board77

IdylleSeethes wrote:

They were unanimous in thinking the last 2 films to be just prolonged battles.

While I can hardly argue with opinion, I find this very absurd, particularly for TTT. Go look at the TTT chapters: aside from the opening Gandalf vs Balrog moment, there is almost no action at all until waaaaay later (at least an hour, prob an hour and a half) when the Warg battle comes in. There isn't a single other action piece until waaaaay after that when Helm's Deep finally starts. In between those three battle scenes, there is a whole hell of a lot of talking, character development, contemplation, hell, we even have Treebeard AND Theoden reciting poetry for goodness sakes! Not to mention that two of the three movies storylines have little to no action/battle scenes at all.

This is what bugs me so much. You can have an hour of people standing around talking to each but for some reason a couple minutes of action turns the films into a non-stop action-fest. And on Pelennor Fields, PJ repeatedly weaves beautiful character moments throughout the action - ROTK is not just a bunch of kewl action, as it's filled with personal moments from all the characters involed.

Argh! This really does annoy me because it feels like people aren't actually giving the films a chance, like they're forming their opinions before hand and going along with those preconceived notions. Yes, there is a lot of battle and fighting, but to say it's just about nothing but big battle scenes is literally ignoring the vast majority of what happens in these films.

Well, I finally rented the RotK EE tonight and started to watch it. It will probably take me all weekend to get through it, and then I'll be gone most of next week.

But the review will forthcome upon my return!

Jn

Voronwe and yov,

I actually agree that it was unfair, but that was the reaction from the group and their feelings can't be contested. It was an over educated group that averaged about 45, so there is no claim that it was a typical audience. It is a group that I would hope could appreciate Tolkien. However, we lost 3 after POTD and the scrubbing bubbles and before the endings.

I can wonder why and I have to say the impression was probably taken from what was more recent, which was the last half of ROTK which caused TTT to be unfairly pulled in. The "softer" endings don't seem to help. They remembered FOTR as being less violent, probably because of the Shire, Rivendell and Lorien and seem to have forgotten most of the violence in it. I also know my wife, who in general likes the films, thinks TTT and ROTK are too battle heavy and the fighting could be easily cut to 50% and nothing would be lost. I think it is safe to say she likes them in spite of the battles, because of the more contemplative scenes that exist between the fighting.

I have spent the week with three young Tolkien lovers and they seem to agree among themselves that they wish the battles had been shorter, but that PJ thought he had to overdo them for the younger audience. I don't know if they intended to include themselves, but the youngest would have been 20 when FOTR came out and the oldest 22. I think they meant those younger than themselves.

I don't recall anyone ever expressing the opinion that PJ didn't have enough fighting in LOTR, so I'm inclined to think the general opinion is that he overdid it. Whatever the general opinion is, mine will remain that there was too much fighting at the expense of the more contemplative moments.

This is only one aspect of PJ's lack of restraint.

Interestingly, FOTR is the one I think has a bit too much fighting/action/battle sequences going on and yet it's the one your friends have found the least action-oriented. I don't get it.

Faramond wrote:

The journey of Frodo and Sam makes up half of TTT. In the movie version, I would guess it makes up, say, less than a third of the film time.

Someone on TORC once worked out the times of the storylines in the TTT theatrical edition and I think he/she found that Frodo & Sam had about 50 minutes and the Three Hunters/Rohan storyline had roughly 1hr 15 minutes (and Merry & Pippin had even less). I am going by memory so I don't know for sure, but I will try to find the thread.

------------------------

yovargas wrote:

Interestingly, FOTR is the one I think has a bit too much fighting/action/battle sequences going on and yet it's the one your friends have found the least action-oriented. I don't get it.

That's probably because the action is spread out over the course of the film instead of being bunched up in one huge sequence as in TTT and ROTK.

Also, there is a lot of talking about the action in TTT and ROTK as the characters discuss and prepare for the upcoming battles of Helm's Deep and Pelennor fields, unlike the FOTR action scenes which just suddenly happen with little or no build-up.

-------------------------

Edit:

Queen B wrote:

Close ups are akin to underlining/capitalization/embolding. So to me, PJ's films are

LIKE THIS! IN YER FACE! NO CALMNESS! NO RESTRAINT! SHOUT! YELL! HOLLER! SCREAM! KILL! SHRIEK!

... for 3 hours.

Being largely uneducated in the language of film, I had no idea that close-ups constituted "shouting" therefore I was unaware that I was being "shouted at" when watching PJ's LOTR.

Ignorance is bliss

I think you are misunderstandi me Kez.

All close-ups do not constitute shouting, but PJ's close-ups (IMO) are way over the top and therefore do constitute shouting.

He rams the camera into his actors faces and and holds for a long time while one of the lesser actors uses the same narrow range of expressions to indicate fear and misery. I have just described most of the Frodo/Sam material there.

Note the contrast between the quick glimpse of Gandalf's face at the CoE when Frodo volunteers - a fine close-up - and the ridiculous close-ups of Stabbed!Frodo! in Moria and near Shelob's den.

I'm leaving the thread now, as I can see where this is going.

Note the contrast between the quick glimpse of Gandalf's face at the CoE when Frodo volunteers - a fine close-up - and the ridiculous close-ups of Stabbed!Frodo! in Moria and near Shelob's den.

Closeups not only demand greater care and precision be taken with the costumes; they also demand more from the actors. I think many actors can't pull off the closeup successfully. This example given by QB shows, to my mind, that McKellan is a far better actor than Wood.

Jackson has two faults here: he uses the closeup too much, and he can't distinguish a closeup that works from one that doesn't. It would have been beneficial to the film if Jackson had realized that Wood was unable to pull off the closeup shot, and adjusted his scene composition or casting accordingly.

I apologise if I caused any offence Queen B, it wasn't my intention

Queen_Beruthiel wrote:

I'm leaving the thread now, as I can see where this is going.

Why? I think the thread's going really well.

I agree that there are several Frodo close-ups that don't work (particularly the Moria stabbing one), but I strongly disagree that the style is used poorly in general. Can you give more non-Frodo & Sam examples of where you thought it was badly used?

Quote:

This example given by QB shows, to my mind, that McKellan is a far better actor than Wood.

DUH!!! :D:D

yov wrote:

Quote:

Can you give more non-Frodo & Sam examples of where you thought it was badly used?

No but I can give some where I thought it was well used.

The conversation between Galadriel and Aragon in 'Farewell to Lorien' (see my sig pic)

Legolas after Gimli says, "She gave me three."



Boromir's death.




Eowyn as Grima says, "So fair, so cold" ...



The Passing of Theoden.



Will that do for a start?

*swoons for Sassy*

Nice choices, Sass!

(And I love that scene between Legolas and Gimli as they leave Lorien. It's just so..............sweet. )

I also found some pics of close-ups that didn't seem like "shouting" to me.

First of all, as a compliment to your "dying Theoden":


"Endurance beyond hope":


Those amazing eyes of Galadriel's as she holds each of the Fellowship in her gaze (I also love the corresponding close-ups of those looking back at her):


*sniff*


And then there's this one:

I remember being very unsettled, and yet extremely compelled by the series of these close-ups in "Arwen's Fate". There's so much pain and sorrow and distress reflected in her face as she listens to her father. I'm quite sure that some would classify this as "shouting", but to my mind, it felt more like a stark, and somehow gutsy attempt to truly have the audience gaze into Arwen's soul.........an incredibly intimate experience for me.

I_S wrote:

They were unanimous in thinking the last 2 films to be just prolonged battles. Because of my familiarity with Tolkien, it did not strike me until that day how imbalanced PJ's view of LOTR is. Yes I thought there was too much activity and not enough contemplation, but I hadn't considered how serious an effect this had on viewers with no background. For a non-reader, liking TTT and ROTK is reduced to the issue of how well they compare against other action movies.

This is precisely my gripe against the movies. Let me say fist that everyone is entitled to their own views of the book. PJ saw it as an action book, or so it seems, throwing in a bit of contemplation to please us, the fans. The bottom line is I don't find it's an action book at all at all.
Which leads me to this question: are we debating restraint vs rashness in general, or in the particular case of the lord of the rings?

yovargas wrote:

Argh! rage This really does annoy me because it feels like people aren't actually giving the films a chance, like they're forming their opinions before hand and going along with those preconceived notions. Yes, there is a lot of battle and fighting, but to say it's just about nothing but big battle scenes is literally ignoring the vast majority of what happens in these films.

Those people, I_S says, had NOT read the book. How could they have a preconceived idea? In your favour, I will say again, my mother saw all there was to see outside of the battles, and enjoyed the movies far more than I did.



I'll mention also that while I think there is too much action, I thoroughly enjoyed Helm's deep, elves included, minus the jokes; and that my main gripe against the Pelennor field is that it isn't big or scary enough, and that it wanders all over the place a little bit too much for my taste.
In fact, what it lacks, and a lot of the 3 movies do, is suspense. The book is full of suspense. It leaves you virtually hanging on to the pages. Suspense is what keeps you turning the pages all through the night. My definition of extremely well made suspense (and I pick a so called B movie on purpose) is "night of the living dead".
The Pelennor fields has no suspense to speak of, except the Ride of the Rohirrim (which won best scene, btw). Where is the sense of foreboding, despair, waiting, fighting for one's life? PJ leaves no doubt as to who is going to win, from the word go (I think he succeeded in Helm's deep though, it's much scarier and interesting). (It took me at least 10 readings of the book to stop shuddering and waiting for disaster, even though I knew the end)
So I would complain about the lack of that, not action as such, really (to answer yovargas).
POTD is another scene with all suspense squashed from it entirely. It's laughable.

Athrabeth wrote:

I'm quite sure that some would classify this as "shouting", but to my mind, it felt more like a stark, and somehow gutsy attempt to truly have the audience gaze into Arwen's soul.

No, I don't think so. I think everybody thinks that scene was a great success, and is often put forward to the argument that PJ CAN be great.

That's all for now





(ADDED: in my book, suspense is based on restraint, mainly: this is the only way I can see it working)

Kezmoid wrote:

I apologise if I caused any offence Queen B, it wasn't my intention

There is nothing to apologize for Kez.

I just prefer fairly objective discussion and the PJ fans incline towards subjective discussion: it is a matter of taste.

It is also a matter of taste that I prefer films directed in the classic style, with close-ups used to emphasize key moments, rather than being used constantly. Leone's use of intense close-ups of very enigmatic faces also chimes well with me: I think that PJ's actors over-act.

I'll try to dig out my (unpublished ) "directorial tools" thread, which might make my points more clearly.

I don't think anyone participating in this thread equates Peter Jackson with any of the 'greats'. I certainly don't. My tastes run toward Bergman, Truffaud, Kurosowa, Fellini and Lean. Introspective films.

Quote:

I just prefer fairly objective discussion and the PJ fans incline towards subjective discussion: it is a matter of taste.

Objectively speaking, I should NOT like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. His direction is uneven. His techniques are blatent. His touch is unsubtle. He is repetitous. His grasp on (some) of Tolkien's themes are suspect. He produced an epic blockbuster geared toward the maintream.

<I don't particularly like epic films>

Subjectively speaking, I DO like the films. I consider myself fairly intelligent and I certainly think I have a discerning taste. The question is:
given all the valid criticism of Peter Jackson as a filmaker ... WHY do I like these films so much? It is a valid question, I think. And here I must add that I have watched these films more times than any other films. Why? Is it because I love the book?
How is it that these films speak to me when I am able to fault them so much? What is it that transcends the overall uneveness? Is it because scenes like 'Arwen's Fate', 'Very Old Friends' and 'The Passing of Theoden' are isolated jewels shining that much brighter because they contrast with the murky and the mundane?

A paradox.

What is obvious to me is that the films bear thinking about. They can withstand the scrutiny. This was expecially clear as I went through Voronwe's mammoth poll chapter by chapter. I did not rely upon memory; I watched every single foot of film.
Yes, I was struck by how pedestrian some of it was, on the other hand, I was struck again by how glorious and how easily I was pulled into Middle Earth.

I still don't really understand why the films resonate with me when objectively they shouldn't. Maybe it's because I allow it ... maybe, just maybe it's because, for once, I permit the positive to outweigh the negative.

Maybe I can see the entire forest instead of just individual trees.



Question: How many times have you watched the films, QB?

.
.
.
.
.

