Mulling over The Two Towers movie
Dec. 19th, 2002 07:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pegkerr Well, I've seen it twice, and I'll see it again tomorrow night.
I don't need to spend time squeeing over what worked; God knows there's enough of that out there (feel free to cruise other LiveJournals if you're interested in chatter about Cool Special Effects or Nice Job With Gollum or How Hot Was Legolas). There are also LiveJournal posts about How They Got It All Wrong. (See, for example, this.) There are posts which discuss how Some Things Work and Some Things Didn't, such as this. I think I fall most into that latter camp. Instead, have been thinking today mostly about What It All Means.
Of course, many of Jackson's departures from the text were done for purely cinematic reasons, having to do with the need for compression, combining characters, the necessity to make the story visual, etc. As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
futabachan points out, for example, conflating Dunharrow with Helm's Deep and folding Erkenbrand into Eomer has some sound reasons of economy. After seeing the movie the second time, however, I started to understand that a good many of the changes, so irritating to Tolkien purists, were also done for thematic reasons.
The key was Sam's monologue at Osgiliath, after he has snabbled Frodo away from the Lord of the Nazgul. I do find that scene troubling for a number of reasons; I don't like the changes in Faramir's characterization that led him to take the hobbits there (why? Just to heighten tension? Just to show off Osgiliath?), and I don't think that the Lord of the Nazgul would have let Frodo go so easily if he actually saw Frodo there flourishing the ring, instead of just sensing the proximity of the ring (as in the scene in the book, which actually takes place at the Black Gate). (To be fair, Tolkien does raise doubts that the Nazgul could "see" Frodo in daylight if he doesn't have the ring on, so I suppose it's arguable.)
But anyway, that speech of Sam's: I find it interesting that it was actually a pickup done a year later, after the principal filming was done, and that they wrote the speech to tie the movie together thematically. I also find it interesting that the screenwriters were uncertain about it, fearing that it was too corny.
I don't think that the speech is 100% successful. I'm not sure if it's Astin's delivery (for the most part I must say I've been very happy with his interpretation of Sam) or the speech itself. Perhaps it is a tad bit too cornball. Or a tad too long? Perhaps if they'd taken another day to tinker with it. . . It's actually partly taken from part in the book where Frodo and Sam converse on the stair right before they come to Cirith Ungol (another snippet from that same wonderful scene as Tolkien wrote it was used in the last scene of the movie: "I wonder if we'll ever be put into a tale, told out of a book. Do you suppose they'll say 'I want to hear about Frodo and the Ring. Frodo was very brave, wasn't he, Dad?'") To me, the way that Tolkien did it worked very well (the BBC radio production did a beautiful job with that scene.) The addition that Walsh and Boyen made to the speech they created for Sam in Osgiliath can be summed up with the line, "There is good in the world, and it's worth fighting for." And now that I've seen the movie twice, I see more and more about the movie, including many of the changes that were made, are clearly explorations of that assertion . . . and to the related understanding, that there are good things in this world that are worth not only fighting, but the risk of death.
Take, for example, the inclusion of Arwen into the movie. Some tsk that Arwen was shoe-horned in "just to put another woman in, and an element of romance." Many of those tutting forget that the story of Arwen and Aragorn is in the text, in the appendices. I think that the scene in the movie where Elrond describes Aragorn's death and Arwen's diminishment into death herself afterwards beautifully evokes the melancholy I felt when I first read that story.
As I said, I didn't clearly see until I'd sat through the movie a second time that Arwen's story is included because it is a working of that exact same theme: she is faced with choosing the fate of Luthien, "the sweet and the bitter." She must fight her father and risk all for "something worth fighting for"--her love for Aragorn.
Note what a similar situation Theoden is in. He must move from "I will not risk open war" to "I will ride out to meet death valiantly." Treebeard, too, must choose. I think the reason that Jackson made Merry attempt to argue him into it was to highlight that a choice must be made.
Another change: some fans have complained about Elrond's conversation with Cate Blanchett in the middle of the movie: (saying it's just a meaningless cameo for Blanchett). I think it's not. Galadriel is pointing out that they must decide whether the elves will face the risk of death by investing themselves in Middle Earth's fate, as Frodo himself is risking death. Elrond's answer is not given in that scene, but we see what the elves' final response is when Haldir shows up with his troop of archers at Helm's Deep (Haldir is a Lothlorien elf). Again, this was a departure from the text, but we see this, too, is a lead up to Sam's speech. I didn't understand until sitting through the movie a second time that Haldir's appearance meant that Galadriel and perhaps Elrond had changed their mind, which means, perhaps, that Elrond will change his mind about trying to thwart Arwen and Aragorn, too (as we know he does in the end).
Theoden and Aragorn's scene when they decide to ride out to meet the Urak-hai reminds me of the scene between Nita and Carl on the beach in Deep Wizardry, where Nita is forced to face that she has a choice. She can refuse the responsibility that is hers, fleeing death but knowing that she has let down the good side. She can accept her fate. Or . . . and this is why I like what Diane Duane does with this scene so much . . . she can die well, embracing what she must do, just as Aragorn and Theoden ride out with fierce joy instead of reluctance.
