I blame Rankin-Bass.
“Frodo, the nominal hero, spends much of his time peering over and around things, watching others decide his fate”
Well duh, mr. Ebert. That was the nature of the Hobbit perspective. They were innocents thrown into the midst of turmoil they couldn’t fully comprehend, yet they felt they had an important duty to perform and intended to do so. It was an analogy to the WWI footsoldier. Some poor working-class kid tossed into a conflict they had no stake in, didn’t fully understand the reasons for, and had no say in.
From the Author’s Foreword to “The Fellowship of the Ring”
As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none.It is neither Allegorical nor topical… i cordially dislike Allegory in all its manifestations and have always done so since i grew old and wary enough to detect it’s presence.
Look you have to understand that in the sixties the main view of Tolkien’s work was slanted by the times and in most cases just plain weird so some who came out of that era have a different take on the material as opposed to anyone who may have seriously studied or at least read the works.
And yes… That is Leonard Nimoy.
I question this statement. I think PJ is presenting one singular story in three parts, and makes no qualms about it.
On behalf of the latter group: and how again is this supposed to be our problem, or Peter Jackson’s problem, exactly?
Fucking baby boomers. [insert grudging, gritted-tooth smilie here].
Munch I think **kingpengvin **meant that the movies stand-alone from the books as opposed to each other.
Well, it’s not, but it apparently is Ebert’s problem. He has a conception (vague as it may be) about what the books are about, and the movie doesn’t fit it. Maybe his view of the books is colored by however the books were parsed in the 1960s (as nature vs. industrialism? as little hobbits frolicking to Mordor?) He faults Jackson’s films for diminishing the role of the Hobbits and for emphasizing the action sequences over what he calls “storytelling.” (In his review of FOTR, for example, he complained about the attention lavished on Gandalf’s fight with the Balrog, noting that the book only used 500 words to describe this battle, whereas the film made it the show-stopping action/ special effects sequence.)
Now, my recollection of the books, having read them in the 1980s, was of a fantastic world with heroes writ large on the page, fights of epic proportions and courage and heroism shown by all. A world where Good was Good, Evil was Evil, and the grey areas were kept to a minimum, if, indeed, they existed at all. When I heard that they were going to make a live-action film of the books, I wondered how certain sequences were going to be handled. In particular, I wondered how the battle with the Balrog, the “only 500 word” section of the book, was going to be shown. When the trailers were coming out, that was the sequence I was looking for hints about. And I’m not alone, I think, because Jackson deliberately played hide-the-ball on that sequence in the trailers.
So, the movies (or rather movie, since I’ve only seen the one, 12 hours to go!) worked very well for me because it gave me the broad heroic melodrama I was looking for. Ebert has a different take on the books, and wishes that the movie fit more with his take. He’s not wrong to hold that opinion, any more than I am wrong to think that the movie he’s envisioning would be borderline unwatchable.
Hey Im no boomer either, however being a child in the 70s I know of the weirdness that generation spewed. Ebert is a prioduct of that and his views are tainted more by what he “thinks” the story is about.
I know, I was just yankin’ yer chain there, kingpengvin. I do think this kind of misinterpretation says something about Ebert and his generation, though.
“Arise, arise, Riders of Theoden!
Fell deeds awake! Fire and slaughter!
Spear shall be shaken, shield be slpintered!
A sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now, ride to Gondor!” Theoden
“Death! Ride to ruin, and the worlds ending!” Eomer
“Yet my axe is restless in my hand. Give me a row of orc necks, and room to swing, and all weariness will fall from me.” Gimli
“But now my count is two dozen, [orcs killed] it has been knife work, up here.” Legolas
“Huorns will help.” Treebeard
“So, Ebert, when you say thumbs up, just where are you putting that thumb?” Tris
Thanks, Tris, for letting the author have a word. (And what a writer he was!)
Ebert says:
FOTR demonstrated this quite convincingly, IMHO: in Fellowship (book version), there was some action, but there was a great deal more suspense, amidst the character and plot development. But Peter Jackson turned it into an action flick.
