Dear Mr. Mos Def,
I wish you were a better actor.
There, I said it.
It's not that you're a particularly bad actor, but I just keep waiting for that moment when your talent will make me think: Okay, this guy can act. I'm still waiting.
Oh, there have been glimpses, starting with your work as Ford Prefect in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. For sure, the humor of that movie was relatively understated, too, so there wasn't much for you to do that seemed to require much specialized acting. In other words, you played the character in much the same way you act in interviews: quiet, with a dry wit and a little over-the-top clowning. It was a competent performance, but nothing to write a blog post about...
Beyond your role in The Italian Job--a rather mumbling mess that underwhelmed in the face of even Mark Wahlberg's poor performance (bailed out by a Donald Sutherland cameo, the always fantastic Ed Norton, great action sequences, and a particularly gorgeous Charlize Theron)--the only things I remember you in were some rather green appearances on "The Dave Chappelle Show" and the underrated Be Kind, Rewind.
It is to the latter I wish to discuss. For the first time, you were thrust to the forefront--and you weren't half-bad. Alas, that's the best I can do as far as a review goes at the moment. Because while I enjoyed the movie, and feel your role in it helped give a straight-man to the antic Jack Black, ultimately I can't help feel anyone could have stepped into that role. They may not have been so realistically charming (Denzel, Taye Diggs, and Will Smith need not apply), but I'm sure there are plenty of young, black actors who could have played that part.
Hell, Nick Cannon wouldn't have been a bad choice.
And that's what I'm saying: You're 100% more talented than Nick Cannon, and yet, right now, I'd say he's a better actor. And unlike my letter to your Italian Job co-star, Jason Statham, it's not as if you're being given limiting roles. Subdued, perhaps, but certainly not action-oriented drivel that Statham has carved out as his little niche. You're being given ACTING jobs, and yet, for the moment, I'm not exactly sure why.
The good news is that there's hope, which is that you are still relatively young to the game. Watch early episodes of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" and you'll see Will Smith trying to get by on charm alone--he's not acting, he's overacting. Now, though, I'd say he's legitimately one of the best actors working today, in any genre.
Yours isn't a problem of overacting, but underacting. For someone who brings so much life and bravado to the stage or an album, I find it hard to believe your this reserved. And yet, you come across as almost shy when I see you on screen.
You're better than that.
So keep working on your craft.
And, while your at it, do another Black Star and/or solo album, because, really, while you're not the greatest actor, your definitely one of the best rappers.
Sincerely,
David
Showing posts with label acting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acting. Show all posts
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Monday, February 11, 2008
A Cry for Help
Dear Mr. Statham,
Why do you do this to yourself? Don't you understand how totally money you are? Who can forget the fantasticness that was Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels? Or, in the same tradition (pretty much literally), how great you were in Snatch? Hell, Handsome Rob, while not a big role, was as well-played as any in the fairly decent ensemble cast of The Italian Job.
But now, it seems, you have translated your success into what can only be seen as the onset of acute dementia. War? In the Name of the King? Revolver? Chaos? Who told you these were good ideas? Who told you that these were the scripts that were going to propel you stardom?
Ever heard of Jean-Claude van Damme?
Steven Seigal?
This is the territory you are journeying into.
While it might have been fine for you to make a film like The Transporter – with it's mix of low budget and good action, it was almost destined to be one of those cult-classics that guys are going to flock to (see Swayze and Road House) – that's what you do at the beginning of a burgeoning career. You don't keep making crap when you've already made good movies – at least, you don't consistently make crap. Don't you have a plan?
Perhaps you need to take a step back. Try saying “no” to a few offers. It's okay, try it. You might find it refreshing. Sure, your agent may feel jilted, the studio may be like “But you never say no,” but don't heed that nonsense. You can be your own man. Your own, beautifully bald, Britishy, bad-ass self.
Please, you're better than this. You are a good actor. You can make good movies.
So put that script down. Seriously, whatever it is, I'm positive it's terrible. If you can, take a lighter to it. Make sure you're in a well-ventilated room, so that the fumes from the burning shit doesn't render you incapable of making rational decisions. Such as reaching into the fire to save the script.
That's it. Walk away. Take a deep breath of clean air.
And remember that you are an actor.
Please.
Sincerely,
David
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
No Reservations
Ugh. I know – even I feel a bit queasy about my title. Then again, when puns are making you nauseous, you know they’re doing something right.
So what’s the deal with this movie? Critics seem hell-bent on lashing out at Reservation Road as if a) the movie is claiming to be something earth-shattering and ground-breaking and b) it’s personally offended them. Maybe I’m not the world’s finest critic, but I think what people were expecting from that movie was more than they should have. It is a fairly simple tale of two families connected by a tragedy: one is the victim, one is the perpetrator. On a dark Connecticut road, a young boy is killed in a hit-and-run, and while his family tries to cope with his death (and pursue the “killer”), the driver is trying to work out his own demons – both with his estranged ex-wife, his son, and his guilt.
Yes, it is easy to get lulled into a trap. Based on a highly acclaimed novel by John Burnham Schwartz, it also stars three relatively big name actors – people you would probably see in a trailer and say: Wow, those three? It must be good. And I think that was part of the initial disappointment for some: although it does star Joaquin Phoenix, Jennifer Connelly, and Mark Ruffalo (and, if you want to consider Mira Sorvino a “star,” Mira Sorvino), these are not the actors’ finest roles. While I think they all do adequate jobs with what they are given, after a while, crying and angst is not really the pinnacle of acting: somber is easy; comedy is hard.
Still, they are not terrible either. And, as most movies are the sum of their actors, I think this needs to be brought into consideration. For a movie that is high on melodrama, it’s not overwrought with cheese. It does get a bit cloying that much of the “dialogue” consists of crying and “screeching,” but, I mean, their fucking son just died! How are people supposed to react?
And that’s what bothers me so much about the reviews – this total disregard for the situation of the movie. The plot might ring a bit false, but does the way the actors react to the situations they’re given work? I think, for the most part, the do. Mark Ruffalo, as the murderer, does a particularly good job working with what he has, and his guilt and fear seem completely normal for such an abnormal situation.
I went in with low-expectations. The “word-on-the-street” buzz was such that I was seriously contemplating if I wanted to go. There are moments during the movie that I laughed out loud at the ridiculous coincidences that sprung up – everyone is connected to everyone in this movie. Does this come across as preposterous? Yes – it definitely does. After the first few times, you just know what’s going to happen next – and it does. So, for instance, when Phoenix’s character talks about using a lawyer to help keep on the police, whose office does he end up in? That’s right, the lawyer we already met: Ruffalo’s character. I’d like to be kinder here, but that is the level this movie works at.
But, again, that’s the level the story works at. Think about it this way: if there weren’t all these “coincidences,” there wouldn’t be a movie. Or, rather, there wouldn’t be this movie, based off of Schwartz’s book. Would another movie have been better? Possibly. And yet it’s hard for me to shake off the fact that this was a psychological thriller, and that, unlike a novel (where you get internal monologue), we need to see the emotions in raw forms. Think of it this way: would it have seemed more realistic for people going through this ordeal to just sit down with each other and talk about their problems? Just writing that seems absurd to me. Think about it in another way: is there a good movie version of Crime and Punishment? If there is, I can’t think of it. And the reason for that is because how do you translate a novel about one man’s struggles with guilt into a movie? Remember, too: movies are not books. They are not cinematic novels. They are a completely separate medium that requires a different mindset.
After reading what I’ve written, I am actually a little at a loss as to where I say why I thought the movie was good. I guess it comes down to this: I walked away with a reaction that made sense for the movie. Say what you will, but for us “regular” movie-goers, there are some powerful emotions being thrown around, and I felt them strongly. I wasn’t amazed by this movie. I don’t think I’d ever see it again. I don’t even necessarily expect others to see it.
I just don’t want people to think it’s a bad movie. I think it set out to adapt a novel in a way that works on the big-screen, and for the most part, they succeeded. In a movie about a little kid getting killed, I think it does everything you would expect it to do. Don’t forget, too, that there are plenty of people out there who not only like melodrama, they thrive off of it (hence our culture’s obsession with celebrity gossip). Is the movie Oscar-worthy? Of course not. But it’s not the crap-fest that critics so eagerly dump upon it, either.
More like a crap-tea social.