This all reminds me, too, of that seminal scene in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban, when Peter complains, "What could be gained by resisting him? (Voldemort) and Black exclaims, "Only innocent lives!" When Peter objects, saying that Voldemort would have killed him, then Black roars, "Then you should have died, as we would have died for you."
What in your life--heck, in my life--is worth giving your all for? What is worth dying for? That is what I think this movie is pushing us to think about.
I am not sure if these musings have been altogether coherent, but I welcome comments. Thanks.
Peg
I don't need to spend time squeeing over what worked; God knows there's enough of that out there (feel free to cruise other LiveJournals if you're interested in chatter about Cool Special Effects or Nice Job With Gollum or How Hot Was Legolas). There are also LiveJournal posts about How They Got It All Wrong. (See, for example, this.) There are posts which discuss how Some Things Work and Some Things Didn't, such as this. I think I fall most into that latter camp. Instead, have been thinking today mostly about What It All Means.
Of course, many of Jackson's departures from the text were done for purely cinematic reasons, having to do with the need for compression, combining characters, the necessity to make the story visual, etc. As
futabachan points out, for example, conflating Dunharrow with Helm's Deep and folding Erkenbrand into Eomer has some sound reasons of economy. After seeing the movie the second time, however, I started to understand that a good many of the changes, so irritating to Tolkien purists, were also done for thematic reasons.The key was Sam's monologue at Osgiliath, after he has snabbled Frodo away from the Lord of the Nazgul. I do find that scene troubling for a number of reasons; I don't like the changes in Faramir's characterization that led him to take the hobbits there (why? Just to heighten tension? Just to show off Osgiliath?), and I don't think that the Lord of the Nazgul would have let Frodo go so easily if he actually saw Frodo there flourishing the ring, instead of just sensing the proximity of the ring (as in the scene in the book, which actually takes place at the Black Gate). (To be fair, Tolkien does raise doubts that the Nazgul could "see" Frodo in daylight if he doesn't have the ring on, so I suppose it's arguable.)
But anyway, that speech of Sam's: I find it interesting that it was actually a pickup done a year later, after the principal filming was done, and that they wrote the speech to tie the movie together thematically. I also find it interesting that the screenwriters were uncertain about it, fearing that it was too corny.
I don't think that the speech is 100% successful. I'm not sure if it's Astin's delivery (for the most part I must say I've been very happy with his interpretation of Sam) or the speech itself. Perhaps it is a tad bit too cornball. Or a tad too long? Perhaps if they'd taken another day to tinker with it. . . It's actually partly taken from part in the book where Frodo and Sam converse on the stair right before they come to Cirith Ungol (another snippet from that same wonderful scene as Tolkien wrote it was used in the last scene of the movie: "I wonder if we'll ever be put into a tale, told out of a book. Do you suppose they'll say 'I want to hear about Frodo and the Ring. Frodo was very brave, wasn't he, Dad?'") To me, the way that Tolkien did it worked very well (the BBC radio production did a beautiful job with that scene.) The addition that Walsh and Boyen made to the speech they created for Sam in Osgiliath can be summed up with the line, "There is good in the world, and it's worth fighting for." And now that I've seen the movie twice, I see more and more about the movie, including many of the changes that were made, are clearly explorations of that assertion . . . and to the related understanding, that there are good things in this world that are worth not only fighting, but the risk of death.
Take, for example, the inclusion of Arwen into the movie. Some tsk that Arwen was shoe-horned in "just to put another woman in, and an element of romance." Many of those tutting forget that the story of Arwen and Aragorn is in the text, in the appendices. I think that the scene in the movie where Elrond describes Aragorn's death and Arwen's diminishment into death herself afterwards beautifully evokes the melancholy I felt when I first read that story.
As I said, I didn't clearly see until I'd sat through the movie a second time that Arwen's story is included because it is a working of that exact same theme: she is faced with choosing the fate of Luthien, "the sweet and the bitter." She must fight her father and risk all for "something worth fighting for"--her love for Aragorn.
Note what a similar situation Theoden is in. He must move from "I will not risk open war" to "I will ride out to meet death valiantly." Treebeard, too, must choose. I think the reason that Jackson made Merry attempt to argue him into it was to highlight that a choice must be made.
Another change: some fans have complained about Elrond's conversation with Cate Blanchett in the middle of the movie: (saying it's just a meaningless cameo for Blanchett). I think it's not. Galadriel is pointing out that they must decide whether the elves will face the risk of death by investing themselves in Middle Earth's fate, as Frodo himself is risking death. Elrond's answer is not given in that scene, but we see what the elves' final response is when Haldir shows up with his troop of archers at Helm's Deep (Haldir is a Lothlorien elf). Again, this was a departure from the text, but we see this, too, is a lead up to Sam's speech. I didn't understand until sitting through the movie a second time that Haldir's appearance meant that Galadriel and perhaps Elrond had changed their mind, which means, perhaps, that Elrond will change his mind about trying to thwart Arwen and Aragorn, too (as we know he does in the end).
