 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: The only thing that you left out was "IMHO" which can be shortened to "IMO" for absolute accuracy. posted by Audiophilander on January 10, 2004 at 07:07:03:
When I say that these films are poorly directed, I am saying that Mr. Jackson has made them by piling scene over scene, losing any sense of continuity, and then his sense of rhythm shines just because itīs absent, and his tempo changes suddenly, from too fast to practically stopping, making these films look like the poor collage they are.As an example, just consider how boringly slow, and lacking any minimal tension, is the hobbitīs ascent to Mount Doom: itīs repetitive, and it lacks any sense of progress, with them being now here, an eternity later there, and finally there they are, in what look like the banks of a river of molten lava (which should burn anything at distances much further than where they are, while they donīt even show a single drop of sweat in their faces...). That scene, if properly directed, would have been carrying the viewer towards a climax, in the same way a good conductor would when playing a symphony..., but he doesnīt.
Telling a story well is not so easy, and requires much more than just a lot of technical equipment, which he had in spades..., but no talent to squeeze the juice that fruity story has.
If you want to have a clear idea of what Iīm saying, just find a copy of Minnelliīs "The Bad and the Beautiful", and look at what happens when Kirk Douglas asks that director to make things happen at a different pace in the film they are doing at that time, and the director tells him that "he needs to hold the pace now, so he can grow better on the final climax"...: then, Douglas fires him, takes the rheins, makes the film, and finally drops it away, because he undrstands that he has made just a piece of shit. Minnelliīs is a very good film, deserving being seen once again, if you already know it.
And actors are generally bad: Elijah Wood doesnīt fit well as the hobbit who, being full of bonhomie, finds himself entangled in a risky adventure, being shattered to the every marrow of his bones, and then finally transforming himself, through his struggles, into a mature, richer person: thatīs what happens in the books, but Mr. Wood is always like a child, always so far from the much better playing the man doing Samīs role shows every time, so much that he literally wipes him away... Mr. Mortensen is a stiff, wooden Aragorn, showing no greatness at any time; Liv Tyler is one of the worst in her blank inexpressiveness; Gandalfīs eyes show just as much intelligence as Mr. Bushīs reading one of his speechs...
Well, now I have, without entering in too many details, told you why I consider these films not to be at the height of the original work. And I donīt mind if they are acclaimed by tasteless people as the biggest thing since sliced bread (which I despise too: have you ever had a loaf of good bread, baked in the old style..., or a good baguette? there simply is no contest!), as I am dead sure that, in a couple of years, time will put things in their right place, and they will have been forgotten: Mr. Jacksonīs work is at the same height as Rowlingīs "Harry Potter" when compared to the sheer height of Tolkienīs books.
Regards
BF
Follow Ups:
I differ with almost all of your arguments, but I will admit that the pacing is improved in both of the longer cuts available. The problem you've pointed to has more to do with the weight of the works and trying to accomadate broad storylines that separate and converge in ways that don't lend themselves to cinema. Peter Jackson has performed a remarkable feat and most folks, including many long time fan of Tolkien's original books, are comfortable with the changes and the actor's performances.FYI, I had the opportunity to discuss Jackson's films with a Tolkien scholor within the past year (i.e., he knew Tolkien in his lifetime, and understood the man and his works about as well as a biblical scholor understands scripture). He saw the films and books as essentially different forms, but drew comparisons while critiquing Peter Jackson's interpretations; the consensus: the films are excellent in their own rite, taking into account the complexity of Tolkien's work and the challenge of trying to film such a complex epic in any cohesive manner that an audience would be able to grasp.
So, what is the bottom line? Well, my take and your's are almost diametrically opposed. That said, I would agree with you as far as the films being imperfect. Nevertheless, any way you look at it they're darn good entertainment and probably the best anyone could've hoped for under the circumstances! Are there pacing problems, such as the crosscuting of events during Frodo's slow ascent of Mount Doom? Yes, I'm of the opinion that the ascent isn't as oppressively slow nor as redundent as you've indicated. The "molten lava should burn everything" issue is certainly worth addressing, but it's easy to overlook the close proximity to this super heated environment since we're dealing with a fantasy realm and have gradually grown of just how unique and tough Hobbits can be when they set their minds to something.
My take on the acting: Elijah Wood was perfectly cast as Frodo, IMHO, as were the rest of the characters. How anyone could fault the casting is beyond me!
> > > "And I don't mind if they are acclaimed by tasteless people as the biggest thing since sliced bread..." < < <
That is a very subjective opinion, my friend. One also might correctly conclude that those who are unfairly critical, tactless and insulting of the tastes of others are guilty of pinching their loaves in public.
AuPh
Simply gaze over Fordīs "The Quiet Man", and there you are: each and every one of them fit into their roles as hands in gloves do!And then, thereīs something about filming to be learned, there..., especially about how to dose things, and how to keep a perfect rhythm, and... had you noticed how well that scene when Sean brings Mary Kate to her brother, is a perfect exercise in filmic rhythm, with that tune named something like "Irish launderer", or so, fitting perfectly to it?
Thatīs cinema, man! And no special effects at all, in it!
Regards
BF
is that of Oliver Stone's "Nixon". Every choice is brilliant, and the acting and direction are first rate. Get the longer version if you can. "Nixon" takes Stone's editing technique truly over the top.
And while Anthony Hopkins does not try a Rich Little-type Nixon impersonation, within a couple of minutes you totally accept him, something Hopkins also accomplished in last year's "The Human Stain", where he plays a black man.
No offense, but I was never moved by The Quiet Man; I'm not especially fond of Maureen O'Hara's acting and her faux Irish accent seems somewhat forced here (i.e., my opinion; YMMV). The supporting cast is pretty good, but from my perspective that's all that recommends this old film which, admittedly, some regard as a classic. I'll stand by my earlier post, orejones: The Lord of the Rings trilogy of films are new classics that will stand the test of time! Long after the FX work is dated people will wax poetic about these films because the cast was perfectly suited and the fictional characters are brought to life through their performances.AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
