more LOTR

[ftah3]

The discussions of LOTR v. HP are fascinating.  


...I like to read reviews by an American critic named Roger Ebert.  
Even if I like a movie he dislikes or v.v., I'm generally agreeable 
on his points, and I think he has a great eye for what's good and bad 
in a film.  His review of LOTR, unlike those of some other critics, 
doesn't bother to draw a direct comparison of HP.  But if you don't 
mind, I'm going to quote his reviews and show how his comments 
compare between the movies:

Re the movie v. the book:
HP:
"The novel by J.K. Rowling was muscular and vivid, and the danger was 
that the movie would make things too cute and cuddly. It doesn't."
&
"The game [Quidditch], like so much else in the movie, is more or 
less as I visualized it, and I was reminded of Stephen King's theory 
that writers practice a form of telepathy, placing ideas and images 
in the heads of their readers. (The reason some movies don't look 
like their books may be that some producers don't read them.)"

Versus LOTR:
"...the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off center stage. If the 
books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and 
wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about 
powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take 
along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by 
the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than 
a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. 
Tolkien."
&
"That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of 
Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly 
as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have 
been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting 
characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than 
Tolkien did."

Regarding special effects:

HP:
"Although computers can make anything look realistic, too much 
realism would be the wrong choice for "Harry Potter," which is a 
story in which everything, including the sets and locations, should 
look a little made up. The school, rising on ominous Gothic 
battlements from a moonlit lake, looks about as real as Xanadu 
in "Citizen Kane," and its corridors, cellars and great hall, 
although in some cases making use of real buildings, continue the 
feeling of an atmospheric book illustration."

Versus LOTR:
"Jackson has used modern special effects to great purpose in several 
shots, especially one where a massive wall of water forms and reforms 
into the wraiths of charging stallions. I like the way he handles 
crowds of Orcs in the big battle scenes, wisely knowing that in a 
film of this kind, realism has to be tempered with a certain fanciful 
fudging."
But on the other hand,
"The elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), the Elf Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) 
and Arwen's father, Elrond (Hugo Weaving), are not small like 
literary elves ("very tall they were," the book tells us), and here 
they tower like Norse gods and goddesses, accompanied by so much 
dramatic sound and lighting that it's a wonder they can think to 
speak, with all the distractions."

And lastly, re classic? or...Hollywood?

HP:
"During "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I was pretty sure I 
was watching a classic, one that will be around for a long time, and 
make many generations of fans. It takes the time to be good. It 
doesn't hammer the audience with easy thrills, but cares to tell a 
story, and to create its characters carefully. Like "The Wizard of 
Oz," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," "Star Wars" and "E.T.," 
it isn't just a movie but a world with its own magical rules."

Versus LOTR:
"The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to 
[making LOTR in keeping with the essence of Tolkein's book]. 
But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," 
and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-
effects action picture."
&
"Peter Jackson, the New Zealand director who masterminded this film 
(and two more to follow, in a $300 million undertaking), has made a 
work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many 
Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for 
many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, 
and there are small touches that are just right...."
But
"In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is 
the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own 
position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to 
transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and 
Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-
and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same 
characters and incidents."

Without having seen LOTR, I found his comments still very 
interesting.  On one hand, he expresses quite a bit how I felt about 
HP; and on the other hand, my interest in the film version of LOTR 
remains unchanged, but I'm thinking that I may yet give the book 
another try....

The full reviews can be read at:

HP:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2001/11/111601.html

LOTR:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-lord19f.html


Mahoney