Well I don't want to have a big shitfight over it as I know a lot of folks dug it which is fine, but what bothers me is when people go on about how wonderful Jackson is and how faithful he was and how well he created a sense of the book. Which he didn't at fucking all. SO I just want to clarify my position...
First I'll come clean and confess I don't know a lot about movies. I'm a books guy from first to last, so I can't really comment about visual styles of different directors. My basic criticism of Jackson as Speilberg was more in the general sense of "director who likes to wank on with technology rather than craft a good story". So I suppose the new Lucas would be a better reference. Too busy designing video game tie-ins to craft a decent script and present meaningful scenes, at the very least, if not an entirely coherent work.
I definitely need to see it again, but on my one viewing, in terms of visuals, I suppose he did okay with most of it, though I thought some bits looked totally fake, and a lot of it was cheesy, from the debased versions of ELrond and Gimli ("no one tosses a dwarf"? - fuck right off), to the arrow cam and the plasticine cave troll. And that fight between Gandalf and Saruman was shit too. What was that bit about spinning Gandalf around on his head? I kept expecting to see the skateboard underneath him.
But it was lovely to see middle earth on screen, obviously, and as I say, generally it looked okay and I'm not going to go nuts becase jackson didn't do everything as I would want. The one single problem that ruined it for me was the presentation of key scenes. He didn't give a sense of what was important. The council of Elrond is one of the most importannt moments in the whole trilogy. It's critical to know the importance of the characters who are there, and why they go and what they want, and the races they represent. This knowledge is needed throughout, in order to show that the reason they don't get killed in all the battles they have is becasue they are each the most accomplished fighters of their races. A lot is made of that sort of thing in the book but is glossed over in the film, and not because of time reasons. It was the choice of the script writers. It only needed another minute, or the odd reference throughout. The film plays like trypical cop buddy movies, where the bad guys shoot ten thousand bullets without hitting the good guys- unconvincing. It needs to be made clear how important Aragorn is, and what a cataclysmic revelation it is that the king has returned, and that is why he is able to beat off the ringwraiths at weathertop. It needs to be clear what a feat this is, rather than him just jumping in and sending them packing Errol Flynn stylee.
Same with Lorien. It only needed a minute to impress upon the viewer how important it is that these Elves are passing from middle earth, etc. But it's just glossed over as just another side adventure in a list of meaningless side adventures. There is nothing that is meaningless in the book, which is why Tolkien is such a good writer. Sure the whole concept of elves and dwarves may be called generic, but the way in which he deploys these concepts, and the depth he is able to generate through their interaction, and the way he interweaves their destinies, demonstrates his skill with the medium.
So as much as I adore this book, I don't care about Tom Bombadil being cut out, i don't care about Arwen's role being beefed up, and it's okay that it wasn't a perfect movie. But these crucial points around which the novel is strutured were completely fucked up. And that demonstrates what a lack of sensitivity Jackson has to what makes the book work, and when people praise him for supposedly possessing this exact quality, well quite frankly it shits me. So praise the movie if you like, but just don't rave about what a great translation from book to screen it was. |
