WOW, Redux

Went to see LotR again yesterday, this time with Mary (who’d not seen it). I actually enjoyed it more this time, since I was able to appreciate the story for what it was, not in comparison to the book.

A few personal kvetches also rose to the surface.

More under the “More”

* * *

• In watching how they tried to punch up the conclusion (a very difficult proposition, since the story is left in something of a lurch — it’s worth noting that Tolkien actually wrote LotR as six books, collected into three volumes of two by the publishers, which makes the lack of a decent cliffhanger on this one a bit more understandable), I realized a few things. First, I was a bit confused in the first viewing as to why suddenly Aragorn was the Reluctant Heir. It seemed contrived, unnecessary. In the books, Aragorn (and his Ranger buddies, all of them Dunedain, heirs of Arnor and Westernesse and all those other good Tolkieny things) are all just waiting at the ready for the day when they step forth again. In the movie, we never get any visual indication that Aragorn’s a ranger, no clue as to what that actually means, and Aragorn’s got a serious apprehension about stepping up to the plate. (We don’t even find out why he’s there at the Prancing Pony in the first place, oddly enough.)
  Ah, but this ties into two themes — first, it will allow us to get Arwen back into the next picture, bringing Aragorn the reforged Narsil, Anduril, amidst much dramatic timing (thanks to Randy for that suggestion). Second, it makes Boromir’s fall, and redemption, much more appropriate to the climax, since (a) by proving himself not as weak as Isisdur, by turning down the Ring, Aragorn regains confidence in himself, and (b) Boromir’s sacrifice encourages Aragorn to turn again to his people in Gondor. This makes those final scenes much longer and more meaningful.

• Aragorn actually does use his battle-cry of “Elendil!” once, as he’s leaping off of Amon Sur (I think it is — the Seat of Seeing — in battle with the Uruk-hai). I missed it the first time.
• Frodo gets skewered by the cave troll for way too long. And he should be (as in the book) seriously bruised, though not punctured. Just seemed a bit cheesy. And the mithril chain mail was kind of cheesy-looking, too.
• The CGI work in the movie is, by and large, fabulous, especially the landscape/”matte painting” work. The weakest bit was some of the “Run away!” scenes in Moria, in particular in the Great Hall.
• While the impending dangers of the Mines of Moria are actually hinted at, I would have appreciated a bit more explanation of Balin’s expedition to reestablish the kingdom there, which helps explain why Gimli is clueless that the whole place has gotten wiped out.
• Not real thrilled about the goblins crawling out of the ceiling like Aliens or cockroaches.
• I know it seems trivial, but in the books the Uruk-hai are a mating of orcs and men, i.e., humans. That’s why they are immune to sunlight, and bigger and nastier than Mordor or Moria orcs. The movie, for some reason, changes them to being “orcs and goblin men,” which doesn’t make sense (since orcs are goblins in Middle-earth) and makes them just another monster-type, rather than being a further horror by Saruman.
• My image of Galadriel was always as someone much more stately and overtly powerful … a few ticks closer to being the dread beauty and powerhouse that she becomes during her test. Sort of Elrond in drag with a really good figure. Blanchett’s more mystical creature, otherworldly in many ways, is a very different interp than that — but, in rewatching, I like it. I just wish Lorien didn’t feel so rushed, that we didn’t lose the (foreshadowed) Gimli crush on her, and that the various gifts they receive were not largely elided over. We could have regained a few minutes by cutting out the really-cool-but-ultimately-unnecessary Big Statue Guys on the Anduin (yes, they have a name, and, no, I don’t remember it now, and, no, you don’t have to tell me what it is).
  As it is, from the time they leave Moria to the time they are fighting the Uruk-hai, things seem both rushed and drawn out — Lorien being the former, the endless swooping panoramas of the little canoes on the Anduin being the latter.

• Like many of my era (ahem), my visual imagery of the LotR was strongly influenced by the Brothers Hildebrandt artwork on two seminal calendars. Though I have heard some folks opine otherwise, little of that imagery was (to my eye) used in the movie — and that’s both jarring and, in many ways, a good thing.
• Jackson uses some odd coloration at times, washing things out, or giving them a single color. This seems particularly true in Rivendell, but it happens elsewhere. It’s an odd effect, but I assume that it’s meant to convey the otherworldiness of those spots.
• I’m sorry we didn’t see any other hobbits in Bree. There are obvious references to it being a town of both hobbits and men — the lower peephole at the gate, the hobbit rooms at the Prancing Pony — but I would have liked to have seen a few in the inn. I’m thinking there was a desire here to sort of increase the sense of menace and fear amongst the hobbits, on their first visit to places where there are humans (all of whom look extremely disreputable, and all but one of whom are sort of ugly in their disrepute), but I’m still sorry over it.
• Margie asks: How does Gandalf get his staff back between Isengard (where it was rather forceably removed from him by Saruman) and Rivendell, when next we see him? Does he make a new one? Is it like Corwin’s sword, something that always just sort of comes to him when he needs it? Trivial, but a bothersome continuity glitch.
• I liked Gandalf clearly keeping things to himself (and not telling Frodo more than he has to). I like Gandalf having a very protective, paternalistic sense of responsibility over the hobbits. Good stuff. McKellen’s portrayal (and its writing) just get better and better with re-watching.
• The ties between Sam and Frodo are never well explained. Obviously they’re buds. It’s not clear, though, why Sam becomes so fiercely loyal to Frodo, so interested in his protection. Will this become clearer in the next film? The filmwriters are clearly playing down the sort of English class origins of the Sam/Frodo ties (Sam as the faithful semi-retainer to the Squire of Bag End, Frodo). What will they replace it with?
• Tracy mentioned that an aspiring screenwriter friend of hers pooh-poohed the movie. “Eh. Three and a half hours of foreplay and no release.” This, my friends, is exactly what is wrong with Hollywood.
  That having been said, some sort of indication that this is the first of three movies (“To be continued in: The Lord of the Rings – The Two Towers”) would have been nice. I have to wonder whether they’ve downplayed the trilogy aspect of this in some of the publicity, so that folks won’t feel like they won’t see a “whole” movie. If so, I think it was a mistake — we still heard some folks on the way out kvetching with, “That’s it?”

• Who were the other humans at the Council of Elrond? It makes sense that there were elves there, duh. It makes sense that there was a contingent of dwarves. Who are the other (clearly) humans?
• Okay, so Gimli is a dwarf. Dwarves are funny. Is there a reason why nearly every one of his lines seemed to be freshly written for this movie? It jarred at times, though it was also funny.
• I found the choices as to which Tolkien names and words were used and which weren’t to be interesting. We called the black birds of Saruman crebain, and Aragorn uses the fancy name for Weathertop when they camp out there (rather than the alternative “Weathertop.” Other names get inserted almost in passing (Gandalf refers to the great hall in Moria as “Dwimmerdelf,” though the sound track is had to hear at that point). Boromir refers to the Sword That Was Broken as “shattered Narsil.” Sometimes this seems like a good thing, other times, it feels forced.

So I have only one more question: how many more times will I see this while it is the theaters?