(no subject)

[vaznetti]

This is my obligatory Lord of the Rings review post. I wasn't sure that I really needed to make one, since I agree with pretty much all the reviews I've read. All in all, I loved it. I agree with all those people who say that the trilogy as a whole is a monumental achievement, one of the all-time great bodies of work. I laughed, I cried, I cheered.

What follows, though, are my criticisms. One was something entirely out Peter Jackson's control; the other was a directorial decision.


The first problem I had was something which has bothered me since the first film, and that's the casting of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. There was no way of knowing that she was going to be quite so unconvincing, I think, but from my point of view, she was an utter failure. Blanchett's a wonderful actress, but she lacked the weight required for the role. I never felt the character's power. I was never afraid of her: even her "all shall love me and despair" scene was all done with smoke and mirrors, not with acting. Blanchett just wasn't old enough to play this role. She was appropriately odd-looking, but far too insubstantial. Given that today's 50 year old Hollywood actresses look about 30 anyway, they could have cast an older woman in the part.

The extended version of the Fellowship may help this issue; I still haven't seen it. But I think this was just a bad piece of casting. As I say, there was no way to know in advance that Blanchett was wrong for the role, although I wish they'd taken a chance on an older actress.

The second problem is, of course, the decision to cut the scouring of the Shire. I can see why Jackson did this, but I really wish he had filmed it, if only to use as an alternate ending on the extended DVD. It would solve the problem of giving closure to Merry and Pippin--Faramir and Eowyn at least can be explained in the extended version, and Legolas and Gimli are never given all that much closure by Tolkien anyway, but without the Scouring, there's no sense of quite how much Merry and Pippin have changed and grown. Especially grown! It's their opportunity to take everything they've done and learned and make it useful at home. And I just don't see how Jackson is going to get that point across without this material.

I expect that there's been quite a lot of discussion on this point, which I haven't read, so I'll bring this to a close. All in all, though, the movie blew me away. As a longtime Tolkien fan I was highly satisfied.


And as a final point. I'm not a very visual reader: I don't get pictures in my head when I read. And I'm glad, because visually, that film was stunning. I loved the creation of Minas Tirith, in particular. The Byzantine-Italianate touches, and the way the mountain formed the prow of a ship in the courtyard with the white tree. Spectacular.

Comments

[se-parsons.livejournal.com]

See, Blanchett didn't bother me NEARLY as much as Liv Tyler. Who was not only lame, but in the films FAR TOO MUCH for such a minor loser character and billed above VIGGO. Disgusting. I understand she was as geeky as everyone else and hung out with the crew and was way cool, but she was dull and the fact that they had to change the plot to beef up her role annoyed me to no end. We could have had the Houses of Healing if they'd dropped that BS crap about Arwen. Grrrrr.

But I mostly loved it. And I didn't think I would.

[vaznetti]

I can see why they beefed up Arwen's role, actually, and I rather liked that. Although I preferred the way they made her more active in Fellowship to the wasting sickness stuff in Return of the King. But our sensibilities don't really permit the kind of thing Tolkien pulled, where she just turns up at the end like some kind of reward for becoming king.

I am aware, by the way, that I am the only person ever not to be bothered by the whole "Arwen's fate is tied to the Ring!" thing. I just saw it as a way of tying her fate to that of Middle Earth as a whole, and I liked that they showed the effect of her choice to become mortal right away.

[jood.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the enhanced Arwen role, partly for the relationship justification, but also to ramp up the already high stakes for Aragorn. I love my heroes angsty. I was okay with it, but I was very sad they used such a lightweight, flabby actress (talentwise, not prettywise, because of course she's gorgeous).

I haven't read the books yet, but I got the impression Galadriel was supposed to scare as much as she attracted, and I'm glad you brought this up, because I probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise. I figured I was just overanalyzing. Whew.

Don't look to the extended versions to appease your need for more depth and weight for her character -- if anything the additional scenes I've seen show her being all smiley and maternal. I saw no justification at all for her skeery reputation.

I really would have loved to see the scouring of the shire, knowing what I know about it now. I mean, great, we'll get to see more Saruman on the extended edition, which is sort of good (his death rewritten, I believe), but I also felt highly cheated regarding Pippin and Merry's eventual fates. Pippin especially grew so much and blossomed in the third film, and I was sorely disappointed to see him literally abandoned at the shore.

Oh, so much to say about these phenomenal films. I must read the books and then comment in an educated way.

[vaznetti]

I must read the books and then comment in an educated way.

I think it's perfectly valid to comment on them solely as movies. One of the things I like about them is the fact that people don't have to know the books inside out to enjoy them--and to people who've read the books, they stand up as more than mere illustration. If that weren't the case, I think one would have had to consider them failures.

As for Galadriel--she's ancient, which is part of what makes her frightening at times. Her age is measured in thousands of years. She's also extraordinarily powerful, in a trilogy which is not really into the girl-power. I was sad that the casting didn't work out.