The Two Towers, The Last Straw

I lined up for over an hour with huge Adelaide crowds on Boxing Day to get my fix of Peter Jackson’s brave cinematic adaption of Tolkien’s classic Lord of the Rings. Such was everyone’s anticipation, some almost came to blows arguing about places in the line. We were all pumped about it, so you can understand my dissapointment at spending the last 20 minutes of it shaking my head in sad disbelief. The first movie made heavy compromises toward the cinematic medium, and although they grated if you knew and loved the books they were understandable, and by the end of the movie were forgiven. Unfortunately, in the second movie director Peter Jackson has lost the plot - quite literally. The really worrying thing is I don’t think he even realises it (warning, spoilers ahead).

PS: New Poll.

The problem with LOTR is that Tolkien spent decades putting it together in his head. He created a new language (several actually - he was a linguist among other things; Tolkien Elvish can be studied at university level), an entire cosmology, and the world of Middle Earth. The events in LOTR are truly just a short excerpt from Tolkien’s universe, and they have been carefully and painstakingly constructed by one of last centuries greatest literary minds, and squeezed into three books he admitted were too short. Alter anything at your peril. If you change one small thing at the beginning, you will have to deal with large, possibly fundamental changes at the end because everything is closely reasoned and interlinked.

With the first movie, Jackson clearly chose to follow and emphasize the theme of the One Ring and it’s ability to corrupt. That was a difficult choice because it meant other important side plots would be lost, but I believe it was the right one and showed he understood the books - or so I thought. In order to follow that path in a three hour movie many things were skewed or changed completely. For instance, the delightful Tom Bombadil was cut, Galadriel the Elven Queen was badly misrepresented, and a non-existent bad guy was created for the closing battle. Jackson had Frodo farewell members of the Fellowship who let him leave, when in the books he had to sneak away alone (his friends would never have willingly deserted him). But among the plethora of other minor changes, the integrity of the story was maintained. The central issue was the Ring - it’s power, it’s evil, and the secrecy that must surround it. Jackson got it right amidst very high stakes, and I was among those who applauded.

So I am flabbergasted that Jackson would choose to undo such a brave and intuitive move with his second movie.

There are many things that have been changed and altered, and many that Jackson got dead-on right in The Two Towers (though a pet peeve of mine is that they chose not to have the tower of Orthanc appear perfectly smooth and unclimbable as it is described in the books). Most of them are, again, understandable and forgiveable - maybe even necessary. The deliberate skewing of Arwen and Aragorn’s relationship who part in the movie was done to set up the artificial tension between Eowyn and Aragorn - something more eloquently dealt with in the books. In order to build that movie-based tension, Jackson has Aragorn seemingly fall to his death during a fanciful battle with Wargs on the way to Helms Deep (note how one subtle change necessitated a series of much larger ones). That was a jarring departure, but not fatal. Unlike the next one.

When Frodo and Sam are captured by Faramir the brother of Borromir while skirting West around Mordor with Gollum, the story reaches a critical moment. In response, the dialogue between Faramir and Frodo in the small room behind the secret waterfall is beautifully handled. Faramir knows of his brother’s death, and suspects the two hobbits know more than they are telling. Frodo cannot give away any point that would reveal knowledge of the Ring (which is what lead to Boromir’s death). As a result, he cannot explain the Fellowship, as that would allude to its purpose. Faramir knows the prophecies about Hobbits and Isildur’s Bane (the Ring). Frodo cannot let anyone know of his secret commission, least of all the brother of a man who tried to take it from him with force. Frodo knows all this. Sam knows all this. The entire plot of the trilogy revolves around this one point. Faramir, having been coached by Gandalf as a boy, is part seer and suspects something.

But it seems that Jackson didn’t get it. In complete contrast to the careful treatment given the Ring and it’s passage in the first movie, Jackson (correctly) has Faramir understand Frodo is carrying the Ring, and all hearts stop as he wrestles with himself. Instead of overcoming the Ring’s pull (as he did in the books and which is vital for the rest of the story), Jackson inexplicably has Faramir do the complete opposite. “The Ring will go to Gondor”, states a grim and dangerous Faramir, and Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are trundled off to a fight at Osgiliath.

That in itself is horrible for the integrity of the plot. Faramir has shown himself a very different person to the one described in the books, and undermined Gandalf’s relationship with him (which again is clear in the books). That has implications for the end of the story as Faramir is an important part of the resolution. But far worse is that it results in a dumb stricken Frodo standing upon a battlement in Osgiliath offering the Ring to a Black Rider hovering meters in front of him. This is a truly awful departure, and one which is patently ridiculous. On its own it destroys any narrative concerning the Ring and the Riders. Had such an event ever happened in the books it would have been a split second before the Ring was captured, Sauron was again in possession of it, and Middle Earth plunged into unending darkness. Instead the Rider and his macabre steed are dispatched by a single arrow after weakly watching the Ring for several moments.

As bad as that was, there was worse to come. In the very next scene, Faramir has a sudden understanding of the danger of the Ring, and Sam shouts about it at the top of his voice in front of all the soldiers. Of course, the Black Rider has already seen it and so Sauron now knows where it is. The desperate secret of the Ring and it’s journey has been uncovered before Frodo and Sam ever attempt to enter Mordor and, impossibly, reach Mount Doom. The battle at Helm’s Deep is now not necessary. The final stand at Gondor has no purpose. All Sauron has to do is waylay two hobbits, a shrivelled Gollum, and a handful of battle weary soldiers outside of Osgiliath, and all other conflicts are forgone conclusions.

To go out of his way to construct such an ugly chain of events means Jackson has fundamentally lost the premise he so delicately set up in Fellowship of the Ring. I can’t for the life of me understand why. When you are agonizingly cutting hours of plot from the books to fit the story into a trilogy of three hour movies, where is the sanity in creating new scenes and plot diversions which undermine the main story for which all else has been sacrificed?

Most reviewers of TTT concentrate on the visual magnificence of Jackson’s world, and the absorbing realism of the computer generated graphics. It’s all true. TTT is a feast for the eyes and the mind. It is an extraordinary film, but it has cast itself adrift from the story it is trying to tell.

At the end of the year I will be among the millions who line up to see the final installment. But I will do it understanding what I am about to see is not in any way other than topically related to Tolkien. LOTR the movies are now a construct of Jackson’s. That that is so is disappointing, and I know Tolkien - who forbid his work to be edited in anyway and just barely allowed them to break it up into three volumes (it was written as one) - would agree.

posted by monty · at 3:03 am · filed under Reviews

 

33 Comments (RSS)

It is not possible to follow the book in such detail for screenplay.

Theres already alot going on in the movie for the audience to soak up in 3 hours.

Movie is outstanding.
You will be immersed in a world of adventure!

Story 10/10
Graphics 10/10

Long live the Ents!

You miss my point. The *main theme* of the Ring which Jackson set up in the first movie has been completely undermined by his treatment of the second. It actually took him more screen time to do that than if he’d left it alone.

The side plots are understandable. The central one isn’t.

I for one whole heartedly agree with Monty.
the book the two towers deals heavily with saruman, as well whole range of events and in a specific order. Im not going to repeat what monty has said. cause he’s said it all damn well.
But I will say Jackson has made a serious departure from the books and it won’t ever be done again. so he botched it. started well, then blergh.
I was going to post a review/warning also after seeing but I was too shook up.
I think it was a shame how Jackson has cut and pasted
literary gold. I spose you have to forgive him in a way.
The movie would be probably longer. and with singing.
sigh.
back to the book’s.

I read early “LOTR” fan reviews and was moved so much by the complete lack of respect for some major themes that I have not put this movie up as a high priority on my “To see” list. I was thinking of getting the Gamecube game.. But not seeing the movie.

Anywhoo. I can’t vote.. So is there any chance of throwing in a “Two … What.. I did not even bother.”

You’re dead right. I had my head in my hands when Faramir bound and dragged the Hobbits off with the Ring, and the exposure to the Nazgul was madness. Crazy changes, explained only by Jackson wanting the audience to realise Faramir is Boromir’s brother in more than just blood, or perhaps to add more (unrequired) drama to the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story.

Another change that really grated with me was Theoden effectively retreating to Helm’s Deep. In contrast, the book has him awakening from his long drowsiness full of vigour and taking the fight to the enemy. Both he and Faramir show much more proactivity - as do the Ents who decide of their own accord to attack Saruman, rather than on a whim after a ‘trick’ from Merry & Pippin.

As you point out, the other changes are excusable. Aragorn’s fall gives an excuse to flashback to Arwen. Introducing the Elves at Helm’s Deep gets rid of the ‘why aren’t the elves helping’ complaint. Even removing the arrival of Huorn forest at Helm’s Deep, which would have been hard to explain given the other Ent story happening.

And Gollum is an absolute triumph.

I would still rate the movie very highly, and for those that haven’t read the book all of this won’t matter.

Oh almost forgot - making Gimli a comic character hurt deeply. Having played many a mighty Gimli-inspired Dwarf in D&D, seeing him constantly falling off horses and being ‘dwarf thrown’ (once in each movie - bound to happen in Return of the King) is just wrong. And cutting the Helm’s Deep tension with a shot of him not being able to see over the parapet was cringe-worthy - although the audience loved it. So maybe Jackson does know best - it’s a movie, people are there to be entertained. But no ! You can be entertained without that kind of cheap laugh.

