Most of my fencing knowledge comes from regular fencing with sabre, foil and epee – all of which are lighter weapons than a broadsword. I have talked with fellow actors who have done stage fencing.
What you’re saying about the difference between broadsword and rapier strikes a chord – at least as far as using the real thing is concerned. The lighter the blade, the more it can be maneuvered, the heavier, the more it’s used as a club. (The Roman broadswords, from what I remember reading, were little more than metal clubs.) Also, the heavier and longer the blade the more sheer muscle is required to use it effectively.
How exactly the real weapons are supposed to translate into stagecraft is another question. No doubt there are directors who are more or less “purist” (whatever that means in this connotation), in presenting the audience with an authentic representation of the weapon. But the end result always needs to be excitement. That’s where Viggo’s Weathertop performance (one of his first on the set?) is weak. Again, it’s not his failing, it’s Jackson’s for not allowing him enough training time – and perhaps for not giving him a blade that was more believable given his physique.
Everyone can remember theater swordplay where their blood started to race – and blows where one thought “THAT was close!” Several Highlander swordfights were realistic enough to make one flinch. Japanese Samurai films also. When Eowyn did her little maneuver bringing her sword above Aragorn – that caught the attention. It was good. I’m not sure it would be possible for a slight woman to move a real blade that fast, but it was still very good. It seemed even that Aragorn/Viggo was impressed.
It’s that appreciation of dynamic that Jackson seems to lack – almost as if he hired those martial artists depicted on the commentaries, but ultimately listened to the weapon’s makers / make-up artists. Emphasizing static display over dynamic.
There’s a difference between making personal comments about someone who’s present – with the intention of winning an argument – and insulting somebody in abstract – somebody who’s highly unlikely to ever hear a word.
You’re quite right, by the way, about my implication regarding his wife. Sometimes husband/wife teams work well, but in this case (if you listen to the 4 DVD set commentary), it appears that some of the changes to the plot that are under debate here were done on account of – or with the approval of – his wife.
P.S. Husbands and wives together in the workplace is specifically forbidden by many companies because they tend to form a unified front which intimidates co-workers. So if Jackson makes a bad plotting decision – his wife is right there to support his bad decisions. It’s comfortable for them, but for everybody else – and for the quality of the movie – it’s lousy.
I have no way of doing it, but I wish I could show this comment to Boyens, Mortensen, McKellen, Astin, Wood, Bloom, Lee, Tyler, or ANYONE closely involved in the movie to get a specific reaction. As it is, I’d suggest you watch the extras on the Extended edition again. No one, no one gives even the slightest hint that they think the results are lousy or that there was a problem with Jackson and Walsh working together. This is all in your head.
Equipoise, no one involved with the production who wasn’t bent on career suicide is going to say anything on record to criticize Jackson.
If I was using my real name, I wouldn’t dare, either. So I think the intimidation factor is real.
I made the negative comment about his wife, because if I was the third writer of that trio in the commentaries I would feel uncomfortable about saying anything that either Jackson or his wife might disagree with. I don’t think it’s dishonest or wrong of Jackson to do this. It’s his show, he can do what he wants. But it DOES suggest how serious misjudgments (say adding scenes that aren’t appropriate to Tolkien’s story) might occur.
(You can hear them talk in the overdub commentaries, for example, about putting in the Aragorn scene so that Liv Tyler wouldn’t be left out of the movie. This gives some idea of the personal dynamics going on.)
There are two ways of speaking an audience will always like; one is to tell them what they don’t understand; and the other is to tell them what they’re used to.
[George Eliot, Felix Holt (1866), quoted in the Penguin Dictionary of Epigrams (2001).]
To me, this remark reflects either (1) personal issues with PJ that don’t have anything to do with the rest of the world’s enjoyment of the movies, or (2) a simple paranoia/persecution complex.
I got out my copy of Fellowship of the Ring, because I most definitely did not recall it being overly slow, and archery is a hobby of mine.
I have the extended version, it is not an added scene. The scene is noted as an extended scene, but I definitely remember seeing this in the theatre, and if you can wait until I get my theatrical release DVD back, I can check there too (yes, I have both). On disk 2, scene 17 (The Breaking of the Fellowship), they have a cut to Legolas using his bow in “rapid fire”. It begins at 1:21:21 and ends at 1:21:29. In this time frame, he shoots 6 arrows and has another one pulled back and ready to shoot (if they didn’t cut away to Aragorn, he would have had another shot out by 1:21:30, but we’ll ignore this).
So Legolas shot 6 arrows in 9 seconds. This works out to 40 arrows per minute. Even if he was able to get a few seconds of rest here and there, surrounded by dozens of creatures ready to rip him apart, that would still be faster than even the record 21 per minute you stated.
Oh, and a nitpick: Legolas doesn’t have a longbow, he has a recurve.
No, it means you were taught by a person who fought in a style desined to win medals in a sport that barely resembles its ancestry. Modern sabre fighting is more akin to a car antenna fight than any true swordplay or stage fighting. Modern fencing has very little to do with Rennaissance fencing, and even less to do with Braodsword fighting.
a) Your talking about fighting the undead here (or whatever the Nazgul are). FIghting styles are going to be different against such an opponent.
b) You’re applying a Rapier/Smallsword technique to Broadsword styles.
c) Hollywood swordplay, like stage swordplay, has to have exaggerated moves for audience clarity. These result in moves that open obvious holes in the defenses. Even in the best swordfighting movies (which in my opinion are Richard Lesters 3 & 4 Musketeers) you can see openings that any experienced fencer could take advantage of.
You have made several unkind remarks of these on those who were involved in the production of this movie. Don’t play wounded fawn. The level of insults you put up here were borderline pit-worthy had they been aimed at SDMB individuals.
Just a brief pointer: Viggo Mortensen chose to carry his “hero sword” (aka full-weight steel sword) for the most part rather than his aluminum “fighting sword.” His reasoning for this was so that he would look tired when wielding it. Broadswords are heavy and it did not make sense to him to be using it as freshly at the end of a battle as the beginning.
As far as his build, etc, this is where you run up against Tolkien, isn’t it? Aragorn was never described as a particularly large guy. If anyone can find a passage that in any way describes him as having a “massive” upper body, I would be much surprised and chastened. Perhaps Tolkien wasn’t a fencing expert… that bastard.
My point is, that thought process is not readily apparent to the audience. I think some fault here lies with Peter Jackson and some with the actor playing Faramir. When Frodo starts acting weird as Faramir gazes on the Ring, and Sam tells of Boromir going mad over the Ring, Faramir’s expression doesn’t really change. In Osgiliath, Faramir orders his men to send the hobbits off to his father. Then after the Nazgul encounter, he goes up to Frodo and says, with basically the same expression he always has, “I believe at last we understand one another, you may go.” Maybe he did have those thoughts you mentioned, but we don’t see him making the choice, we only see the choice already made. Jackson could at least have had him say something like, “I thought that the Ring could bring salvation, but I see now that it brings only strife.”
Why doesn’t Moria look like a mine? Because it isn’t a mine, it is a Dwarf city. There are mines IN Moria of course, but it isn’t a mine itself. The Humans call it a mine because that’s the only large underground excavation they are familiar with. Moria is only a mine in the same sense that Edoras is a stable. Most of Edoras shouldn’t look like a stable, and most of Moria shouldn’t look like a mine.
Funny, he didn’t seem to mind disrespecting the story he was supposedly bringing to film. Here are some changes Jackson made which seem completely unnecessary and actually change the characters from what Tolkien intended so far as to make them different characters entirely.
Point the first: Changing Aragorn from the hardy, valiant prince in exile who works tirelessly and without any sure hope of regaining the ancient kingdom of his forefathers into some rebel without a cause who has rejected his lineage and turned aside from the responsibility of his house. Why was this necessary? Why couldn’t Aragorn be the mighty traveler and willing heir of kings in the movie? He’s not really a dynamic character in the book unless you count going from prince to king but his nobility and strength of purpose and will were constants(he carried the shards of Narsil on all his journeys! Talk about being aware of your lineage and accepting of your heritage. His heritage was a living, breathing part of his character, not gathering dust on some museum platter in Rivendell). You can call that dull if you wish and say such a flat character wouldn’t fly on the screen, but I’m not sure I buy that without seeing it even tried.
