Artist intent versus viewer perception

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Anyway, to more specifically reply, I remember watching the director commentary on the scene where the Black Rider almost catches Frodo and company in the forest. They're hiding, and the Rider comes near, and all these bugs start crawling on the hobbits, and Jackson said the intention there was something like that the Rider was so terrible that even the bugs were fleeing from him. When I watched the scene, though, it felt more like his evil aura or whatever was drawing these creepy things towards him. So, intention not received.

Just as well– the intended version... well, it's just too funny. Like an animated kiddie film. You can imagine all the little critters squeaking, "Crawl! Crawl for your lives!"

[Nerwen]

Btw, that article you linked to, Mr Underhill, is really quite interesting... once you get past the bizarre presentation, anyway.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks for the reference to cause & effect in Spielberg, Mister Underhill. What does that say about Peter Jackson?

Did you ever wonder/notice how much of what's in LotR the movie is because of Peter Jackson's unabashed love for blood, guts, creepy crawlies, gore, ugly? How about theme and variation in orcs? Huh, that almost founds like a musical work. Gothmog. Some orcs are more successfully presented than others. The one in charge who is NOT a Uruk at Shelob's Lair and in the tower of Cirith Ungol especially good. Why didn't they just name him Shagrat in the movie, and have done?

And why no Grishnack? I think I've asked that before so leave it alone if you like. If the point was to show how much pull the Ring had, why remove ol' Grish?

What's the intent behind the major moral failure of Aragorn lopping off the head of Mouth of Sauron during parley? "Well, Mouth of Sauron was evil, right? So it's okay to kill him 'cuz he's evil." If that is the reason, one had better make sure just what's evil and not! But the point! YOU DO NOT BREAK THE RULE OF NO VIOLENCE DURING PARLEY. IT'S A MAJOR COMPROMISE OF ONE'S HONOR. Why doesn't Peter Jackson know that?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

"Crawl! Crawl for your lives!"

I LOL'ed!

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Btw, that article you linked to, Mr Underhill, is really quite interesting... once you get past the bizarre presentation, anyway.

Yes, Film Crit Hulk takes some getting used to, but I think he has some really great insights and ideas about film if you can just go with the flow.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Thanks for the reference to cause & effect in Spielberg, Mister Underhill. What does that say about Peter Jackson?

Well, it's a continuum, right? I think Jackson often loses sight of the big picture for the sake of a gag in the moment, whether it's a JUMP! of surprise, a burp joke, a bit of shield-surfing, a gross-out image, what have you. His focus is more on the moment-to-moment without always being in control (or sometimes, being aware) of how a given choice might be undermining what he's trying to accomplish overall. And he obviously isn't always able to manage the clarity of intention of a Spielberg (though not many do).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

YOU DO NOT BREAK THE RULE OF NO VIOLENCE DURING PARLEY. IT'S A MAJOR COMPROMISE OF ONE'S HONOR. Why doesn't Peter Jackson know that?

I think again it goes back to Jackson favoring going for something extreme in the moment over a careful control of what he's building in the overarching narrative. A digitally enlarged mouth is a more arresting visual. A beheading is more shocking and visually interesting than both sides just riding away, even though it happens to subvert the personality of one of your most important characters.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I think again it goes back to Jackson favoring going for something extreme in the moment over a careful control of what he's building in the overarching narrative. A digitally enlarged mouth is a more arresting visual. A beheading is more shocking and visually interesting than both sides just riding away, even though it happens to subvert the personality of one of your most important characters.

I think this was Jackson's intent all along and is consistent with how he treated the character of Aragorn. He portrays him as a man who is not comfortable with his position as the Heir to Gondor and who cannot accept that honour. As such, a violent reaction to an emissary would not be out of character. I always think that this change was put there as Jackson maybe felt the modern audience would nto be comfortable with the idea of a clear cut hero with masses of honour, a mistake as it happens, when you consider how the audience/readership idolised the honour driven Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones.

Still, it's perhaps the most jarring incidence of Aragorn behaving without honour and maybe they did not intend him to be quite so arrogant at this stage of the narrative.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think this was Jackson's intent all along and is consistent with how he treated the character of Aragorn. He portrays him as a man who is not comfortable with his position as the Heir to Gondor and who cannot accept that honour. As such, a violent reaction to an emissary would not be out of character. I always think that this change was put there as Jackson maybe felt the modern audience would nto be comfortable with the idea of a clear cut hero with masses of honour, a mistake as it happens, when you consider how the audience/readership idolised the honour driven Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones.

Still, it's perhaps the most jarring incidence of Aragorn behaving without honour and maybe they did not intend him to be quite so arrogant at this stage of the narrative.