Ure a sook! Okay now most people who will go to see the movie have not read the books so most of what your complaining about will go on deaf or dumbfounded ears. Quite litterally that movied rocked! Seemless action that lead through every main part of the book, yeah little left here and there and a couple of scenes that well sure were just made up. But this is what makes it so good, you cannot add ever part of the book or it would be a marathon 15 hour film, not genna happen.

We should be appauding a terriffic job by Oz and NZer moving making talents to create a true instant classic worth of all the academy awards it getz

So sit back enjoy the show and stop being that fat comic book store owner in the simpsons..

It’s just a movie

Chris

I agree wholeheartedly with Rakeesh. The movie rocked (imho more than Fellowship) and by damn it movies are meant to entertain not to bore and be too drawn out. Most ppl that see it won’t ever pick up the books and for those that do, they’ll be impressed by the depth and lushness of Tolkien’s writing, not worrying about the absence of the things in Jackson’s movies.

Someone once said that movies are meant to be interpetations of the medium whence they came from, not a carbon copy. However Jackson’s work differs from Tolkien’s work is a matter of interpetation and the need to make it fit into celluloid and also make it entertaining (showbiz IS money after all and dull arty movies don’t make money enough to finance such a big production as LOTR) made it imperative that some story lines be altered/omitted.

It is a shame that someone would not see the movie just because it doesn’t follow Tolkien to the T. You are definitely missing something that is worthy of all the kudos it is receiving. The effects are excellent and the pacing of the action rarely falters. Gollum is definitely a work of art. Humour is not subtle as Monty wanted it to be but then again it did entertain at the right moments.

Turn off the nerd-o-meter and enjoy the film…

my two pence worth…AussieTex

Have either of you guys read the books?

Hey devo.
I recommend the Middle Earth Role Playing games. made
by ICE. iron crown entertainment.
i think the company went busto a while back, but it was jam
packed with tolkien goodness. percentile dice, the works.

I also used to play dwarven
characters ahd quite often they did stupid things. maybe it
goes with the race.

Yeah you youngens read the books then see the movie.
then see who’s the fat guy from the comic shop.
ME!!! lol

What you are asking for is a shit film. Peter Jackson creates feeling where there was little. After all, he is in the business of making films and one would hope that a film maker endeavors to make good ones. A straight translation of the books would satisfy the likes of you, but what about those of us who want to be moved and inspired by a truly creative work? Watch the cartoon version if you want basic narrative. The new film does well to invoke real feelings for the characters, whereas the novels only do well to inspire awe and wonder.

In the novel Faramir was a very two dimensional character. I have read the books many times over the years, and I am glad that Peter Jackson saw fit to add the depth to the characters which in many cases was non-existent in the novels. Tolkien was more preoccupied with his invention of an artificial mythology than with character development. In the books there are seldom any moments of real insight into the ramifications of any events or the feelings generated. Tolkien’s story is pure narrative, which is not to say that it has no merit. I have enjoyed reading the books time and time again.

With regard to your contention that the re-telling skews the main theme of the trilogy, I would like to know who died and made you a professor of English Literature? Sauron’s forces were going to destroy Gondor IN ANY EVENT. THAT is the main thrust of the evil in the second novel of the trilogy - the unrelenting scourge that exists only to bring about the extinction of the kingdoms not allied to the Dark Lord. Peter Jackson’s film even illustrates this perfectly when the narrative describes Sauron shifting the focus of his invasion to Gondor - before any of the events surrounding the Hobbits “spoiling” the secret of their quest even happens. I wonder if you were not paying attention during the film, or if you were just too busy taking the aforementioned changes personally. The shift of the focus in the second novel from the first does not play down the importance of the quest to destroy the one ring, it adds a human face to the thousands that depend on it’s destruction. I’m sure you are a big fan Monty, but you are not an authority by any means. There are no shortage of essays on The Lord of the Rings, so perhaps you should read at least one that is not somebody’s web page.

I can see your point, Monty, but I do think that most (not all) of the changes were justified cinematically. A good portion of LOTR is fundamentally static - I don’t mean that nothing happens, just that Tolkien will sometimes step back and say `Then they had a big fight and lots of people died. But they won. The end.’ Jackson has to make cinematic fodder out of things like that, and make things exciting in the more direct, simple way that is required of the medium of cinema as opposed to prose. He has made some odd decisions in TTT, but to be fair, I think we should wait and see the final movie of the trilogy before we make judgements of his overall handling of the story.

The Faramir issue has been one of major controversy to fans of the books … I do and don’t agree with his treatment of the character. The Faramir of the film *is* much less complicated and interesting than that of the book, but certain sacrifices have to be made, not only to time constraints, but to Joe Average, for whom this is already a pretty multi-layered and complicated film. The sad fact is that Joe Average’s bum needs to arrive on many seats to fund a movie of this magnitude - in some ways, I’m surprised more concessions haven’t been made to Average Joe (or as a game designer friend refers to him `Chimp Factor 5′ ;) ). So yes, it’s a shame that this subtlety has been lost, but concessions have to be made.

