Subject:
|
Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:51:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
444 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Erik Olson writes:
> Now, was anything really confusing in your viewing? Were you not
> entertained? Did just one line of the movie make you stop and think?
No, I was entertained. The movie is good , just perhaps not great. But no,
nothing about the movie made me stop and think about anything save its
obvious visual beauty. Most of the stuff passing as a plot is little more
than rehashed Norse mythology. Now I like mythology, but that doesn't mean
I congratulate the author of a myth heavy work for originality of thought
that he may not really deserve. On the other hand, such an author may have
a great deal of flair and panache in the manner of telling the known story
-- and that may be even better than originality of thought.
I think the LOTR has an appealing style to it, even if it is not the most
original work ever written. Working with archetypes or well known stories
can be a useful technique for a storyteller. You can place the same
*criticism* at the door of Mr. Shakespeare -- except for his poetry and The
Tempest, most of his other works are based on well-known literary and/or
historical antecedents.
The only memorable part of the plot was when the Liv Tyler character seems
to be sacrificing immortality or some kind of longevity in giving her
champion a necklace as a token of her affections. I got the gist of it, but
I had no idea who she was, why she was immortal, or the significance of the
jewelry. Can you see what I am saying about the films shortcomings? I
understood only in part, and I didn't really come to care about the
characters at all.
> What's not self-contained here? The story of the Fellowship of the Ring, is >that the Ring shatters the Fellowship.
It's not self-contained because we know precisely what the characters are
supposed to be on their way to do -- destroy the ring in the flames of Mount
Doom. They don't get that far -- offhand, I'd guess our heroes are about a
third of the way there...right?
You claim the story being told is one of the corrupting influence of the
ring and the damage it does to the fellowship -- and that's not actually
that clear, if that is indeed the story that is supposed to have been
delivered by the movie. We start with eight fellows -- two die, two others
are momentarily captured, two depart on their own, and two (or was it four)
go off to fight Orcs. Some of these decisions/actions are NOT strictly the
result of the corrupting influence of the ring, but just the results of
being on a quest. I would assert that the movie doesn't actually succeed in
making the point that the ring is to blame for the variety of misfortunes
that befall the fellowship (not with pronounced particularity in any case)
-- I did understand that the ring tries to seduce it's wearers or those in
very close proximity to it. That much I got.
> Yeah, this is what happens when films are made from books.
Fine. I am willing for the film industry to do this less with works that do
not translate well to the narrative techniques of film. No arguments there.
> Of all your favorite movies, does more than one of those bear a passing
> resemblance to any book?
All of the first 8 have literary origins, as do Blade Runner, Orlando, and
The Piano -- that's actually most of them.
By contrast, and even though I like the movie that resulted from the attempt
to make "Naked Lunch" into a movie -- it should probably have never been
tried. It's not really the kind of book that lends itself to translation to
film very easily.
> How many characters do you expect to know well in a 2-hour script?
Okay, in fairness some of these are longer than 2 hours. But I happen to
think that Barry Lyndon and Moll Flanders both do a great job with character
development in truly self-contained films. I think They are both approx. 3
hrs, BTW.
> And who connects to 'Hamlet'on the first try?
Well, I have always connected easily to Elizabethan drama, and I was also an
English major at university so you can draw your own conclusions about my
facility with this kind of material. I think "Hamlet" is one of the most
compelling dramas that has ever been written; and like "Romeo and Juliet,"
something may actually be added to the material if it speaks to you when you
are younger -- these are plays about youthful emotions, full of the ferocity
that dissipates with the coming of years.
I think this film is a lot better for those of you that can fill in the
blank spaces of the movie's narrative. It's not as good for those of us
that have ONLY the film to go on. And despite a story that may yet come to
be admired in its totality, the first third is not very interesting as a
story all on its own.
And a truly good movie operates as an independent entity, without reliance
on other sources for a complete enjoyment of the subject matter. If a film
fails to achieve that, then it's just not that great a film whatever else
its strengths might otherwise make it.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) I meant to ask you who and when is being rehashed. I was also going to bring up earlier that Tolkien is the guy who put Beowulf in the 20th-century curriculum. (...) Hmm... Liv Tyler (Arwen) is Elven. She is like her father Elrond, whom I hope (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) This line of argument is of course only fair when taken as "of course there is a deficiency in its incompleteness, but the next film will turn that into an asset." (You will probably be let down again at its ending... it too should have the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
