Artist intent versus viewer perception - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 06-24-2012, 04:20 PM

Feel free to kill this thread if it's been done before.

I've been watching the movie with the commentaries running - designers for starters but then got interested in cast commentary later in FOTR & Two Towers.

Two interesting points came out from it.

Theoden's character explaining that he was trying to get across the idea of slowly coming back from decrepitude, not entirely trusting Gandalf at first. One instance is that Gandalf grabs his arm the way Wormtongue used to, and it brings back to Theoden that sense of "do I - can I trust him?"

Here's the thing - (sure, it's different from the book, so much is, I don't care to take this thread in that direction) - that was totally lost on me in all my viewings until I heard his commentary. It looked to me like Theoden was being willfully obstructionist, and I found it really irritating.

I'd be interested to read others' takes on that and other such instances.

Here's another one: commentary from the designers came out that they showed Two Towers Uruk Hai as aging and Return of the King Uruk Hai as experiments gone badly wrong.

What I remember is seeing this gray haired, slightly aged Uruk, and I remember thinking - ah, a somewhat hale and smart orc to have lasted to old age.

In other words, I totally missed the designer's intent.

How about others?

Galadriel55 · 06-24-2012, 07:00 PM

This reminds me of a story about a different film director/designer... In one of his films there is a clanking sound when someone is being shaken. When someone asked him why it is there, he replied, "The critics will think of some reason".

This seems to go the opposite way, though. Honestly, I didn't notice any difference between the Uruks. They were all equally orcs and smudged with white paint to me. I don't remember noticing any grey-haired ones.

Same goes for Gandalf/Theoden/Wormtongue.

I think they put all kinds of details in that are meant to signify something, but these details need more emphasis if they want the audience to catch them.

***Mister Underhill*** · 06-25-2012, 06:17 PM

Interesting topic, lmp! I think it just goes to show how very, very hard it is to make a truly great movie. Any given intention on the part of the artists making a film has the potential of being undercut, or distorted, or subverted, or unclear, or simply unnoticed because of some other decision or chain of decisions.

It takes a lot of talent and at least a little luck to be able to balance all the millions of decisions and intentions of dozens of artists in a way that is simply coherent, let alone in a way that serves the overall intentions of the story. And then those intentions have to be sound -- powerful, insightful, resonant, emotional, whatever.

I read this theory recently that the reason Spielberg is so successful is because there is never any doubt as to what he means in a given moment. He is great at leading you through very clear series of cause and effect. The critic argued that this great strength is also his greatest limitation: there is never any ambiguity to what he does. It's an interesting theory. See here if you're interested in checking out the discussion (warning -- it's part of a looooooong article about how action works -- or doesn't -- in film).

Anyway, to more specifically reply, I remember watching the director commentary on the scene where the Black Rider almost catches Frodo and company in the forest. They're hiding, and the Rider comes near, and all these bugs start crawling on the hobbits, and Jackson said the intention there was something like that the Rider was so terrible that even the bugs were fleeing from him. When I watched the scene, though, it felt more like his evil aura or whatever was drawing these creepy things towards him. So, intention not received.

Nerwen · 06-26-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Anyway, to more specifically reply, I remember watching the director commentary on the scene where the Black Rider almost catches Frodo and company in the forest. They're hiding, and the Rider comes near, and all these bugs start crawling on the hobbits, and Jackson said the intention there was something like that the Rider was so terrible that even the bugs were fleeing from him. When I watched the scene, though, it felt more like his evil aura or whatever was drawing these creepy things towards him. So, intention not received.

Just as well– the intended version... well, it's just too funny. Like an animated kiddie film. You can imagine all the little critters squeaking, "Crawl! Crawl for your lives!"

Nerwen · 06-26-2012, 03:23 AM

Btw, that article you linked to, Mr Underhill, is really quite interesting... once you get past the bizarre presentation, anyway.

littlemanpoet · 06-30-2012, 03:24 PM

Thanks for the reference to cause & effect in Spielberg, Mister Underhill. What does that say about Peter Jackson?

Did you ever wonder/notice how much of what's in LotR the movie is because of Peter Jackson's unabashed love for blood, guts, creepy crawlies, gore, ugly? How about theme and variation in orcs? Huh, that almost founds like a musical work.

Gothmog. Some orcs are more successfully presented than others. The one in charge who is NOT a Uruk at Shelob's Lair and in the tower of Cirith Ungol especially good. Why didn't they just name him Shagrat in the movie, and have done?

And why no Grishnack? I think I've asked that before so leave it alone if you like. If the point was to show how much pull the Ring had, why remove ol' Grish?

What's the intent behind the major moral failure of Aragorn lopping off the head of Mouth of Sauron during parley? "Well, Mouth of Sauron was evil, right? So it's okay to kill him 'cuz he's evil." If that is the reason, one had better make sure just what's evil and not! But the point! YOU DO NOT BREAK THE RULE OF NO VIOLENCE DURING PARLEY. IT'S A MAJOR COMPROMISE OF ONE'S HONOR. Why doesn't Peter Jackson know that?

