deborahjross: (dolomites)
It has often seemed to me that fans of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit) fall into two categories: those who adore Peter Jackson’s films and those who despise them. I fall into the former category and my husband into the latter. From our conversations, I have concluded that in most cases, it is impossible to change the other person’s mind (not to mention disrespectful to try). This is hardly a problem of cosmic importance, unless one person attempts to drag the other to all six extended cut versions of the movies or prevents the other person from enjoying them. Both sides put forth arguments and reasons, and they are entitled to them. I think just about everything that can be said has already been expounded upon.

I am firmly in the love-them camp. All the objections folks have are absolutely right, and have no relevance to my experience of the movies. The uncritical, immersive, “take me away” quality of my enjoyment of the films has definitely piqued my curiosity. What happens when I spend hours in Jackson’s Middle Earth?

In general, I am far less critical of visual media than of text. Because my own art form is prose, I have developed a keen internal editor and critic that may be regaled to the back seat but never entirely departs. I have no such filters for films or paintings. Only a horrifically bad film can destroy my suspension of disbelief, but horrifically bad films are enjoyable for quite different reasons than good ones.

I devoured Tolkien’s novels as a young adult, although I never wanted to run away to Middle Earth then. I found some aspects of the books frustrating: the “travelogue” passages were often tedious, I had no idea what Tom Bombadil was doing in the story, and I had trouble forming clear images of many of the places, for example Helm’s Deep. Nonetheless, I joined the ranks of fans wearing buttons that said “Frodo Lives!” and “Beware the Balrog.” I stood in line to see the films by Ralph Bakshi and Rankin-Bass (The Hobbit and The Return of the King), all of which I found unsatisfying. The hobbits and dwarves in the animated versions were silly, in bad need of haircuts, and the Bakshi film was just plain weird. The orcs looked like sabertoothed Sand People (from Star Wars), the Balrog was a costume from a bad opera, Boromir looked ridiculous in a Viking helmet, and none of the character moved in a natural way. Et cetera.

I had no idea who Peter Jackson was, but special effects had come a long way since the 1970s. Needless to say, I had excitement but not high hopes. I came prepared to see a live action version of the previous attempts. Five minutes into The Fellowship of the Ring, I was in love. The Jackson films “clicked” for me and brought the stories alive in ways that previous versions, even the original text, fell short.

This is not to say that everyone must feel the same way. Different media and different interpretations work for different people. I’m delighted that some folks prefer Tolkien’s text or even the animated versions. I am also delighted that this one form of presentation worked so well for me. When I go back and read the books, I can now immerse myself in the rich and varied landscapes of Middle Earth, and see and hear the characters.

After the extended editions of all three Ring movies came out on DVD (and I had watched all the commentaries and appendices), I set them aside. Every few years, however, I would watch them (3 movies over 2 days, usually, and when my husband – who is in the “doesn’t work for me” camp – was out of town). Either by happenstance or internal prompting, my schedule synchronized with the parole hearings of the man who raped and murdered my mother. That is, I’d gear up for the hearing, get re-traumatized no matter what precautions I took, come home and fall apart, and slowly put myself back together again. Some quality of the Jackson films spoke to me and offered itself as a healing tool.

I have some ideas of how this works. “Sanctuary” is one of them: a safe and glorious space, with companions who ensure I do not walk alone through the darkness. The defeat of evil when all hope is lost, with the crucial role of an act of mercy, a reminder to nurture my own capacity for compassion – for myself, for others. Lastly, the cathartic nature of the battle scenes.

This latter had not occurred to me until I was relating to an acquaintance that one of the ways I “let down” after a parole hearing was to watch the Jackson films. His response was that the films were way too violent for him (and he implied that exposure to violent scenes is in itself a destructive thing). As I thought about this, I realized that the re-triggering of past trauma, overlaid with new, painful revelations and the harrowing experience of entering a prison and seeing the perpetrator, left me saturated with feelings I had no way to discharge. Vigorous exercise was insufficient, and calming practices like yoga or meditation were too sedate. In years past, I practiced Chinese martial arts, particularly kung fu, but injuries and the absence of a studio ended that outlet 15 years ago.

On the other hand, if I allowed myself to enter into the world of the films, leaving my movie critic outside and immersing myself in the story, welcoming the psychological manipulation, I experienced a physical and emotional release. The length of the films gave me time to do this. The effect was to shorten the time of tension and restlessness. It was as if I had taken my own nightmares and thrown them into the fight scenes, and then done battle with them, with Aragorn and Gandalf and Eowyn and all the others at my side. And in the end, I came home with Sam to my own garden.

Now I can watch them – and The Hobbit movies as well – for escapist style entertainment, but there is always at least a hint of magic that lingers. The music has brought its own gifts, which I’ll share with you in a subsequent post.
deborahjross: (Default)
I love how the sound team talks about balancing dialog, music, and sound effects. I'm so visual, I tend to focus on what I see in a movie, then music next, so it's fascinating to hear how much thought and care has gone into the entire immersive experience. Even if you didn't care for the movie, check this out for the description of the sound-artistic process.

deborahjross: (Jaydium)
I really don't care that Peter Jackson changed so much of The Hobbit. I loved the book; I love the films. To me, they're not the same story. I get to enjoy two marvelous stories instead of one, and surely that's a good thing. And I think Howard Shore's music is glorious and a total hoot to play on the piano.
deborahjross: (Default)
I see very few movies in theaters, and I've yet to come up with a coherent way of describing how I choose them. Greatness has nothing to do with it. Escapism, not quite but closer. Silliness, well of a particular flavor. Almost all of them are sf/f of some sort. When they aren't Austen novel adaptations. When they aren't something I could just as well wait and watch on Netflix. I have inconsistent notions of what demands to be seen on a big screen. I want it all - brilliant writing, great acting, food for thought, love story, some fabulous action/effects but not too much. I never get what I want, so I settle for a fun afternoon.

None of which explains why I saw Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. I thought the concept was cute, had read that the book was pretty dreadful but that the movie was a bit better. A couple of writers I respect said good things about it.

For the most part, I was neither surprised nor disappointed, meaning it was pretty much what I expected. Light on character and meaty ideas, heavy on special effects, intense action, scary things happening way too fast. (My poor friend who came with me had to cover her eyes in places.) Not much on depth of thought. I so, so, so wish they'd taken a small amount of the time (not to mention money) on all those fight scenes and used it to delve deeper into these people, these times, the complicated issues, not to mention what a 5,000 year old vampire might actually be like.

There was, however, one real "money shot." I won't tell you what it was, because it's a true spoiler, but I'm pretty sure you'll know it when you see it. (Hint: it's late in the movie.) Undoubtedly a cheap thrill, but it got me. And that's what's stayed with me, even though I doubt I will want to sit through the yadda yadda fight scenes again.

The one on the backs of the stampeding horses was rather cool, though, or would have been at half that length. Even if the horses had no reason for stampeding. Oh well, maybe they didn't like vampires skipping across their backs. Or something.
deborahjross: (sabertooth)
A friend and I ran away to see Pirates of the Caribbean 4/i> yesterday afternoon. (No spoilers, so read on.) It's been a long time since I've treated my inner child -- who adores movies -- in this way. I'm also a very easy movie viewer. I can "go along for the ride" with things that drive my friends nuts. I also find the set-up-to-spookiness far more interesting than the actual spooky things, and way way more interesting than the big cast-of-thousands set pieces. Chases, explosions, massive battle scenes, ho hum.

So I came away from the movie wishing they'd shaved just a few minutes from all the crashing and thwacking and jabbing to set up the plot twists and develop the characters better, not to mention a little more attention to spooky-premonitions. That's one thing the first movie did really well -- that moment when Elizabeth Swann falls into the sea, the water touches the gold coin and the impact resonates through the water. It's akin to that moment in Jurassic Park when you see the impact tremor in the water and hear this very low, soft boom! Uh-oh, the world is about to change...something has woken up/is coming...

The thing is, that "something" rarely lives up to its set-up. I love the first part of Stargate, discovering the inscribed ring, working through the translation. Even building the thing. Once they're through, the movie fizzles for me. The sensawonder goes poof! into stupid Hollywood cliches. (Or is that phrase redundant?) (I should add that not all movies disappoint me in this way.)

I don't like horror movies for a related reason. Shock/fright/gore: Rinse and Repeat. Yuch.

I think that's yet another reason to prefer books. I think, or I'd like to think, they're much better at following through with what's hinted early on. I can adjust the pacing (skip over the battle scenes or slow down to savor the cool parts). I bring my own imagination and sense of what appeals to me.

I'd love to hear what you think.

Profile

deborahjross: (Default)
Deborah J. Ross

November 2020

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 13th, 2025 05:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios