Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ninthcouncil" data-source="post: 542097" data-attributes="member: 2566">To my mind, a lot of the more aggressive criticism of the movie is based on a lack of understanding of the differing dynamics of storytelling between book and film. The film is a representation of the book, not a reproduction, and with a complex and multi-threaded book like LotR, which rests on a mythic backstory almost impossible to reproduce in watchable form, this is particularly the case. A film which attempted to reproduce everything from the book would be unwatchable dramatically - and would never have been made. This isn't "Hollywoodization" - I'm as fed up with predigested pap that the Dream Factory has been churning out as anyone, and I work for the damn people - it's a fundamental difference in the techniques of the media, as real as the difference between a book and a play. Even if the film had been made outside the Hollywood system, by anyone on Earth, similar questions would have needed to be answered; narrative flows differently in different media.That's not to say I'm entirely in agreement with every decision made, but I can see why most of them were done.For instance, the Faramir/Osgiliath question. As Faramir was my favourite character when I read (multiple times) LotR all those years ago, I was a bit worried about this before I went in, having read suggestions that he had "got the shaft", and indeed his representation has changed significantly from the book. But on rereading the relevant chapters it was clear that Jackson and his writers had to make this passage more dynamic - it is incredibly talky. The Osgiliath interpolation, though unnecessary for the original plot, seems to serve a number of purposes:1. Makes it clear that Gondor is itself buckling under attack, before we get to the main assault on Minas Tirith - which we won't of course see for a year - and showing why Gondor does not aid Rohan.2. Replaces the lengthy (and sometimes quite sly, just in case we get too hung up on his saintliness) probing of Frodo that Faramir carries out with a dramatic demonstration of the malign power of the ring.3. Gives the Ringwraiths - otherwise seen only once - a chance to reprise their menace from the first film (though, I do think that having the Fell Beast driven off by a single arrow hit from Faramir was a bit feeble).4. Increases the dramatic content of the Frodo-Sam journey, which in the book is largely a lot of stumbling around and character interaction, and which if reproduced on film would hang like a millstone round the neck of the action segments. The Shelob episode occurs too late to be useful for this purpose, and has I think sensibly been moved to the beginning of RotK.The film is rather more visceral (because more visual) than the book, and in this context I don't think it unreasonable for Faramir to be a rather harsher character. Instead of rejecting the Ring for reasons (such as his exposure to and sympathy with Gandalf, and his erudition compared to the more forceful Boromir) which might be rather difficult to convey without massive clunkiness, he reaches his decision based on things that happen on screen - signalling it with words largely taken from the book. "Well, Frodo, now at last we understand each other." As others have noted, it probably also helps to simplify his conflict with Denethor, given that the relevant backstory will not be obvious on screen. I think the guy's back on track.The whole Faramir/Osgiliath thing is a compromise, and thus not perfect. It may be possible that it could have been done better, but given the exegencies of cutting the book down to a manageable(!) 9 hours, it's bearable. I thought Treebeard's ridiculous ignorance that Saruman's orcs had been denuding southern Fangorn was more questionable, and the dramatic benefits of Aragorn's "fall" seemed pretty limited to me, but that's a minor thing anyway, as it has little character impact.It's inevitable that a few people with very strong attachments to the original text will find Jackson's "meddling" unacceptable. Perhaps they won't go to see the third one, as is their right. Given the witless trash that has so often been foisted on us as "fantasy" film-making in the past, I think that's a shame.</blockquote>

Verification