So what’s the deal with this movie? Critics seem hell-bent on lashing out at Reservation Road as if a) the movie is claiming to be something earth-shattering and ground-breaking and b) it’s personally offended them. Maybe I’m not the world’s finest critic, but I think what people were expecting from that movie was more than they should have. It is a fairly simple tale of two families connected by a tragedy: one is the victim, one is the perpetrator. On a dark Connecticut road, a young boy is killed in a hit-and-run, and while his family tries to cope with his death (and pursue the “killer”), the driver is trying to work out his own demons – both with his estranged ex-wife, his son, and his guilt.
Yes, it is easy to get lulled into a trap. Based on a highly acclaimed novel by John Burnham Schwartz, it also stars three relatively big name actors – people you would probably see in a trailer and say: Wow, those three? It must be good. And I think that was part of the initial disappointment for some: although it does star Joaquin Phoenix, Jennifer Connelly, and Mark Ruffalo (and, if you want to consider Mira Sorvino a “star,” Mira Sorvino), these are not the actors’ finest roles. While I think they all do adequate jobs with what they are given, after a while, crying and angst is not really the pinnacle of acting: somber is easy; comedy is hard.
Still, they are not terrible either. And, as most movies are the sum of their actors, I think this needs to be brought into consideration. For a movie that is high on melodrama, it’s not overwrought with cheese. It does get a bit cloying that much of the “dialogue” consists of crying and “screeching,” but, I mean, their fucking son just died! How are people supposed to react?
And that’s what bothers me so much about the reviews – this total disregard for the situation of the movie. The plot might ring a bit false, but does the way the actors react to the situations they’re given work? I think, for the most part, the do. Mark Ruffalo, as the murderer, does a particularly good job working with what he has, and his guilt and fear seem completely normal for such an abnormal situation.
I went in with low-expectations. The “word-on-the-street” buzz was such that I was seriously contemplating if I wanted to go. There are moments during the movie that I laughed out loud at the ridiculous coincidences that sprung up – everyone is connected to everyone in this movie. Does this come across as preposterous? Yes – it definitely does. After the first few times, you just know what’s going to happen next – and it does. So, for instance, when Phoenix’s character talks about using a lawyer to help keep on the police, whose office does he end up in? That’s right, the lawyer we already met: Ruffalo’s character. I’d like to be kinder here, but that is the level this movie works at.
But, again, that’s the level the story works at. Think about it this way: if there weren’t all these “coincidences,” there wouldn’t be a movie. Or, rather, there wouldn’t be this movie, based off of Schwartz’s book. Would another movie have been better? Possibly. And yet it’s hard for me to shake off the fact that this was a psychological thriller, and that, unlike a novel (where you get internal monologue), we need to see the emotions in raw forms. Think of it this way: would it have seemed more realistic for people going through this ordeal to just sit down with each other and talk about their problems? Just writing that seems absurd to me. Think about it in another way: is there a good movie version of Crime and Punishment? If there is, I can’t think of it. And the reason for that is because how do you translate a novel about one man’s struggles with guilt into a movie? Remember, too: movies are not books. They are not cinematic novels. They are a completely separate medium that requires a different mindset.
After reading what I’ve written, I am actually a little at a loss as to where I say why I thought the movie was good. I guess it comes down to this: I walked away with a reaction that made sense for the movie. Say what you will, but for us “regular” movie-goers, there are some powerful emotions being thrown around, and I felt them strongly. I wasn’t amazed by this movie. I don’t think I’d ever see it again. I don’t even necessarily expect others to see it.
I just don’t want people to think it’s a bad movie. I think it set out to adapt a novel in a way that works on the big-screen, and for the most part, they succeeded. In a movie about a little kid getting killed, I think it does everything you would expect it to do. Don’t forget, too, that there are plenty of people out there who not only like melodrama, they thrive off of it (hence our culture’s obsession with celebrity gossip). Is the movie Oscar-worthy? Of course not. But it’s not the crap-fest that critics so eagerly dump upon it, either.
More like a crap-tea social.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Lord of Ringing in the New Year
I can now check off at least one more thing off of my Am I a Geek? list.
Last night, while carousing occurred throughout the land, I was able to sit back, and starting at 12:30 in the afternoon, commence the movie-watching marathon that all true nerds aspire to.
I am, of course, referring to the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movies.