One thing that few people seem to have mentioned, though, is the poor treatment of the character of Gimli. It’s like they’ve gone `Quiet moment. Need comic relief. Use Gimili’. Apart from being a disservice to the character, it gets pretty dull after a while. I hope he comes into his own in the final movie, not just the butt of dwarf jokes.

I’d reply, but as with so many forum discussions it seems you are more interested in a verbal pissing contest than in genuine debate. You should probably read my post again though, because you haven’t addressed it’s main premise.

Yep I agree about Gimli. There are heaps of things I could have pointed out, but it would have made for a very dull post. And to be honest I can live with all of the “redactions” (even though I’m certain there was a better way to handle things) except the fundamental plot breaking surrounding the absolute secrecy of Frodo’s quest. There’s no real way to fix that except ignore it, which is what I’m guessing will happen.

Call me naive, but even after a couple of years in the games industry I still believe it is possible to find compromises that satisfy “Chimp Factor 5″ and the longing for depth beyond our two-dimensional homgonized pop culture. You just have to work harder is all - and take a few risks ;)

While I thoroughly enjoyed the film, I understand monty’s point and think you guys missed it.

A fundamental change has been made and one that doesn’t hold true to the character or the story. An important character, one who has great impact on the end of the saga.

That’s an important point and a significant change.

It didn’t effect me, but I don’t have in depth knowledge of the story and only a vague memory of what is to come and how that must change to compensate.

I was just annoyed that the movie finished before the book. I was quite looking forward to seeing the spider queen in action. You will also notice though a STRONG similarity between the way Jackson chose to end the 2 movies, in fact they were virtually identical except for scenery. Though knowing the third book, I guess I can understand why he chose to chop the end of book 2 and (presumably) add it to the start of the third one. As someone else said, it was originally a single work so you could argue there is no “set” point where each movie should end, but hey ;).

Good movie though!

“What you are asking for is a shit film. Peter Jackson creates feeling where there was little.”

Youi make some good points (the adding a human face bit).. However this is a very bad way to start your argument. You insulted JRRT.

Now Prof you just have to calm the fruck down there champ,
we all obviously love tolkien and you make some rather harsh statements.

Tolkien was overly obsessed with making mythos than telling a good story?
All i can say to that is that it takes a sublime wit to detect and appreciate the way the tolkien gives us an insight into his world. Tolkiens thrust with all his literary work is to try and impart a sense of understated power, things don’t need to be blatantly jammed in your face all the time. maybe somebody understands what Im trying to get at here. You either appreciate it or you don’t.

I for one wanted a movie that could try to be as true to the story as it could be. Even the animated version which they only ever made a quarter of, and which was diluted some what, held itself closer to the tale.

I don’t care how many essays you want to wave around, I tell you Peter Jackson botched it champ!

I tell you it could have been done as per monty’s comment about taking a few risks, surely Jackson knew the Huge fan base he had would have,would’ve watched it even if it was 6 hrs long and had singing.

I don’twant wierd abstractions, and a mutilated tale. its not lord of the rings. its some thing else.

I think I’m the same as you booker, I read the book like 10 yearz ago so memory ain’t too fresh, I do remember LOTS of little meetings wif people who weren’t in the movie but they were mostly trivial so didn’t care…

Chris

Monty, I understand that you feel you have been wronged, but I am afraid that you’ve fallen into the trap of misrepresentation. Faramir is not all that different in the film than he is in the book, and while the film has him choosing to take the Ring to Gondor, it is quite obviously being done in order to streamline the extra-ordinarily complex events of The Return Of The King into something that will be a little easier for the layperson to comprehend.

Now before everyone ostracises me, read this article: http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1040683523 - it articulates itself beautifully, and will represent my case far more clearly that I am able to at this early hour of the morning. Faramir (in the book) is but a fraction different from Faramir (in the film), and the fact that his film-avatar chooses to carry out the threat that his book-avatar made (i.e. taking the ring to Gondor) is done to demonstrate the One Ring’s power, and also, I suspect, to allow the Ringwraith to believe that the Ring is being taken to Gondor, hence Sauron’s eye is focussed away from Mordor, and Frodo remains hidden. (And the running time of the third film doesn’t have to blow out to 4+ hours).

Whatever your thoughts *read the article* - as much as you think you understand Faramir, chances are that you are doing the character a disservice by simplifying him in your remembrances. All of the key elements of Tolkien’s story are exactly as they should be when the film ends, and I, for one, feel that Jackson has done an exemplary job of negotiating his way through a very complex part of the story, and still keeping events clear and concise enough that non-Tolkienites (of whom there are many) do not walk out of the theatre going “Dude, WTF just happened?!”

