The Fake Life - Love movies? We do too!

Monday, December 11, 2006

The Lord Of The Rings 5th Anniversary, Part 1 - The Fellowship Of The Ring

By George Merchan, Andrew Clarke and Charlie Brigden

Yeah, we don't believe it either, but it's true. Lord of the Rings is five years old, so we've decided to sit down in a virtual pub, have a few pints, and take a little retrospective look at the trilogy, starting as expected with The Fellowship of the Ring. We hope you'll enjoy it, as there'll probably be a few arguments along the way and this is the closest you'll get to spending Christmas with us. Which is a good thing, as Andrew is a mean drunk. Anyway, take it away, George...

George: I've had the weirdest relationship with Fellowship. It's gone from being my least favorite of the series to my absolute most. And it continues to fluctuate like that to this day. I do, however, (after much soul searching and profound inner nerd beatdowns) feel that the Extended Edition of Fellowship just edges out the theatrical cut of Return of the King as the best of the trilogy. And that's tough for me to say because I feel King has one of the strongest and most emotionally resonant third acts I've ever seen in a film, as far as large scale epics of almost biblical proportions are concerned. But of course, that's only true because, as a first act in the series, Fellowship is so fucking strong.

Charlie: I think Fellowship works so well because it's full of beauty. The first act brings us this big huge bucolic fairytale with tiny cottages built out of hills and fields of full green grass as far as the eye can see, and because of the absolute minute details all over the place, the texture presents it as this absolutely real place where, to be honest, we all want to live, which helps emphasize Frodo and Sam's journey as they are taken away, because the entire rest of the story is about getting back to this place of absolute tranquility and beauty. And, as viewers, we want to do that to, so much so that it's bittersweet when we finally do go back at the end of Return of the King because so much has changed.

Andrew: Now I actually disagree about the beauty of the Shire. I know they spent a year growing all the grass, but it still looks fake and like the Teletubbies set. I first saw the set on those first trailers and, well, they looked really twee.

But then it is supposed to be twee. These Hobbits are almost preternaturally innocent so as to contrast their simple, unspoiled life with the growing darkness all around them. All of that is fine, but what stops Hobbits and The Shire from being just too goofy is Gandalf's reaction to them. Ian McKellen sells the idea that he finds these backwards folk very silly but absolutely loves them. They represent an innocence that he cherishes while moving through the much larger world of deception and threat. Once we see Gandalf light the fireworks on the back of his cart for the children, I'm sold completely.

Hobbits are very silly creatures but, by giving us the emotional context by means of Gandalf, and especially his incredibly warm, human interaction with Bilbo, we know they represent safety, kindness and friendship, which sets up both the goal of the heroes in saving this world, and the horror of the threat of those that would seek to destroy it.

The point of this distinction is that, taken by itself, the lolloping green hills of The Shire are really daft, but by focusing so much on the humanity and the emotions of these people you are drawn in to this made up world and let's you accept it - even let's you believe you'd really want to live there. It's this focus on emotions, and on the reactions on the faces of the characters, that sets Lord of the Rings apart from all the other fantasy crap out there. That's the film's strength, and the thing we'll probably be most returning to through these discussions.

"...what stops Hobbits and The Shire from being just too goofy is Gandalf's reaction to them."

George: You know, the daftness of the Shire, as you call it, plays well into Peter Jackson's pretty fucking daft yet "to the core" style of filmmaking (which ironically is more subdued in Fellowship than the other two films, or at least King). But you do hit on a bit of subtext that I think goes widely ignored. The fact that the Shire and the Hobbits really are representative of our own lost innocence and childish glee. In many ways, the story of LOTR is a story of growing up and accepting the responsibilities that come with it, which means taking in all the good and all the bad of life. But not only that, Fellowship quickly and very beautifully establishes one of the root themes of this series: that we are a people of community and bonding, and that through the help of family, friends, lovers, we can ultimately make it, find peace, etc, etc.

Andrew: That's a great point. I do think Peter Jackson uses very broad, fucking daft strokes to make his films, but there are endless examples on message boards all over the internets of people calling these films subtle or realistic. What they're referring to is this 'to the core' approach - getting the emotion or narrative beat at the heart of the scene dead on. But they aren't realistic, or even very naturalistic, at all, and there's awful lots of silliness on the surface.

Charlie: I think the silliness is definitely something needed. It's like Han Solo, to a degree. With all this seriousness and heavy backstory, there's a need for someone to pipe up and say "isn't this all a bit daft?" and while it's not there as a specific character like Solo, it's definitely there in spades in Jackson's directing. It reminds me of him talking about his approach, where if you make it too serious, it has a danger of turning out like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. There's a fine line to walk, but he walks it just on the right side.

Andrew: Also, one other small thing: I'm an absolute believer in the Extended Editions over the Theatrical Editions, which may lead to some fighting, but the EE fluffs Frodo's introduction. It leads into it by means of some slightly clumsy audio editing of Bilbo calling out his name and wondering where he is. In the Theatrical, if I remember, the shot of Frodo reading his book in a field is the shot where we have the title of the film - so setting up Frodo as the central character. I miss that introduction.

"It's such an honest and purely human moment of fragility..."

Charlie: I agree, and not to turn this immediately into the Theatrical vs. Extended argument, but I think the whole extended opening of the film is a bit, well, off. The way it originally opened, with the history of the Ring and then Gandalf arriving and meeting Frodo, it all seems much more organic, whereas with the EE, we get a history lesson followed by a sociology lecture, with Cate Blanchett waffling on about the Ring followed almost immediately by Ian Holm telling everybody all about Hobbits.

Andrew: We're going to need a big old talk about the TE vs. EE, but let's save it for later. Let's get out onto the road to Rivendell. The first 90 minutes up to the Council of Elrond is my favourite bit of the trilogy. Partly this is because I have some issues with the cross-cutting between stories that really gets ramped up in The Two Towers, and partly because we are following the Hobbits who are seeing this world for the first time the same as we are, feeling the same wonder, confusion and fear. It's an excellent way in to a very fantastical world, it has characters you care about and a very clear threat in the dark riders. There's something to be said for the simple narrative charms of a chase. In the next films, filled with complex political situations that the characters already know a lot more than the audience about, this is lost somewhat.

Or do you think it's boring and you're just waiting around for the Cave-Troll?

Charlie: I get bored. I’m not really that bothered about the cave troll, but I can only take so much Nazgul, and it's almost relentless. I understand that's the whole point, but as soon as they leave Bree, I get bored and only really pick it up again when it gets to Rivendell. The scene in the Prancing Pony is fun, and the editing of the Ringwraiths descending upon Bree is stunning, but after that, it just gets a bit much. The Weathertop battle is fun, but not fun enough, and the chase between Arwen and the Nazgul just doesn't seem fast enough or urgent enough, despite Howard Shore's music. It all just seems a bit too exhausting without the payoff to justify it. The nerd side of me also takes slight issue with Arwen's super magic powers at Bruinen, mainly because she only uses it once and no other elves besides Galadriel seem to have The Force, so it seems a bit too much of an excuse to have her do something because she’s not in it much. Still, the water-horses are pretty neat.

I will say though, while I get angsty, I can never bring myself to skip it. No matter how long they are and how little time I have, those movies are unskippable. I will say PJ did a remarkable job with the first act, considering how bloody hard it is to slog through in the book. Then again, he thankfully spared us Tom Bombadil.

"...the Galadriel magic mirror scene is fucking awful."

George: I love the Moria stuff to death, but it's not really so much about the Cave Troll (though I truly do heart his giant dumb ass). It's the little interactions between the characters in those scenes that I love. And plus, though it's like a sledgehammer to the head, I love love love - Frodo: "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened." Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." It's such an honest and purely human moment of fragility coupled with this loving paternal embrace of encouragement that never fails to move me so profoundly. That and the fact that the words spoken are so fucking true.

