In Reply to: They took our precious posted by clarkjohnsen on January 2, 2004 at 11:20:53:
Could it be that someone has fallen under the spell of "the one true ring" on his or her cell phone which might bring a substantial salary offer in a different shire? :o)There are always a few critics with their eye on career goals who are willing to ignore the differing requirements of film if it makes their negative review stand out, drawing attention to their aspirations. Literary adaptaion to the cinema is a tricky business under the best of conditions, but especially when dealing with revered works such as trying to adapt a complicated series of books like Tolkien's Ring trilogy. Many of Jackson's choices were obviously made because they made more sense in terms of dramatic rhythm. While some of the critic's comments might appear justified at first glance, they just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Examples: Merry and Pippen were more believable in a filmic sense as reluctant warriors transformed into heroes by circumstances and cleverness. Their vulnerability and the gentle comic relief of their fish-out-of-water adaptation to their dilemma is more appealing cinematically than the literary version, because the audience identifies more with them. The distrust over missing food arising between Frodo and Sam through Gollum's deception is entirely believeable when one takes into account the influence of the ring on Frodo as he approaches Mount Doom. Again, this works cinematically because it allows the pace of the story to flow naturally through evolving tension.
FTR, I have nothing personal against Deborah P. Jacob's reviews generally, but in this instance she may have missed the last boat from Gray Havens in an attempt to book first class passage to Grey Poupon! ;^)
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Why is it that some Boston critics have to pretend like they're writing reviews for The New Yorker? - Audiophilander 21:58:15 01/02/04 (8)
- Except that The New Yorker critic loved ROTK. - Harmonia 15:36:39 01/03/04 (5)
- Maybe you better read that again. Here ya go! - clarkjohnsen 12:12:35 01/04/04 (3)
- Maybe YOU better read it again. - Harmonia 13:21:50 01/05/04 (0)
- Anthony Lane is my hero (nt) - Bulkington 20:03:40 01/04/04 (1)
- Great writer, pretty good critic... nt - clarkjohnsen 09:41:09 01/05/04 (0)
- Re: From Anthony Lane's review... - rico 17:07:39 01/03/04 (0)
- Re: Why is it that some Boston critics have to pretend like they're writing reviews for The New Yorker? - Bulkington 09:05:25 01/03/04 (1)
- "Characterization wasn't among Tolkien's strong points and Jackson didn't improve on him much." - clarkjohnsen 12:08:08 01/04/04 (0)