board77

Yov, the dangers of taking quotes out of context. My bad.

Here's an interview with Ms. Croft about the book that I found while looking to see if there was anyplace else Semprini could find the Imperial Cinema essay.

I haven't actually read the interview yet:

http://www.popthought.com/display_column.asp?DAID=588

I'd love to discuss this book, but can't get hold of a copy.

The Janet Croft essay can be found here:

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.C ... tening.htm

We discussed it here:

http://forums.tolkienonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=85406

Queen B, I believe the essay in the book is quite a bit expanded from that one. I'll check when I get home.

Btw, I love the "Some-one I know has got a copy of a book of criticism of the trilogy which includes Ms Croft's essay" in your bump of the TORC thread.

I've had it for about five minutes now, I'll have to start diving into this weekend.



ttbk

Mine is ordered!

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Sassy, the "Anticipation and Flattening Essay" (full name "Mithril Coats and Tin Ears: 'Anticipation' and 'Flattening' in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy), which was written by the book's editor, Janet Brennan Croft, was one of the two essays in the book that I disliked intensely. Croft has a decent grasp of Tolkien, and a valid point of view about the films, but I felt that her purpose to cut down and criticize the films was so obvious that it eliminated any ability to take her arguments seriously.

Voronwe, I agree that her tone is often snide and frequently downright dismissive, but you've got to admit that she does make valid points ... most especially concerning the journey through Moria. For despite the
brilliance of many scenes, (Balrog confrontation, Aragorn in slow motion ducking the arrows, the transposed 'Shadow of the Past' dialogue) can you imagine how much more powerful it might have been had PJ not given in to his prediliction to show everything and anything in such bright and extreme light. By which I mean not literal bright light but that nothing is held back, there is little to no sublty -- in Moria. The orcs are overwhelmingly insectile, the cave troll is video game-esque and in the fight it is downright silly. What redeems the entire sequence are the stunning architectural visuals and the scenes I already mentioned.
But because nothing is held in reserve, little is alluded, we experience the full impact almost from the start. It diminishes both tension and emotional impact IMO instead of gradually illuminating them.

Croft writes:

Quote:

One of the incomprehensible changes Jackson makes is immediately revealing the fate of Balin and his companions, thus eliminating one major aspect of the journey through Moria. Moria is no longer the haunted and disquieting scene of a dwarf-colony's mysterious disappearance; in Jackson's film, it is just a rather prosaically bloodstained killing ground. Echoes and cobwebs would have been far more intriguin and suspenseful than scattered bits of armor and bone.

This is true I think. By the time it takes to reach the chamber of Marzabul, we, the audience, already know that the liklihood of finding any dwarfs still living is slim to none. PJ has already told us so by the earlier visuals
of all those skeletal remains. The tension is gone.

Croft also states, how much more effective Tolkien's original action and dialogue at Balin's tomb would have been ...
"He is dead then" said Frodo. "I feared it was so." Gimli cast his hood
over his face.
Instead of this PJ chose to give us Gimli's shouted "NOOOO" and hysterical sobbing.

Several of her other critical points do not seem valid, Eowyn as Dernhelm for one. IMO in this I think she is too literal minded. The scriptwriters had good cause to omit this particular plot point. Besides, I disagree with her contention that the suprise of Eowyn revealed with the Witch King is spoilt.
I think that most of us, even on first reading, either knew or strongly suspected Dernhelm's real identity.

Here is one aspect I am really interested in discussing and discovering other opinions on.
(probably already done on TORC multiple times, but I wasn't there then and perhaps if you're not too bored already .... )

Croft's assertion:

Quote:

In the text Tolkien deliberately balanced Aragorn's steadfastness with Boromir's hubris on the one hand and Faramir's humility on the other.
Jackson eliminates this by making the three characters too similar to each other, not only by "angstifying" Aragorn, but at the same time placing an increased emphasis on Boromir's nobility and making Faramir as vulnerable to temptation as his brother.

Did PJ fail to distinguish sufficiently between the three thereby blurring the roles?
I think not. What do you think?

I agree with a great deal she says about Moria, mainly because she was able to give the example of what she would have prefered: Hitchcock doing it. She was quite convincing with that...

That's about all I remember from reading it when it was posted on TORC though.



ttbk

I too agree with a great deal that she has to say about Moria. So much so that I will only focus on the one point that I don't agree with - her criticism of Gimli's reaction to seeing Balin's tomb. True the scene was not completely consistent with the corresponding scene in the book, but it is very consistent with Tolkien's overall description of Dwarves griefing for their loved ones and lords. Consider this, about Mim when he discovers his son is dead:

Quote:

There he found Mim kneeling at a stone couch beside the wall, and he tore his beard, and wailed, crying one name uncesassingly.

Or this, when the craftman who helped remake the Nauglimir and it set the Silmaril in it and then killed Thingol were themselves killed:

Quote:

Then great was the wrath and lamentation of the Dwarves of Nogrod for the death of their kin and their great craftsmen, and they tore their beards, and wailed

Or this, when Nar brought news back to Thrain about Thror's death:

Quote:

when he had wept and torn his beard he fell silent.

I thought that Gimli's grief in the film was very believable and very consistent with Tolkien's overall work. I find it very moving, particularly when combined with the iconic image of the beam of light on the tomb.

Quote:

Did PJ fail to distinguish sufficiently between the three thereby blurring the roles?
I think not. What do you think?

I very much think not. But I think this could be worthy of a separate thread all its own.

I spent this month's Tolkien allowance on something else, so I haven't ordered the book. With my propensity to collect, I'm sure I will eventually read it, but none of you are making it seem like a reasonable purchase.

An example from Croft quoted by Sassafras:

Quote:

In the text Tolkien deliberately balanced Aragorn's steadfastness with Boromir's hubris on the one hand and Faramir's humility on the other.
Jackson eliminates this by making the three characters too similar to each other, not only by "angstifying" Aragorn, but at the same time placing an increased emphasis on Boromir's nobility and making Faramir as vulnerable to temptation as his brother.

None of them are truly Tolkiens characters, but they are all very separate from each other.

Jackson traded a patient King, waiting for his time, for a reluctant King who shrugged his shoulders at his own coronation. Reluctance was not in Boromir's character. He as quick to decide and quick to act. Faramir shared his brother's trait, although in a more passive way. He took time to understand Frodo and his situation, not to decide and act.

I won't deny the nobility of Jackson's Boromir, but on his way he passed through greed, ambition, and frustration, hardly aspects of nobility. He shares none of these with Aragorn or Faramir. His nobility showed in his final minutes.

I strongly disagree that Faramir was presented as being vulnerable to tempation. Jackson felt it important for Faramir to face temptation, much like Aragorn, and not be taken in like Boromir. I think it is also essential to understand that while Boromir was attracted by the ring and its power, Faramir was not. His temptation was entirely different. It was the desire to please his father, not the power of the ring. These motivations are very distinct and clear to me. It was important that the Faramir who allowed Frodo and Sam to return to their journey, easily caved into his father's wishes concerning Osgiliath. Think about the differences here. Faramir had the wisdom and humility to understand the necessity of the ring's journey, as conveyed by 2 odd strangers with an even odder companion. He had to balance this strangeness against his father's demand for the ring. It was essential that we later see Faramir's abject submission to his father's will to understand the signifigance of the release. He allowed his father to pressure, not quite command, him to lead his lifelong companions to there certain deaths.

There are many valid arguments to make about the differences between Tolkien's and Jackson's characters, but saying that Jackson created Barfagorn from these three Tolkien heroes is nonsense.

Stop being so coy. Tell us what you really think.

ttbk wrote:

I agree with a great deal she says about Moria, mainly because she was able to give the example of what she would have prefered: Hitchcock doing it. She was quite convincing with that...

Well, I don't have the book ............yet. And I probably won't until the summer because that's when I'll be able to read it at my leisure (that's for the leisure, and not for the book BTW )

But I did read the linked essay.

I really can't say that I agree with the premise that Jackson "gives it all away" in the earliest moments of the Moria sequence. IMO, it actually serves to build another kind of tension about another kind of "unknown" in the movie.

Yes, in the book there is a beautifully subtle and steady building of ominous tension (those *doom* *doom*'s still retain their chilling effect on me). In Teremia's thread I think I actually spoke of how I noticed that the language and structure of the text begins to quicken at the Chamber of Mazarbul, ending with an almost breathless narration, in short, sharp sentences, of the escape from the eastern gate. It's a great read, no doubt about it.

