Jan 21, 2004 03:58 PM
2014 Views
(Updated Jan 21, 2004 03:58 PM)
First the good news and there's quite a bit.
LOTR is a complex book with many interleaving stories with scores of characters each having complex genealogies. Elrond for example is a half-elven to understand which you must know that he is descended from the mortal Beren and the Elven Luthien. If you understand this you can also understand the irony in his opposing the marriage between Aragorn, a mortal and his own daughter Arwen. In many ways LOTR is like the Mahabharat with tales within tales. No movie can hope to capture or communicate this complex tale in it's entirety. Peter Jackson has done a wonderful job of translating the fable into a highly watchable movie. I dont know how this can be improved upon without either making the movie too complex or the other extreme of too simple.
The special effects, the battle scenes, the heroisms and the depiction of the creatures of legend whether it is the Nazgul or the black horses or the Ents or the Orcs are wonderfully done. The shifts between the various action scenes from the ride from Rohan to Frodo and Sam clambering over rocks to enter Cirith Ungol, the rantings of Denethor are done without losing the viewer's interest.
However, ROTK and indeed LOTR's picturisation falls short either in it's choice of actors or in the way they are cast to play certain key characters. Aragorn never quite matches up to what he is built up in the book either in build or in my late grandmother's phrase 'personalty'. In a Satyajit Ray's biography he discusses the casting of Nayak, a movie on a super star. Ray theorised that he needed a superstar to cast as a superstar both in terms of credibility or in personality and wisely cast Uttam Kumar. I think casting bit actors in roles requiring enigma and a certain something doesnt work unless the guy is a future Brando. To visualise another Aragorn, imagine Russell Crowe in the role (think back to Gladiator and the intensity he brought to the role) or the Brando who acted as Marc Anthony. Even Arnie as a middle earth T-2 would have brought at least his bulk to the table. Viggo Mortensen who plays Aragorn brings cat eyes, not enough or convincing. He persists in looking like a streetsmart punk who'd be more comfortable in thigh length leather boots and a frayed leather jacket. He is thus unimpressive at key points. If you've read the book, you'll remember the surreal walk through the path of the dead and Aragorn's ringing cry in the chilling desolate waste as the ghostly hordes surround them, ''I summon you to the stone of erech''. It used to give me goosebumps (an 'erech'tion :)). In the movie, let us just say that it is different.
As with Elrond half-elven. The masterful air, the dignity, the wisdom as a king of elves, an elf so old, he was with Isildur when Sauron's ring was wrested from him, a descendent of Beren and Luthien is alas, totally missing. In the movie he looks like a drag queen wandering about in a nightgown occasionally uttering some dispiriting remark about the end of elves / men to whoever is at hand, Aragorn, Gandalf or Arwen he doesn't seem choosy. Hugo Weaving usually a good actor, was miscast. See how good he was in Matrix or as Douglas Jardine in Bodyline. But as Elrond, no. Some alternatives, Christopher Lee (he plays Saruman here), Jeremy Irons, Alec Guinness or of course, the great Alan Rickman.
But there are good castings too. Elijah Wood as Frodo with a tortured face from an Italian painting was brilliant as was the guy who played Sam. Merry,Pippin, Legolas, Gandalf, Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn were also good casts.