As much as you will rile to hear me say it, you severely underestimate Mr Jackson. I’ll wager that he has a better and more comprehensive understanding of The Lord Of The Rings than any of us who are contributing to this debate. If you feel that the story has been irrecoverably ruined, then I suggest that you give the film some time, and perhaps in the end you will understand why the modifications were not only justified, but *crucial* to allowing the story to work as a film. Yes, it’s Jackson’s construct. Just as it would be Spielberg’s construct if he were directing. Just as it would be (shudder) Lucas’s construct if he were directing. This whole endeavour has been Jackson’s since the moment that he assumed responsibility for *adapting* this story for the screen. I thought that this was self-evident. I’m sorry guys, but you’re never going to see Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings at the cinema because Prof. Tolkien has passed away.

I’m happy to argue anything and everything on this topic, point for point, but the truth is that it’s probably a futile exercise. Some will understand why things have been changed, and others will be so affronted by the changes that they will be unable to see why they are justified.

Oh yeah, and Monty. The only statement that you made in your article that *really* got my blood up was your description of Bombadil as “delightful”. I can’t stand him. LOL.

Oh yeah, and Galadriel wasn’t misrepresented in The Fellowship Of The Ring either.

Geez, it’s hard to stop arguing about these things isn’t it?

“It is a strange fate that we should
suffer so much fear and doubt over
so small a thing…such a little
thing.”

Read the article I linked to.

And flame away.

I was not very impressed with Fellowship after I first saw it. I watched it a few more times and could accept some of the chaanges and disliked others.

For Christmas I got the extended edition of Fellowship (with the book ends). I sat down and watched around all 40 hours of the dvd.

After listening to all four sets of commentary I felt I understood why a lot of choices were made to do what they did in Fellowship. It helped to explain a lot about why things were changed or left out.

Then I went and saw Two Towers on the 1st *yay goldclass*
I totally enjoyed Two Towers. I rolled my eyes at a few parts. Yes the dwarf tossing was stupid. Yes the skateboard shield stunt was stupid. But it was a great movie. On the whole a lot of the more memorable scenes were there from book. I understood what was going on through most of it. I was very happy - enjoyed the movie totally.

Maybe a lot of people who have issues with Two Towers have not watched the extended editiion? I think that would help a lot of people to understand the direction of the films. Besides its great to watch those extra 30 minutes of footage. It fills out Fellowship quite well.

I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree with that article’s deconstruction of the conversation between Frodo and Faramir. Anyone who’s read the books as a story, not as weight for a personal polemic on the movies, wouldn’t come anywhere near the understanding of that passage the writer is trying to force on it. He is projecting so much of his own assumption onto the text it’s distracting.

It is clear from a reading in context that Faramir is not at all trying to “trick” Frodo (the ‘good cop, bad’ cop analogy is a dead giveaway to the writers heavy bias toward his argument - Tolkien doesn’t imply anything of the sort), he is trying to understand a hard matter and find the truth. His final actions show that ie. he let Frodo and Sam go. To cast him as the manipulative interrogator is fanciful at best. It’s certainly not an objective reading. Such modernist revision has no bearing upon the author’s intent - which is the only consideration. The narrative interspersed throughout that conversation, which the article’s writer has conveniently omitted, gives Tolkien’s take on Faramir pretty clearly. Someone has already responded about this, and it is linked from the article you linked. I’ll post it again here for ease:

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1040765563

On Galadriel, the first movie thoroughly mispresented her. Re-read the relevant passage in the books if you don’t believe me. Suffice to say that when Boromir spoke badly of her to Aragorn, he was immediately and sharply rebuked:

“Speak no evil of the Lady Galadriel!” said Aragorn sternly. “You know not what you say. There is in her and in this land no evil, unless a man bring it hither himself. Then let him beware! But tonight I shall sleep without fear for the first time since I left Rivendell.”

Lorien and its Lady were complete goodness and virtue, not the ambiguous, dangerous half-light represented in the movie (though as I said, I understand why Jackson played it that way). There are many passages pointing that out through the trilogy.

As for Bombadil, he rocked! But that’s a matter of taste. Either way he was a reasonably important diversion (that is where the Hobbits got their swords which come into play in Return of the King), but was cut because he added little to the *main* theme of the Ring’s passage. Again, as I said, I think Jackson made the right decision there.

… having said all that though, let me reiterate my main objection with TTT is not Jackson’s treatment of Faramir but that as a result of Faramir’s re-invention, the ring and its journey are revealed before a host of soldiers and (for goodness sake) a RingWraithe!. That is what breaks the plot irreversibly, and is particularly bad because Jackson sacrificed and rewrote all the other things around the theme of the ring!

I think they did kind of excise the ‘real’ Galadriel from the cinematic release, but seeing the extended version flips her personality back the way it should be. I remember one of my female friends exclaimed, “wow, I used to think she was a crazy bitch”.

