Giggles

[Bêthberry]

Boro:

Quote:
For example, to me, Aragorn's dream of Arwen, where he is woken by the affectionate snog from the horse, is not funny as it makes a farce of the romance. I suppose many people are uneasy with taking high romance seriously, and so they think it is funny to undercut the romance that way. But this is not consistent with other depictions of the romance in the movies. So, to me, it is a cheap shot, used just to get a laugh at the moment but not really to tell us anything about the romance.

Bethberry, that was intended to be for laughs? Interesting, I never knew

This gets back into that ole Canonicity thread. I have no idea if PJ intended it to be humorous or not. But I know many people besides myself who do find that appallingly hilarious. Chaqu-un à son jeste.

Holbytlass wrote:

Even anatomically correct replicas that are as great as the originals can be dissected and its flaw(s) found by an expert. And isn't that what we are here for (in this forum)? All of us are to some degree an 'expert' above those who have never read the books. We are chipping away at the movie, finding its flaws. Even myself, right now. And I reiterate, that those who haven't read the book are not doing this. At least not to the extent that we are. Which comes to your question about just plain old unfunny stuff in the movie. I think the people to answer your question best are not going to be here at all.

If I may interject here: Any anatomy asks to be analysed. One that is correct leads to examination of satisfaction, in hopes of finding such excitement again. One that is flawed leads to analysis of disappointment.

But, frankly, while you are entitled to your theory that only those who know the books engage in dissection, let me say that I attended the movies with three people who had not read Tolkien. All three of these people found some measure of pleasure in the movies (as I did, infrequently), but their enjoyment was prematurely interrupted by things they found risible. Maybe this gets back to that old saying that life is a tragedy to those who feel but a comedy to those who think. If viewers felt a distance, were not emotionally drawn to the movies, then perhaps they just automatically began to deflate the images.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

There can be no such thing as an exact atomic replica of anything, so it's pointless talking about that. Regardless of this, Jackson was not trying to make a near-replica of the books. But his task did not involve a fundamental incompatibility in the way the humour could work. He could have made a much worse film with better humour. It's just a shame that some of the humour was so bad.

As for the Gimli examples, I agree with Keeper when he says that some of it was funny. However, the burping, blowing away the ghosts, lines such as "Let him rot!" and the falling off of horses were just unfunny.

Agree with BB about the other horse joke, involving Aragorn. I too saw it as a way of joking about the sorrow felt by 'Gorn and Arwen. As to an in-depth analysis of the nature of humour......may I be excused?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Of course we always welcome your "dissent"voice, Sauce. Some of us, however, don't think "popularity" is always the most logical way to extend the debate.

Now now Bb. As you know, I have never sought to claim that popularity is the only consideration in matters such as this. But it is a relevant consideration. If these moments of humour work for the majority of audiences (and my experience suggests that they do), then surely that goes some way towards justifying their presence.

It is all very well to talk of the qualitative aspects of these humorous moments, but this is very much a subjective matter. They do not appeal to many participating in this thread, but they do (in general) appeal to me. And they similarly appeal to many who have seen the films. It seems to me that it is difficult on subjects such as this to express much more than one's own subjective opinion (and, of course to point out how well these moments went down with "the masses" ). Eomer of the Rohirrim is well advised to decline Bêthberry's invitation to attempt a definition of "humour", but I will attempt a very rudimentary one. "Humour" is that which people find humorous . And the more people that find something humorous, the better the humour is. If a certain instance of humour works for its audience, then it is "good humour" in my book. Although that is not to say that it will necessarily appeal to me. For example, I have never understood the appeal of Friends but, given how popular it was, the writers were clearly doing something right.

It has been said that the more - um - rudimentary humour in the LotR films seems out of place. But is it really? Or does it only seem out of place because those posting here are intimately acquainted with the literary work on which the films are based? That is certainly the reason for my limited reservations over some of the humorous moments. But Jackson's motivations, intentions and objectives were, as I have said many times before, quite different in many respects from those of Tolkien. And the medium of film is a markedly different one from the medium of literature. In this regard, it seems to me that Holbytlass's comments are well made. It is only the likes of us, Tolkien fans all, that analyse these moments of the films down to the nth degree and find this kind of humour out of kilter with Tolkien's style. Of course, it will not appeal to everyone, whether or not they have read the books, but there is little, if any, humour that has truly universal appeal.

I find the comparison of Jackson's style with the styles of the likes of Lucas and Spielburg an interesting one. There is of course a subjective element attached to the question of whether they are (or were, when at the same stages of their careers) better directors, but they are good comparators as their "blockbuster" films appealed (in their time) to the same kinds of audiences as the LotR films do now. Jackson certainly has his moments that do not appeal to me. He is overly unsubtle in some of his direction and perhaps too ready to appeal to the "lowest common denominator". But neither Lucas nor Spielburg is without his clumsy moments. Both have a tendency to cloying sentimentality, Spielburg especially, which is not to my taste. And this is something that I find happily absent from Jackson's films. Lucas also seems to have a tendency to employing overly-cute creatures. Witness the Eowks and Jar-Jar Binks. Both mistakes in my opinion, but that's just my view. And neither is averse to using obvious humour on occasion, although perhaps their styles are not quite as crude as Jackson's.

I originally made a quick (glib) comment on this thread, hoping to get away with it. No such luck, with the likes of Bb and co around. So I suppose that I had better elaborate on my views concerning Jackson's use of humour.

The first point to make is that Gimli's wisecracks and flatulence are not the only forms of humour employed throughout the films. There are some wonderfully gentle moments of comedy, particularly those involving Gandalf and Sam.

But let’s look at Gimli. Now let's face it. He is not the most developed character in the book. In a film, even three very long films, there is scant time available to develop those characters who are not central to the plot, so he was never going to get even the (limited) measure of development that he gets in the book. So it seems to me that Jackson looked to focus only on the main aspects of his character that are apparent from the book. In this regard, there's his developing friendship with Legolas (and the associated theme of reconciliation between Dwarves and Elves), his skill in battle and his humour. Jackson incorporates each of these themes in the films, devoting as much time as he is able to each.

Ah, but doesn't he "warp" the humorous element of book Gimli's character? Well, yes he does. He makes Gimli and Legolas a bit of a double act, with Legolas playing the straight man to Gimli's wisecracking clown. The refined Elf and the unrefined Dwarf. A double act comprised of two opposites. It's a tried and tested formula (R2D2 and C3PO anyone?). And it works well with the theme of their developing friendship. An attraction of opposites. But why make Gimli's comedy (at times) so unsubtle and obvious? Well partly, I think, to accentuate the contrast with his film partner, Legolas. But also, in my view, because otherwise few would remember him. With Orlando Bloom's looks, there is no such danger with Legolas. But a gently humorous Gimli would not stick in the minds of many among the audience for this film (ie those who did not know him from the books). He would simply be the short bearded bloke who, along with everyone else, kills lots of Orcs. Rather than making him look silly, I think that his humour makes him a very appealing character to many who have gone to see the films. After all, what do they care of noble Dwarven lineages etc?

As far as Jackson's use of characters for humour goes, I was more concerned over his treatment of Merry and Pippin. Throughout the first film and for much of the second, they were used simply as a comedy double act. That was practically their only contribution. And, to my mind, there is certainly far more to them in the book than simply two clowns who like their mushrooms and pipeweed. The lack of any clear reason for them joining Frodo and Sam (and the absence of A Conspiracy Unmasked) means that (initially at least) we miss their bond of friendship and loyalty to Frodo and their immense courage in the face of unknown dangers. And the films failed to make any real attempt to distinguish between them, whereas, in the books, they are very sharply delineated. Of course, Bilbo apart, they are my two favourite characters in the book, so I am bound to find this rather annoying. As far as non-book readers are concerned, they make a very good comedy double-act and the set-up works very well. They become memorable and well-loved characters despite the limited time available for character development. Indeed, I have seen few complaints on the Downs concerning their treatment in the films, but there we have it. We concentrate on that which concerns us most. At least they got to prove themseves as more than mere clowns in the latter half of the second film and during the third film (although Merry was rather short-changed in the theatrical release of RotK).

