|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: Why is it that some Boston critics have to pretend like they're writing reviews for The New Yorker? posted by Audiophilander on January 2, 2004 at 21:58:15:
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.That's very true, but none of the changes criticized in the above article have anything to do with the differing requirements of film.
Many of Jackson's choices were obviously made because they made more sense in terms of dramatic rhythm.
It's not obvious to me and I don't see the argument. How did his changes improve dramatic rhythm exactly?
While some of the critic's comments might appear justified at first glance, they just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
I really don't think you've demonstrated that at all.
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.
I saw nothing "gentle" in their comic relief, and their "fish-out-of-water adaptation" I thought was grossly overplayed. How were they more clever in the films than in the books, exactly? I saw no appreciable difference between Tolkien and Jackson in the manner in which Merry and Pippin were transformed by their experience. Characterization wasn't among Tolkien's strong points and Jackson didn't improve on him much--a feat in itself when the very fact of a human actor can hardly help but invest a Tokien role with life. This was an erea in which the original could have been greatly improved upon and Jackson blew it. Her gripe against the removal of the Tolkien's homeric ending is off base. I don't think there was space enough for it and in terms of dramatic rhythm on film, it would have rung as anticlimax.
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.
Sure it's believable, but so what? Why do it? To me it seemed a contrivance to separate Sam from Frodo so that Jackson could overdraw the confrontation with Shelob by giving Frodo his time alone against her and the false "oh when will Sam come to save him?" drama.
Again, this works cinematically because it allows the pace of the story to flow naturally through evolving tension.
Again, I'm not sure this does work cinematically, and how anyway would sticking with Tolkien have prevented the story from flowing naturally and why wasn't the tension Tolkien provide good enough on its own? So many of Jackson's changes seem to me to have been born from a series of ill-advised and self-indulgent wouldn't-it-be-cool-if conversations. I think the tension he introduced was a shortcut for him around the challenge of more subtle options.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
