Gandalf: banging into Bilbo’s lamp backward, then raising his hands fearfully, as if he’d lost composure; arriving in a disarrayed panic asking whether the ring was safe (in the book he taps on the study window); in some places he limps, later he’s so far from limping he can delicately pivot up to talk to Elrond, he nimbly hops down rocks in the mountains.
In the book phrases are used of Gandalf that indicates an uneven temperament (similar to your comment about the elves). The lack of that dynamic seems to indicate “drifting” – just reading the line straight. Book examples: “Gandalf laughed grimly” (never happens in the movie). “I knew much and I have learned much… But I am not going to give an account of all my doings to you” (nothing like this hostility to Frodo in the movie). “Gandalf took no notice of them. He sat with his head bowed, either in despair on in anxious thought” (in the movie he’s always alert and responsive) “‘Now come!’” said Gandalf. ‘Pray do not interrupt my good Gloin!’" (an impatience which seems a central part of Gandalf’s character, missing from the movie).
Yes, Tolkien’s elves were in some definite way out-of-step with the contemporaneous Middle Earth. So, agreed that Elrond can smile at Sam breaking into the council (as per the book). But a hardened warrior, talking in private with Gandalf “Men? Men are weak…” batting his eyelids and looking away after he’s been directly confronting Gandalf, when he’s just about to give an impassioned anti-man speech? Seems wrong.
I vastly disagree. Aragorn is supposed to be classy; Boromir, rough-hewn. Boromir lets emotion drive him; Aragorn is cool. Boromir is the Tough Guy who goes too far; Aragorn is brave, but not reckless. Kings are on a plateau above ordinary men. In order to rule, you have first to rule yourself.
Boromir is no ordinary man, but he is still a man. You don’t work your way up to king any more than you vote for him. Boromir is the best of the best of the best, and if he had survived until Aragorn’s coronation, there would be no better right-hand man. But he was susceptible. Aragorn might not have fallen under the ring’s spell, but at any rate, he was prudent enough not to bloody well fondle it. But if the ring had found its way to him, it would have had much less to work with, because Aragorn, like all kings, has a will of iron.
Where do you get the ‘many, many moods’? I could, of course, be interpreting the character wrongly, but in both the book and film, I got the impression that Aragorn has a veneer that does not allow the display of moods. And Mortensen’s performance definitely gave the sense of “seeing and understanding”. He played the character with intensity. True intensity does not ever burst forth; it has as much to do with control as passion.
I noticed a few editing errors in the Nazgul scenes when I watched the movie earlier today. When they are chasing Arwen and Frodo, the gap between them grows and shrinks too quickly to be really consistent with changes in terrain and whatnot. Also, the Nazgul sometimes all wield their swords in the right hand, and sometimes in the left, but you never see them switch hands.
Personal opinions of the film aside, from memory the casting person was talking about the difficulty of finding tall, slender, super-model types to be Elves.
NZ certainly has a low population for its size (pop. pushing 4 million, size that of the UK), but almost all of the speaking parts went to international actors – fair few Ozzies, and then a smattering of Brits and Yanks.
The biggest parts in FOTR that local actors played (IIRC) were that of Haldir the Lorien elf/archer. (Craig Parker – best known in NZ for work on local medical soap “Shortland Street”), and Celeborn, Galadriel’s hubbie. (Marton Csokas – best known for appearances on Xena as her ex-lover Borias).
Personal opinions of the film aside, from memory the casting person was talking about the difficulty of finding tall, slender, super-model types to be Elves.
NZ certainly has a low population for its size (pop. pushing 4 million, size that of the UK), but almost all of the speaking parts went to international actors – fair few Ozzies, and then a smattering of Brits and Yanks.
The biggest parts in FOTR that local actors played (IIRC) were that of Haldir the Lorien elf/archer. (Craig Parker – best known in NZ for work on local medical soap “Shortland Street”), and Celeborn, Galadriel’s hubbie. (Marton Csokas – best known for appearances on Xena as her ex-lover Borias).
A clear explanation of your position, you’re certainly mentioning many of the qualities I associate with the virtues (and foibles) of royalty. As a right-hand man, Faramir might have been better, for reasons you mention?
Here’s the support for Aragorn being a man of many moods, lines from scenes in The Prancing Pony. They range between enthusiastic, sly, sarcastic, introverted and pained, grim, and humorous.
“No more than you can afford,” answered Strider with a slow smile.
“Too much, too many dark things,” said Strider grimly.
“Well answered!” said Strider laughing.
“You must not count on that!” said Strider sharply.
The hobbits looked at him, and saw with surprise that his face was drawn as if with pain, and his hands clenched the arms of his chair.
“And who would you take up with?” asked Strider. “A fat innkeeper who only remembers his own name because people shout it at him all day?”
He stood up, and seemed to grow taller. In his eyes gleamed a light, keen and commanding… “But I am the real Strider, fortunately,” he said, looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile.
No, that’s a cameo. It was in the theatrical release, too. An Easter egg would be something like, you press the up, down, up, down, select, and mute buttons, and you see a cheezy little clip of Gollum dancing the Macarena. Not that that’s an actual example, of course, but that’s the sort of thing it would be. Actually, for LotR, it’d probably be a good bit classier than that, but that was the first thing I thought of.
I have to say I disagree with this… or rather, I hope it is not so. More special effects would likely be to the detriment of the film. Jackson pointed out (quite presciently, I thought) that Tolkien had envisaged a sort of raw version of the British Isles and other parts of Europe as the setting for Middle-Earth. As such, more natural settings would be preferable to special-effects driven scenery. Note the difference in the new Star Wars films, in which many sets are largely rendered in CGI, and compare it to Lord of the Rings. Which has the more grounded setting? More importantly, which one can you believe in more? I think the clear winner here is LotR’s real settings.
Whenever possible, I feel it’s better to eschew special effects unless absolutely necessary. Jackson’s tendency to do the same makes him an admirable filmmaker, to me, and his films are better for it. Also, when he uses special effects, he uses them wisely.
This likely has more to do with the equipment it’s being played on then the original mix. I’ve heard some theatres play the soundtrack very poorly, and others (Seattle’s Cinerama, for example) on which the mix sounds perfect. When I’ve played it at home, my television plays it perfectly also, with dialogue always easily audible over the music. I don’t know what system you’re hearing it on, but you might try a different one.
And here I disagree completely… the soundtrack for Star Wars is pitifully derivative and predictable. I’ve never liked it. This is more of a subjective personal taste issue, anyway, but just because you say Howard Shore’s score for Lord of the Rings is “forgettable” does not make it so. Personally, I find it one of the most original and impressive scores I’ve heard in a long time, and it perfectly captures the feel of the film. I listen to it often, and the music by itself sometimes moves me to tears. The music for Star Wars, on the other hand, moves me to listen to something else.
I think you’ll find staunch disagreement here on that score. If you mean that their characters were not exactly letter-perfect to the book, then perhaps you’re right (though that’s up to interpretation rather than fact), but Gandalf and Elrond were played particularly well and consistently within the context of the film itself. Personally, I was most pleased with Ian McKellen’s portrayal of Gandalf. He put forth a complex portrait of the wizard, and got well past the bounds of stereotype that he could have so easily allowed to hold him back. He became real, in the world of the film. For an actor playing a fantastical wizard, that’s no easy feat.
Most of the other characters were equally well-portrayed, with a couple exceptions. I agree with you that Gimli was not as well-played as I had hoped he would be.
And, as has already been pointed out, the casting difficulties expressed referred to the difficulty of finding very tall, fair people who were able to make the time commitment needed in New Zealand to play the elves… more of a physical restriction than an ability one. Best watch that context!
I would only point out here that, no matter how many DVD commentaries one watches/hears, you’re still only hearing what they want you to hear, and you can in no way assume that you’ve got all the information you need to adequately assess whether or not they made the “right choice” given the circumstances.
Also, bear in mind that you’re talking about an adaptation here. Jackson’s work is a remarkably faithful and moving adaptation, more accurate than anything that has come before (by a very long mark), but if you’re going to compare it line-for-line to the books and say “Well, that’s not what I imagined,” then you’re destined to always be disappointed.
An adaptation will always be different than the original work, just by the very nature of being another artist’s (or many other artists’) vision of the original. Many adaptations are worse, but in this case I think we’re looking at a work of equal merit as its inspiration. It’s not the same, of course, but nothing ever would be. If you’re expecting a letter-perfect rendition of the books, then I hate to tell you it simply isn’t going to happen. Ever.
Based on what we’ve seen so far in the first film, I would say that this is the best interpretation of Tolkien’s work we’re likely to see for a long time coming… possibly ever. The passion, the dedication, the attention to detail… I don’t imagine there will be too many who come along and try to do the same thing again. And if they do, I have many doubts that they could do it as well. So far, Jackson has crafted nothing short of a masterwork. If the quality remains consistent (or improves!) through the other two films, then Jackson’s Lord of the Rings will be no less impressive a work than Tolkien’s, and like the books, the films will set a high-water mark that all other efforts in the medium wil be measured against.
My wife asked me the other night why I cry every time I see the first scene in Hobbiton, as Gandalf rides in and you see all the hobbit-holes and such. Tears flowed down my cheeks the first time I saw it, and did so again while we were watching it last Saturday with my daughters. The only answer I could give her was that what I saw on the screen was no less than a childhood dream come to reality in front of my eyes. In this, and in so many other ways, Jackson’s vision of Lord of the Rings is ideal to me.