Theoden and Aragorn's scene when they decide to ride out to meet the Urak-hai reminds me of the scene between Nita and Carl on the beach in Deep Wizardry, where Nita is forced to face that she has a choice. She can refuse the responsibility that is hers, fleeing death but knowing that she has let down the good side. She can accept her fate. Or . . . and this is why I like what Diane Duane does with this scene so much . . . she can die well, embracing what she must do, just as Aragorn and Theoden ride out with fierce joy instead of reluctance.
This all reminds me, too, of that seminal scene in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban, when Peter complains, "What could be gained by resisting him? (Voldemort) and Black exclaims, "Only innocent lives!" When Peter objects, saying that Voldemort would have killed him, then Black roars, "Then you should have died, as we would have died for you."
What in your life--heck, in my life--is worth giving your all for? What is worth dying for? That is what I think this movie is pushing us to think about.
I am not sure if these musings have been altogether coherent, but I welcome comments. Thanks.
Peg
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-19 08:43 pm (UTC)Also, we noticed the continuation of the "falling" theme with Aragorn's supposed death and Gimli's response to Eowyn.
I was less happy with Sean Astin's Fake!Westcountry accent in this film, but then again I did grow up there. I thought that the story speech was effective, though.
And I do share your concerns about the Nazgul letting Frodo get away quite so easily.
--J
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-19 08:48 pm (UTC)I think you made an excellent point about the conversation between Elrond and Galadriel. My first reaction to that was annoyance because it did feel like it was simply a way to work Cate Blanchett in. You make a good point and when I go to see it again tomorrow, I will pay more attention to that scene.
I got the impression that you didn't address the changes to Faramir because so many others have already done so, but I would still like to know what you thought. For me, that was really the biggest shock in the film and I still don't know how I feel about it. Once again, Jackson said that the change was made for thematic reasons, but still...
Thanks for letting me ramble in your journal.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-19 09:09 pm (UTC)I agree.
aurgh.
Interesting musings
Date: 2002-12-19 11:05 pm (UTC)My take on the theme of the story has always been (and I've only read the books twice mind), that no one should ever underestimate people of courage and determination, no matter how insignificant they may seem.
life & death issues
Date: 2002-12-20 07:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-20 07:57 am (UTC)What I don't understand is what theme Faramir's corruption supports. I am terribly distressed over this, because Faramir and Eowyn have always been my favourite two characters (I mean, a shieldmaiden, after all! And the man who, unlike Aragorn, was smart enough to love her!) Faramir has always (for me) represented what Boromir could have been. He was one of the "friends unlooked-for" that Elrond had said Frodo would find. Ithilien and Henneth Annun were sacred spots for me.
I guess what it comes down to for me, is that there was an awful lot of role-reversal and making people act out-of-character. I can accept "true invention" for the furtherance of themes, but the "false invention" just made me feel upset and rather betrayed. It's simply not in Faramir's character to take the Ring. I thought Treebeard was somewhat out of character. Aragorn says lines that belong to Theoden, as well as urging Legolas to shoot "the white wizard" when he was actually the one who said they couldn't shoot without warning.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-20 09:43 pm (UTC)Aragorn knew perfectly well how Eowyn felt about him, but he always treated her feelings with delicacy and respect. As he told Eomer "Few other griefs amid the ill chances of this world have more bitterness and shame for a man's heart that to behold a lady so fair and brave that cannot be returned."
That was one of the reasons that I identified so strongly with Eowyn when I first read Lord of the Rings. At the time, I too was in love with a man who was pledged to someone else. He knew it, too. But he was an honorable man, and like Aragorn, he was always considerate and kind to me without ever giving me a particle of false hope.
Many people know that Tolkien's betrothal to his wife was very long (they were both underage when they met). Many commentators think that the long engagement of Aragorn and Arwen (and Sam and Rose, for that matter) were based on his painful memory of being parted from his lover. Tolkien's guardian tried to separate them, too, just as Elrond tried to forbid Aragorn and Arwen's relationship.
What is less well known was that when Tolkien came of age and was finally allowed to write to Edith Bratt, after they had been forbidden contact for four years, he learned to his horror that she had become engaged to someone else. He convinced her, in the end, to break with her other suitor and marry him in the end. But as he wrote about Aragorn and Arwen's faithfulness to each other, I wonder if he ever thought about how he had made his wife abandon her other fiancee.
Peg
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-22 12:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-20 02:14 pm (UTC)I thought the adaptations from page to screen, while not precisely canon, were still true to the spirit of the story.
I love reading your reviews.
-M
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-22 12:54 pm (UTC)I actually very much liked Sam's speech. Maybe it's because I'm so fond of him and Frodo. But I also liked how it sums up the whole... point ... of what it's all about. Also, because I know it's *not* really a happy ending, I found it wonderfully, poignant. Yes, a tad schmaltzy, I suppose, but I really liked it.
As for the scene with Galadriel -- having only seen the movie once thus far, I'm trying to remember the exact content - but I felt it provided an excellent outside narrative, which you otherwise lose in movie format. Not "token" at all.