Point the second: Changing Merry and Pippen from Frodo’s dedicated friends who declared that they would have to be tied in sacks to keep them from daring the dangers with their friend(and they had seen danger in the Riders as well as the Barrow-Downs and the old Forest by the time they made this, so no claims of them not understanding the danger) and their plain forethought to not let their friend pass under the shadow alone into chance companions who just get carried along with the fellowship for the mushrooms and occasional carrot.
Point the third: Arwen and Aragorn are dedicated to each other from the first. None of this wishy-washy stuff Jackson has been portraying. Arwen made the choice of Luthien long before the fellowship of the ring was formed and Aragorn was undertaking most of his labors to regain the kingship of men on her behalf to appease the standards set forth by Elrond that he would not let his daughter wed a disenfranchised prince, but he would bless the union of his daughter and a king of men. Aragorn never faltered in his dedication to her nor her in hers to him. Aragorn making eyes at Eowyn and Arwen taking up the candle of one passing to the havens is another unnecessary change.
Point the fourth: Theoden running from the orcs and the fight instead of taking it to them. If this was simple expediency so you didn’t have to have Aragorn and the Grey Company(the other rangers and the sons of Elrond) go from Helm’s Deep back to Dunharrow on their way to the paths of the dead and they could take the paths directly from Helm’s Deep(the back way out) then I think it’s a cheap shot which undermines the spirit of the king. Theoden was a strong king who fell into inaction through devious counsels not a coward. When good counsel was brought to him he acted upon it.
Point the fifth: Faramir. I think it’s pretty clear the movie Faramir is NOT Tolkien’s Faramir. He may pan out to be an interesting character, but he’s not Tolkien’s Faramir.
I could go on, Treebeard being oblivious to the damage to the forest or being a shallow character who reacts hastily to the damage when he sees it instead of a careful, wise being. Eowyn a schoolgirl with a crush instead of a proud daughter of kings with a secret sorrow and an earnest, if awkward, attraction to Aragorn, etc, etc.**
I’m not so sure I will. Of all the pieces that upset me about the movie, this was the worst. On reflection I’ve discovered what pissed me off abou it the most. It scales down the size of the conflict. This is no longer an epic struggle of all the peoples of Middle-Earth against Sauron. It’s this small band of heroes and the battles they fight against the enemy. At the time of the attack on the Hornburg war from Mordor was already marching on the town of Dale and the Lonely Mountain(Gimli’s people) and Lothlorien was under eminent attack as well. Heck even the Shire was being attacked(infiltrated and undermined might be a better choice for what was happening there though). IIRC there were even forces moving towards Mirkwood. Sauron was fighting a war on four fronts, at LEAST, and STILL hadn’t really begun his major offensive.
This was a WORLD WAR. This was an EPIC fight. But apparently the Elves decided to leave their own homelands which were under siege and march to the aid of 300 random women, children and old men in Rohan(while thier able-bodied husbands, fathers, brothers, etc. rode around in the Northern part of Rohan and apparently completely missed the ten thousand Orcs that trampled across half the land to get from Isengard to the Hornburg). Yet a couple dozen orcs carrying Merry and Pippin did not escape their notice.
Turning this EPIC into a collection of battles, even large battles, is unnecessary and it diminishes the scope of the story and makes the races jump through hoops which simply weren’t in character for the races/peoples of middle-earth. What next, a brigade of Hobbits at Minas Tirith? Why? Just cause?
The sense of unity is being stripped from the story. The sense of things happening for a purpose or because some stout-willed character held their course among turmoil. Merry and Pippen are the Flotsam and Jetsam instead of true-hearted companions. Heck, even Aragorn seems to just be going with the flow and I have a feeling he’ll be shocked as hell when he winds up on the throne even though his character in the book had ALWAYS worked towards that end. Esteel, the hope of the Dunedain didn’t make the transition. You get Aragorn the wanderer, not Aragorn the traveler.**
Elen Sila Lúmenn’ Omentielvo! (A star shines upon the hour of our meeting!)
The point is that Peter Jackson had a differing, yet equally legitimate cinematic interpretation than what you would have preferred. A lot of people agreed with his vision. PJ, his crew, and his audience are capable of distilling and interpreting Tolkien without being bad people.
Believe it or not, Shakespeare is a far, far better author than Tolkien. And if Shakespeare aficiandos can put up with Leonardo DiCaprio, than you guys can suck it up, too.