Fellowship of the Ring is simply the best fantasy film I have ever seen, not just because of its skillful use of setting and excellent character development, but more because of its emotional resonance. Like any myth, it resonates somewhere deep within the soul. It moves me in ways I can’t yet aptly describe, beyond saying that I find a measure of truth and meaning in what it expresses.
Needless to say, I’m looking anxiously forward to the next two films.
I haven’t seen the DVD but I came across the review of the DVD extras which is quite critical. Nice idea btw on the part of Slate to review the extras on newly released DVD’s.
Avalonian, I agree in many respects. This comment I entirely agree with:
“Note the difference in the new Star Wars films, in which many sets are largely rendered in CGI, and compare it to Lord of the Rings. Which has the more grounded setting? More importantly, which one can you believe in more? I think the clear winner here is LotR’s real settings.”
There seem to be demonstrable, non-subjective issues at hand. But 15 years from now is another matter, CGI will win.
Comments about music are more subjective. I completely understand why you thought John Williams’ “Star Wars” was derivative. I thought so myself, at the time. It sounded like a straight steal from Holst. (I’ve since changed my mind.) The LOTR soundtrack sounds like a steal from Dvorak’s “New World Symphony”. But I agree people may find it interesting – for whatever reason. No quibble.
You wrote: “My wife asked me the other night why I cry every time I see the first scene in Hobbiton, as Gandalf rides in and you see all the hobbit-holes and such.” That part of the production was inspired. I’ll just point out that the appeal was straight set design, no script writing, acting, editing was essential once someone had created the set.
“I would only point out here that, no matter how many DVD commentaries one watches/hears, you’re still only hearing what they want you to hear…”
In a certain way this may be so, but what seems so valuable about DVD commentaries, apart from the chance to spend a little more time in an aesthetic experience one’s enjoyed, is the opportunity to critically examine the underlying director’s, screenwriter’s and actor’s assumptions.
When I watched the commentaries for “Das Boot”, they confirmed what I’d suspected about the production – and considerably enhanced my respect for those involved. I had a similar experience listening to the commentary for “Airplane” – I actually went out yesterday and bought a movie on laserdisc I’d never heard of, just because the Zuckers produced it. (“Brain Donors”. Why isn’t this movie known? It was wonderful.)
But for better or worse, people involved in a film production seem so wrapped in the microcosm of “politically correct” opinions about their work, mistakes show through as clearly as good ideas. The commentary for “Star Wars I” makes Lucas sound like he’s lost his artistic vision, and that his production crew is on the way to crash-and-burn. Listening to Hitchcocks’ commentaries brought feelings I’d had about the films into sharp focus. Particularly “North by Northwest”. There are things I even hate about Hitchcock – but the commentaries also explain what’s so appealing.
First, Aragorn is way too tortured. In the book his character doesn’t develop, it is revealed.
Second, the hobbits are too wimpy. They act way too much like timid six-year olds. Now I’m sure that this is all for dramatic effect so we’ll be that much more impressed when they start taking names, but still, doesn’t Gandalf have anything better to do than hug frightened hobbits?
Too many trailers? Come on! If they only put one trailer on the disc in, I bet that everyone would be complaining about not having all the trailers avalable. I know I certainly would be.
Unlike the article says, I knew that there was another LotR DVD coming not only before I put the second disc, but a good five months before this version was released. Both versions were announced at the same time.
Sure most of the stuff on this DVD was made before the movie came out in theaters and thus is promotional, but a lot of it is still interesting, and certainly better than nothing.
This DVD might not be the best, but it’s certainly better than waiting for three months (yes, I am getting the 5 disc set, but it’s not out yet so I need some sort of LotR fix), and it’s also the only way to see the theatrical version of the movie.
I disagree with this. Hobbits are incredibly emotional. Heck, Sam cries throughout the entire book. I don’t think there’s single page with the word “Sam” on it that doesn’t include “crying like a baby.” They act like timid 6 year olds. But they also act like proud warriors. And they act like doting mothers. And they act like compassionate healers. And they also act like playful adolescents. And usually, they do so all in the same scene. Why can they be so childish? Because they’re barely adults. Frodo just turned 33 at the beginning of the movie, an incredibly young age - probably equivalent to being 16 for us humans. Ever seen a 16 year old who has never seen the outside world, or travelled farther than a 10 mile radius from the place he was born? I haven’t, but I imagine that sheltered individual would act identically to a hobbit by the name of Sam Gamgee.
Boromir is the best of the best of the best, and if he had survived until Aragorn’s coronation, there would be no better right-hand man. But he was susceptible. Aragorn might not have fallen under the ring’s spell, but at any rate, he was prudent enough not to bloody well fondle it. But if the ring had found its way to him, it would have had much less to work with, because Aragorn, like all kings, has a will of iron.