Finally, I cannot let these comments pass:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

However, there are those who are strictly film critics, who have no prior reading to the books, who can pick a part the movies. There are a lot of editting mistakes, the people in charge of making sure there are no "mistakes" in the film missed a LOT.

Generally (as I have sought to establish elsewhere in this forum), the films were very well-received by professional film critics. The editing mistakes are, I would say, par for the course on a massive project such as this. And they are really only noticed by those who have a particular inclination to notice such things (or who have watched the films many many times).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

... there are times that he just slips back to his previous mediocre days

I have not seen a film by Jackson that I would describe as mediocre. Gross, low-budget, amateur and unsubtle are words that I would associate with his early films, but not mediocre. And Heaveny Creatures was a wonderful film, with very little evidence of the "heavy-handedness" with which he is otherwise associated.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

If a certain instance of humour works for its audience then it is 'good humour'? I must disagree, sir. Any sexist, racist or whatever else kind of joke told in a circle of, say, 20 people may elicit loud laughs from everyone, but it would still be bad humour.

As to the non-book reader's memory of Gimli as the quiet kinda subtle character, that may have to be a necessary consequence of such a film with many characters. This is still arguably better than having the non-book reader remember Gimli as the short clown.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I must disagree, sir. Any sexist, racist or whatever else kind of joke told in a circle of, say, 20 people may elicit loud laughs from everyone, but it would still be bad humour.

The exceptions that prove the rule.

Seriously though, that would be "good" humour as far as it's audience is concerned (in the sense that it would work well as humour for that audience). Open it up to a wider audience and it would not necessarily work so well. So it would not be as "good" as humour that had a broader appeal. It's all subjective, you see, and you can only get some kind of objective view when you judge it by reference to the breadth of its appeal. But doesn't that mean that the more popular the humour, the better it is? Perish the thought!

Originally Posted by Eomer

This is still arguably better than having the non-book reader remember Gimli as the short clown.

Arguably indeed. I would rather see Gimli fondly remembered as the short clown than generally overlooked.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by TheSaucepanMan

Eomer of the Rohirrim is well advised to decline Bêthberry's invitation to attempt a definition of "humour", but I will attempt a very rudimentary one. "Humour" is that which people find humorous. And the more people that find something humorous, the better the humour is.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Seriously though, that would be "good" humour as far as it's audience is concerned (in the sense that it would work well as humour for that audience). Open it up to a wider audience and it would not necessarily work so well. So it would not be as "good" as humour that had a broader appeal. It's all subjective, you see, and you can only get some kind of objective view when you judge it by reference to the breadth of its appeal. But doesn't that mean that the more popular the humour, the better it is? Perish the thought!

For shame, SpM, even in jest, to employ the term under discussion in the definition. I would have thought better of a loyer, but then I guess that is your humour at work.

The problem with your suggestion that the only objective view is that determined by majority or mass appeal is that it grants this specious 'objectivity' to the tyranny of numbers. We accept the rule of the majority in democratic votes, but I don't think we assume it necessarily follows that we are often persuaded that the best party won.

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education. Not in the sense that high brow art must be beat into us, but in the sense that very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Slowly, though, they come round. After all, Tolkien's work was first derided by fellow academics because it flew in the face of the ruling style of the moment, modernism. But times change and his work is now generally regarded and the subject of university courses. Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.

I could as well name other writers who at first were vastly popular and well regarded, who have now fallen into the dust bin of history, ready to be recycled some day perhaps by some intrepid interpreter. Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.

Minority interpreters do not have to fall in line with the majority. Nor should the majority brow beat the minority into submission. What they should do is listen to each other, and learn from each other, see where there is common ground and where there are differences of perspective. But to be told "You're in the wrong because more people agree with me", well, that amounts to plain ole bullying.

It seems to me that you take the subjectivity of humour and out of that argue that the most 'objective' approach is to accept that of the majority. I also argue that humour is subjective. Where I differ is that I think it is possible to consider some properties of art which create humour. Sometimes it is the daring inconsistency or unusual nature of the event, the implausibility, which draw out our laughter. (Here, bodily functions are easily seen as funnier than stolid, solemn mental gymnastics because they 'bring people down to earth'.)

Comedy, I think, is meant often to be a breaker of barriers (tension, false pride, arrogance, ignorance etc), bursting the balloon of pretension and self-blindness. (Heck, just look at what happened here with the various interpretations of the Death of Crystal Heart thread. ) Maybe comedy also is designed to show up the different perspectives which we all bring to bear on an event. Thus I think it is valuable to consider the context of Jackson's various bits of comedy. Is he asking us not to take Middle-earth seriously? Or take it just as a bit of a romp? Or is he just wanting to regale us with funny moments for the sheer fun of laughter? Did he simply want to make the most number of people laugh? Okay, I guess. But how does that sit with the other aspects of his movies? And since when is the filmaker's intention the final, absolute word?

I take your point about Lucas' and Speilberg's sentimentality. For me, the high point of Lucas' art was the original Star Wars, possibly extended to the two sequels. Jar Jar Binks and a plethora of improbable aliens show me the fraying limits of his vision. It is by the measure of the first SW that I consider Jackson's movies, because his movies bring to my mind so clearly Lucas' finest achievements.

[Holbytlass]

I found it, the one unfunny thing in 'Fellowship' (in my opinion). I was disappointed because everything humorous seemed to fit at least character-wise and in context to the situation, I am sure others would disagree but I was looking for pure unfunny. So I began to think that the unfunny stuff was only in 'Two Towers' and 'Return of King' because so much of the movies were battles, to give comic relief.
Of course it was Gimli (poor Gimli!!). The scene where the Fellowship is bedding down at Lothlorien, the elves are singing the laments for Gandalf, Sam tries to do his bit then Gimli snores and Aragorn hits him. That's not funny.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I agree wholeheartedly. But this is the problem with judging Jackson by Tolkien's standards. Jackson's approach and intentions were different in many significant respects, and understandable (in my view) by reference to today's "mass market" approach to films such as these.

It's true. You can't judge Jackson by Tolkien standards, because the two are separate entities. Example: the song Mrs. Robinson. Yesterday I listened to two versions... Simon and Garfunkle's and Frank Sinatra's. Both excellent in their own right, and completely uncomparable. I mean... all you have to do is listen to the first few chords and you automatically think "What? This isn't Mrs. Robinson as I know it!" But that doesn't mean that it's not Mrs. Robinson, and that doesn't make it bad. It just makes it different. Right Saucie?

But at the same time, some of the comedic lines in the Movies could effectively go in all of those "What they would never say" threads that keep springing up. I mean... honestly now, how many of you ever in your right mind imagined Gimli, proud and noble Dwarf that he is, drunkenly muttering that "It's the Dwarves that going swimming with little hairy women." I wasn't offended, per say, but I certainly thought that that line was completely... well... unfunny. If I'd been hanging out with a group of guy friends and one of them said something that (a) lame, (b) uncultured, (c) potentially offensive... I'd smack him. And yes, Keeper, because I know a rebuttal is coming, I understand that this is pre-Middle Ages, things were uncultured, people were slobs, and men were men. That doesn't make the line any less unfunny.

[Lalwendë]

Humour is all about personal taste, so I don't think quality judgements are always possible. Why do I think it's about personal taste? Well, humour often arises from our own experience of the world - here's an example: I find Pauline from the League of Gentlemen hilarious because I've had the misfortune to meet many such women; the line 'dole scum' makes me laugh because this is how they truly do view unemployed people. And having been unemployed and on the receiving end of their bile, this term is deeply and darkly satirical to me. But many other people find it utterly unfunny as they do not necessarily have that experience, or, having had it, they find themselves unable to laugh about it in retrospect. By the same token, certain types of jokes make me pull a face like I'm sucking a lemon because they make fun of things that I'm sensitive about.

As to PJ's use of comedy, I did find some of it good, in fact most of it was good, apart from what he did to Gimli. He played on Gimli's height and appearance a little too much, which I found to be cheap humour, much in the manner of the playground bully endlessly poking the 'speccy-four-eyes' or 'duracell' kid. After too many of these jokes I'd had enough. The "shall I get you a box" was delivered excellently by Orlando Bloom (perhaps he has a hidden talent for comedy), as it was very deadpan and subtle, but the remarks by Aragorn to Eowyn seemed merely snide, the kind of thing people say behind their backs.