12:03 a.m. - 2002-12-23
Two Towers
A lot of dreams of travelling. Meeting many people in transit at airports. Often they seem to be people who held a place in my life in the past - ones with a negative impact, but some kind of strong emotional hold on me. Like those who tried to profit from some of our volunteer work at the expense of the project. In the dreams, they seem to be trying to return and I have the option of saying no to that. Closing those doors is a good feeling. Also, dreams of new people who will be travelling with me for the next while, boarding with me. Things to come.
My youngest son and I went to see the second installment of the Lord of the Rings - "The Two Towers". I read a number of the previews of the show, as well as some of the commentary on the "meaning" of the film. I now understand the difficulty a producer or director would have ensuring the integrity of the original work, let alone attending to the details of the original storyline.
One of the previews I read was by Roger Ebert. He made a number of interesting comments about his understanding of the story. He was honest about not having read the books. It was possible, after the movie, to look at his commentary on some of the scenes and to pick out the areas of the story where the implication of certain information contained in the text of the book did not translate on the screen, despite the best efforts of the director. As one immersed in Tolkiens' works for years, because each year I read the whole series out loud to my sons, I wouldn't have noticed the "holes" in the information presented without Mr. Ebert's observations. It is like trying to explain a baseball game to a group of people - half of whom are very knowledgeable about the sport, while the other half may be hearing about the game for the first time and have yet to actually witness one being played. Mentioning certain players' names would provide a great deal of information to those in the first group, while leaving the people in the second group totally unaware that significant information had just been exchanged. Where that type of gap occurred in this film was with respect to the hobbits. Most of this part of the story deals with the values and choices made by those characters. It is an internalized dialogue in this case, because there wasn't much information supplied about the implications if other choices had occurred instead.
One of the commentaries I read was by a British journalist who seemed to be trying to impute a political stance or message to both the movie and the books with respect to the Middle East and the current choices of the British and US governments. She did not admit that she hadn't read the books, but her observations made that obvious. Firstly, these books were written in the first half of the 20th century, long before the current political conundrums would even have been intuited by all but the most astute. Secondly, I think most of the movie was shot before the events of September 11, 2001 occurred. It might have been possible to edit a different slant into the plot after the fact, but I don't believe that was done. The journalist based her assumptions on a couple of "speeches" made by two of the main characters from the books. The speech by Sam, as they were in Osgiliath with Faramir as it was being attacked by the Nazgul, is one of the most authentic parts of the whole story so far. It is almost a word for word reflection of the dialogue in the book, although the timing is out of sequence because the plot had been "adjusted" somewhat at that point. I'm guessing that is because of a timing issue the director had to deal with that won't be detectable until the last installment is released. However, I won't second guess the production company on that one. The second speech is by Gandalf as he leads the attack on the forces of Saruman who are besieging the fortress of Helm's Deep. Some adjustments to plot were made at this point in the movie in order to reflect the relationships existing in the book that would have been too lengthy to develop using the original dialogue and text. If any political intent could be imputed, it would be with respect to the events occurring in Europe in the 1940s. The effects of Blitzkrieg were being absorbed by the allies and the characterization of "the enemy" can be seen on any number of news reels or films at that time.
As for the movie itself, it was very well done in most places. I felt the director erred in his portrayal of Faramir and it seems to me he is implying an intent where Aragorn is concerned with respect to the character of Eowyn that doesn't exist in the novels, but perhaps that is for heightening a dramatic twist in the next film. I thought that Gimli's character was very well done by John Rhys-Davies, although I'm not certain that the audience caught all the jokes. I'm sorry that an equal amount of development wasn't allowed for the character of Legolas - one of my favorites, elf ancient, wise, childlike and dangerous all at the same moment - played by Orlando Bloom; perhaps that potential will be explored in the final film. I'm sorry that the director and producers didn't include the appearance of the Huorns at Helm's Deep, just as I really regret he didn't include the story of Tom Bombadil, the Old Forest, and the Barrow Downs in the first installment. But truth to tell, where Tolkienites like me are concerned, it would be hard to please us unless the whole story was shot as it was written.
�
�
