UPDATED 1-6-13 (edited for clarity, lack of repetition, and to add a few details for [I hope] greater depth and precision regarding the Lord of the Rings films accomplishments and shortcomings--i.e. part 7 of accomplishments, and a few extra references to storytelling shortcomings, original Star Wars, John Boorman's Excalibur (1981), etc)
Over the past few days, both online--here and on Facebook--and in in-person conversations with several different people, I've tried to assess the continued draw of the (in my view) often mediocre Tolkien film trilogy by Peter Jackson and his writers, which, while making some needed changes (no Tom Bombadil digression, though the missing Barrow-wight episode that follows on from that is a less clear judgment point--considering that it's one of the better horror scenes from Tolkien, Jackson might have made good use of it in developing his world and playing a good scene), seems to include some low-quality film-making such as Hollywoodized slapstick and vulgarity, simplified, sentimentalized and supermodern characters, and some uneven plot-modifications and editing.
A number of reasons for liking this material came forward for people's love of the material (aside from the Balrog scenes, which almost everyone agrees are quite good from almost any perspective), no ne of them overwhelming alone, but together interesting and somewhat compelling, if sometimes dependent on low standards set for the genre by contemporary, bloated and uninspired science fiction epics and various fantasy film failures through the 1970s and 80s:
1) Aside from the slapstick comic relief (Merry, Pippin, Gimli), which may have been useful demographically, the films basically took themselves seriously on their own terms, laying out an epic unapologetically, and not feeling the need to wink at the viewer or dismiss the seriousness of the plot and setting the way, say, 'Big Trouble in Little China' (otherwise a relatively sincere 1980s effort to import a foreign fantasy genre) often did.
1X) Many like the competent and melodic, if arguably bland and undeveloped scoring by Howard Shore.
2) Folks credit the films for a lot of basic competence in doing things properly that had never before been funded and executed in the genre, especially in live-action film:
It may seem faint praise to note that 'Fellowship' and its sequels had some big, expensive battles and wide panning shots, as well as some mysterious and (over?)dramatic dialogue, but there really isn't anything to compare it with, in this sense: no other fantasy films of the same scale and production value--what may seem cliched to an earnest reader of many fantasy novels was here expressed in more or less suitable epic format in a way that, for the most part, just hadn't been done on film since 1983 or so, and then in a different genre (I am speaking of the science fiction or science fantasy films known as 'Star Wars,' which have a very different context and setting, as well as metaphysical assumptions about their world). While confused and sprawling in some respects, with the plot moderately muddled the film was mostly serious in its tone and scale.
3) While Jackson included a lot of schlocky Hollywood-esque plotting and characterization, to the detriment of the material, but he compensated for this by producing some memorable images and scenes (Balrog, things regarding Gandalf, and some people like the modern-ness of Viggo Mortensen's interpretation of the completely rewritten Aragorn--which, while contrary to his namesake, is apparently effective in an angstily combatively manner, to many 21st century viewers--even if hair and makeup must have worked pretty hard to maintain that four day shave for nearly every scene in the films).
4) Some of the very things that made the films so different from the books in many ways, i.e. the well-funded b-grade horror version of Shelob, the great queen of spiders, were enjoyed by an audience used to such film conventions (i.e. enjoyable, teasing horror in place of legendary ambience and a moment of dark ages Germanic heroism)
5) The outsider's charm. Jackson and his New Zealand crew aren't quite
the scrappy underdogs they've been made out to be at times--let's face it:
Peter Jackson owned his own visual effects shop beforehand--but their
team formed a marked contrast to the bloated establishmentarian inertia
that seemed to be behind the coeval, apocryphal Star Wars prequels (which are so bizarrely bad, the less said the better--but, man, does anything else look better when compared alongside). The Lord of the Rings
benefitted, in its reputation, from being a relatively bold and
energetic undertaking by relatively young filmmakers, and from direct
comparison Star Wars' coeval retroactive diminishment of itself.
6 While folks seem to agree, in retrospect, that some of the characterization could have been better, some believe these films should not be judged as art, but by the lower standards of modern entertainment. While the philosophical case for such low standards is, on the whole, damaging to the fantasy genre (as well as a demonstration of ignorance of its better material), this is a view held by many.
7) Some excellent realization of Tolkien's original material, such as the Gollum scenes in which the perverted monster's Dostoyevskian polyphony of character (two voices, one person) is portrayed quite faithfully on the silver screen.
On the whole, the films seem to have some staying power. However, I'd note that in many respects they're still fairly shoddy, especially as regards character and spatial awareness, and that there's plenty of room out there for more fantasy film to be made that makes better use of our medieval cultural background and just good, solid writing and storytelling with, say, a clear moral and conceptual vision about the world, both the real and the fantasy vehicle. To some extent this is already being realized in works like TV's 'A Game of Thrones,' the first season of which holds much more sophisticated, realistic, and dark writing than Jackson's films (the second season is a little spottier, with some retcons which seem to show poor judgment and excessive sexiness, though the production values and choices of the show are probably better the second time through [the capitol city has traded up from the distinctive but semi-Arabic Malta to a larger, more mossy, European feel] ). Such a vision was realized in the '70s and 80s in the epic, heroic and mystic storytelling the first Star Wars films, as well, though this is a different subgenre (sadly, more direct fantasy analogues, like John Boorman's unevenly written Excalibur, notable for its resolution of various Arthurian narratives into one whole as well as for Nicol Williamson's eerie performance as Merlin, and Ridley Scott and William Hjortsberg's Legend, are all failures to some extent, as well as having fewer financial and visual resources to work with than Jackson's much later films.
On the whole, I'm still inclined to say: a fantasy vision is great thing to have, but if melded to a few real ideas, more beauteous on-location shooting than New Zealand has to offer (its islands have varied temperate terrain, but really don't compare in lushness with the rainforests of British Columbia or US's Olympic Peninsula, not to mention the related Redwood ecosystem slightly to the south, or, hell, the Adirondacks, if you want to shoot based out of New York), and some real darkness and human storytelling, fantasy has a chance to be successful artistically, as well as commercially, and this is something more worthy of striving for. The visions of not just Tolkien (who was important in the genre, but not influential until after about 1950), but Lord Dunsany (the most influential of writers before 1950, and to whom Tolkien owes a great debt), William Morris, Fred Saberhagen (tight plots, amazing visuals, compelling characters), Lloyd Alexander, Lois McMaster Bujold and many others wait eagerly to be made into smarter, more dramatic, more potent films than we've seen thus far in this genre, which has been undersold since its beginning.
Let's hope three volumes of 'The Hobbit' in 3D doesn't wear out the audience on the genre before we see material with something to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment