El señor de los anillos
01.16.2004Yes, I'm crazy about Lord of the Rings (read it six times). But I still haven't posted anything about it — unlike the volume of posts when the second film came out. In part, because I was busy w/ other things (like the country's political meltdown) when the movie hype was going around. In part, because the movie opened in Bolivia on Christmas — meaning both that everyone else had already seen it (a month earlier) and that I was doing holiday family stuff. Though, of course, I did go see it opening day.
So. For those who wondered why I hadn't written about this monumental film (I'm think of you specifically, Kara), here's my take on the third & final installment of Peter Jackson's version of the epic. Just to refresh myself before writing this, I saw the film (for my third time) last night.
Overall, I was thrilled w/ the film. Much more so than w/ the second film (The Two Towers), which had some major departures from the book. Of course, any movie adaptation of a book (and especially one so long!) is bound to have differences. I can accept that. But the two major departures I refer to are: A) there were no elves at Helm's Deep and B) Faramir never attempts to seize the ring or take Frodo & Sam to Osgiliath.
Yes, I've seen the extended DVD w/ director/writer commentaries (or apology-explanations). But I'm not convinced the changes were necessary or even "helped advance the plot" in any significant way. Rather, the changes diminish Faramir's character (who's not the only person who willingly refuses the ring, the list includes Gandalf, Galadriel, Sam, Bilbo, and Aragorn).
And while elves did fight in the book (Lothlorien & Mirkwood were attacked), there's no need for them at Helm's Deep for any reason whatsoever. Plus. Why did only Elves arrive? Dwarves also play an important part in Middle Earth (Sauron attacks their realms, too). There's a striking passage in the book where Gimli asks Legolas why they didn't wish for help from their kin (a group of Dunedaín Rangers join Aragorn) — Legolas looks off into the distance and says: "None would have come. They have no need to march to war." The scene instantly makes it clear that Sauron's armies are vast, and able to wage a simultaneous war on all of Middle Earth.
Enough about my problems w/ the second film. On to the third.
The third film was truer to the book in its general scope. Sure, there were minor departures (as should be expected), but no glaring differences that significantly alter (in my mind) the key elements of Tolkien's masterpiece.
I was personally disappointed that one of my favorite characters — Prince Imrahil — didn't appear in the film. I'm sure it was too much to ask to introduce (and cast) yet another character. But it would've added a nice touch. And there are some striking passages in the book involving him.
If you haven't read the book, the exclusion of Prince Imrahil (and a few other characters) takes away the scope of what Gondor is. The film gives the impression that Gondor, while impressive, is just a city-state kingdom. Not so. It's vast, w/ many subject fiefs. Prince Imrahil & his knights come from the fief of Dol Amroth, a small kingdom in its own right.
In the book, Denethor himself orders the signal beacons lit — not to call Rohan, but to call the armies of the various nearby fiefs. There's a nice scene where armies march into the city from all the various outlying areas, all w/ different dresses & banners. Of course, too few come, since there's fear of the Corsairs of Umbar attacking the coasts. Still, it gives a greater sense of the scope of Sauron's war.
The siege of the city, the role of the Nazgûl, and the charge of the Rohirim across the Pelennor is accurate — and striking. I loved seeing the grim determination of the Riders of Rohan who face a vastly larger enemy, crying "Death! Death!" as they charge. I also loved Eowyn's role — the casting of all the Rohirim characters was perfect.
I wish Merry's role in the defeat of the Lord of the Nazgûl had been more prominent. After all, it was his blade — an ancient Numenorean blade made by the Northern Kingdom (Isuldur was king of Gondor & Arnor), which was always at war w/ the Witch King of Agmar — that actually broke the Nazgûl spell. Merry is, after all, not a man (no "man" can kill a Nazgûl), but a hobbit.
Not in the film, was the interlude between the Battle of the Pelennor and the later attack on Mordor itself. I can understand it being cut from the film — though I hope it's included in the extended DVD. In this interlude, Merry & Eowyn have to be cured, since their fight w/ the Nazgûl almost kills them (the creature is cursed, after all). Here, Eowyn meets Faramir, they fall in love, and she forgets about Aragorn (an important bit of closure).
