LOTR review

[lupinesque]

I need to see the movie again, reread FoTR, and re-watch the Bakshi 
version (which, IMHO, is unfairly trashed--other than an intolerable 
Sam and a lack of funds that led to the second half being ridiculously 
compressed and confusing, I think it's excellent), but here my 
thoughts three days after seeing the film.

I liked it, I liked it a lot, but I was disappointed.  The main 
problem was a severe curtailment of character development.  All that 
time showing us lush scenery and amazing sets, as much as I loved 
them, could have been spent giving us a lot more of JRRT's dialogue.  
If I hadn't read the book, I would have left the movie theater knowing 
Gandalf and Boromir and no one else.  A possible exception is Sam, who 
is thus far *better* than he is in the book (where "he keeps on saying 
'sir' to Frodo until one begins to have mad visions of founding a 
Hobbit Socialist Party," to quote my second-favorite JRRT fan, Ursula 
LeGuin); even this is thanks to some really good acting, and no thanks 
to omissions like Sam's look into Galadriel's mirror.

My dh, who's the serious Tolkien nut in this family, thinks the 
problem is that the Council of Elrond is cut short and the Last 
Debate, where they talk together about what to do past the Falls of 
Rauros, is nonexistent.  Both of those things would have provided some 
character development, it's true, but what they really would have 
provided that is also missing is insight into the moral dilemma.  
Boromir isn't just envious and overly proud; he makes a really 
important point, one with a lot of merit (and one that any of us might 
make concerning, oh, say, nuclear weapons):  isn't it folly to destroy 
the most powerful weapon we have, especially since the only way to 
destroy it is to carry it right under Sauron's nose, which is most 
likely as effective as FedExing it to his door?  In the book, this 
argument gets some serious time; in the movie we hear it only from 
Boromir, and that briefly.  That piths the movie of what I consider 
*the* major question in the book.  If the quest is just a matter of 
courageously taking the Ring to Mt. Doom, then this is just an 
adventure novel; but it's not.  It's an ongoing moral struggle with a 
very serious question at its heart:  can you use the enemy's weapon 
against him?  Like JKR, who won't let Harry kill Sirius or allow 
revenge against Peter, JRRT says no.  The enemy's weapon serves only 
him, no matter how noble the intentions of those who would turn it to 
other purposes.  I hope that future scenes with Denethor and Saruman 
will help remedy the omission.

Another thing missing from the decision is all the tension about 
leaving the Shire.  Aside from telling us about Sam, the scene where 
he looks into the Mirror of Galadriel is important because it shows 
that they might be sacrificing the Shire by going to Mt. Doom.  What 
they left in shows what will happen to the Shire if they *don't* 
complete the quest; that makes Frodo's decision to go on easier.  But 
in the book, Sam's choice to go on is made *harder* by what he sees 
there, and the moral question is compounded--should he be staying home 
to take care of things there, or should he gamble everything he loves, 
everything they're trying to save, on this crazy long shot to destroy 
the Ring?  We know the right answer, but in the book Sam doesn't; he's 
tormented.

Their mistrust of Strider is likewise excised.  Frodo looks amazed 
when he learns at Rivendell that he's Aragorn; okay, so far so good, 
but in the book it isn't just that Strider's so grubby-looking and is 
actually the heir to the throne of Gondor; it's that they haven't 
known whether to even trust him.

Something that could have been drastically cut to provide time for 
all this stuff was the fight with the cave troll in Moria.  What the 
heck was that all about?  Come on, have a little skirmish in the tomb, 
let us see Frodo get stabbed so everyone learns about the mithril 
mail, and get to the main action with the Balrog.  In general the 
fight scenes went on too long, but this one was breaking records.

I loved lots of the details:  Elrond's hair tied into Celtic knots, 
the winding stairs in Lorien, the white hand on the Uruk-hai (I always 
pictured it as a little tattoo-like thing, and I don't think JRRT 
specified; having it a mark literally branded by a hand is terrific), 
the way the orcs look and move, the hand of the Nazgul.  I loved the 
way things look when Frodo's invisible:  it really captures the sense 
that the Ring doesn't just make him invisible, but makes him more 
visible to evil (and evil more visible to him).  All the acting was 
fine--well, I'd be happier if Liv Tyler would just face facts and stop 
calling herself an actress, but she didn't have much to do.  Sean 
Bean, who gets the best role in the book, was terrific, and I hope he 
played Faramir too so that we haven't seen the last of him (doubt it, 
though; there's no mention of it at IMDB).  I love that they cast Cate 
Blanchett, who does not have movie-star beauty, for Galadriel; it 
conveys the fact that her magnetism is based on something much more 
powerful than sex appeal.  I love the way they intercut between what 
is happening to Gandalf and what's happening to the hobbits (though 
they cut the travel time between Hobbiton and Rivendell so drastically 
that Gandalf appears to have been imprisoned at Isengard for only a 
week or two--and the orcs deforested Isengard and did all that forging 
in that brief span of time as well).  I love everything about Bilbo 
(except for the moment when he looks like a demon--I think Holm 
could've carried the terror of that moment off without special 
effects/makeup).  I love the way the hobbit children look, and the 
furry feet.  I was even okay with the fact that Elijah Wood looks 17 
instead of Frodo's 51 (or, since he's had the Ring since age 33, 33), 
though I still find it bizarre that they made this choice.  I suspect 
they were going for teen girl appeal.  

Amy