Before you complete your verdict on Jackson’s handling of Faramir, wait until the extended release of the Two Towers arrives on DVD.

I didn’t mind some of the Dwarf jokes, but Legola’s comment about getting a box, and the throwing part were a bit too much.

I think there were very high expectations for this movie, perhaps impossibly high. Seeing as it’s the second movie in a trilogy that is supposed to be read as a single volume, it could never be truly satisfying. It started abruptly and it finished abruptly. It’s filler.. :-) Here’s waiting for the movie marathon featuring the extended versions of all three in 2004!

Thanks for a thoughtful and well humoured response as always Yatak :)

Firstly, yes, I have read the response to the article that I linked. And to reiterate my opinion, I agree with the first article’s assertations that Faramir was interrogating the Hobbits, and did not initially bear them good-will, and was attempting to “trick” Frodo into revealing the Ring. Such was my interpretation when I first read The Lord Of The Rings, and this interpretation has not changed on subsequent readings, neither before, nor after I watched the films.

And here I think we have come to the crux of the matter with Faramir (and numerous other “discrepencies” between the book and the films) in that it all boils down to differences in interpretation. Permit me to illustrate my basic thoughts on making films of The Lord Of The Rings. This is not intended as a slighting of anyone’s opinion of book, films, cast, crew or any such thing, I merely try to explain my perception of this whole issue. A literal translation from book to film would be a pointless and idiotic exercise - on this I assume that we all agree. Word for word and page by page, this story would make a horrendous mess of a film. How then can the story be told as a film? Through an adaptive interpretation. The *only* person who does not interpret a story is the author themself, and I believe that this holds true for all works of fiction, and sometimes even non-fiction. So, from the start we must assume that there will be elements of the film that will differ from our own perception of the book. Obviously this is true for Monty, just as it is true for myself. So then our opinion of how well the films hold true to the book is based not on whether things have been changed, swapped, altered, modified, added or ommitted (which is an inevitability) but whether we feel that these changes have compromised the essence of its spirit or the integrity of its plot.

OK, having said that, Monty has voiced his objections in a very constructive and pertinent manner. He feels that the essence and integrity of the story have been irrevocably damaged by the events surrounding Frodo at the end of The Two Towers film. Obviously, I disagree - but what I find intriguing is that I don’t understand Monty’s justfication for his opinion. He says “the Black Rider has already seen [the Ring] and so Sauron now knows where it is. The desperate secret of the Ring and it’s journey has been uncovered before Frodo and Sam ever attempt to enter Mordor and, impossibly, reach Mount Doom.” I don’t think that I expressed myself clearly enough in my previous post - I believe that this was the point of the entire “departure” from the book’s plot. When I first saw The Two Towers, this section confused the hell out of me, because I too couldn’t see how it made any sense. But having thought about it for a few days, and returning to see the film for a second time, I firmly believe that (as with many other elements) Jackson et al are “streamlining” the plot for the sake of being concise and keeping the running time in check.

Yes, the Ringwraith saw the Ring, as in The Shire, as at Weathertop, as at the Ford. But at what point has it been revealed to the Ringwraith that Frodo is going to Mordor to destroy the Ring? The answer is that it hasn’t. Frodo is in Osgiliath, amongst the Men of Gondor, in the very company of the Steward’s own son Faramir. Might not the Ringwraith believe that the Ring is going to Gondor (as Faramir himself proclaimed)? Might not he then return with all haste to Mordor, to lead the amassed armies of Sauron to march on Minas Tirith, before the Ring can be wielded by Denethor (or whoever) to Sauron’s detriment? I completely agree with Monty when he says “Sauron now knows where [the Ring] is”, my point is that Sauron *does not* know where it is going. Monty also says “Instead the Rider and his macabre steed are dispatched by a single arrow after weakly watching the Ring for several moments.” I assume his implication is that if the Wraith wished to, he could simply take the Ring from Frodo, and be done with the entire thing. My opinion is that the Wraith could have done *exactly* the same thing at Weathertop, but was held off by Aragorn. Five Wraiths (one of them the Witch King) were prevented from claiming the Ring by a single (albeit very powerful) warrior, yet it is difficult for Monty to believe that the Witch King alone on his steed would be wary of an entire legion of Men of Gondor? That doesn’t make sense to me. The Witch King thinks the Ring goes to Gondor. Having found the Ring, and thinking that he knows what is going on, he returns to lead the assault on Gondor. This will serve the plot of The Return Of The King well, when Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron, and when Gondor marches forth to further strengthen the belief that they now have the Ring. Meanwhile Frodo sneaks into Mordor, and so on, and so forth.

Anyway, this is all *my* interpretation, and I don’t pretend that it is the “truth” or that it is any more or less correct than anyone else’s opinion. I have merely attempted to explain what I think. Monty, can you please further explain why you think these events “[break] the plot irreversibly”? I would very much like to hear your thoughts.

On the matter of Galadriel, once again Monty has made note of some truths from the book. But again, I disagree with the way that he has interpreted Galadriel in the film. He called her the “ambiguous, dangerous half-light”, yet I cannot recall any section of the film in which she was portrayed as being “evil”. Yes, she had that negative-film-freak-out, but the dialog of that scene itself reads “You offer it to me freely…I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this. In place of the Dark Lord, you would have a Queen, not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn. Treacherous as the Sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth…all shall love me and despair!” - note the phrase “not dark, but beautiful”. Galadriel is not evil, she is completely good and virtuous, exactly as Monty said. But Monty also quoted Aragorn from the book as saying “There is in her and in this land no evil, unless a man bring it hither himself.” - note the phrase “unless a man bring it hither himself”. Bring it hither, as Frodo brought the Ring hither unto Lorien. Let us then also consider what Gandalf said (quoting from the film) “Understand, Frodo…I would use this Ring from a desire to do good…but through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.” - note the phrase “but through me”. The Ring corrupts. Gandalf was aware that it would corrupt him, just as Galadriel was aware it could corrupt her too. Once again, quoting from the film, she says “I pass the test. I will diminish and go into the west and remain Galadriel.” Remain Galadriel - remain good and virtuous - because she resisted the temptation of the Ring. As Boromir did not. As Faramir managed to do, if only just. Monty saw in the film a Galadriel who was “ambiguous, dangerous”. I saw a Galadriel who was good and virtuous, and distinctly non-human, almost appearing aloof. In my interpretation, just as elves should be. And I saw a Galadriel who was tempted by the Ring in a manner that is, for all intents and purposes, *identical* to that which occurs in the book. This is one part of the film that manages to work from the book, word for word. At least, that is how I see things.

Another factor to consider is whether the Extended Edition of The Two Towers on DVD will expand and improve the depth and clarity of the film, as is the case with The Fellowship Of The Ring. I, for one, want more Ents, and more Faramir. There was not enough time in the three hours to treat these elements with the comprehensiveness that I feel they deserve.

As for all my ranting and raving, and my postulations about how the third film will play out, time will tell. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this is all a terrible tragedy. But then again…LOL.

I assume his implication is that if the Wraith wished to, he could simply take the Ring from Frodo, and be done with the entire thing. My opinion is that the Wraith could have done *exactly* the same thing at Weathertop, but was held off by Aragorn. Five Wraiths (one of them the Witch King) were prevented from claiming the Ring by a single (albeit very powerful) warrior, yet it is difficult for Monty to believe that the Witch King alone on his steed would be wary of an entire legion of Men of Gondor? That doesn’t make sense to me. The Witch King thinks the Ring goes to Gondor. Having found the Ring, and thinking that he knows what is going on, he returns to lead the assault on Gondor. This will serve the plot of The Return Of The King well, when Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron, and when Gondor marches forth to further strengthen the belief that they now have the Ring. Meanwhile Frodo sneaks into Mordor, and so on, and so forth.

Anyway, this is all *my* interpretation, and I don’t pretend that it is the “truth” or that it is any more or less correct than anyone else’s opinion. I have merely attempted to explain what I think. Monty, can you please further explain why you think these events “[break] the plot irreversibly”? I would very much like to hear your thoughts.

On the matter of Galadriel, once again Monty has made note of some truths from the book. But again, I disagree with the way that he has interpreted Galadriel in the film. He called her the “ambiguous, dangerous half-light”, yet I cannot recall any section of the film in which she was portrayed as being “evil”. Yes, she had that negative-film-freak-out, but the dialog of that scene itself reads “You offer it to me freely…I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this. In place of the Dark Lord, you would have a Queen, not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn. Treacherous as the Sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth…all shall love me and despair!” - note the phrase “not dark, but beautiful”. Galadriel is not evil, she is completely good and virtuous, exactly as Monty said. But Monty also quoted Aragorn from the book as saying “There is in her and in this land no evil, unless a man bring it hither himself.” - note the phrase “unless a man bring it hither himself”. Bring it hither, as Frodo brought the Ring hither unto Lorien. Let us then also consider what Gandalf said (quoting from the film) “Understand, Frodo…I would use this Ring from a desire to do good…but through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.” - note the phrase “but through me”. The Ring corrupts. Gandalf was aware that it would corrupt him, just as Galadriel was aware it could corrupt her too. Once again, quoting from the film, she says “I pass the test. I will diminish and go into the west and remain Galadriel.” Remain Galadriel - remain good and virtuous - because she resisted the temptation of the Ring. As Boromir did not. As Faramir managed to do, if only just. Monty saw in the film a Galadriel who was “ambiguous, dangerous”. I saw a Galadriel who was good and virtuous, and distinctly non-human, almost appearing aloof. In my interpretation, just as elves should be. And I saw a Galadriel who was tempted by the Ring in a manner that is, for all intents and purposes, *identical* to that which occurs in the book. This is one part of the film that manages to work from the book, word for word. At least, that is how I see things.

