October 1, 2002

Re: Why Someone Hated the Movie
Danny

Every person is entitled to their own opinion, and there are bound to be reasons that a Tolkien die hard will be upset with any film adaptation. With the thought in mind that I respect your right to have an opinion, I would like to defend a few of the criticisms made in that post. Remember first off that film and literature are extremely different, and the use of elements is often vastly different. With that in mind, here goes:

The ring for example. I for one found it interesting that in the movie Gandalf never touched the ring. That was an example of how PJ did do what was criticised that he couldn't. It was a very subtle way of showing something without overboard special effects. It implied that he didn't pick it up out of a respect for its power and a fear of what he would do with it. Gandalf's refusal to take the ring from Frodo added to this (which I know was in both book and movie)

Tom Bombadil now. I cannot imagine any way that you could insert Bombadil into the film without making the first portion extremely confusing. I am not speaking about plot confusion, I am talking about emotional mood and context. The Hobbits are embarking on a very dangerous journey. What drives most readers is the sense of this danger and the desire to see how they survive. In a book you can have a pause like Bombadil because the time that passes between events is defined by reading speed, not by actual speed of events. What I mean by that is that where you have a page or two to ease into a relaxed scene and then ease back to the danger, in film a page is sometimes 20 seconds of film. How lame would it have been to have the Hobbits run from terrifying wraiths and go to a forrest and suddenly encounger Robin Williams jumping and singing and be safe for a while? It would have been sooooo out of place that I think Bombadil wouldn't fit in the film even if there was time for him.

I disagree wholeheartedly about your criticism about Gandalf's performance. He wasn't Oscar Nominated for nothing if you ask me. And Jackson did use well placed lighting effects on several occasions. One of my favorites is the glow that Gandalf's stave gives off as he faces the Balrog. As an artist, I enjoy seeing films where I can take stills of a moment and see a good artistic composition. The Balrog scene was full of those with great lighting, contrast, motion etc.

I do agree somewhat on the Hobits friendship being less developed and hope that the extended version will be better, and do have to agree that Sam's performance was not as good as it could have been, but I do feel it wasn't as bad as some have made it out to be.

I also agree that the "If you want him, come and claim him." line was not my favorite. I understand Arwyn instead of Glorfindle, but I do wish that that one line hadn't been used. I also don't like how Arwyn casts the spell, but understand how it was needed. For viewers who had not read the books (which this film was also trying to reach) it would have been really confusing why the river flooded without a noticable cause. That kind of thing is not as effective in film if explained in after thought usually, but saying so before hand spoils the surprise.

I also agree that Lothlorien could have been better, but also want to note that the time constraints were a huge part of the problem. The key events happened at night in the book, and so the parts that took most of the time were at night making it look very dark. I did like the about 5 second shot of Lothlorien as they first arrived and it was not yet dark though. Hopefully the extended DVD will have more of that. I didn't like the interpetation of Galadriel so much when she did her powerfull speal, but respect another interpetation of that and don't feel that it is neccesarily out of harmony with the text, just my imagination.

For Boromir's holding the ring. No that wasn't in the book as probably everyone who has read it noted. However, the book has opportunities that don't exist in film to develop how Boromir struggled with the desire for the ring.

I had other thoughts in defense of the film, but I can't remember them after typing these, and the post is long enough. It comes down to one thing though. Peter Jackson warned us Tolkien die-hards when he said that any film adaptation will be that director's interpetation of the books, and not in any way the definitive material for the book. Any book adaptation to film should be judged on two levels really. First, how well it was adapted, and second how well it works as an independent work. I don't think you will ever find a closer adaptation from book to film of any complex piece of literature. Someone cited in a previous post a list of books gone to film where things are unrecongizably different ie: Forrest Gump. I also feel that the film is a great film if judged independent of the books which says a lot.

So to wrap things up finally 8). Sure not everything is exactly how I imagined it, but that would be impossible unless I made the film (then it would be my interpetation). We all knew that things were going to have to be changed for time and film purposes as well. I don't think it is fair to go into a film with a chip on our shoulder and make a list of everything we don't like. The point is that a huge part of our experience, especially with a book adapted film comes from our attitude going in. I think that some people were bound to hate the film because they had already decided they did.