February 27, 2003

Re: It's Soooo Easy, Among Other Things
Everett

Francois, your criticisms of our criticisms of the movie seem to be founded on the premise that "if you haven't done it, you have no right to say anything critical of it." I suppose it then follows that "if you haven't done it, you have no right to praise," but that's beside the point since both premises are false. If someone undertakes a task which cincerns me in some way or aanother, I am within my rights to expect certain things. And while it may be unreasonable of me to expect perfection, I am certainly justified in pointing what I feel to be glaring errors, so long as it is done respectfully. If the plumber, in fixing my clogged drain, causes it to leak, I am justified in voicing criticism, or if my surgeon leaves his scalpel inside of me, I am entirely justified in criticizing him for doing so, as well as demanding that he remove it. If the dentist pulls the wrong tooth, or Marty Mornhinweg takes the wind instead of the ball at the beginning of sudden death overtime, I can legitimately criticize those actions/decisions.

The same principle applies to criticism of the LotR films. In going to see LotR, we, particularly those of us who have read the book(s), have certain expectations as to what will be presented on screen. When what is presented on screen fails to live up to our expectations, we are justified in criticizing the movies. It is then up to those being criticized to answer those criticisms that have been levied, or, if they are unable to do so due to extenuating circumstances, for others to advance reasons for their actions. If the reasons justify the actions/decisions of Peter Jackson and his crew, the criticism is dropped, or at least lessened to a mere difference of opinion.

Now, in a post I submitted yesterday, I made several points while providing little in the way of backup. I did this for two reasons. Firstly, I was of the opinion that there would be little interest in the theological justifications of the points I made. If this view is incorrect, let me know, and I will try to make them over the course of a few posts. Secondly, the post was long to begin with, and I did not want to have the piece carry on forever.

Finally, I watched the extended version of FotR over Christmas, and while most of the added scenes improved the movie, or at least did no harm to it, there were two scenes that were detrimental to the movie as a whole. One was during Bilbo's party when Bilbo told Frodo that he only adopted him to keep Bag End away from the Sackville-Bagginses. I can sort of see why he would do this, but it still detracts from Bilbo's character even so.

The second bit was just before the the Fellowship entered Moria, when Gandalf told Frodo that he could only rely on himself. This stands in stark contrast to the instruction to Frodo to look for help in unexpected places. In fact this change is something that seems to be prevalent throughout the movie. The idea that Frodo is ultimately alone may make for good cinema (I don't see why it should be more compelling than Frodo receiving help at times when he should have no reason to expect it), but it detracts from the original story and ultimately changes one of the underlying priciples of the stroy. As such it is very difficult, if not impossible to justify.