gandalf. Frodo mentions Bilbo's weirdness, sees Gandalf's troubled reaction, presses him on it -- but Gandalf is reticent. "Fine, keep your secrets!" or whatever the dialogue is.

At Bag End, Bilbo and Gandalf greet. Now, when Gandalf gives his "haven't aged a day" line, Frodo is there -- and he takes note of Gandalf's slightly puzzled/troubled reaction. Gandalf wanders off to supervise party/fireworks preparation or something. Inside Bag End, Frodo and Bilbo have a scene that conveys much the same information as the Gandalf/Bilbo scene, but instead it's from Frodo's point-of-view, reacting to Bilbo's "butter scraped over too much bread" line. Certain things are starting to seem strange to him, especially after Gandalf's reactions and mysterious silence...

You should have gotten the Oscar, instead of PJ, Fran, Phillippa. In fact, they say in the commentary that they had abandoned the idea of a prologue until New Line told them they needed one (two minutes long, no longer!). Keeping that in mind, the theatrical version (at least) would have started with the shot of Frodo reading under a tree. That would have at least been close to your version.

Saucepan Man:
Fine, but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between characters. Jackson chose (or perhaps just instinctively followed) the course likely to appeal to the greatest number of people. Perhaps he did take the easy option, but who can blame him?

You're probably right, but remember that the best films reqire NO dalogue at all. It should only enhance the experience. Otherwise, leave it out, or at least make it beautiful. It will come up that I miss much of Tolkien's poetry in the film. Just because the words are so beautifully constructed. Despite the fact that I am making a real effort to look at these films AS FILMS, apart from the books that I have grown to love over the many years. Tolkien is an incredible poet, aside from everything else, and I wanted more. More on that as we come to the places where it's missing, though, as I say, I'm trying to approach this apart from the books. My best efforts will inevitably fall short. I'm trying to keep it in mind though.

[Boromir88]

Mr. Underhill, should be pretty interesting as to how it would work. As Sauce said the majority of movies are made where the audience are bystandards, just basically watching behind a clear wall. They see everything that goes on. There's not many movies that try to get the audience to see from one perspective, and see what one person sees.

The last movie I saw kind of like this limitted omniscient, not knowing everything, it was quite a while ago. It was a Japanese movie made in the 30's (forget the name I'll have to see if I can think of it).

But, basically, a murder happens. The audience doesn't see the murder. It starts out with a merchant who finds a priest and says he's got a story to tell him that he saw and witnessed in the city. So, we're hearing the story not directly from the people involved, but from someone who witnessed the "trial." And as an audience we don't know what happened, what we're hearing is right, we just simply hear a story from this man telling a priest.

The merchant goes on to tell us that a beautiful wife and her husband were travelling through the woods and a bandit kidnapped the wife and killed the husband (allegedly). It continues to give us 3 difference stories of the event (from the three people who were involved). The wife who says the bandit murdered her husband and kidnapped her. The Bandit who says the wife killed her husband, because she fell in love with him and the only way to be with him was to be free from her husband. And a poor fisherman that didn't see what actually happened, but remembers seeing the girl and the bandit.

So we get the stories from the 3 perspectives (actually two) and we never know what's the truth, we're sort of left to guess who to believe. It was actually a very good movie, I'll see if I can remember it. But, I think it's a good example of the audience only knowing what's told through the characters, we only know what the merchant has passed down to the priest.

Now, I wonder if LOTR would be more effective this way. Rather interesting to think of. I think it's easier to write a book based on one or two different POV's, and follow one person's train of thought, but as far as making a movie, I think it's a lot more difficult. However, I think it can be done and if done properly could be quite successful.

[radagastly]

Boromir88:
So we get the stories from the 3 perspectives (actually two) and we never know what's the truth, we're sort of left to guess who to believe.

Sounds like the Kurasawa film "Roshomon." a masterpiece, though I haven't seen it in many, many years. Could that be it?

Don't want to get sidetracked though, from the discussion at hand. Just wondering. . .

[Boromir88]

It is Roshoman radagast, that's certainly is it. Great movie I too haven't seen it in a very long time. I can't remember the exact role or the actual ending of it (for it has nothing to do with the murder) but a lesson to the audience. But, basically the whole movie is the murder story.

Back on track I wanted to talk about something you said. I was going to edit my post, but since you have responded...

I'm not so sure he loses his grip, so much as setting up the shifting of POV that we inevitably encounter in TT and RotK. He discusses POV in the commentary during the prologue (the POV is from the Ring's perspective), so he's not unaware, or, I think, out of control. I think the shifting is deliberate, at least in the EE.

That certainly appears to be the approach. I think while Tolkien the Ring is the "main plot" in the books, it's not his main theme or his focus. His focus is on friendship, and the maturity of the Hobbits from the beginning to the end. So, there's a story after the destruction of the Ring, and Tolkien doesn't focus his story on the Ring's POV, but those involved in the story of the Ring. (Hope that's not going in too many circles).

Where Jackson took the approach of narrowing it down to making the Ring the focus. So, after the Ring's destruction, the story concludes, and through the movies he makes the Ring the primary POV.

[alatar]

Just a quick quip: To me, the problem with the single POV, whether it's the Ring, Frodo, Gandalf, whomever, is that one tends to the see the movie in a different light. It's like that "Blair Witch Project" film (didn't see all of it, though my wife did) where the different way of telling the story becomes the story. No one really cared how much sense the movie made (my wife, expecting a thriller, found it to be silly) because it was "different."

PJ may have wanted to not let that become the story - especially in terms of 'press' and 'word of mouth' - as that may have made the second and third movies more difficult ("Hey, we had a single limited POV in FotR...where's it at in TTT?"). Plus, the multiple POV allows him to introduce more characters in a leap frog-like fashion.

Plus all of that flitting around is perfect for all of us with 15 second attention spans...

[Lathriel]

I never thought about the Point of View in these movies and I don't feel that the movies take on a particular point of view at all. I all seems to be in Third peron (forgot the term for all-knowing,blushes) to me. (That is if the movie was written down into a book, it would probably turn into third person)

I did like the shire and it didn't seem artificial to me. I haven't seen the teletubbies on t.v but from the pictures I have seen they don't remind me of the Shire at all.

I LOVE the fireworks because I am an absolute firework nut. The smoke rings are cool and I actually never saw Sam as a skinny Hobbit.

[Essex]

I think the major issue Jackson has to deal with in adapting the books is not the POV issue, but the NARRATION issue. A lot of detail (especially exposition) is dealt with by Tolkien using a narrator’s voice.

Jackons does not use this in his films (except at the Prologue) – I personally don’t think narration works in films, and only a few try it – for example, how bad was the original version of Bladerunner compared with the ‘director’s cut’? ie the cinematic release had Ford narrating over it, and the director’s cut (without the narration) is far superior in my opinion.

Anyway, to get to my point, how Jackson deals with not having a narrator (and some other issues I'll point to) can be summed up here.
Someone earlier pointed out that if Bilbo hadn’t seen Gandalf in years, then why did the children know it was Gandalf? I think we already have been given a decent enough answer for this (is I think it boils down to Gandalf being a ‘legend’ amongst hobbits, and maybe something they tell their children/grandchildren about). Anyway, the reason we have this issue is that in the book, it is not Bilbo who Gandalf says this to but Frodo.

Film:

Good to see you. One hundred and eleven years old, who would believe it? You haven't aged a day

Now, we have the book:

Time wore on, but it seemed to have little effect on Mr. Baggins. At ninety he was much the same as at fifty. At ninety-nine they began to call him well-preserved, but unchanged would have been nearer the mark

and

'Ah well eh? You look the same as ever, Frodo!'

Gandalf meets back with Frodo after Bilbo had left Bag End. Notice Gandalf looks at Frodo, not Bilbo and sees that he hadn’t changed after coming back to the Shire after a period of 9 years of absence. Therefore Jackson uses this scene to have Gandalf explain to the audience how old Bilbo is and that he hasn’t aged. Tolkien describes this in FOTR.

This is an issue Jackson has throughout the films, and this is why I can forgive him the changes. (To add to this, Jackson couldn't have Frodo in this scene to show the 9 and 12 year gaps in seing Gandalf - how could he make the hobbits look 12 years younger in the party scenes? - another reason for a film to be different to a book)

Other examples (and also a strange turn around about Tea and wine!):

(Bilbo): Tea? Or maybe something a little stronger. I've got a couple of bottles of the old winyard left. 1296. Very good year. Almost as old as I am. It was laid down by my father.

(taken from Tolkien’s description of what Rory Brandybuck receives as a parting gift from Bilbo)

Gandalf: Just tea, thank you.

And THIS is the ‘turn around’ I mean – from The Hobbit, and Bilbo offers Gandalf tea, and get’s the reply:

What’s that? Tea! No thank you! A little red wine, I think, for me

– So our Movie Gandalf doesn’t like alcohol? Thank God he kept his pipe!!!!

To surmise, the precise moment I DEFINITLEY knew we we’re in good hands for these films was when we see Gandalf pick up the old map from the Hobbit – that attention to detail was marvellous – but to add to this listen very carefully you’ll hear Bilbo in the background saying:

You caught me a bit unprepared, I'm afraid. We’ve only got some chicken and a bit of pickle…There’s some cheese. Oh no, that won’t do. We’ve got raspberry jam, an apple tart. But not much for afters. Oh no, we’re all right. I’ve just found some sponge cake.

– paraphrased from the same scene I’ve mentioned in the Hobbit where Bilbo is besieged by Gandalf and the Dwarves

What’s that? Tea! No thank you! A little red wine, I think, for me” (Gandalf) “And for me” “And raspberry jam and apple-tart” (Bifur) “and mince-pies and cheese” “And pork-pie and salad” (Bombur)“And more cakes - and ale - and coffee, if you don’t mind” (Dwarves) “Put on a few eggs, there’s a good fellow!”

It’s little details like this that show the love and dedication the movie makers have for this film.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by Essex

It’s little details like this that show the love and dedication the movie makers have for this film.

I'm not going to get into the debate of POV/narration, for me what was done worked.

I do like The Shire, and its inhabitants and how they were portrayed. A bit over-the-top but I think that is to establish very cleary that when the 4 hobbits find themselves later on this quest and doing what they came to do, that it is so out of nature and character for a hobbit to do those things. Out of the nine companions of the Fellowship, the 4 hobbits changed and grew the most.

Of this sequence, I like the theatre version better than the extended. It added unneccessarily to what was already established, hobbits are simple- carefree kind of people. Except I did like the scene where Bilbo can't find the ring. Now that "addict" moment really showed how strong the attachment to the ring is and makes more of an understanding why it was so hard for Bilbo to give it up.


There have been issues raised about the dumbing down of Pippin and in particular Merry, that I'd like to address. In terms of book to movie, in the book at the time of the party, Bilbo is 111, Frodo is 33, Pippin is 17, Merry is 18(I think) and Sam is a few years older (like early 20's) then the Frodo and company leave The Shire for Rivendell 17 years later making Frodo- 50, Pippin-32 and so forth.

Since P.J. decided not portray the 17 years difference and since there really is no age given the hobbits (that I can recall), the only thing we have to go on is that Sam is old enough to get married (in the end), Frodo is "grown" since he's left on his own, and Merry and Pippin are younger than Frod and Sam.

What's my point? I think Merry and Pippin weren't dumbed down, just shown how they probably did behave in their late teen years.

[Kath]

I haven't read this through properly yet as I have to go to bed but I just wanted to pick up on one point before I forgot it. When Bilbo is talking about the Hobbit's of the Shire and gently insulting their ways and habits, it reminds me so much of the beginning of FotR when he is giving away special presents to people, and there are little notes with each that gently jibe in a similar way. That was a nice touch by PJ if he intended it, and good anyway even if he didn't.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm greatly enjoying these discussions, reading every post and attempting to keep up and watch the sequences in order to contribute. Sometimes, as in this case, I may be a bit late; therefore my comments will be rather random, in hopes of not repeating too much which has already been said.

I like the beginning scene, with Bilbo in his study, beginning to write down the story. It's a nice link to Sam's later speech about living in a story. However, the title and the story he begins do not match! "There and Back Again" is The Hobbit; "Concerning Hobbits" is in LotR. I know, Jackson could hardly show him writing a story called "The Lord of the Rings", since he doesn't yet know what will happen. Still, it's a minor but interesting discrepancy for book readers to note.

Gandalf's remarks about a wizard arriving precisely when he means to are enjoyable - one of the instances where movie dialogue can hold up to book dialogue. I felt more than just the humor of the remark, though - it's a foreshadowing of his failure to arrive on time to meet the hobbits. Even a wizard cannot control all circumstances of his life.

We see an annoying number of "Ring in Frodo's hand" shots throughout the movie, so I found it refreshing that Jackson did not show the Ring in Bilbo's hand in the study, when he finds it. It is not openly shown until after the birthday party.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Does my first viewing of Sam, the sidekick hero, have to be of him staring amazed at a potted flower?

Hasn't anyone else noticed that the flower Sam is planting here is in fact nicotiana, flowering tobacco (i.e. pipeweed?)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Hasn't anyone else noticed that the flower Sam is planting here is in fact nicotiana, flowering tobacco (i.e. pipeweed?)

How do we know this? I thought that it was just some garden-variety geranium.

[ninja91]

I love the scene where it shows Sam looking at the plant. They have a passion for things that grow, and just because he has done it many times before means nothing to the obvious joy he gets from his work. It shows a very gentle Sam, which later in the movies has a foil as he fights Shelob.

[sassyfriend]

Love Bag end it is so pretty! One place i would love to live at!