![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Mulling over The Two Towers movie
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