A First Reaction to the film by Peter Jackson.

Note:

This rant is pretty negative and concentrates on the things I disliked about the film.  What I liked about TTT - and there were things I liked - is a whole 'nother topic and a whole 'nother journal entry. Plus I'm very aware that this rant is affected not only by the fact that I'm a Tolkein purist (although not as much as some other fans I've met online), but also that this was the first and ony time I've seen it and I was in a lot of pain from an infected tooth when I watched it. You've been warned (g).

Okay, I've been ruminating about TTT since I saw it on Boxing Day and had such an adverse reaction , and I'm trying to figure out exactly what's going on in Jackson's – and my - mind when he made all those - to me - unnecessary changes to Tolkein's text. In wondering about it, I've gone back and had a look at TTT by Tolkein, at the structure of his three volumes versus the structure of Jackson's movies so far, and then I played Jackson's director's commentary re: FOTR in order to get some idea of his mind during the making of that, in case it should give me some indications a to the way his mind worked generally.

Madrigal's Rant:

Tolkein's focus throughout the trilogy is not, I would say, on any one character, but more on the Ring, the nature of evil, and it's effects on all those different characters it comes into contact with along the way of this large-scale, epic aventure. His interest is the way in which evil works in the world as a force and how people's characters are tested by it in times of crisis. And this is one of the things I love about The Lord Of The Rings: its focus on character and motive. He gives massive chunks of information about past history – for example, about the elves (who play so little a part in this narrative), about the organisation of Middle Earth, and about many groups of people that the Fellowship comes into contact with during their adventures. There are far too many names of characters and peoples who play only minor roles in the drama, who are important to the whole epic but who dilute the focus of the tale so that the whole vista is often hard for a reader to grasp easily. When reading one can follow it more easily and flip back to a previous section to check on things if one becomes confused, but that's not possible on screen. Because the trilogy is so long Tolkein has time to spend on the minutia of events, of character, of meetings, and he goes into great detail in various conversations, giving poems and songs from the past and long speaches. All these devices do not translate well to the screen, where Jackson is always concerned with the pacing of the movie and keeping the movie "on track".

Jackson talks in the commentary on FOTR about whether or not to have a prologue that gave the history of the Ring and the bottom line was that NewLine cinema demanded that they have one. He talks about how difficult it was to do the prologue until they hit upon the idea of having it told from the point of view of the Ring itself, because the Ring is the protagonist (or at least the antagonist, Fran says) of the saga. So the one thing that does mean is that Jackson's intention is not to tell the entire saga from the point of view of the Ring! The commentary makes it clear that for Jackson Frodo is the focus of FOTR and he doesn't like the focus to leave him for longer than necessary during the film, even to develop themes/characterisation of the rest of the Fellowship. And he also mentionssomewhere in the commentary, I'm sure, that for him Aragorn is the focus of the second movie. Perhaps the some of the major changes to events and characters in TTT – Eomer, Theoden, Faramir – can be attributed to his desire to highlight Aragorn as the hero of the tale, even at the expense of other heroic characters? God, I hope not or my respect for Jackson will be irrevocably
reduced.

Eomer:

One of the problems I had was the way the movie mauled Eomer's role. After due consideration I can see why Eomer was absent from both Theoden's court and from Helm's Deep (sort of) – perhaps Jackson wanted/needed a known character to lead the forces that finally come to Aragorn and Theoden's aid at the end of the movie, rather than the unknown Erkanbrand of Westfold. Jackson obviously doesn't want to bother introducing ancillary characters so he uses Eomer for this purpose instead. Well, okay, I guess,  although it seems to me he could have got around that some other way. Isn't Gandalf's presence in the rescuing force enough? I  suppose I get why he did it and although I'm still not happy about it, I can understand it and give him the benefit of the doubt with this  one without too much disgruntlement.

Theoden:

Another problem I had was the way Theoden was treated. Yes, the book does talk about him being under Womtongue's "spell" but I objected to Jackson insinuating that Saruman was actually acting through Theoden personally. Why was that necessary? I don't get that at all. He seems to have gone for the "magic" he says he doesn't like to have too much of in fantasy and I can't see any reason for it except an attempt to highlight tension which I feel could have been done organically in the real scene from the book. I understand that Jackson would like to avoid too much talking (as in the book Gandalf "talks" Theoden back to his senses to a certain extent) but that could be avoided, I think, by truncating it for the movie while stil keeping the spirit of the book. I also don't understand why he insists on Theoden not wanting to go to war when in the book as soon as he's releaed from his "spell" he is only too eager to do his part, even if it means dying in battle. He's a brave and valorous king who knows what he must do – I don't understand why this part of his character is undermined in this way by Jackson. What on earth does it achieve thematically or cinematically that would justify this sort of character rape? Is Aragorn really so lacklustre a hero that Jackson must take the shine of all other heros so that he looks better by comparison? Personally, I feel that Aragorn can only look better if surrounded by other heros, he's enough of a hero to hold his own IMO.

Faramir:

Again, I disliked the way Faramir has been mutilated within TTT movie. In the book he is portrayed as noble: stern yet fair and courteous. These are not words I would apply to the movie Faramior and I'm EXTREMELY disappointed as Faramir was one of my favourite characters in the book, and David Wenham is an actor I've admired in the past. I dislike the way all my favourite quotes from Faramir have been ignored when they could so easily have been incorporated into the movie. Faramir, like Aragorn, is never tempted by the Ring, although like Aragorn he's not foolish enough to want to push it. Faramir is offered in the book as a contrast to his brother and Denethor: all are noble and valorous but Faramir is the one who has the additional virtue of wisdom and caution.  Both Denethor and Boromir fail because of their excessive pride in who they are and what they represent. Their pride leads to rash acts that lead to their undoing: Boromir tries to take the Ring, while Denethor pits himself directly against Sauron by using the Palantir.  There is nothing of this so far in the Faramir on screen. And he takes Frodo and Sam back to the city whose name I'm temporarily blanking on (g) – WHY? What on earth is the purpose of THAT? I don't get that at all. It seems unecessary and remains one of my chief gripes with the film. I hate what it's done to Faramir and what was one of my favourite sections from the book.

Merry, Pippin & The Ents:

This section is RAPED by the movie. What on earth is the point of having such a dreary meeting on film with Pippin and Merry when  they have such a warm, funny, affectionate beginning they could utilise from the book? Why have the Ents have a damned moot in the first place and then have them decide NOT to fight Saruman? How could Treebeard possibly be unaware that his friends have been cut down and have to have the hobbits tell him what's going on? Why couldn't it be mentioned that Saruman used him and that's made him even angrier? Why couldn't the Ents decide immediately (as they do in the book, although immediatley for an Ent takes a while ) to attack Isengard straight away? What is the point of have them, like Theoden, decide NOT to do anything and then be persuaded by one of the Fellowship? If Jackson is that desperate to give the members of the Fellowship something to do, why not give them the things they ACTUALLY do in the book? For example, there was plenty of heroism by Pippin when they were  in the hands of the Urulkai – why not use that, fo heaven's sake? If they omit that lovely smoking  scene between Merry and Theoden and the reunion of the Fellowship, I shall be PISSED OFF.

Additional Scenes:

Additional scenes, like Aragorn's fall from the cliff, Elrond's attempt to persuade Arwen to leave Middle Earth with the rest of the elves, Sam's fall down the stony embankment in front of the gates of Morder, and Frodo's confrontation with the winged Nazgul, seem pointless to me when so much that is excellent in the book is omited. What is the point of these scenes? I suppose you could say that the point of Aragorn's fall from the cliff is to show the dream sequence with Arwen and buff her role up a bit, as if the scene with Elrond, but I personally can't see any value in them. They detract from the mood/style/theme of the real tale, IMO, but obviously Jackson thinks they add to it in some way that is eluding me at the moment. Arwen lying on a damned couch at Rivendell, for crying out loud? I hated that image when I saw it. Aragorn riding over the plains with the "dramatic" music swelling? I cringed at that, OTT attempt to highlight the drama for the audience by hitting them over the head with the music, too. It just seemed like it wasted precious screen time that could have been better used elswhere, IMO. I thought the scenes with the two kids were a waste of space, too. Nice  idea if you had the time to carry them out but since the text is chocka block full of things that already need to be there that Jackson left  out, their inclusion only irritates me. As does that long sequence showing the people of Rohan travelling to Helm's Deep. It just seemed to me that too much time was spent on that, especially when they could make their point (and did) during the battle, with those scenes of terrified women and children that were continually spliced into the action. I just thought there was too much overkill to this portion of the movie. As a Tolkein fan I resented the time spent here that could have been spent elsewhere.

General:

I thought the editing of the different threads was choppy and at times hard to follow and I thought the pacing of the film was uneven.  Perhaps my opinion has been overly influenced by the fact that I was in extreme pain at the time I watched it (toothache) and maybe on my next viewing I'll be less critical of the way it's changed my favourite things about Tolkein's TTT – but I think I'm always going to resent what they've done to Faramir and the Ents, if nothing else. After the brilliant rendition of the story in the first movie, this second one was a terrible disappointment to me. I now no longer look forward to the final movie, but am filled with nervous dread at exactly what other mutilations I can expect in the final installment. Damn, I wanted to enjoy this movie - but I didn't.

The Future:

Okay, enough ranting. I'll have to watch TTT a couple more times to see how I feel about it after the first shock has worn off. And hopefully the extended DVD will reinstate some of the parts I felt were missing in this one – but I won't hold my breath.