Andrew: "ALL SHALL LOVE ME AND DESPAAAAIIIRRR!!!!" Does Lothlorien fuck it all up?

George: I love it if only for the scene between Aragorn and Boromir which is one of Sean Bean's great moments. But it is basically Rivendell all over again. Only with hippies. I also think we need to get into the TE vs. EE debate since some of the juicier stuff from the EE is coming to mind here. The gift giving, yeah, but the part I like even more is the little talk between Galadriel and Aragorn about his fate.

Charlie: I love some of the Lothlorien stuff, but really, it stops the film dead for a while. It's definitely needed after the intensity of Moria, but it goes on far too long. But the scene with Aragorn and Boromir talking about Minas Tirith is wonderful, and a great precursor to Return of the King, especially with Shore using the "Anduril" theme there.

Also, the Galadriel magic mirror scene is fucking awful. I'm sorry, but it's terrible. The stuff with Frodo and the mirror works great, but as soon as she turns into a neon J-Lo, it's over.

Andrew: Cate saves it with her performance when she comes down off her ABBA flashback, looking scared and, well, human. "I shall remain Galadriel" is a lovely line. But if anyone you know tries to defend the bit before, cut off one of their toes. Now: the EE.

The reason why I like the EE's is that they just give up on any idea of movie pacing. The TE's were very much being edited to be watched in one sitting with a beginning a middle and an end, with a linear sense of dynamic progression of ups and downs, and sequences like Lothlorien totally scupper it. Jackson ended up editing the river sequence afterwards (very long and relaxed in the book) into an adrenalised chase sequence in some attempt to get the pacing back up - something I'm not sure works. With the EE's those problems are gone, because you have to just settle down to an entire evening wallowing in a juicy fantasy world, like having a long bath instead of a bracing shower.

As long as all the bits make sense and fit together you can just fall into it and get lost. It's a different way of watching films certainly - pacing is a valid part of cinematic art, and this could be an apologist's excuse for the broken pacing in the EE's - but it's kind of like eating an entire box of cream buns, and it's lots of fun. The point is that things like Lothlorien break the pacing of TE too, so why not just accept it and go with the EE? Watching the EE makes that river chase even more annoying, with its fast cutting and banging drums, as it suddenly feels like the film is trying to hurry you along to the end, when you were enjoying a pleasant walk.

George: I completely agree with Andrew here in that the TE of Fellowship is oddly paced as it is, thanks in part to the pauses in Rivendell and especially Lothlorien. They're needed scenes and they both feature some good and cool stuff, but they are awkward. It's like the film has two 2nd acts. So the EE essentially eases us into the pacing of an already off-kilter film. It's most definitely a treatment designed for the comfort and luxuries of the home theater, and I have got to commend that approach.

"...Boromir's death, which has my favourite line in the film ('I would have followed you, my brother. My captain. My King.')"

Charlie: Traitor. I agree on Lothlorien, but not on Rivendell. I think Rivendell is a strong enough scene that it's needed, especially after the exhausting but not actually that good scenes that make up the trip from Bree to Rivendell. Lothlorien goes on far too long and is mismatched with great scenes and not-so-great scenes, and it has no dialogue scenes that are anywhere near the dramatics of the Council of Elrond. Aragorn and Boromir's talk has is the standout thing, but it still succumbs to the magic mirror scene.

I certainly agree that the pace is helped in the EE by being more comfortably taken along, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, especially because it contains many more Lothlorien scenes. If they had left it as it was in the theatrical, it perhaps would have worked, but because they spend so much time at Lorien, they have to speed up the river scene as Andrew said even more, and it doesn't work.

George: The LOTR EEs are interesting because they throw the idea of conventional theatrical exhibition out the window. They were made for the explicit purpose of home viewing, which includes all the little things that come with that. Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut is the same. I commend it because, since I do believe the paradigm in film exhibition is shifting thanks to piracy, the internet, and all that, films will begin to be made and cut, both by directors and studio heads, not so much to squeeze in 10 screenings at the local multiplex, but for the home viewer. The viewer that will get up and go take a dump come Rivendell and later go grab a chili burger during Lothlorien (they will take another dump after Enya, btw). I think Jackson pioneered something in that sense.

Charlie: I think that's a great point. I think with the EEs, it does depend on how exactly you view them as a concept. They do work much more almost as the narrative of a book rather than a movie, but I do tend to judge them as a movie first and foremost. I still think that, however differently they are constructed, they should still be judged primarily as movies. I also wouldn’t group it the same as Kingdom of Heaven, as that movie had some pretty important stuff cut away which hurt the film a lot, whereas the EEs are rather PJ throwing in stuff he thinks is cool and the fans would like, hence you get some amazing stuff but sometimes some quite terrible things (“It’s Mr. Bilbo’s trolls!”)

It'd be interesting to see what the dynamic was between PJ and his editing team and what New Line wanted. I guess they probably said no more than three hours, so with the Extended Edition, rather than make a director's cut, as mentioned before, I think they shoved in a lot of stuff they loved that they took out. I wonder how different it would be if they actually were true "director's cuts."

George: Oh no, you're right. Kingdom of Heaven and LOTR are two very different beasts in that sense. But regardless, I do feel they're both approaching the unfolding of narrative in a very different way than most films of their nature do. And again, that has everything to do with the form of exhibition (theatrical vs. home) and how that plays into an audience's viewing habits. But I digress.

Andrew: LOTR as a whole has about 7 hours of 2nd Acts, at least two 3rd Acts and 5 endings. It's a big epic book recounting a big epic journey so there's an awful lot of 'this happened, then this, then this, then this'. The three act structure films rigidly adhere to these days starts to fall over here. Embrace it!

AND there's this bit between Bree and Rivendell where Aragorn comes back to the camp with a deer (that he killed WITH HIS BARE HANDS!) and sings the lay of Luthien which not only sets up the love story between himself and Arwen better than anything in any of the three films, but it gives you a breather from all the Nazgul chasing so making that first section less annoyingly relentless. Also Mr. Mumbles Viggo can't sing.

Charlie: Neither can most singers nowadays. He has CDs out though. With the Hobbits on back-up. Like Middle-Earth’s version of The Supremes.

Andrew: I hope they tour with Rusell Crowe's band. Anyway, I really like the EE's, but maybe that's enough about them for now. Does the ending Roxxors? How many times, exactly, do you need to see a ring? 'Let's hunt some Orc!' is a really bad line, isn't it? Did you know Legolas fires 6 arrows in a row in the EE? How cool is that? Aryans vs. Orcs? Is it too early to mention the gay?

"I love Aragorn. Everything and anything he does (including his lovely singing, dammit) is awesome, because we're gay."

Charlie: The ending is brilliant, especially with the moving of Boromir's death from the beginning of Towers (the book) to the end of Fellowship. Because of that, and the big fight, it actually feels like you get a satisfactory climax while still leaving the bigger story wide open. What's startling is the way the two characters of Frodo and Aragorn are both dealt with, coming from the scene where Boromir has just tried to steal the Ring. As Aragorn rejects it and Frodo says that he is going on his own, it sets a new path for both of those, both based on responsibility. Frodo knows he is destined to carry the Ring to its destruction whether anyone is with him or not, and is now determined to do it, and Aragorn is now displaying what is inside him to show the responsibility needed to fulfill his destiny as the heir of Numenor. It's a mirror of his final defining scene in Return of the King ("For Frodo") and those are very much the beginning and the end of his journey to the path of the King.

As for "Let's hunt some orc!", it's not the most eloquent line in the world, but it's a cheer moment based on the hope that the film leaves us with, and firmly cements Aragorn as our action hero and the man who would be King. The Sam/Frodo scene always makes me cry terribly, as does Boromir's death, which has my favourite line in the film ("I would have followed you, my brother. My captain. My King."), presenting Boromir's arc of a man who resented Aragorn for his bloodline, but now embraces him as his king, again upping Aragorn's respect quota but more importantly providing an inspired and poignant moment.

George: I love "Let's hunt some orc!". I love Aragorn. Everything and anything he does (including his lovely singing, dammit) is awesome, because we're gay. Long live The Vig™.

The ending? Yeah, on an emotional level, it completely roxxorz. Everything is tied up nicely, the sense of satisfaction is great, and you end up leaving a 3 hour film wanting to straight away watch the next. That says something. It's one of the few films where you almost literally feel like these characters are real friends. By this point, you're right along with them. And like I've mentioned before, it's the most absolute perfect setup for the shit that goes down in The Two Towers and especially Return of the King.

Andrew: "I would have followed you into the very fires of Mordor." "I know."

Oh dear. Objectivity's gone right out the window now. I love that bit. That said, the bit where Aragorn tells Frodo to "run... run!" just before he turns to face the suddenly appeared massive army of Orcs is some rubbish acting right there. No intensity or urgency at all, Mr. Mumbles. Anyway, what I like about the final battle is that it's the last time we have any action where everything is actually real. There's a shot from above that follows the orcs chasing the heroes that moves nearly half a mile down a hill and through a forest. Done by running a camera along a really long wire suspended in the trees, not only is it awesome, it's very similar to a shot in Bad Taste, where there's a shot showing the alien zombies chasing the hero up a hill and the camera travels up over a garage and along a path.

I came to Fellowship far more excited about seeing Jackson's latest film rather than a LOTR film. It was great to see the traces of the film-maker I had fallen in love with nearly ten years before and to see how far he had come. It was a really good moment.

George: And as extravagant as the subsequent films become, they never completely lose that ingenuity in camera and composition that makes Jackson's work so distinctly Jackson's. It's quite different and awesome, and something that makes LOTR as a whole so very comforting and almost homely, as opposed to other big epics which often feel so sterile and impersonal.

Charlie: Jackson's directing is so confident and at times absolutely magnificent, especially with Elijah Wood, so much so that it makes a wannabe director like me feel I should give up and become a bus driver. Who'd have guessed that the kid from Flipper would be making us cry into our popcorn on his way to Mordor?

Also, Howard Shore's work is such a big part of the film's success. His music is amazing.

George: Totally. From the small but excellent work he did with Cronenberg to this? The accolades he's gotten are completely deserved.

Andrew: Just like Jackson's direction, Shore's themes can be a bit broad and over the top, but again, they get 'to the core' perfectly. And the themes are rally catchy too. Don't underestimate a score you can whistle.

Charlie: Let’s finish up here. Final thoughts, gentlemen?

Andrew: Definitely my favourite of the three, and it would be if it was just the first disc - running up to the council of Elrond. I wish they could have slipped Tom Bombadil into the background of The Prancing Pony, having a quick cider or something. As long as his smoking wife was there I’d have been satisfied. A shame that was left out, she only wore leaves. You have to take your sex where you can get it in LOTR.

Charlie: While it's my least favourite of the three, Fellowship is nonetheless a mammoth achievement. A fantasy movie that has actual depth and emotion? Be still my beating heart. It has all the necessary ingredients to make a very tasty cinematic soup, but so much of the credit has to go to the big fat soup chef Peter Jackson. No other event movie for a long time has touched it, except of course the other two films. And once again, it shows nerds can be worthwhile in society.

George: Not much else to say other than I love it. I don't know how anyone couldn't just fall for these characters and this filmmaking. It all oozes so much genuine heart and charm. 5 years is certainly not enough time to convince the world these are classics to be held up next to their epic brethren of years past, but so far, Fellowship still holds up wonderfully and it plays its part in the larger equation brilliantly.