Peter Jackson's Return of the King has won its first honor. Bets on how many more? The New York Film Critics Circle usually goes for small 'arty' films so this is a bit of a surprise.
Elvis Mitchell at the NYTimes likes it rather a lot.
The Seattle Times has an interview with Mortenson that bothers me rather a lot.
I don't think anybody could have known, even if they'd hoped or believed or thought it might happen, how successful these movies would be
Okay, that's arguable on either side I think. I think though that it is obvious that the books feed a deep hunger in many people for myth, for somthing great. They would not have endured successfully for 50 years if they hadn't. It seemed to me that if the films could successfully tap into that place there's no way they could lose. Of course, there's that big if; a lot of fine books have been made into awful movies. Peoples' desires for the mythic though are pretty strong and obviously the books speak to that desire. And, of course, a lot more people will see any movie than read the books it's based on so that the ability to even semi-accurately recreate that is bound to be wildly successful
Nevertheless, the man who wouldn't be king continues to resist the crown. Mortensen believes that he does so, perhaps, out of resentment at being told what he must do, after having operated independently for so long.
A more complete misreading of Aragorn is hard to imagine. It is obvious both from what the books say and the back story in the appendices and Tolkien's other writing that Aragorn has long desired to take up his throne and has been laboring to that end for many many years. Yes, I know that Jackson felt he needed to show conflict and growth in Aragorn's character which were not actually present in the book, and I understand it. But jeez Louise. This reading by Mortensen is just *so* wrong it's hard to believe he did such a wonderful job in the role.
While Jordin and I were discussing it over lunch I said that I thought the movie had been successful at reproducing much of Tolkien's vision and mythos but that the casting of Elijah Wood as Frodo was a serious flaw. He's too damn pretty (hobbits are homely and comfortable, not pretty) and his idea of acting seems to be to open his already huge eyes even wider and cower. That's not Frodo. It's the only casting that bothers me, but given Frodo's centrality, it bothers me a lot. I do wish a real (and somewhat older) actor had gotten the part. (So I'm snarky. So sue me.)
I find the Village Voice's take to be very odd. I'm not familiar with that critic so perhaps he always looks at things sideways. However in the course of the review he claims to be "a deprogrammed, once-upon-a-time Tolkien cultist..." which leads me to wonder if maybe he regrets, just a tad, that deprogramming. The oddest bit of an odd review, "The Ring trilogy may be fiercely chaste, but its hobbituary denouement is gayer than anything in Angels in America." Uh.
The Sun-Sentinel had to look really hard to find something to carp about.
That's not to say that The Return of the King is perfect. The fate of the renegade wizard Saruman, so prominent in the books, is reduced to a passing comment; there's an unfortunate fascination with the lack of oral hygiene in Middle-earth; the ghost warriors are under-conceptualized, looking rather like Scrubbing Bubbles; and the end-credits song by Annie Lennox is so lame it makes you yearn for Enya.
The problem with Saruman is real, but the song comment just makes me giggle.
The Washington Post has a rather twee travel article about Tolkien's Oxford, but it has some genuinely helpful and interesting stuff at the end.
Comments