But (as Ebert clearly isn’t aware), The Two Towers (book) is mostly action, movement, and battle; character and plot development take place within that context. I’m willing to believe that Peter Jackson stands something of a chance of doing this one right, because the book is already the movie he apparently wants to make.
Still, it’s worth mentioning that the battle of Helm’s Deep didn’t occupy anywhere near one-third of the book, unlike the movie. It seems that Jackson has taken an action novel, and made it into even more of an action film than it had to be.
As far as the hobbits are concerned, none of them do anything ‘heroic’ in the second book of the trilogy, unless you want to count Frodo’s resolute march toward the one place all of Middle-Earth fears more than any other, or Merry and Pippin sufficiently keeping their wits about them during their fearsome captivity. In the battle of the Pellennor Fields, Merry will rise to genuine heroism in the traditional sense, but that’s another movie off yet.
Ebert’s notion that the hobbits should be the heroes of this movie is ridiculous. Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Eomer, and Theoden are the fighters on the side of good in this book, and therefore in the movie. This is their day. Forth Eorlingas!
Agreed, Ebert’s review tells us more about his own fading memories of the 60s than the book or movie. A year from now, we’ll be reading Ebert’s review of ROTC:
“While Return of the King is a thrilling end to the film series, Jackson’s vision of Middle Earth is quite unlike Professor Tolkien’s. I seem to recall the book ending with Frodo slaying the evil dragon Sauron and retiring happily to the Shire with the dragon’s gold. Jackson has replaced the quiet whimsy of the original with his own, darker vision–a vision that includes gratuitous mutilation that would have shocked the gentle author. The glorious, unequivocally triumphant mood of the book’s original ending has for some reason been replaced by melancholy. One can only wish that Jackson had stuck closer to the text.”
Return of the Clones?
Either that or Reserve Officer Training Corps.
I think I’ve figured him out.
At the end of his Harry Potter review, Ebert reveals: “While I am usually in despair when a movie abandons its plot for a third act given over entirely to action, I have no problem with the way “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” ends, because it has been pointing toward this ending, hinting about it, preparing us for it, all the way through. What a glorious movie.”
So there’s the problem: Two Towers devotes its third act to action, and spends much of the movie building up to it, preparing us for it. And Ebert just HATES that… unless it’s Harry Potter.
Ebert, of course, also gave SPAWN three and half stars (i.e. more than Fellowship, and more than this movie)
Spawn
Let me repeat that.
SPAWN
So don’t get all bent out of shape. Ebert is a good writer, but his opinions may not match yours. Hell, you might have even liked SPAWN and think that I’M out of my gourd. People just don’t always agree… which is why rottentomatoes.com is so useful for those that haven’t yet found a critic that agrees with them consistently.
For instance, about which movie did Ebert say: "But it’s more impressive if you ignore the genre and just look at what’s on the screen. What we have here are creators in several different areas doing their best to push the envelope. The subject is simply an excuse for their art–just as it always is with serious artists. "
If you said Spawn, you’re dead wrong. And by that, I mean, right.
And what film was this: “Against this, and preventing the film from being even better, is a pretty sappy plot.”
That’s right, Spawn had a “pretty sappy plot.” But it’s still three and a half stars kids. Because a huge fuzzy muppet, CGI flames, and a bunch of floating rocks create a “vision of hell worthy of Hieronymous Bosch.”
Of course, it all makes sense once you realize that some of the people working on the film actually MET both George Lucas AND Steven Speilberg. Crikey! Slap three and a half stars on those bad boys!
Don’t even get me started on his review of Femme Fatale. If you can believe it, he actually liked it better than SPAWN. But… only half a star better. Hey, it wasn’t THAT much better than Spawn.
He’s the first to say that the stars he gives out are pretty meaningless.
—He’s the first to say that the stars he gives out are pretty meaningless.—
Oh, the stars are just the icing on the cake (and why give them then? Not all reviewers do anymore).
The reviewer I really miss having around is Paul Tartara. His reviews, especially the lousy ones, ran circles around Ebert.
Last night on his TV show review, he actually called The Lord of the Rings a “gentle fable!”
Ebert’s TV review should be on this site within a couple of days. It was broadcast last night.
Here’s a transcript of last night’s Ebert & Roeper show:
Ebert: Our next movie is The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and with this second installment, the trilogy makes a decisive break with the gentle fable of J.R.R. Tolkien and declares itself an Action picture. The hobbits are sidelined or held captive while Aragorn, played by Viggo Mortensen, steps up as the dominant character. It’ll be up to him and his friends Legolas the Elf and Gimli the Dwarf to lead the forces of Middle-Earth into battle against the arch-enemy Saruman. He warns his ally, King Theoden. (“they’ll be here by nightfall” scene). Meanwhile, the hobbits Frodo and Sam wander in circles and are basically onlookers while their friends Pippen and Merry are about to discover the secret of Treebeard and the other ancient talking trees (“folks used to say there was something in the water that made the trees grow tall and come alive” scene). As before, the movie is a great visionary spectacle with special effects and computer skills creating a convincing, exciting and even beautiful world. (“there will be no dawn for men” and other scenes from the trailer). And in the second film we get to know Gollum, a pathetic and craven little creature that was warped by long possession of the ring. As for the rest of the film, I have a feeling I’m going to be kind of alone in regretting the decision to go for big-scale action, instead of trying at least to preserve some of the whimsy of the classic books. The film is certainly a technical masterpiece with a closing battle of amazing visual splendor, and Viggo Mortensen emerges here as an swashbuckling hero with real screen presence, so I liked the movie, but I think they kind of misplaced Tolkien somewhere along the way.
Roeper: Well, although I appreciated the epic visuals of the first Lord of the Rings, I was underwhelmed by the pacing and overwhelmed by the sheer number of characters, but I have to admit that the very thorough nature of that setup made it easy for me to re-join the story in part 2 and get really involved in the fates of the main characters. My favorite plot thread involves Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, who are kind of like a mismatched Three Musketeers (“Come on Gimli” “Three days and night’s pursuit… scene), and Sir Ian McKellen is back as the immortal Gandalf, but he’s become a more ethereal being: Gandalf the Gray is now Gandalf the White (“ill news is an ill guest” “Be silent!” scene). There’s even time for new romance in The Two Towers as the elf Arwen, played by Liv Tyler, comes to realize that her love with the human Aragorn might never flourish, he is drawn to the feisty Eowyn (“I fear neither death nor pain” “What do you fear, my lady?” scene). But even with the sprinkles of romance and light humor, The Two Towers does have an overall tone that’s darker and more violent than the first leg of the trilogy. The action sequences are on a par with such historic spectacles as Ben Hur and Gladiator and the special effects are vastly superior to those two films. This film doesn’t change my review of the original, but it does have me eagerly looking forward to the final installment. I liked it a lot.”
Ebert: So, you’re finally thumbs up for LOTR (he actually says ell-oh-tee-are)?
Roeper: Absolutely, absolutely
Ebert: Ok. You know, I looked at the first film the night before going to see this one…
Roeper: (laughs) I did too. I did too.
Ebert: and I’m beginning to realize that what we’re dealing with here is a considerable epic in movie history, and it really does work in the long scale. I’m looking forward to the third part too. What I want to know is, would it have been possible to be true to the spirit of Tolkien and still make movies of this cost and length and spectacle, or was it necessary to really tilt toward violence and action in order to get the audience?
Roeper: Well there are lots of people out there who know more about Tolkien than I do, but I do believe that it is true to the spirit. The characters are true to the first film and yes, it’s darker, it’s more violent. This is one of the more violent PG-13 movies I’ve ever seen. I think they’re THIS close to getting an R rating which they were never going to do in a huge, huge epic like this.
Ebert: Well, you know, the last great battle scene, which lasts at least half an hour and which was great on the screen and I loved looking at it, really blows up a very small part of the book, and meanwhile the hobbits are put on the shelf altogether.
Roeper: I understand what you’re saying. I think probably in the final chapter we’ll see more of the friendship, and you know the characters in this movie, they’re all apart, there are 3 different storylines going on here and you’ll see them come together, and when you get the DVD you get even more material.
At this point they move on to The Wild Thornberrys.