06-24-2012, 04:20 PM	#1
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Artist intent versus viewer perception Feel free to kill this thread if it's been done before. I've been watching the movie with the commentaries running - designers for starters but then got interested in cast commentary later in FOTR & Two Towers. Two interesting points came out from it. Theoden's character explaining that he was trying to get across the idea of slowly coming back from decrepitude, not entirely trusting Gandalf at first. One instance is that Gandalf grabs his arm the way Wormtongue used to, and it brings back to Theoden that sense of "do I - can I trust him?" Here's the thing - (sure, it's different from the book, so much is, I don't care to take this thread in that direction) - that was totally lost on me in all my viewings until I heard his commentary. It looked to me like Theoden was being willfully obstructionist, and I found it really irritating. I'd be interested to read others' takes on that and other such instances. Here's another one: commentary from the designers came out that they showed Two Towers Uruk Hai as aging and Return of the King Uruk Hai as experiments gone badly wrong. What I remember is seeing this gray haired, slightly aged Uruk, and I remember thinking - ah, a somewhat hale and smart orc to have lasted to old age. In other words, I totally missed the designer's intent. How about others?

06-24-2012, 07:00 PM	#2
Galadriel55 Blossom of Dwimordene Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The realm of forgotten words Posts: 10,493	This reminds me of a story about a different film director/designer... In one of his films there is a clanking sound when someone is being shaken. When someone asked him why it is there, he replied, "The critics will think of some reason". This seems to go the opposite way, though. Honestly, I didn't notice any difference between the Uruks. They were all equally orcs and smudged with white paint to me. I don't remember noticing any grey-haired ones. Same goes for Gandalf/Theoden/Wormtongue. I think they put all kinds of details in that are meant to signify something, but these details need more emphasis if they want the audience to catch them. __________________ You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera

06-26-2012, 03:23 AM	#5
Nerwen Wisest of the Noldor Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: ˙˙˙ssɐןƃ ƃuıʞooן ǝɥʇ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ Posts: 6,694	Btw, that article you linked to, Mr Underhill, is really quite interesting... once you get past the bizarre presentation, anyway. __________________ "Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo.

06-25-2012, 06:17 PM	#3
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,744	Interesting topic, lmp! I think it just goes to show how very, very hard it is to make a truly great movie. Any given intention on the part of the artists making a film has the potential of being undercut, or distorted, or subverted, or unclear, or simply unnoticed because of some other decision or chain of decisions. It takes a lot of talent and at least a little luck to be able to balance all the millions of decisions and intentions of dozens of artists in a way that is simply coherent, let alone in a way that serves the overall intentions of the story. And then those intentions have to be sound -- powerful, insightful, resonant, emotional, whatever. I read this theory recently that the reason Spielberg is so successful is because there is never any doubt as to what he means in a given moment. He is great at leading you through very clear series of cause and effect. The critic argued that this great strength is also his greatest limitation: there is never any ambiguity to what he does. It's an interesting theory. See here if you're interested in checking out the discussion (warning -- it's part of a looooooong article about how action works -- or doesn't -- in film). Anyway, to more specifically reply, I remember watching the director commentary on the scene where the Black Rider almost catches Frodo and company in the forest. They're hiding, and the Rider comes near, and all these bugs start crawling on the hobbits, and Jackson said the intention there was something like that the Rider was so terrible that even the bugs were fleeing from him. When I watched the scene, though, it felt more like his evil aura or whatever was drawing these creepy things towards him. So, intention not received.

06-30-2012, 03:24 PM	#6
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Thanks for the reference to cause & effect in Spielberg, Mister Underhill. What does that say about Peter Jackson? Did you ever wonder/notice how much of what's in LotR the movie is because of Peter Jackson's unabashed love for blood, guts, creepy crawlies, gore, ugly? How about theme and variation in orcs? Huh, that almost founds like a musical work. Gothmog. Some orcs are more successfully presented than others. The one in charge who is NOT a Uruk at Shelob's Lair and in the tower of Cirith Ungol especially good. Why didn't they just name him Shagrat in the movie, and have done? And why no Grishnack? I think I've asked that before so leave it alone if you like. If the point was to show how much pull the Ring had, why remove ol' Grish? What's the intent behind the major moral failure of Aragorn lopping off the head of Mouth of Sauron during parley? "Well, Mouth of Sauron was evil, right? So it's okay to kill him 'cuz he's evil." If that is the reason, one had better make sure just what's evil and not! But the point! YOU DO NOT BREAK THE RULE OF NO VIOLENCE DURING PARLEY. IT'S A MAJOR COMPROMISE OF ONE'S HONOR. Why doesn't Peter Jackson know that?