[Lostgaeriel]

Hi Rhudladion! I am sorry that you did not like the film. What are your favourite movies? What are the requirements of a good movie? What do you consider to be fine acting? Perhaps the answers to these questions will illuminate why you did not like this one.<P>I've read LOTR some 20 times over the past 28 years. And during that time, I thought it would make a great but impossible-to-make movie. Peter Jackson, the cast and crew have made a wonderful motion picture that stands on its own apart from the books. And they did the impossible; they crystallized the story and its major themes of love and friendship, loyalty and courage, the battle of hope and goodness versus despair and the corrupting power of evil.<P>This is the only movie where I have sat FORWARD in my seat because it gripped me so hard - it was so real. I was afraid to blink because I might miss something. Three hours was far too short, but it left me wanting more - always better than making it too long.<P>I find it helpful to consider WHY each change or discrepancy appeared in the film. Consider the most important aspects of the plot, characters and their relationships. Consider both the limitations and advantages of the film medium. Time is at a premium; visual information is its strength. What is the best way to tell the story in pictures?<P>The Elves at the Council of Elrond were not a bunch of mean-spirited jerks. As Elrond pointed out in the movie: Rivendell could not stop Sauron from recapturing the Ring; the Ring 's presence endangered Rivendell as it would any place the Ring was "hidden"; the Elves were dwindling and leaving Middle Earth, so it was up to all the peoples of ME - to find the way to destroy the Ring. You may have noticed that the heated arguments among the Elves, Dwarves and Men were the result of the corrupting power of the Ring – thus the special effects at that moment. The Ring binds Sauron’s enemies by causing discord and division among them.<P>Yes, there were discrepancies. Thank goodness. It would have been extremely boring to watch the story unfold exactly the same as the book. How could the movie hold any suspense for those of us who have read the books? The plotline was maintained. Key characters were kept – minor characters (to the main plot, not necessarily minor in Middle Earth) were eliminated. Just as they should be in order to keep the story moving. (I was surprised that Celeborn was kept in the film unless it was to establish that Galadriel was indeed very powerful – she was a ruling Queen and Celeborn was only her consort. Haldir was kept to show that Aragorn had been to Lóthlorien before - important in establishing his life-experience and the length of his exile.)<P>Frodo was perhaps a bit weak physically or awkward or accident-prone compared to how he is portrayed in the books, but his strength of character was revealed in his taking of the burden and his selfless decision to leave the fellowship as in the books. This was not due to bad acting, but because the script was written to increase the audience’s sympathy and concern for Frodo. In film the best way to do this is to show him physically struggling or in danger. And the scene at the Fords of Bruinen did take his speech of defiance to the Ringwraiths and give it to Arwen. But to convince us on screen how gravely wounded Frodo was, he almost had to be shown as incapacitated. It would be hard to believe he was close to death or fading and yet able to ride. How do you show that an Elf-horse has the power to keep its rider seated?<P>Arwen’s character was enhanced, but this was required to show that she and Aragorn are well matched. She is his helpmate and equal. Their relationship had to be shown and grounded in a reality that we can understand. Arwen is Aragorn’s support when he is doubtful of his own strength of character and worthiness to be King. He is afraid that he will fail the test, as did Isildur. (The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A never satisfied me as to why these two people were together.) Instead of Aragorn trying to hide his insecurities by saying things like <I>"Elendil! I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again!" </I> as he does in the books (and may sound a bit stiff, over the top and obnoxious on the screen,) Arwen can reveal these insecurities to us. It is far more subtle and realistic – he will appear most regal when he is silent. The character of Arwen illuminates the character of Aragorn.<P>In the film, Boromir reveals that Aragorn is a natural leader and not just the heir in name only. Before he dies, he regains hope and pledges his loyalty to Aragorn, his captain and King. The character of Aragorn is VERY important in the trilogy – we need to know all his dimensions – warrior, captain, protector, tracker, wizard’s friend, healer, loremaster, judge, songwriter, lover, etc. Because he is all of these things, in addition to his lineage, he is destined to be King.<P>The acting was incredible. (No wonder - the roles were choice - some of the best ever written.) The actors had so thoroughly internalized their characters that they were no longer acting - they just were. Viggo Mortensen was amazing at this. You could read layers of meaning in his eyes; his silences said as much or more than his speaking. The way he carried himself was elegant. He wasn't playing Aragorn; he WAS Aragorn. In film acting, subtlety is key. It is all in the eyes and small movements of the face and body - that's how film reveals what stage acting cannot.<P>Sean Bean as Boromir was also excellent! Again, it was the quiet moments after each arrow pierced him that showed the great acting – you could see and feel the internal struggle to find the strength and courage to continue fighting with the Uruk-hai. He was on the knife-edge of despair, but his promise to protect Merry and Pippin gave him the will to continue and thus restore his honour. Bean was handed one of the greatest death scenes in motion picture history and his portrayal is going to get him an Academy Award nomination and make him highly sought after. I felt greater sympathy for Boromir in this movie than in the book. I had never before considered how Denethor’s despair had poisoned his eldest son and that it was this hopelessness and not only desire to be great in battle and gain his father’s favour, that sparked Boromir’s desire to use the Ring against Sauron.<P>Hugo Weaving as Elrond was wonderful. He portrayed Elrond as aloof and as contemptuous of “men” as an Elf-Lord should be. After all, Isildur didn’t take his very excellent advice about destroying the Ring, to the detriment of the Elves. And some young man – in fact the heir of that accursed Isildur - has stolen his daughter’s heart and will separate them forever. Again, the movie made crystal clear to me Elrond’s almost love/hate relationship with Aragorn, while the book did not. I don’t mean that it’s not there in Appendix A – it was just not obvious to me before.<P>As you can see, I could go on for a long time, extolling the virtues of the film. My ONLY criticism was the "dwarf-tossing" line spoken by Gimli. That will not stand the test of time. Fifty years from now, no one will understand the reference. It made me cringe.<p>[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]