Probably because they were written as a complete story, the three movies make up, in my mind, the greatest sequence of movies ever made. I know I will hear grief from my Star Wars brethren, but hear me out: Star Wars: A New Hope was made with, at the time, relatively no-name actors on a pretty low-budget. Even the opus of that series, The Empire Strikes Back, still had to deal with Mark Hamill being in practically every scene (if there is some consolation from the travesty that was Episodes I – III, it’s that Hayden Christiansen’s Anakin clearly shows where Luke gets his lack of acting ability from – whole other blog). And please don’t get me started on Ewoks. I believe we all know the general public’s opinion about them.
Whereas Peter Jackson (unlike Lucas), had one of the most endearing and popular fantasy novels to work with. Moreover, he had the budget and technology to pull it off. These movies could not have been made back in the late Seventies. They could, and with great success, be made at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century (which I have to say is slightly ironic, given Tolkien’s clear views on technological “progress” and his yearning for the preservation of the “ideal” (“idyll”?)).
Moreover, the casting was incredible. A sound mix of fantastic, established actors (Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee), established, yet not given their due actors (Viggo Mortensen, John Rhys-Davies, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Sean Bean), and relative new-comers (Orlando Bloom, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, Andy Serkis). Throw in Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler (the latter I would say was miscast, but more on that below), and you have a great movie.
And that’s only the first movie!
Because as the journey moves on, the acting never diminishes. The additions of Bernard Hill as Theoden, Miranda Otto as Eowyn, and Karl Urban as Eomer are excellent, and many minor characters are played equally as well.
One thing that this movie allows for, if not calls for, is a bit more over-acting than one would generally want in, say, a present day drama. Their world is over-the-top, the situation is out of control, and therefore the language is lyrical. Love is LOVE, hate is HATE. Emotions are not complex, and are not hidden, and I believe this is the world that Tolkien was trying to create when he wrote his books. And the actors (and perhaps as important, the director), are still professional enough, for the most part, to keep their over-acting subdued, if that makes any sense. Because, in hindsight, you can recognize that they were really working the lines, but as a viewer, you simply believe that’s how they speak in Middle Earth.
And can I just say, what a world! I’m wondering if there is a place more beautiful on Earth than New Zealand? Damn Kiwis holding out on us!
All told, you have three movies that give you everything you want in a good, entertaining movie: love, action, comedy, suspense, and conflict. Granted, The Two Towers is more of a bridge than the other two, but it still is so well done that once you are familiar with the story, you can watch it on it’s own with out the benefit of having immediately watched the first, or with the knowledge that you will soon watch the third.
Suffice it to say that by 1:00 am, I was extremely happy. And that’s because, in the end, I watched the movie as it was meant to be seen: As one movie. You have to break up the story to make it manageable, but it truly is one continuous story, and therefore one continuous movie. I have a feeling that eventually they will be smart enough to market a disk that allows you to watch all three at once, without stopping to change disks or having to see credits. I yearn for said day.
Praise being said, there were some things that bothered me:
First, no Tom Bombadill!
Okay, it's really not true that this bothered me. I’m actually glad he’s not in the movie, because he’s the most ridiculous character in the book, and his sole purpose is to save the Hobbits from the Barrow-Wight. Although that brings adventure into the book where it desperately needs it, the fact that there seems to be this character who could solve everything but doesn’t annoys the hell out of me. My friends will continually claim otherwise, but I praise Jackson and the other screen-writers for excising that bastard out of the movie. The less prancing, singing demi-gods, the better.
Second, (and this one is true), Liv Tyler as Arwen.
I’m sure some people think Liv Tyler is a good actress. Hell, maybe she is. But I have a hard time getting past the idea that people think she is attractive. And that’s part A of my problem with her in this movie.
Arwen is supposed to be the fairest creature in all of Middle Earth (with a Gimli making a strong case in favor of Galadriel). Liv Tyler wasn’t even the best looking woman in the movies. Now Cate Blanchett is not what you would call a traditional beauty, but she does have an exotic look to her that seems to indicate both elfishness and beauty. Plus, she has a wonderful smile. Tyler also has an otherworldly look to her, but that’s because she’s an alien. I’m sorry to be so harsh, but when your father is Steven Tyler, the odds of you being a beauty are slim to none.
Part B of my problem is that Arwen’s role in the books is not big (one would almost argue, it’s practically non-existent, except through the thoughts of Aragorn). Now I understand the necessity of creating a love-interest in the movie in order to create a more balance story, but in this case, it means having to deal with seeing more Liv Tyler and her widely placed eyes, and wonder why Aragorn loves her more than he loves Eowyn, played by the incredibly more attractive Miranda Otto. Then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe Aragorn has conjunctivitis.
Third, they fucked up Faramir!
This is supposed to be The Guy in the books. He’s supposed to be the redemption of Boromir, but instead of just letting Frodo go and defying his father outright, he has to “learn” what he has to do, and drags Frodo away from the quest. Not only would this completely fuck up the timeline, but all it does is add an unnecessary scene in Osgiliath where apparently a single arrow is enough to drive away a Nazgul. Oddly enough, it does less to explain Faramir’s change of heart than if he was just a good person from the start! Eventually, I think they get him back on track, but it still pisses me off how they changed him for no apparent reason.
As if the story needed more conflict and drama!
Fourth, and the biggest: No Scouring of the Shire
The books were about the Hobbits. Obviously there were other major characters, and other major events, but like all great stories, the books began and ended in the same place: the Shire. One of the points that Tolkien was trying to make was that isolation is fine, but you also need to be able to protect that isolation. The Hobbits lived a peaceful existence, and when Frodo leaves, he does so to maintain that way of life. When he returns, however, he finds things have gone horribly wrong. It is only because Sam, Pippin, Merry, and he have gone through their ordeals that they are able to overcome the changes and restore peace back to the Shire.
The movie gives us none of this.
I’m sure there are many excuses, and a lot of them probably had to do with budget and time reasons. The one that makes the most sense to me, though, is that it does not make for a smooth ending. In the books, the Scouring of the Shire is a jarring reminder to the Hobbits that just because the greater evil is destroyed, there is still evil in the world. It is an anticlimactic event, but one that is necessary for the ultimate resolution of the Hobbits adventures. In the movie, however, it would have come as a shock, even to those who know the story, just because the movie seemed complete (granted, it wasn’t, and the fact that there are three or four perfect opportunities to end the movie, and yet it keeps going is an irksome reminder that they could be scouring the fucking Shire right now!).
Jackson, probably hearing it from fan-boys even more intense than I am, threw them a bone in the directors cut, showing Wormtongue killing Saruman and then dying himself, cutting off any hope of a final showdown in the Shire. Ah well.
Fifth: “Legolas, what do your elf-eyes see?”
Lines like this should never be uttered, let alone penned.
Mostly, though, I would be nit-picking to find things wrong with this movie. Frodo and Sam’s longing, homosexually tinged stares come to mind, but that’s because I’m probably not mature enough to truly understand manly love (such as that in Sir Gawain and the Green Night, or the comradeship of soldiers in war). The first movie is at times tedious in the beginning, if only because it takes them forever to get out of the Shire. But again, that’s because I was taking it in the context of one movie, as opposed to a small part of the whole. Also, I realize it’s important because, in the end, that’s what the Hobbits are doing all this for: to save their little piece of heaven on Middle Earth.
Amazingly, and I say this knowing full-well I am swallowing previously uttered words, the movies are better than the books. Tolkien, although creating a fantastic world and basically starting the fantasy genre as we know it today, is a long-winded writer with a penchant for over-wrought detail that bars plot and story the place of preeminence the should always have in a story. Part of my problem is that I got into the books late, and having already read so many Tolkien disciples writing in a much more "popular" style, it found it hard to enjoy the antiquated language of Frodo's story. For me, fantasy should be, um, fantastic? And being bored by how green the Shire is does not make me really want to go out and see these Hobbits save their homes. And, like with the movies, I find the story of Sam and Frodo to be completely unexciting (Wow, are they walking towards Mordor still? Let's have some more chapters about that!), even though it's the supposed to be the main plot-line.
However, I've only read the books twice, so maybe I'm being overly critical. And I'm not saying the books are bad; they just don't hold the magical allure that they do for so many others.
Still, the movies are definitely great. The Return of the King won the Oscars, but clearly the trilogy received the awards as a whole. And that’s how I watched them. That’s how I spent New Years Eve.
I am David, Captain of Cool.
Last night, while carousing occurred throughout the land, I was able to sit back, and starting at 12:30 in the afternoon, commence the movie-watching marathon that all true nerds aspire to.
I am, of course, referring to the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movies.
Probably because they were written as a complete story, the three movies make up, in my mind, the greatest sequence of movies ever made. I know I will hear grief from my Star Wars brethren, but hear me out: Star Wars: A New Hope was made with, at the time, relatively no-name actors on a pretty low-budget. Even the opus of that series, The Empire Strikes Back, still had to deal with Mark Hamill being in practically every scene (if there is some consolation from the travesty that was Episodes I – III, it’s that Hayden Christiansen’s Anakin clearly shows where Luke gets his lack of acting ability from – whole other blog). And please don’t get me started on Ewoks. I believe we all know the general public’s opinion about them.
Whereas Peter Jackson (unlike Lucas), had one of the most endearing and popular fantasy novels to work with. Moreover, he had the budget and technology to pull it off. These movies could not have been made back in the late Seventies. They could, and with great success, be made at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century (which I have to say is slightly ironic, given Tolkien’s clear views on technological “progress” and his yearning for the preservation of the “ideal” (“idyll”?)).
Moreover, the casting was incredible. A sound mix of fantastic, established actors (Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee), established, yet not given their due actors (Viggo Mortensen, John Rhys-Davies, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Sean Bean), and relative new-comers (Orlando Bloom, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, Andy Serkis). Throw in Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler (the latter I would say was miscast, but more on that below), and you have a great movie.
And that’s only the first movie!
Because as the journey moves on, the acting never diminishes. The additions of Bernard Hill as Theoden, Miranda Otto as Eowyn, and Karl Urban as Eomer are excellent, and many minor characters are played equally as well.
One thing that this movie allows for, if not calls for, is a bit more over-acting than one would generally want in, say, a present day drama. Their world is over-the-top, the situation is out of control, and therefore the language is lyrical. Love is LOVE, hate is HATE. Emotions are not complex, and are not hidden, and I believe this is the world that Tolkien was trying to create when he wrote his books. And the actors (and perhaps as important, the director), are still professional enough, for the most part, to keep their over-acting subdued, if that makes any sense. Because, in hindsight, you can recognize that they were really working the lines, but as a viewer, you simply believe that’s how they speak in Middle Earth.
And can I just say, what a world! I’m wondering if there is a place more beautiful on Earth than New Zealand? Damn Kiwis holding out on us!
All told, you have three movies that give you everything you want in a good, entertaining movie: love, action, comedy, suspense, and conflict. Granted, The Two Towers is more of a bridge than the other two, but it still is so well done that once you are familiar with the story, you can watch it on it’s own with out the benefit of having immediately watched the first, or with the knowledge that you will soon watch the third.
Suffice it to say that by 1:00 am, I was extremely happy. And that’s because, in the end, I watched the movie as it was meant to be seen: As one movie. You have to break up the story to make it manageable, but it truly is one continuous story, and therefore one continuous movie. I have a feeling that eventually they will be smart enough to market a disk that allows you to watch all three at once, without stopping to change disks or having to see credits. I yearn for said day.
Praise being said, there were some things that bothered me:
First, no Tom Bombadill!
Okay, it's really not true that this bothered me. I’m actually glad he’s not in the movie, because he’s the most ridiculous character in the book, and his sole purpose is to save the Hobbits from the Barrow-Wight. Although that brings adventure into the book where it desperately needs it, the fact that there seems to be this character who could solve everything but doesn’t annoys the hell out of me. My friends will continually claim otherwise, but I praise Jackson and the other screen-writers for excising that bastard out of the movie. The less prancing, singing demi-gods, the better.
Second, (and this one is true), Liv Tyler as Arwen.
I’m sure some people think Liv Tyler is a good actress. Hell, maybe she is. But I have a hard time getting past the idea that people think she is attractive. And that’s part A of my problem with her in this movie.
Arwen is supposed to be the fairest creature in all of Middle Earth (with a Gimli making a strong case in favor of Galadriel). Liv Tyler wasn’t even the best looking woman in the movies. Now Cate Blanchett is not what you would call a traditional beauty, but she does have an exotic look to her that seems to indicate both elfishness and beauty. Plus, she has a wonderful smile. Tyler also has an otherworldly look to her, but that’s because she’s an alien. I’m sorry to be so harsh, but when your father is Steven Tyler, the odds of you being a beauty are slim to none.
