Hoping for Better
Bill has been watching his copy of The Return of the King and he as a quibble:
Well yes, exactly. It does emasculate the character and it is the writer's fault. Tolkien's Aragorn is first-and-foremost a leader of man, hardened by years of war against the Shadow, a kingly man with an air of command and stern dignity recognized by all who encounter him. Yet in Jackson's films - especially the third - he agonizes over whether to wield Anduril and claim the crown of Gondor like some spotty emo teen agonizing over whether or not to ask the popular girl out on a date. And as Bill points out, it's not Mortensen's fault - he gave a damn fine performance based on the script given to him.
It's no accident that I consider the first film, The Fellowship of the Ring, to be the best of the bunch. Of the three, it is the film that remains closest in the viewing to Tolkien's story and characters. Starting with The Two Towers we see the onset of the tweaking with the introduction of Faramir and the mystifying scenes with Arwen. Not enough to ruin the film, but enough to make me uneasy.
In The Return of the King this tweaking ran wild, and left me very disappointed. We have the continuing emasculation of Aragorn followed by his inexplicable action hero take ("For Frodo!" Gag...) at the battle before the Black Gate. There is that damnable bit involving Frodo sending Sam away and Sam actually leaving* and don't even get me started on the whole slow-motion-let's-all-frolic-on-the-bed-scene which left me vaguely wondering if I had stumbled on to a pointy eared version of Eight Is Enough.
I'm hoping the extended version of the third film, rumored to be five hours long will improve the film, and if not undoing the damage mentioned above, at least atone for it somehow.
*I confess I am a big enough Tolkien geek that this bit enraged me. First of all, anyone who knows LOTR knows that Sam would never leave Frodo, even for a short period, unless Frodo was dead. Never - his entire being is centered on his loyalty to Frodo.
Secondly, I either read or heard somewhere that Jackson made this change to add more dramatic tension to the story, which makes me want to whack him upside his Kiwi head. Fer chrissake dude, your story already involves two guys pushed nearly beyond their endurance, trying to save the world, with a traitor in their midst. You. Don't Need. More. Drama. Than. That.
Aragorn is not as inspiring as he could have been, I can't find fault with Mortensen's performance, so I'm going to have to lay blame at the feet of the writers for choosing to make him so reluctant to become King. Specifically, they make it seem like he only takes up Anduril because Arwen is dying. This pretty much emasculates the character.
Well yes, exactly. It does emasculate the character and it is the writer's fault. Tolkien's Aragorn is first-and-foremost a leader of man, hardened by years of war against the Shadow, a kingly man with an air of command and stern dignity recognized by all who encounter him. Yet in Jackson's films - especially the third - he agonizes over whether to wield Anduril and claim the crown of Gondor like some spotty emo teen agonizing over whether or not to ask the popular girl out on a date. And as Bill points out, it's not Mortensen's fault - he gave a damn fine performance based on the script given to him.
It's no accident that I consider the first film, The Fellowship of the Ring, to be the best of the bunch. Of the three, it is the film that remains closest in the viewing to Tolkien's story and characters. Starting with The Two Towers we see the onset of the tweaking with the introduction of Faramir and the mystifying scenes with Arwen. Not enough to ruin the film, but enough to make me uneasy.
In The Return of the King this tweaking ran wild, and left me very disappointed. We have the continuing emasculation of Aragorn followed by his inexplicable action hero take ("For Frodo!" Gag...) at the battle before the Black Gate. There is that damnable bit involving Frodo sending Sam away and Sam actually leaving* and don't even get me started on the whole slow-motion-let's-all-frolic-on-the-bed-scene which left me vaguely wondering if I had stumbled on to a pointy eared version of Eight Is Enough.
I'm hoping the extended version of the third film, rumored to be five hours long will improve the film, and if not undoing the damage mentioned above, at least atone for it somehow.
*I confess I am a big enough Tolkien geek that this bit enraged me. First of all, anyone who knows LOTR knows that Sam would never leave Frodo, even for a short period, unless Frodo was dead. Never - his entire being is centered on his loyalty to Frodo.
Secondly, I either read or heard somewhere that Jackson made this change to add more dramatic tension to the story, which makes me want to whack him upside his Kiwi head. Fer chrissake dude, your story already involves two guys pushed nearly beyond their endurance, trying to save the world, with a traitor in their midst. You. Don't Need. More. Drama. Than. That.
<< Home