December 18, 2003
Long Live the King
Ok, saw Return of the King. It. Was. Awesome. I won't bore you with details about each little thing, about the incredible amount of detail put into each and every little scene, or about how the story really brought certain elements to life (Grond!). The bottom line is that you know a good movie when you want to get right back in line and see it again. (check this Blogdigger search to see what others are saying).
A few gripes:
I did not like the way Gollum went over the edge. I had always pictured him falling, almost without realizing, filled with glee at being reunited with the Precious. And I certainly didn't care for the whole, "Oh no, Frodo fell over too!"-Hollywood moment. I'm willing to deal with story modifications to save on time, but throwing in this shtick just ticks me off. Stick to the book, please. A small complaint about the fact that a lot of the characters in the movie come off as monolithic (Denethor is a good example), while in the book they are much more complex. I guess this is in the interest of time...no big deal.
Favorite scences: Eowyn's fight with the Nazgul, the charge of Rohan (gives "Here come the Cavalry new meaning), Legolas and the Oliphant (I'm thinking Jackson had George Lucas in his sights with this scene. I'm not sure I'll be able to get excited watching Empire anymore) and of course, one of the greatest lines in literary history, Sam Gamgee's "‘I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you, Mr. Frodo!" If they had to give the Oscar to anyone, I say give it to Sam. He's the real hero.
One of the things that makes the story so timeless and intriguing is Tolkein's combination of epic effects from personal causes. The decisions that end up changing history are not military or strategic in nature; rather they are the ordinary decisions of individuals that alter the fate of mankind. Sam's faithfullness to Frodo, Frodo's faith in Gollum, Eowyn's love, Legolas and Gimli's friendship, Denethor's grief, Faramir's insecurities. The motivations and emotions of the characters are projected into the landscape of the epic story, giving them broader and deeper meaning. Sam's faithfullness, while in an ordinary everysay situation may not affect much, brings about Man's salvation.
Lord of the Rings is not, ultimately, about armies and wars; it is about people living, making choices, responding to others in their lives. The good guys are all individuals struggling with their peers. On the other hand, Sauron's Great Eye, ironically, is turned not towards the two solitary individuals sneaking through the back door of Morder, but to the army massing outside his gate. He underestimates the power of the individual, and it his undoing.
Postscript: I found a review from CS Monitor that says basically what I'm trying to say. They also have a picture of some hobbits from Pikesville, MD. I think one of them stole my cloak.
