The new movie The Return of the King (RotK) is a satisfying conclusion to Peter Jackson’s movie trilogy. At three hours and twenty minutes it seems odd to say it is too short, but it is too short. Each of the movies leaves out parts of the book we Tolkien aficionados considered essential. If you are a fan of the book you will be shaking your heads over parts omitted. One wonders, for example, how Peter Jackson (the director) could possibly leave out Gandalf’s key scene at the gates of Minas Tirith with the Witch King. One can only pray the scene was filmed and will be shown in the extended DVD. But there are other bizarre parts that ended up on the editing floor such as Sam’s using the ring. Eomer never gets a chance to grieve over the body of King Theoden. Jackson’s choices for what were important were often debatable. Gone are the Houses of Healing, gone is the romance between Faramir and Eowyn. We never see ancillary characters like Beregond and Prince Imrahil. The time between the Battle of Pelennor Fields and the final encounter at the Black Gate is incredibly squeezed, as is Sam and Frodo’s journey through Mordor. And of course Jackson never bothered to film the scouring of the Shire, considering that part simply boring. We can only hope that most of these omissions end up in the extended DVD.
Other things seem kind of strange compared to the book. The ruined city of Osgiliath appears to be a mile or so away from the gates of Minas Tirith instead of a day’s ride away. Indeed from the perspective of Minas Tirith, Mordor seems so close that it practically hovers over the city. One wonders how the people of Gondor kept their city from being overrun for so long since the distance between good and evil seems so collapsed.
Of course some plot points were changed, but none seriously. Merry ends up with Pippin going to the Black Gate (I guess his wounds weren’t too bad.) Elrond makes an unexpected appearance in Rohan to give Aragon his sword Anduril. (Why couldn’t he have gotten it back in Rivendell like in the book? What was the point of waiting through two movies?)
But really these are fairly minor nits because if you liked the first two movies you won’t be disappointed this conclusion. Some parts simply take your breath away, often at unexpected times. The lighting of the beacon at Minas Tirith and the scenes of the beacons being lit on the mountaintops across Anorien make the heart stop. The Battle of Pennelor Fields is as spectacular as you would expect. The scene where Eowyn kills the Witch King was the emotional highlight of the film for me. People worried about the final scene at the Cracks of Doom need not worry; Jackson kept to the dogma brilliantly.
The audience was a little confused about when the movie ended. Once Aragorn was crowned king and the screen faded to white some thought the movie was over. There were other opportunities to get confused about when the movie ended. But I didn’t feel that the number of “goodbyes” was overstated at all. The whole chapter in the book “Many Partings” was basically cut out. In takes less than a minute to move the reader from Gondor back to the Shire.
Some random thoughts and observations:
- Liv Tyler actually acts pretty well this time, unlike in the first two movies. I had a feeling Jackson reshot these scenes because Tyler wasn’t very convincing at all in the first two movies. In fact she annoyed me. I didn’t believe her at all. I believed her in this movie.
- Do elves have superglue on the pads of their feet? How can Legolas possibly keep his balance as he climbs the oliphant to bring it down?
- Miranda Otto more than fills Eowyn’s shoes. My wife is very upset that this was done so well. She has always disliked the character because she comes across as a stereotype in Tolkien’s books. Not so in the movie.
- Why didn’t the muster of Rohan take the enemy by surprise? In the book it was because they acted like cavalry that they were so successful.
- It’s nice to see Billy Boyd provide something beyond comic relief. He gets his moments to shine in this movie.
- Shelob was worth the wait. She is disgusting beyond imagination.
- As a local reviewer also noted, the dead that Aragorn encounters look more like ghosts from Pirates of the Caribbean, and wouldn’t scare me too much. I’m wondering why the orcs were so afraid.
Naturally I’ll be back in the theater to see it again and again. There is a long holiday period coming up. But until the extended DVD arrives a year from now in my mind it won’t really be over. There is too much that needs to be added. This feels like a Reader’s Digest condensed version of the movie.
As a footnote I learned that the book was so named only at the insistence of Tolkien’s publisher. Tolkien had wanted to name the third volume “The War of the Rings” but was overruled. In the 1950s I guess Tolkien felt fortunate enough to be published at all and didn’t feel in a position to argue.
Sphere: Related Content
December 20th, 2003 at 11:51am
Posted by
Mark |
The Arts |
one comment
I first read JRR Tolkien’s trilogy around 1970. Like most people of a certain age and outlook I was blown away by it. It would be hard to name any book, or series of books, that I have enjoyed more or read as many times. I’ve gone through the trilogy perhaps 6 or 7 times, no small accomplishment given the size of the book. But for the last 15 years or so I’ve put it on the shelf and moved on with life.
My wife Terri happens to be a much bigger Tolkien fan than I, having practically memorized every word, not just of this series, but of the Hobbit, Silmarillion and Tolkien’s obscure works. I sometimes refer to her as Virginia’s resident Tolkien scholar and it would perhaps not be an overstatement to award her the title. If she was to attend a Tolkien convention and participated in a Tolkien trivia contest I am confident she would take away the gold medal.
We were both excited when Peter Jackson back in 1998 announced he was going to produce movies from the books. We were one of the first people to find lordoftherings.net site and voraciously kept up on all things related to the movie. When the first movie was released in December 2001 we were at the first Friday night showing, having purchased our tickets weeks in advance. When the second movie came out I was so obsessed I actually had to go see it on my day off, alone, the very day it came out: a 10 AM showing.
I’ve read various surveys that suggest it is the best book of the 20th century, as voted by the people. If you haven’t read Tolkien you can’t appreciate how detailed the work is. It is like viewing the Sistine Chapel. It is just overwhelming with richness and consequently for a pure fantasy it is very believable.
And yet as I reread portions of the book at age 46 I am finding myself more and more critical of the books. It is not that the richness, detail and density of the books are any less appealing. No, what I notice now having put the books aside for so long is that, while the books are seamless and interlocking like a vast puzzle, Tolkien is not much of a writer.
Let’s be plain. Except for the hobbits and Gandalf, which he seems to know innately, the dialog leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, it’s a fantasy but even in a fantasy novel no one would talk the way some of his characters do in such a stilted and awkward language. Moreover a lot of his characters are very one dimensional. Aragorn, the man who is to reclaim the throne of Gondor, seems superficial at best. We learn little about Legolas or Gimli or what makes them tick. Eowyn, one of the few women to appear in the book is hopelessly love struck when she meets Aragorn; as my wife put it she’s the first “Mary Sue”. Eowyn is the person that Tolkien invented so he can fall in love with his own character. As a good Catholic, I guess JRR had to ruthlessly suppress any homophobic feelings.
JRR also leaves a lot to be desired as a poet. Much of his poetry is poor and stilted.
But all this is just to point out that the books, while magnificent, could have been so much better had Tolkien been a more gifted writer. If, say, Sinclair Lewis could have written these books, the result might well have been the best book of all times.
Which leads back to the movies: I’ve found two types and only two types: those who hate the movie and those who love them. There is no in between that I can find. My brother Tom and sister Doris are in the “hate” camp. I have to respect their feelings, although I don’t agree with them. The movies certainly are a bit of a departure from the books.
The movies though excel in a lot of ways. As you recall my critique of the books were that Tolkien wasn’t able to imbue much character into his characters. This is where a gifted director can step in and lend Tolkien a much needed hand. In the process Jackson has had to change a few things to make the books fit the medium of cinema. This has infuriated much of the “hate” crowd for whom Tolkien must be pure and unadulterated. How could Glorfindel be replaced at the Ford with Arwen? Well, it’s a pretty easy choice, really, if you are making a movie. (It also really, really works: it means much more that a woman, Arwen, is saving Frodo that some elf lord, Glorfindel, who will quickly disappear from the story.) Movies have to connect on an emotional level. So far Peter Jackson has made the right choices in deviating from the sacred script and has actually improved the product. But in reality these changes have been quite minor to those of us in the “love” crowd, whereas they appear as huge, gaping tears in the essential nature of the plot to the “hate” crowd.
But what I like most is that Jackson brought the characters alive. Aragorn is now someone who is no longer a wooden character, but someone I deeply care about because I can see his human frailties. Boromir actually comes across as a complex person with a decent and honorable side. Gandalf, as portrayed by Sir Ian McKellan, is just wonderfully deep. Even the evil creatures such as Saruman are imbibed with personality and depth. All this and great special effects, first class directing, and wonderful production values; what is there not to love?
So I haunt almost daily theonering.net to catch the latest details of what is going on with the movies, which isn’t much. I’ve reread the Return of the King to anticipate the movie. I am anxiously waiting for the Extended Edition DVD of The Two Towers to be released in November so I can see all the stuff they had to leave out to squeeze the story into only three hours.
We Tolkien fans will owe a big debt of gratitude to Peter Jackson and his whole talented crew when this is all over for turning flawed books into a spectacular movie. All my life I have been waiting for the Rings books to be properly turned into cinema. I am delighted at how well Peter Jackson has done the job. He is obsessed with turning out a first class product. I can appreciate the books but now I have something equally as valuable: the movies that fill in the details that are missing in the books simply because Tolkien did not have the talent to put them in.
If you haven’t read the books, they are a must read, in spite of the minor flaws. The movies should also be enjoyed and savored. I will die a happy man. I don’t ask much from life other than to see Lord of the Rings done right on the screen. This wish has come true.
Sphere: Related Content
July 9th, 2003 at 08:19am
Posted by
Mark |
The Arts |
one comment
