tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post9109275307495446144..comments2024-02-10T06:19:58.016-05:00Comments on Petrified Fountain of Thought: The Best Movie of the '00s: The Lord of the Rings TrilogyStephenMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16588260639227694557noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-76488528733687114212012-08-19T22:42:27.663-04:002012-08-19T22:42:27.663-04:00Hi Stephen,
I came across your Blog after re-watch...Hi Stephen,<br />I came across your Blog after re-watching the trilogy for the first time in a few years, and I have to say that your honest, educated and open-minded analysis of the films is the most interesting and thought-provoking I have come across (and I've spent...countless hours on forums, talking to friends and mulling over the films in my head). I was thirteen when Fellowship hit theatres and I proceeded to read the books while counting down to the release of the final two installments. It was these film adaptations that turned my interest in film into a full-blown, lifelong passion and that is why, for me, the trilogy is also my #1 film of the 00s. There is not much more to add to your writings; I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your review because it is so extremely well-put. You touch on so many aspects of the filmic process, the books and the adaptation. I had also always been a tad on the fence about the multiple endings in RoTK, but after reading your thoughts I have no qualms with them whatsoever. At the root of these films and books, like you said, is a truly mesmerizing story, and isn't that what filmmaking is about, after all - telling a story.Elizahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03057929670203460355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-76485161552835283782012-04-09T21:08:59.796-04:002012-04-09T21:08:59.796-04:00Thanks, Sam. I know they have a lot of fans, but ...Thanks, Sam. I know they have a lot of fans, but they seem to have gradually gone down in critical and cinephile esteem over the years, and it's nice to see others who agree. I've never been able to choose for certain which one is best--the first has some of the happiest scenes and the most hobbits, and was my sort of my favorite for a while, but the other two are bigger and in some ways more cohesive. Return of the King has most of the moments I named as among the finest in the trilogy, but with the extended version it's so long that I feel it does become a little cumbersome and exhausting. The Two Towers changed so many things from the books that it was always my least favorite, but now looking at it I think it might be the most well-rounded, clearly structured of the films. So in the end I really just think of them as a trilogy, a single unit with three chapters.<br /><br />Also, as I said above, I like the multiple endings--the overall film is so big and long that I totally understand why people would get restless, but you absolutely have to show the Grey Havens for the story to have its correct tone and meaning. Ending with any of the other scenes before would have been not only disappointing but injurious to the whole structure and theme of the trilogy and would have outraged fans everywhere.<br /><br />I completely agree with your comments about Howard Shore's score and the various performances.StephenMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16588260639227694557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-54853218897642565972012-04-08T23:44:11.450-04:002012-04-08T23:44:11.450-04:00I applaud your selection here Stephen, as I am a h...I applaud your selection here Stephen, as I am a huge fans of these films as well and have defended each by going to the mat on more than one occasion. My favorite of the three is THE RETURN OF THE KING, which was honored to the hilt by critics' groups and the Oscars. One of the film’s most breathtaking moments occurs when Gandalf flies on an eagle, safely carrying the Frodo and Sam to safety in a sequence that so imbued with celestial splendor and awe-inspiring aural operatic accompaniment, that it stretches the capabilities of what cinema can accomplish in wedding image to emotion. It’s at this point that the full realization of the invaluable contribution of composer Hans Zimmer, whose score here is as important to The Return of the King as any other contribution. There’s an other-worldly grandeur that underscores the ravishing visuals supplied by Jackson, cinematographer Andrew Lesnie and production designer Grant Major. The creativity in all the technical departments, evident in the first two installments, has been intensified here. The most painterly visual sequence of all is the wedding set piece with Aragon and Arwen, and the former’s coronation, where the warrior tells the hobbits: “My friends, you bow to no one.” The whole population of Gondor bows to the hobbits, who then return to their home country, the shire. It is at this point that Jackson refuses to let go, and a succession of “final” endings are attached to the final reel that incurred critical disdain, especially among the few that were not adherents of the series in the first place. But the physical tapestry of these final encores add, rather than detract from this inexhaustibly beautiful canvas.<br /> <br /> Jackson’s veteran cast, all familiar with their developing and developed characters, render an added level of poignancy to their roles that reaches full consummation in this final part of the trilogy. The heartfelt bond of Frodo and Sam is beautifully evoked by Elijah Wood Jr. and Sean Astin. Astin, who was something of a sidekick in the first film metamorphosed into one of the work’s most vital and inspiring figures. The frustration and fear he feels in losing Frodo to the power of the ring is intimately felt, as is the strength he feels in himself to carry on. Andy Serkis, with CGI assistance used to mimic his movements, is simultaneously haunting, endearing and terrifying as Gollum, and Ian McKellen again delivers a commanding performance of great warmth as Gandalf after being left off the second installment’s cast. Of course Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn is that physically endowed warrior that any action or adventure film would dream for. Billy Boyd is perhaps the most impressive (as Pippin) of the remaining roles, though Liv Tyler looks great as Arwan.<br /><br />Much can be said for the other two films, THE FELLOWSHIP and THE TWO TOWERS, which is the extended Battle of Helm's Deep, but you have done a stupendous job yourself here is framing them.Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-70686292125261672902012-04-05T00:30:42.987-04:002012-04-05T00:30:42.987-04:00Thank you, Daniel. That means a lot. Believe it ...Thank you, Daniel. That means a lot. Believe it or not, I even forgot to get in several points that I was thinking about while writing this. I meant to talk more about the processes of adaptation, and about various performances, pacing and structure, etc, but that would all get out of hand pretty quick, so probably best I left it out. What I really forgot to mention was Howard Shore's score, which I would rate as the best of the decade on its own. And then at the end, I was going to give a bit more of an explanation and argument for narrative in cinema and the art of storytelling, and how LOTR is great because it treats its story with total sincerity and isn't a postmodern riff on the monomyth but the real deal. I was also going to cite Seven Samurai and Lawrence of Arabia as the true peers of the trilogy. But oh well.<br /><br />Part of the thing about story is that I'm still trying to figure it out: What exactly is Story, why is it important, what distinguishes it from other types of filmmaking and artistic achievement, are Story and Plot two different things, is all this division I've just set up even important, etc. I'd also like to figure out exactly how Myth fits into all of this. I think I'm going to try to read Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces sometime soon. I keep getting fascinated and frustrated by the divisions between high and low art, high and low culture, whether those divisions are real or illusory, and maybe where postmodernism fits into all of this. So anyway, that's some of the things I've been thinking about and occasionally reading about.<br /><br />As for C.S. Lewis: Have you read the Space Trilogy or Till We Have Faces? Neither of them are at the level of LOTR, but they have some pretty significant areas of imaginative creation and complex thought and meaning which are definitely as good as anything else you're likely to read. Also, if you haven't seen it, I recommend checking out his review of LOTR when it first came out here: http://tinyurl.com/88jbaldStephenMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16588260639227694557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-84002560821878326462012-03-31T11:37:26.910-04:002012-03-31T11:37:26.910-04:00I was pretty confident LoTR was going to be number...I was pretty confident LoTR was going to be number 1, but I was still pleased and a little surprised when I first saw this post. Thank you for justifying my love for the trilogy in an eloquent argument. Whenever I introduce myself at Taylor, people ask my major, and that immediately leads to the question, "What is your favorite movie?" I always equivocate, but LoTR has truly stuck with me more than any other series. Now, having read your evaluation, I can speak a bit more intelligently about why I like it so much.<br /><br />I especially like your bit about story near the end. Theme, character, or style can drive an excellent film that strives for "high art," but so can story. They are all important pieces of the spectrum of good cinema, and despite the current opinion that plot is of marginal artistic value, story itself can drive a masterpiece as well as mood can, if done right. Tolkien (and Jackson, too) wove a story so intricate and detailed that it has claimed that status, in addition to popular approval. That is where, I believe, Tolkien rises high above Lewis in their respective works of fiction. While Lewis admittedly was catering to children, his "imaginary world" development was far less of an achievement, and he wore his allegory on his sleeves. Tolkien created something so vast, nobody has been crazy enough to try to challenge it, and his Christianity was communicated via thematic nuance.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942600408659696303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-29332785295945928962012-03-29T23:41:03.090-04:002012-03-29T23:41:03.090-04:00Grey Havens: what I call the poignance of loss is ...Grey Havens: what I call the poignance of loss is something Tolkien does exceedingly well. Strong in the books, but as you effectively argue, in the movies too. I wonder if his having lost both his parents so early in life didn't have something to do with it.Mark N.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-43430445319306337122012-03-29T00:08:48.539-04:002012-03-29T00:08:48.539-04:00That's a good point, Mark, and I'm not ent...That's a good point, Mark, and I'm not entirely sure. The books have an enormous amount going on in them, from pure storytelling to mythic undercurrents to a light of faith that seemed to suffuse everything without necessarily having a visible source. I think there is definitely something sanctifying and spiritually profound in the books which is not really a focus of the films, though I don't think it's completely absent. I rather doubt many fans of the movies would pick up on it, but then plenty of fans of the books don't pick up on it there, either. I don't think Jackson had that purpose in making the films, to convey Tolkien's Catholicism in everything, but I do think the films lead back to the books at almost every opportunity and thousands of people have sought out the books because of the films, so there is a loop there.<br /><br />I do think the film's preserve Tolkien's profound understanding of evil, though, especially the way there is a real source for Evil in the world that must be fought, alongside an evil inside oneself, a weakness of the heart that is preyed on by the ring. Men clearly are prone to prideful desires for power, constantly leading to their downfall. The childlike innocence of the hobbits is their protection against the destructive impulses the Ring tries to use against them. The films do have a sense of the sacred as well--there are so many moments of true beauty, where the only proper response is awe and wonder. It is very clearly intimated that there is something beyond, this is not all there is. <br /><br />Two moments expressing this wisdom stand out to me, both involving Gandalf offering wisdom to hobbits: First, in Moria, when he tells Frodo that there are other forces at work in the world besides those of evil, and he was "meant" to have the Ring, which is "an encouraging thought." And later, in Minas Tirith, when Pippin laments, "I didn't think it would end like this," and Gandalf responds, "End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass. And then you see it: White shores. And beyond, a far green country, under a swift sunrise." Perhaps a cynical critic would dismiss the way the camera zooms in on Ian Mckellan's face and the music starts to rise as he says this, but it feels absolutely beautiful and emotionally true every time I watch it, even in a small clip on YouTube. <br /><br />I don't know whether such moments in the films move and minister to others apart from the books; I doubt my own response would be so strong if I did not have so much of Tolkien's literature behind me to connect with it, in one bright continuum. But for me, with that connection so strong, these (particular) moments are absolutely just as strong in either medium, and as I watch the ship sail off from the Grey Havens and hear the start of the wonderful song "Into the West" start playing, I find I am touched my an indescribable bit of bittersweet joy, and just a small vision of Heaven.StephenMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16588260639227694557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047872200068694467.post-3718143473597133702012-03-25T21:37:24.485-04:002012-03-25T21:37:24.485-04:00"...some spark of fire...destined to kindle a..."...some spark of fire...destined to kindle a new light, or what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world; that the TCBS [a literary club of Tolkien & friends] was destined to testify for God and Truth..." -- JRRT, August 12, 1916, from France during the Great War. I think his longing to rekindle the old light was gratified beyond his wildest imaginings (which is saying something for Tolkien!). I do, however, wonder whether the movies have achieved the same. Are there people for whom the movies have been what Tolkien in a later letter refers to as a drop of water falling on barren stony ground? Or is it just the books that have had a life-long transformative effect on people?Mark N.noreply@blogger.com