Part B of my problem is that Arwen’s role in the books is not big (one would almost argue, it’s practically non-existent, except through the thoughts of Aragorn). Now I understand the necessity of creating a love-interest in the movie in order to create a more balance story, but in this case, it means having to deal with seeing more Liv Tyler and her widely placed eyes, and wonder why Aragorn loves her more than he loves Eowyn, played by the incredibly more attractive Miranda Otto. Then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe Aragorn has conjunctivitis.
Third, they fucked up Faramir!
This is supposed to be The Guy in the books. He’s supposed to be the redemption of Boromir, but instead of just letting Frodo go and defying his father outright, he has to “learn” what he has to do, and drags Frodo away from the quest. Not only would this completely fuck up the timeline, but all it does is add an unnecessary scene in Osgiliath where apparently a single arrow is enough to drive away a Nazgul. Oddly enough, it does less to explain Faramir’s change of heart than if he was just a good person from the start! Eventually, I think they get him back on track, but it still pisses me off how they changed him for no apparent reason.
As if the story needed more conflict and drama!
Fourth, and the biggest: No Scouring of the Shire
The books were about the Hobbits. Obviously there were other major characters, and other major events, but like all great stories, the books began and ended in the same place: the Shire. One of the points that Tolkien was trying to make was that isolation is fine, but you also need to be able to protect that isolation. The Hobbits lived a peaceful existence, and when Frodo leaves, he does so to maintain that way of life. When he returns, however, he finds things have gone horribly wrong. It is only because Sam, Pippin, Merry, and he have gone through their ordeals that they are able to overcome the changes and restore peace back to the Shire.
The movie gives us none of this.
I’m sure there are many excuses, and a lot of them probably had to do with budget and time reasons. The one that makes the most sense to me, though, is that it does not make for a smooth ending. In the books, the Scouring of the Shire is a jarring reminder to the Hobbits that just because the greater evil is destroyed, there is still evil in the world. It is an anticlimactic event, but one that is necessary for the ultimate resolution of the Hobbits adventures. In the movie, however, it would have come as a shock, even to those who know the story, just because the movie seemed complete (granted, it wasn’t, and the fact that there are three or four perfect opportunities to end the movie, and yet it keeps going is an irksome reminder that they could be scouring the fucking Shire right now!).
Jackson, probably hearing it from fan-boys even more intense than I am, threw them a bone in the directors cut, showing Wormtongue killing Saruman and then dying himself, cutting off any hope of a final showdown in the Shire. Ah well.
Fifth: “Legolas, what do your elf-eyes see?”
Lines like this should never be uttered, let alone penned.
Mostly, though, I would be nit-picking to find things wrong with this movie. Frodo and Sam’s longing, homosexually tinged stares come to mind, but that’s because I’m probably not mature enough to truly understand manly love (such as that in Sir Gawain and the Green Night, or the comradeship of soldiers in war). The first movie is at times tedious in the beginning, if only because it takes them forever to get out of the Shire. But again, that’s because I was taking it in the context of one movie, as opposed to a small part of the whole. Also, I realize it’s important because, in the end, that’s what the Hobbits are doing all this for: to save their little piece of heaven on Middle Earth.
Amazingly, and I say this knowing full-well I am swallowing previously uttered words, the movies are better than the books. Tolkien, although creating a fantastic world and basically starting the fantasy genre as we know it today, is a long-winded writer with a penchant for over-wrought detail that bars plot and story the place of preeminence the should always have in a story. Part of my problem is that I got into the books late, and having already read so many Tolkien disciples writing in a much more "popular" style, it found it hard to enjoy the antiquated language of Frodo's story. For me, fantasy should be, um, fantastic? And being bored by how green the Shire is does not make me really want to go out and see these Hobbits save their homes. And, like with the movies, I find the story of Sam and Frodo to be completely unexciting (Wow, are they walking towards Mordor still? Let's have some more chapters about that!), even though it's the supposed to be the main plot-line.
However, I've only read the books twice, so maybe I'm being overly critical. And I'm not saying the books are bad; they just don't hold the magical allure that they do for so many others.
Still, the movies are definitely great. The Return of the King won the Oscars, but clearly the trilogy received the awards as a whole. And that’s how I watched them. That’s how I spent New Years Eve.
I am David, Captain of Cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)