March 7, 2003

Re: Copewilson
Danny

I understand people's frustrations with adaptations from the film, but I disagree with the criticism saying that these movies are not visionary. I also disagree with the insinuation that the acting is poor, and that the film lacks substance.

First, the visionary aspect. PJ has taken uppon himself perhaps the most daunting movie-making task to present itself to movie makers since the begining of film. Anyone who watches the special features and sees the amount of attention to detail put into the film realises what an unbeleivable amount of effort PJ put in. Were he merely concerned for eye candy that viewers would see on screen, he wouldn't have engraved mordor script on the glove worn by an orc extra, or made sure that each race had arrows that were unique right down to the fletchings. He wouldn't have hand crafted every glass, every stool, literally every prop. He wouldn't have crafted realistic chain mail, or hired sword smiths and armor smiths to genuinely craft all the weapons and armor used. The list of details goes on and on. PJ was a visionary who envisioned a fantasy movie that exceeds any that have gone before it; a fantasy movie that actually receives respect, and brings awareness that fantasy literature has quality literature. (though I beleive that the ranks of fantasy authors who manage to write meaningful literature and not escapism is very small.) PJ has succeeded on those regards. LOTR looks great and it entertains, but it also is true to many many underlying themes from Tolkien's books. I am a huge fan of the books, but I say to any who want to rip on PJ for not being a visionary, that they should stop pouting because it a change was made, and start being grateful for the amount of talent, effort and vision that did go into the films.

To the argument that the acting is poor, I realize that this is largely opinion, but I also disagree wholeheartedly. I absolutely love Gandalf's acting, and enjoy Aragorn very much. Every character is played well. I may disagree with some of PJ's interpetations on how a character is, but then again we probably all have our ideas about a character and can't possibly expect a character's portrayal in film to satisfy everybody. So I am willing to forgive PJ if he didn't somehow read my mind and craft the movies characters to my vision of things.

To say that the movie lacks substance is also in my mind a weak statement. These movies drive home the underlying themes from the books. Key messages to the effect of 'so do all who live to see such times, but that is not theres to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us,' and messages about hope in the face of opposition, and the eventual triumph of good over evil are undeniably contained in the movie. There is character development and growth. I beleive that you can already see that in Pippin and Merry when they realize that there won't be a shire to go home too and thus decide to do more to fight the evil. Aragorn grows much more than in the books, and while this may be something we find issue with on interpetation levels, it definately does give the film substance.

I feel that the only thing we can justly criticise PJ for with the movies comes down to interpetation. Even that is not entirely fair because, like I said, I can't expect PJ to read my mind and predict what interpetations will satisfy me and what will offend. It seems to me that there are too many people who were excited for the movies, but just as excited to condemn whatever was made. If you ask me, that is their loss. These movies are well done, and can be enjoyed on many levels, both with and without reading the book. Those who insist on being bitter over personal interpetation issues are really just depriving themselves of that enjoyment.