Niamh wrote:

Quote:

In fact, what it lacks, and a lot of the 3 movies do, is suspense. The book is full of suspense. It leaves you virtually hanging on to the pages. Suspense is what keeps you turning the pages all through the night

On first reading, yes absolutely. Not on subsequent readings 'though.
We all knew the story the films would tell ... so that sort of suspense was
alleviated ... There was suspense in Jackson's films (the build-up to Helm's Deep in the rain, Parth Galen and Boromir's last stand, Faramir's suicide charge, Ride of the Rohirrim) unfortunately, there just wasn't enough of it.
.
.
.
.
Semprini, somehow I missed 'Last Year at Marianbad'

I did want to address one point with you about Bergman. When I use the word 'passionate' perhaps I should use intense instead. Think of the rape in 'The Virgin Spring', the way the knight looks into the condemned girl's eyes in "The Seventh Seal' and the tension between the two sisters in 'The Silence'.

I agree. Bergman likes to explore humanity's dark side; yes, he condemns more than he affirms. He asks difficult questions ... of us and of himself ... and provides no answer. I suppose he can be considered bleak although I have never found him so. Perhaps because I share (what I think) are his views.

I've read through the pages of this thread out of order, and therefore I may be repeating what others have said, but the question I find myself asking is the ontological one: "what IS 'restraint'?"

Some of the aspects of the films that others here complain about also bother me (the cheap jokes, for instance! Frodo's face after Shelob gets him!) -- but I can't say that the problem with the films for me was, for instance, "too many battles," because sometimes the battles worked incredibly well (actually, I think I mean the build-up towards the battles -- when those trolls come marching in with their drums in ROTK, for instance -- OH, NO! feels almost everybody in the audience -- for one moment we're WITH the soldiers of Gondor), and sometimes they didn't.

The two things I longed for more of, and appreciated terribly when they were present, were
TENSION
and
SPACIOUSNESS.

These might qualify as "restraint" under certain conditions; I don't know.

New Zealand was used so well to create a sense of SPACIOUSNESS earlier in the movie that the cramped, busy, fake look of Mordor came as a very disapointing surprise. If there had been more quiet shots of characters just Being in Their Space, wherever that was, I would have been happy, but of course those shots are the kind that are routinely sacrificed when push comes to shove.

Sometimes PJ created a sense of TENSION, even Doom (which is such a big theme for LOTR), and sometimes (Shelob's Lair), he just seemed to give up on the whole thought. Again, my disappointment was the keener because we had seen him do better in other places.

I remember posting in a TORC thread about fixing the ending of ROTK -- I had a few seconds here, a few seconds there, that I desperately wanted to shave off; then it all would have worked pretty well for me. That I WANTED the films to work well for me shows again that LOTR's in a different category of film than the kind I work with critically. It is a kind of music video (in the best sense: a performance, a Reminder pointing to something else) for the books, and even the books are a bit that way for me: they point to something that has great resonance for me, such that I overlook their own excesses.

Oh, I'm late, I'm late! Must run. Would have liked to have been more excessive myself, but must settle for fragmented and unclear.

Teremia, your entire post speaks for me, but I must zero in on this:

Teremia wrote:

That I WANTED the films to work well for me shows again that LOTR's in a different category of film than the kind I work with critically. It is a kind of music video (in the best sense: a performance, a Reminder pointing to something else) for the books, and even the books are a bit that way for me: they point to something that has great resonance for me, such that I overlook their own excesses.

Yes, yes, yes. I think you're getting close to explaining to me why I love the films in spite of their excesses. Because I see an essence there that is much more important to me than the misjudgments, though I acknowledge and regret them. Can it be because I feel a relationship to LotR? I mean, the world is full of people whom I love in spite of their foibles and failings and lapses, and who love me in spite of mine. And in fact there are other works of art with which I have this kind of relationship—Dickens springs to mind.

I'm not (at all!) saying that people who strongly dislike the films don't love Tolkien's LotR. But people love it (or like it) in different ways, and one of the ways may be this one, which leaves me loving the films because, as Teremia says, of what they point to.

Do you and Teremia actually mean you like the movies as a sort of very fancy live art-cover to the book? Or am I way off.

No, not cover art at all.

(Speaking for myself alone here) I find that much of the films does capture something that I also find, and value, in Tolkien's LotR. It's the opposite of a superficial representation—for me, these parts convey what I found in the book. I just can't separate the experience of the book from the film—I feel certain that I would not find many of these things in the film if I had never read the book, or they would be far less apparent to me. This is what Teremia's term "pointing to" means to me. Not that what is in the film is just a hint, but that it evokes what the book evokes, and probably because I know both.

Just as the book itself probably means more to me because it evokes something in reality that I also know well, if only in my heart.

That's it in a nutshell, Prim!