But, more importantly, we see that Merry heals much quicker than either Faramir (also wounded by Nazgûl, not as shown in the film) or Eowyn. While the later spend days in bed, barely keeping alive, Merry recovers that afternoon, and spends it smoking pipeweed w/ Pippin. Why's this important? It goes to demonstrate the character of hobbits. Yes, they're small & insignificant-seeming, but they have a great wealth of inner strength & joy.
What I most found troubling about the film was the audience reaction to the conclusion. Of course, if you've never read the book, the end can seem quite long, perhaps boring. After all, isn't this story (a more mytho-historically fleshed out version of King Arthur, if you think about it) about a long-lost king & an epic adventure? Um. No.
Tolkien's book goes on for hundreds of pages after the crowing of the king and the typical happy ending. In fact, Tolkien's book ends bittersweetly. The hobbits — for all the glory & splendor of Gondor, Rohan, and the other places they've seen — long for their simple, quite lives back in The Shire. They get bored & restless in Minas Tirith, despite being hero-worshiped by the locals. As soon as possible, they head for home.
The Shire, however, hasn't been untouched by the war. Saruman escaped from Isengard, made his way to The Shire, and proceeded to wreck it out of spite. One of the final chapters of the book involves our four hobbit heroes — alone — leading their hobbit countryfolk in a fight against Saruman's forces to liberate their little corner of the world. There's rumors this will also be included in the extended DVD. I certainly hope so.
In the end, the reason why the film's ending seems so anticlimactic is because it's supposed to be. The Lord of the Rings isn't a story of adventure, great wars, magic, or anything else so much as it is a story about friendship. It just might be the greatest extant treatise on the subject.
In the little hobbits, you see a people who are small and, by all our standards, should be inconsequential to the great events of their time. They love to eat & party, don't travel or study much — in fact, few hobbits ever travel outside The Shire (Bilbo being a significant exception). Yet they're braver than all the other characters. Frodo volunteers to go to Mordor, remember. And Sam goes w/ him, even though he's never been farther than an afternoon's walk from his home. Why? Because his friend is going. And Merry, who's just a little creature in the middle of a big battle, screws himself up to attack a Nazgûl. Why? Because he loves Théoden like a father, and because, if Eowyn's going to die, "She should not die alone."
The book's also about loss. Yes, the ring's destroyed, happy ending all around. Except. The time of the Elves is over; that magical race diminishes & ultimately abandons Middle Earth. The forest of Lothlorien will fade. Frodo never heals from his wounds; he'll never enjoy The Shire he so dearly loved. So many heroes died. As Galadriel says in the book: "Much that was fair in the world has been lost."
The book has essentially those basic principles that Tolkien learned from two world wars. War is a miserable experience. But. Some things are worth defending. And. Even after victory, the cost is always high. There are no truly happy endings; things are never the same afterwards.
-----
NOTE: Although I've read the book nine times, I've not re-read it in over a year. If some of the quotes I use aren't exact, please forgive me.
Here are links to some of my December 2002 LOTR posts:
A brief note on Hobbit courage
Théoden's charge from Helm's Deep
The Rohirim charge across the Pelennor
Concerning the controversy of including Arwen in the film
My criticism of the second film
Posted by Miguel at 02:01 PM
Comments
Thanks Miguel. I know this may seem like a dumb question, but was the movie subtitled in Spanish or was it voiced over in Spanish? Asian films are funny when voiced over because the people are still moving their lips, but the talking is over.
Posted by: Kara at January 16, 2004 05:47 PM
It was in English w/ Spanish subtitles. Which made me happy.
Posted by: miguel at January 16, 2004 07:09 PM
Miguel, a couple of days ago I read an interesting comment of the movie, it was written by Hugo José Suarez and published in La Razón. It stressed the different reasons why Sargon, Smeagol and Frodo wanted to keep the ring; then it made an analogy of some local political actors and why they want to achieve power (the ring), very interesting.
Posted by: Daniel at January 19, 2004 10:03 AM
damn you..came upon your site on google and friggin jealous you're over there...viacha rocks..!!
Posted by: noelia at January 29, 2004 05:58 PM