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.