Another factor to consider is whether the Extended Edition of The Two Towers on DVD will expand and improve the depth and clarity of the film, as is the case with The Fellowship Of The Ring. I, for one, want more Ents, and more Faramir. There was not enough time in the three hours to treat these elements with the comprehensiveness that I feel they deserve.

As for all my ranting and raving, and my postulations about how the third film will play out, time will tell. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this is all a terrible tragedy. But then again…LOL.

Heh heh…damn character limit caught me out again…

Re. the ring and Sauron knowing where it is - at no time since Rivendell did he know more than it’s general location. The Dark Riders didn’t ever know it’s exact location until Weathertop, at which time the books are clear they were just a shadow of their former power (and so just barely resistable by Aragorn, who you must remember is the King and the direct seed of Numenor and a potent enemy - there is also something touched by Elvish about Aragorn; he is certainly more than commonly human). Even at their full power, Aragorn would still be a mortal foe to them. By diminishing them, PJ has dimished Aragorn and others - that’s another topic, but the whole saga has been made smaller by PJ’s revisions.

By The Two Towers, Sauron has greatly grown in power, and with him the Nazgul. The pull of the ring is stronger to them the closer it reaches Mordor and the place of its creation (the books mention this several times). The Nazgul on their new steeds can move very quickly, and their are nine of them.

Frodo standing openly on a battlement at Osgiliath offering the Ring to a mounted Wraith hovering meters in front of him does two things. First, it gives the Wraith an opportunity to take it which it would hardly miss - there is a lot of discussion about Wraiths not being able to see properly etc., but with the ring that close at this stage in the story and so close to Mordor it would hardly be uncertain as to what was happening. Secondly, and even if you discount the first, Sauron now knows precisely where the ring is. It hasn’t just headed off vaguely South from Rivendell, and likely passed through Moria on it’s way to Gondor and a gathering of all the remaining armies in Middle Earth. It is at Osgiliath amongst a few besieged soldiers at best. It would be nothing to dispatch the eight remaining riders (even if the one there was dealt with, which it wasn’t - only it’s steed at best) and take it by force. One Nazgul accounted for Faramir and most of his men by the time of the battle of Gondor remember, and Faramir was struck with the Black Death just by being close to it.

Yet, even if you discount all that, Sam screams about it before all of Faramir’s men and, persumeably, quite a few enemies. That is nonsensical in the context of the absolute secrecy surrounding all things concerning the ring. Sauron only attacks Gondor because he is fairly certain that is where the ring has gone. Gandalf and the remaining armies only mount their presumptious attack on Mordor further on to keep up this very charade and give Sam and Frodo a chance. To simultaneously give Sauron the exact location of his Ring well before the gathering at Gondor, and broadcast the fact to all and sundry in hearing distance, goes against everything set up in the narrative since the Shire.

Now I understand the concessions that must be made to the cinematic genre. I balked at a lot of Fellowship but, as I said, PJ was consistent in the main theme and the other things were forgiveable and understandable (even if they perhaps could have been done differently). In TTT he has gone against the one thing that made sense in Fellowship - he has trivialised the secrecy of the Ring which is the fundamental thread of the plot. Whatever is revealed in the Extended Edition, that can’t be undone.

TTT was a good movie. But I’ve resigned myself to the fact that the movies and the real LoTR are now two different things, and that’s a shame - and reduces my (and a lot of other peoople’s) enthusiasm for the movies. Thank God nothing can change the books :)

By the way, it’s been interesting to note in this and other discussions on the web that generally those who are more than passingly familiar with the books are saying pretty much the same thing I am. Those who haven’t read them or barely remember reading them are defending the movies to the hilt. It’s bemusing to read people who have never read the books ranting authoritively on how the movies shouldn’t be criticized or compared closely with the books (that’s not directed at anyone here, I’ve just spent a fair amount of time reading about this today :)

And I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. There would be no movies without the books, obviously. If you’re going to tell a different story, use a different name.

…here, I’ve just spent a fair amount of time reading about this today :)

And I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. There would be no movies without the books, obviously. If you’re going to tell a different story, use a different name.

Ack, posted my reply to this on the comment above.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I believe I audibly said “what the?!” when Faramir said those words.

Two things to add.

1. Surely you’ll see the third movie to see what they do with it?

2. Movies RARELY live up to the books. I believe the movie itself would still be good for those that haven’t read the books.

You guys are not going to like this then: See story

Related Posts

BigKid is now offering user logins for anyone who'd like to post news or make comments. Register & login now!

Feeds: 0.92 · 2.0 · Atom

Levelling