As a long-time fan of Tolkien's masterwork, it was difficult for me to let go and enjoy The Lord of the Rings movies by Peter Jackson. But they were very well done. They are not completely to my liking, of course, but it would be impossible to please every fan of this (or any) work in translation. Always something is lost, but always something is gained. It becomes something else, a little, no matter how faithful it attempts to stay to the source material.
'Tis best not to try being completely true. Some things just cannot translate. Which is why I am glad that Jackson (and no other filmmake who has adapted The Lord of the Rings) has ever tried to do Tom Bombadil. It would have been grotesque. There are so many people who are disappointed by this decision, but I feel that if you want to hear about Tom, then you should read it from Tolkien. I would rather see a good movie production than a generic reproduction.
But these movies are very artistic. Their attempt at the Shire is most remarkable, their Gandalf is good (though they never call him Mithrandir... Ok, once.), the dwarves and elfs are decent (I still say the elfs should have been computer generated. Elfs would look odd if you ever saw anyone so blemishless) If you are not familiar with the books, you can easily follow the plot (I think) but you do miss out on details (such as their cloaks from Lothlorien; and when they are used, you would be very confused), which is fine. If you want to know everything about Middle-Earth, read the Silmarillion (and then read Snorri Sturluson, the Icelandic Homer). Tolkien's work is five times as deep as it is long.
Poor Gimli takes a lot of brunt as a joke. But he seems to take it well. Every good story needs a good relief and Gimli does a fine job.
I must admit these movies to be a "Success" even if I am not too much a fan of the dominance the battle scenes exert over the trilogy. And re-watching them I was again reminded of the antiquated way in which Tolkien considered blood-line. Very British. Royalty deserves their royalty because of some Manifest Destiny. It is somewhat 'offset' (a bad solution) by the more valuable and wise philosophy and thought in the story. This movie can move emotions of any kind. The music is stellar.
'Tis best not to try being completely true. Some things just cannot translate. Which is why I am glad that Jackson (and no other filmmake who has adapted The Lord of the Rings) has ever tried to do Tom Bombadil. It would have been grotesque. There are so many people who are disappointed by this decision, but I feel that if you want to hear about Tom, then you should read it from Tolkien. I would rather see a good movie production than a generic reproduction.
But these movies are very artistic. Their attempt at the Shire is most remarkable, their Gandalf is good (though they never call him Mithrandir... Ok, once.), the dwarves and elfs are decent (I still say the elfs should have been computer generated. Elfs would look odd if you ever saw anyone so blemishless) If you are not familiar with the books, you can easily follow the plot (I think) but you do miss out on details (such as their cloaks from Lothlorien; and when they are used, you would be very confused), which is fine. If you want to know everything about Middle-Earth, read the Silmarillion (and then read Snorri Sturluson, the Icelandic Homer). Tolkien's work is five times as deep as it is long.
Poor Gimli takes a lot of brunt as a joke. But he seems to take it well. Every good story needs a good relief and Gimli does a fine job.
I must admit these movies to be a "Success" even if I am not too much a fan of the dominance the battle scenes exert over the trilogy. And re-watching them I was again reminded of the antiquated way in which Tolkien considered blood-line. Very British. Royalty deserves their royalty because of some Manifest Destiny. It is somewhat 'offset' (a bad solution) by the more valuable and wise philosophy and thought in the story. This movie can move emotions of any kind. The music is stellar.
No comments:
Post a Comment