I believe both you and Mr. Underhill are on the right track, Lal; however, I would like to add that Jackson often takes a simplistic or sophomoric attitude towards his productions. In an almost teenage, giggling regression he reverts to his B-grade horror flick roots, where explodey things and buckets of blood take precedence over more mature scripting.

Somewhere in the extended version there was an allusion to his immature streak: he kept demanding that the mace used by the WitchKing in his battle with Eowyn be made larger and more menacing. I believe they enlarged the mace 3 or 4 times until it had the epic proportions of a school bus. I don't believe there was any thought given to Aragorn's honor or dishonor in his parley with MoS. As was inferred by Underhill, the shock value of beheading MoS (a clear and egregious breaking of a truce) trumped any consideration to the value of the characterization. Add in the joke said directly thereafter, and you have the personification of Jackson's directing style.

His method of oversimplification, juvenility and underestimating the viewer takes place quite often through the trilogy: in his denuding Faramir of nobility, in making Denethor a pathetically evil nutbag, turning Treebeard into a dottering hobbit's dupe, having the Scrubbing Green Bubbles of Death(TM) overrun Sauron's army at Minas Tirith, of Frodo sending Sam away, of making the Mumakil so impossibly gigantic that the riders of Rohirrim seemed like scurrying mice, making wargs (wolves by all Tolkien's descriptions) look like giant gangrel hyenas, plopping the glowing Eye of Sauron atop the Barad-dur radio beacon, etc.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I always think that this change was put there as Jackson maybe felt the modern audience would nto be comfortable with the idea of a clear cut hero with masses of honour, a mistake as it happens, when you consider how the audience/readership idolised the honour driven Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

His method of oversimplification, juvenility and underestimating the viewer takes place quite often through the trilogy: in his denuding Faramir of nobility, in making Denethor a pathetically evil nutbag, turning Treebeard into a dottering hobbit's dupe, having the Scrubbing Green Bubbles of Death(TM) overrun Sauron's army at Minas Tirith, of Frodo sending Sam away, of making the Mumakil so impossibly gigantic that the riders of Rohirrim seemed like scurrying mice, making wargs (wolves by all Tolkien's descriptions) look like giant gangrel hyenas, plopping the glowing Eye of Sauron atop the Barad-dur radio beacon, etc.

Hm. This thread makes it appear that PJ's problem was not necessarily that audience members failed to see his "vision" for the movies; rather that many completely understood it, and thought it merely misguided and incongruous with the text of the books it is based upon.

The obvious question I have is whether the "vision" of the movies would be so opaque if it had stuck closer to the source material.

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think this was Jackson's intent all along and is consistent with how he treated the character of Aragorn. He portrays him as a man who is not comfortable with his position as the Heir to Gondor and who cannot accept that honour. As such, a violent reaction to an emissary would not be out of character. I always think that this change was put there as Jackson maybe felt the modern audience would nto be comfortable with the idea of a clear cut hero with masses of honour, a mistake as it happens, when you consider how the audience/readership idolised the honour driven Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones.

Still, it's perhaps the most jarring incidence of Aragorn behaving without honour and maybe they did not intend him to be quite so arrogant at this stage of the narrative.

I believe, that "modern audience" would have thought Aragorn was weak if he hadn't done it. The whole point of "modernity" is that

a) a looser is always wrong;
b) one who thinks he or she is in the right should not limit him- or herself with silly moral restrictions in their fight;
c) killing a bastard is always a good thing while keeping your promise to a bad guy is just stupid.

In this respect modernity can be seen as a peculiar mix of ideology and real politics brining Jesuits to mind but I don't want to put forward any particular examples as they are all quite controversial. In the book it is Gandalf who takes Frodo's garment from Mouth, confusing him with a flash of white light. However Jackson decided to make everyone but Alpha-male Aragorn look sheepish.

A little problem is that this is not the world Tolkien intended to create. But who cares? Although if movie-Aragorn just wanted to convince Sauron that he was in possession of The Ring and his corruption had already begun, his act was just brilliant

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"And why no Grishnack? I think I've asked that before so leave it alone if you like. If the point was to show how much pull the Ring had, why remove ol' Grish?"

The whole significance of the character had been wiped out by PJ assuming his audience was too stupid to deal with Saruman being a traitor to both sides, rather than just a minion of the Dark Tower. There's never a hint in the movie that the whole band weren't from Isengard.

Thus no conflict between the Ugluk and Grishnakh factions except over the triviality of fresh rations, and G and his followers becoming nothing more than stupid, appetitive Orcs as opposed to 'brainier' Ugluk (never mind that throughout the whole FR chase "Lurtz" comes across as a mere bestial predator)