There and back again

[selenak]

I saw the trailer for Troy, which looks nifty. (Wolfgang Petersen would be not embarassing contemporary director we exported to the States, as opposed to Roland "Independence Day" Emmerich.) With movies like Das Boot and Enemy Mine in his resumé, I'm reasonably certain he can handle his warfare in an uncheesy way. I do wonder whether they will keep the dehuminisation of Achilles, his dragging Hector's corpse around the walls of Troy.

Moreover, a kind soul gave me several of the RotK music clips, and The End of all Things and The Grey Havens made me sniffle in advance. God knows how I'll make it through the film without dissolving into tears entirely. I'm usually not the type to cry in the cinema, about a book or in front of the TV screen, but certain things make me each and every time. Londo in The Fall of Centauri Prime. (Actually, Londo makes me cry in season 5 even when he isn't on the damn screen, in Sleeping in Light, during Vir's story about him.) Davydd in Sharon Penman's novel The Reckoning. And I fear, I very much fear, that Frodo, Sam, Gollum et al. will join the club.

In order to cheer myself up, I read on older story of honorh's, which puts a film noir detective in Middle-Earth. (He's been hired by Lobelia Sackville-Baggins to investigate Bilbo's dissappearance, since Lobelia figures she can frame Frodo for it.) Great fun, and it's here.

Scott Summers is a character who gets as even director Bryan Singer admits too little screen time in the X-Men movies, which is why I'm greatful for excellent fanfic like penknife's. In Home Maintanance, set just pre-X2 with flashbacks to Scott's teenage days, we get good views of the relationship with Xavier, on adult Scott dealing with Bobby, John and Rogue, on teenage Scott trying to figure out his own emotions... it's a gem. I especially admire the realistic, layered way both teenage and adult characters are described. Not too many writers can do this.

Speaking of things not many writers can do: yahtzee63 wrote a Harry Potter future fic, which accomplishes several feats at once.
A) It's set in a world where Voldemort has won, and plausibly so. Which shouldn't have surprised me; Yahtzee created a very impressive dystopia for her Buffyverse story Phoenix Burning.
B) Among other things, it features a pairing which usually not just squicks me but has me chanting "why should she, and why should he? It's so out of character for both". Yes, it's Hermione/Snape. How does Yahtzee pull this one off? Firstly by not beautifying Snape inwardly or outwardly, and not changing (adult, thank God) Hermione into a simpering Gothic heroine. She has her reasons for the relationship, and they're neither romantic nor due to Snape suddenly becoming sexually irresistable. (Why Yahtzee can make me believe Hermione/Snape - albeit under very specific circumstances - but not Wolverine/Rogue is a bit of a mystery to me.)
C) As with all of Yahtzee's stories, this one combines An Actual Plot with character exploration.

Curious? It's called The Bloody Stare of Mars.

Comments

Re: LotR

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I do know and love the BBC radio adaption. But not only is radio a different medium, they also had more time in which to tell the story. The movies are a brilliant adaption into a visual medium which avoid the trap of going for an "illustrated highlights" approach. And despite my repeated reading of the book, and about ten times or so listening to the radio plays before I ever saw one glimmer on the big screen, these films made me see and feel things about characters and themes which had previously evaded me.

As for atmosphere: both adaptions have this a plenty.

LotR

[cavendish.livejournal.com]

Hi there!

I know how much you like the movies, I won't try to talk you out of it. ;-). (a) why should I, (b) I wouldn't have a chance anyhow ;-). Still, let me put some arguments:

But not only is radio a different medium, they also had more time in which to tell the story.

You are of course right that radio is a different medium. Things like setting the whole of the battle on the peleanor fields into a heroic song would not work in a movie- (wouldn't it? Surely not in a mainstream production, which relies so heavily on financial success, in comparison to a radio play.)

On the other hand, both productions do work almost on the same time scale. (Jackson had three hours per episode, in the extended versions even more, the radio play has 13 hours in total, minus intro and "outro", say, 12.)And imho the BBC production makes more of the time they have.

What I really do not like about the movies is that there is so little mystery in it. Also, I fear, little character depth. (Except for the Frodo/Sam/Gollum - triangle which works really well in the 2nd movie, and Gollum in general, who is is being marvelously brought to life.)
This maybe a misleading comparison, but movies like The Magnificent Seven, or the Kurosawa original, managed to introduce and handle seven characters, and much better than LotR does.

And from the point of story telling: Everything gets resolved so easily, everything is explained: Where is the imagination that you use in fantasy?

When I see the movies, I see how beautifully they are filmed, but I can't really _feel_ it, sorry. I can't get myself to liking them, although a I admire some of the visions they have created.


F.

Re: LotR

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Also, I fear, little character depth. (Except for the Frodo/Sam/Gollum - triangle which works really well in the 2nd movie, and Gollum in general, who is is being marvelously brought to life.)

I strongly disagree - about little character depth for the other characters, that is, not about the triangle and Gollum. Actually, I'm heretical enough to think that the movies at some times add depth to Tolkien, in an improving way. Take Boromir. Boromir in the novel probably was meant to be tragic, but he does not come across this way. There is no doubt from day 1 he'll try to take the ring, and if one feels anything, it's fear for Frodo, not regret for Boromir. His death caused no sadness in me. (This btw is true for the BBC version as well.)

Now in the movies, thanks to the script and Sean Bean's performance, Boromir comes across as tragic, driven, and deeply conflicted. Scenes like his conversation with Aragorn in Lorien aren't in the book, but they add welcome depth to the character.

Or take Grima Wormtongue. In the novel, it's somewhat in the mystery why such a lightweight of a villain ever got into the powerful position we find him in. Why on earth didn't Eomer and Eowyn get rid of him? Why did Theoden ever allow him near to begin with? Again, thanks to the actor's portrayal and the script - specifically the scene alone with Eowyn, which gives Grima a speech about her which originally belonged to Gandalf in RotK but would have added nothing to Gandalf, whereas it worked wonderfully well as a bit of dialogue between Grima and Eowyn - we see that he isn't just repellent but can actually be compelling at the same time.

And while we're at Edoras: Tolkien put the information about Theoden's son Theodred and his death in the appendices. Showing us Theodred dying, showing us Theoden's reation to his son's death, giving us that scene with him and Gandalf at Theodred's grave - instantly makes Theoden into a tragic figure I empathize with. (I empathized with him in the book as well but over other things, and it took me longer.)

Speaking of the appendices: Arwen never is more than a cypher in LotR, the book. The appendix containing "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" does make her into a character, but again, it's not in the main story. By bringing the information from the appendix into the actual movies, she became real to me, and for the first time I did feel the immortal elf/ human man sadness instead of just being told about it.

And as for Aragorn: in the novel, I liked him as Strider but he grew ever more distant as Aragorn, becoming a cypher towards the end. In the movies, it works the other way around for me. Aragorn is actually more interesting than Strider. By not letting him be convinced that he should and will be King, or that he should marry Arwen, but letting him be conflicted about both, the script gives him an inner journey instead of letting him be a static character. In a word, it adds depth.

And from the point of story telling: Everything gets resolved so easily, everything is explained: Where is the imagination that you use in fantasy?

Now I'm puzzled. Easily? And resolved? Nothing comes ever easy to any of the characters, starting with Bilbo giving up the ring (which is Tolkien) or saying goodbye to Frodo (which is added to Tolkien). As for "resolved" - I must have missed something. You could say that Boromir's fate is resolved, since he's dead (yet continues to affect his father and brother), but everyone else's? Both Fellowship and Towers leave their characters at a different point in their inner as well as outer journey, but they've always taken a step, not finished the journey.

LotR

[cavendish.livejournal.com]

What have I done? Started a discussion for which I have way too little time ;-))

First, I must admit that I have seen both movies only once ... in the cinema version; so my arguments may not really be that qualified ...

anyhow:

I strongly disagree - about little character depth for the other characters

How did I know, you would ;-).

I think especially Merry and Pippin loose quite a lot. From being young Hobbit nobility they are reduced to funny sidekicks especially in the first movie - what a shame.

Also Aragorn looses much of his depth. He is too much an action hero, to young, anyhow, and too littel the "king in exile". A little more of his ranger history would have worked wonders in part one.

Generally, the "Fellowship" could have easisly done without one or the other flight & fight scenes and could have added some more character based scenes in stead. Why all this action so early, when not even all the characters are well introduced?

I agree with you on Grima and Boromir though.

As for "resolved" - I must have missed something. You could say that Boromir's fate is resolved, since he's dead (yet continues to affect his father and brother), but everyone else's?

For the audience, that is. Let me give two examples: Why is there need to explain so early in the movie that Saruman is behind most of the mishaps on the journey? Why does Gandalf have to _explain_ that the noises they are hearing in Moria come from Gollum almost immediately? To my mind, this is not really building up suspense or atmosphere.

I empathized with him in the book as well but over other things, and it took me longer.

That, to my opinion, proves my point: It adds to the development of a character if it takes the reader / audience a while to empathized with him. Why not give him that time?

F.

Re: LotR

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Merry and Pippin: yes, they aren't as well rounded in the first movie as they are in the novel, but they do get to display not just their sense of fun but their bravery. Also, each of them has their big solo storyline coming up in RotK.

Also Aragorn looses much of his depth.
Which is the reverse of what I see - imo, he gains some. His heritage and the way it affects him is an important character and plot point - see his conversation with Arwen, with Elrond (in the EE), with Boromir throughout the first movie, with Theoden in the second. Aragorn in the movies becomes a king, Aragorn in the book is already a king in exile. Imo, the second is more involving emotionally. I just find an Aragorn who fears he'll be like Isildur, who has seen what power can do and does not know yet whether he can deal with it himself, who does not automatically assume he has the right to demand of Arwen she should sacrifice her immortality for him, a deeper and more compelling character.

Why is there need to explain so early in the movie that Saruman is behind most of the mishaps on the journey?

Common narrative sense if you're not in a book. The BBC did it too. In the book, you learn about the Gandalf/Saruman confrontation during the Council of Elrond. There is no way you can have a character deliver an endless monologue about a crucial, tense confrontation long after it happened. Which is why both the radio plays and the movie decided to cut between Frodo and Gandalf.

Why does Gandalf have to _explain_ that the noises they are hearing in Moria come from Gollum almost immediately?

Because this accomplishes two very important things:
a) He can give a crucial bit of exposition, about Gollum having been Smeagol; if they had left that one in during his conversation with Frodo in Bag End, said conversation would have been longer and dragged, considering at that point everything else was exposition as well. Whereas to give Frodo and Gandalf a quiet moment in the midst of an action sequence in which Gandalf tells Frodo and us about Gollum works as an "eye of the hurricane", if you will.
b) He can say not just the two crucial sentences of this movie (which PJ called the heart of the film in his commentary) but the one sentence which is most important to Frodo in the long run. "...all you can do is decide what to do with the time that is given to you" being the "Fellowship"-relevant one, and his reply to Frodo's assertion that he wouldn't pity Gollum and wished Bilbo had killed Gollum because surely Gollum deserved to die the other. I'm slightly misquoting from memory: "Many deserve to die, and many more to live. Can you give life to them, Frodo? Then don't be so rash to condemm them to death."

Again, this is taken from Gandalf's conversation in Bag End but works much better here, plus it becomes even more poignant if you consider Gandalf is soon to die, and probably knows it already. And Gandalf and Frodo can't talk about Gollum out of the blue; there has to be a reason.

LotR

[cavendish.livejournal.com]

hmmm ...

in a way, your explanation is more convincing than the movie seemed to me at first glance ;-).

Maybe I would have simply preferred a different style, (like LotR filmed by William Wyler or John Sturges, e.g. ;-) ), and it is simply a matter of personal taste ... (that is waving the white flag here ... ;-).

F.

Re: LotR

[selenak.livejournal.com]

William Wyler would be the guy who massacred my beloved Wuthering Heights...

Okay, okay, white flagg accepted.

LotR

[cavendish.livejournal.com]

Help ..

Stupid me, I deleted my original comment by mistake. (Wanted to delete the second one to post a corrected version, and got the first ...

so just for the record:

In the original comment I praised the 1981 BBC Radio play of LOtR as a better adaption in comparison to the movies because of it's dense atmosphere.

Really sorry :-(( ...

F.

[wychwood]

Ooh, Wolfgang Petersen. Sounds interesting, anyway. I *love* Das Boot; I saw it first at a formative age (I can't have been more than about 9 or 10), and suspect that most of my obsession with a) submarines and b) German and Germany stems from it... It's still one of my favourite films, even now. I think that was the first time I really empathised with the "other side"; I cried at the end, even though they were Germans...

I didn't know that he'd done Enemy Mine, though; everyone's been recommending that to me recently.

The Talented Mr. Petersen...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

...said in an interview when they first screened Das Boot in the US and had the preamble of how many submarine crews died in WWII, people cheered, and the team from Germany was horrified. Then, however, they watched the same people watching the movie, and saw they reacted pretty much as the audience at home had done to the characters and the story, down to being silent and crying at the end.

Empathizing with the other side: If you're a) German and b) growing up with lots of English and American films and shows on TV, you can learn to definte the other as self pretty quickly.*g* Though I do remember that once it made me miss the point in a film: when I watched Bridge over the River Kwai as age 11 or 12, I thought Alec Guinness' character, Colonel Nicholson, and the Japanese commandant were a great example of cooperation among former enemies after initial hatred, and were doing their bit of unity between nations when the stupid Americans were coming to blow up the bridge, the symbol of Japanese/British cooperation. (I did know about WWII at that point, had read the diary of Anne Frank, and if it had been a German prison camp I would have known he wasn't supposed to cooperate, but the Japanese involvement in WW II hadn't made it yet to my knowledge, so the war going on in the background of Bridge was something I didn't associate with it.)

It wasn`t until some years and several school lessons later that I understood I was supposed to root for William Holden...

Enemy Mine: Was a flop at the time, and I never understood why. Well acted by Dennis Quaid and Louis Gossett (who was a very credible alien), and well directed by Petersen.

Cultural imperialism?

[wychwood]

I imagine that it would be something you'd be more used to in Germany...

That's one of my... gripes about America, really. It seems to me that one of the consequences of their cultural dominance (and, arguably, imperialism) is that they absorb very little from other cultures. They rarely see films with non-American heroes and/or viewpoints, and perhaps do not have the same opportunity (or need) to learn to empathise in that way. Whereas all the rest of us are being permanently bombarded with American messages...

We're not *quite* as bad, but still bad enough. I wish more foreign films made it over here.