J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord
of the Rings trilogy must pack so much into those novels that it’s a minor
miracle they were ever made into successful films. I’ve never read the books,
of course, but you get a sense by the third installment of director Peter
Jackson’s epic trilogy of adaptations that the final book is replete with an
abundance of minor and secondary characters all requiring a closing to their
arcs. The effect is a film that is bloated and overblown, but at the same time
a visual wallop and a great piece of entertainment filmmaking.
Because the three films were all made at the same time,
it seems strange to consider them as separate pieces of acting and filmmaking.
How do you consider Viggo Mortensen’s performance as Aragorn in The Return of the King as different from
that in The Fellowship of the Ring?
Likewise for Ian McKellen as Gandalf; Orlando Bloom as Legolas; Elijah Wood,
Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd as the Hobbits. This third film
got a lot of fan buzz for Astin to get awards nominations for supporting actor –
he literally carries the lead on his back to achieve their goal. Why did that
buzz not exist in the first two films? It’s not Astin’s performance that was
any better this time. That’s simply not possible because the stories were not
even filmed in sequence. The explanation must be the changes in his character,
how he goes from being shy and reserved, a true follower, to a bold leader and
the one who is ultimately responsible for the ring’s destruction. The same is
true for Aragorn, who fulfills his destiny by becoming king at the end (if you
consider that a spoiler, then you didn’t check the film’s title carefully).
While all the principles from the first two films
continue their story arcs: Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) and Legolas continue to
forge their unlikely friendship; Arwen (Liv Tyler) returns to Middle Earth to
be with Aragorn; King Theoden (Bernard Hill) leads his people into battle and
then lays down so Aragorn will have no impediment to his ascendancy; even Bilbo
(Ian Holm) turns up briefly at the end to close his story. The additions and
expansions include Faramir (David Wenham) whose character is more fully
illuminated by the presence of his father, Lord Denethor (John Noble), who
exists in the extended version of The TwoTowers, but not the original theatrical release. We learn so much more
about Faramir and especially his fallen brother, Boromir, from the relationship
they had with their father.
Most of the characters are fairly well divided between
morally good and morally corrupt. There is little grey area with the big
exception being Gollum (Andy Serkis, in a truly remarkable motion capture
performance), whose back story is presented early in the film. His character is
the one that is likely to cause the most arguments and consternation among
viewers. Is he sympathetic or without moral compunction? Is he a victim of the
ring’s power and thus worthy of pity? Gandalf certainly believed so as he told
Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring.
My take is somewhat different than most people, I suppose. I see the ring as
having a conquering power over everyone who possesses it long enough. Even the
pure Frodo become corrupted in the end and can’t cast it into the fire. The
character test comes in the initial opportunity to take the ring. In the first
film Galadriel is tempted and refuses Frodo’s offer of the ring. Gandalf
likewise once refused to carry it. And Aragorn, faced with Frodo’s mistrust,
tells him, “I would have followed you to the end,” after Boromir tries to take
the ring. It’s not that Aragorn feels no temptation, it’s what he does with it
that is the measure of his moral stature. Gollum was immediately taken in by
the ring’s power and wasted no time in killing for it. This one act has defined
his long and tortured existence. You can look at that and see a pitiable
creature who didn’t know what he was getting into when he came across the ring,
or you can see a man of such morally weak character that he is only an
impediment to Frodo and Sam’s progress who meets a fitting end in the fires of
Mount Doom.
The screen adaptation by Jackson, Fran Walsh, and
Philippa Boyens feels no different than the other two films. The visual palette
is identical and the visual effects are still breathtaking. The battle scenes
are more epic, with more at stake, and so they contain more drama. But they are
just as exciting and impressively filmed and rendered. The only real
differences among the films in terms of technical artistry put into them was the
effects of the first two films’ box office on the editing process for the third
film. Money and film had already been committed to all three stories before The Fellowship of the Ring earned a
single dollar. So it was inevitable that all three would be released to
theaters. But since the first two films earned huge amounts of money worldwide
between box office, DVD, and merchandising, Jackson had just about all the
freedom in the world to edit the final film how he pleased.
This was always my biggest complaint about The Return of the King, even from the
first time I saw it the cinema in December 2003. It is so overlong and drawn
out, and self-important that it loses much of its impact. Don’t get me started
on the DVD extended version, which adds another 40 minutes to an already
bloated 3 ½ hour plus running time. It does this mainly by having about three,
or maybe four endings, depending on how you count them, that added about
fifteen additional and unnecessary minutes to the original film. I remember
sitting there in the cinema and feeling that the movie had just ended after
Aragorn’s coronation. This is a moment that still has the power to move me as
Aragorn makes his way through the crowd to find the four Hobbits, who bow to
him. He responds, “You bow to no one” as he leads the crowd of thousands in a
bow and salute to their immense bravery to save Middle Earth. The camera moves
slowly toward the Hobbits and regards them as they are overtaken by the support
from the masses. Their humility would not have expected that moment in a
million years. That moment still gets me and I still feel that is the film’s
perfect ending.
But it continues by wrapping up the Hobbits’ stories. The
fans of the book have a fair argument, I suppose, in saying that the Hobbits
are the focus and Frodo’s journey needs to conclude with his eventual leaving
Middle Earth for the Grey Havens. But as someone who hasn’t read the books and is
only concerned with the film being an effective and concise entertainment, all
the stuff after Aragorn’s coronation is wasteful and indulgent. And it keeps
going and going and going until, when it finally ends, you breathe a sigh of
relief and shout, “Thank God!”
I honestly think The
Return of the King is just fantastic, but I have real trouble eliminating
the sour taste from the business involving Sam and Frodo back in The Shire, Sam
getting married and raising a family and Frodo finishing his book, etc, etc,
blah, blah. I will admit there is one other moment that really rang true for me
when I first saw it. The four Hobbits are home in The Shire after their
tremendous adventure. They sit to enjoy an ale together at their tavern. They
silently salute one another while everyone around is still laughing the way
they used to. Their friends and family will never understand what they went
through. No amount of explanation will ever suffice. It’s a quietly reflective
moment that I understood one hundred percent at that time. Still, I could have
lived without it and whenever I watch The
Return of the King, I want to turn the DVD off before it gets to those ‘extra’
endings, but I never do. And without fail I’m disappointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment