LotR1-FotR-Seq02 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Boromir88 · 10-28-2005, 10:20 PM

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 · 10-28-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

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 · 10-28-2005, 10:35 PM

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...

Quote:

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 · 10-29-2005, 08:49 AM

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...

***Mister Underhill*** · 10-29-2005, 02:07 PM

I don't mean to suggest that I think the movies would work better -- or that it would even be possible to tell the story -- from a very severely limited, single POV.

Clearly we need to be able to move around to follow the diverging storylines. I don't want to hijack this thread anymore than I already have -- maybe I can just sum up by saying that in any given scene or sequence the filmmakers must choose a point of view, and it's interesting to me that so far, the strongest POV character is Gandalf. I'll try to wait for future sequences to analyze how or if this choice significantly impacts the effect of the narrative.

EDIT: Just wanted to add a thought to illustrate the concept I'm trying to get across: Jackson limits his POV in at least one important way -- we never cut to scenes of Sauron in Barad-dûr, laying his plans for war or to get back the Ring or whatever. On the other hand, he opts for a less restricted POV than Tolkien does by having scenes of Saruman laying his plans, hatching orcs, giving speeches to his troops, etc., and in RotK by having scenes from the POV of Gothmog and his attacking Orc legions.

It'll be interesting later on to look at the effects of these choices. What is gained by these new scenes? What is lost? And so on.

10-28-2005, 10:20 PM	#1
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	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. __________________ Fenris Penguin

10-29-2005, 08:49 AM	#4
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	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... __________________ There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.

10-29-2005, 02:07 PM	#5
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,744	I don't mean to suggest that I think the movies would work better -- or that it would even be possible to tell the story -- from a very severely limited, single POV. Clearly we need to be able to move around to follow the diverging storylines. I don't want to hijack this thread anymore than I already have -- maybe I can just sum up by saying that in any given scene or sequence the filmmakers must choose a point of view, and it's interesting to me that so far, the strongest POV character is Gandalf. I'll try to wait for future sequences to analyze how or if this choice significantly impacts the effect of the narrative. EDIT: Just wanted to add a thought to illustrate the concept I'm trying to get across: Jackson limits his POV in at least one important way -- we never cut to scenes of Sauron in Barad-dûr, laying his plans for war or to get back the Ring or whatever. On the other hand, he opts for a less restricted POV than Tolkien does by having scenes of Saruman laying his plans, hatching orcs, giving speeches to his troops, etc., and in RotK by having scenes from the POV of Gothmog and his attacking Orc legions. It'll be interesting later on to look at the effects of these choices. What is gained by these new scenes? What is lost? And so on.