Now I'm not saying that this couldn't be rendered on screen. I think it would have worked very well cinematically (for all I know about "cinematics":D ). Ttbk is right............it would have been quintessential Hitchcock (I wonder what he would have done with Shelob's Lair?).

But Jackson, IMO, in no way reduces the tension of the Fellowship's journey through the Mines for his audience, especially, I would think, the "unitiated". Yes, there are skeletal remains and "goblin" arrows found just inside the gate, but does that really mean the fate of Balin and his company are a certainty? Not at all. It means that Jackson is establishing a higher level of tension at the beginning of the journey. When they are plunged into darkness at the collapse of the entrance, it is into a darkness strewn with the remnants of a terrible battle (*doom*) and rank with the anticipation of "older and fouler things than Orcs" lurking in the shadows (*doom*).

But then Jackson does something that I think he gets little credit for. In establishing a "hook" for the audience at the beginning of Moria, by "upping" the "fear factor", he then can focus on the journey through the Mines as the eerie wonder that it is, allowing the residual tension of the opening scene to linger just "out of focus" while still maintaining a presence. This is greatly enhanced in the EE, where Gandalf recalls the mining of mithril and the company stands before the vast delvings of the Dwarves. It's an amazing scene, and one that resonates with the long and sad and noble history of Moria and Eregion. It is, to my mind, both awesome and ominous (*doom*) in its empty immensity.

And the lovely and all-important pause at the mouths of the three passageways. Croft doesn't seem to consider the introduction of a new and unlooked for source of tension - Gollum, following closely behind. The scene works beautifully to remind the audience of the possibility of those "older and fouler things" creeping unseen in the surrounding gloom, as well as the certainty of this vile creature stalking the Ring somwhere out there in the darkness(*doom*).

As for the line, ".....the air doesn’t smell so foul down here. If in doubt, Meriadoc, always follow your nose"......well, that to me does sound like something Gandalf, in his Grey incarnation, would say. Pretty down to earth, regular kind of guy, Gandalf the Grey. And in the book, he does just that......"smells out" the right passage.

It is in the Chamber of Mazarbul that the tension is again raised, this time being allowed to build rapidly through the discovery of the Balin's tomb, the reading of the book, and the folly of Pippin (two book scenes condensed into one). It is not, as in the book, the first indication that "perhaps" they have roused attention. It is the logical "bullet" that fits the "smoking gun" of the opening scene. A sprung trap. The release of the coiled spring.

As for the battle itself. I'll pass. I don't much like discussing battles. It lasts a few minutes, it's loud and intense, my son loves it, who really cares if a cave troll or a "huge orc chieftan" skewers Frodo.........I mean, really.

Sass has stated that she finds the Moria orcs "overwhelmingly insectile", but I loved the nauseatingly frenzied scuttle of their limbs. They reminded me of the sickeningly dense and rippling waves of cockroaches in the dark, dank latrines of Indonesia *shudder*.

I think that the first "inkling" of the Balrog is absolutely wonderful. I very much like the idea that the very forces that threaten the Fellowship are scattered by their fear of a greater force that threatens the Fellowship! And all we see is a distant red glow, and the look and sound of Gandalf's resigned apprehension, and fear in the eyes of the Elf that has shown no fear (*doom* *doom*).

And then, of course, there is the whole collapsing stairway sequence. It does, I believe serve to once again heighten the tension for the general audience, albeit in a rather cliched way, and the music is incredibly powerful, and the visuals awesome.......but it is, in the end, very "Indiana Jones" in its overall impression. It doesn't annoy me, but I could have done without it, actually.

But the emergence of the Balrog through a haze of "shadow and flame" is simply wondrous, IMO: the "older and fouler" thing finally taking shape before our eyes. And the confrontation on the bridge is pure magic.......the pay-off to those first moments inside the entrance; the real reason each step into Moria has dripped and echoed with muffled fear. It is what was under the surface all along.....not the Watcher, not the orcs.......and I think Jackson nailed it. for the !!!!

Quite honestly, when Croft cites quotes from Chance like: “When Gandalf falls in battle with the Balrog at the Mines of Moria, Frodo tearfully hugs Aragorn like a child needing comfort from his father", I don't know what to say. Nothing like that happens in MY copy of the movie. I see a distraught Frodo being forceably held back by Boromir and then carried out of the reach of the barrage of arrows. Ah well.

Croft's petty observations about the "differences" in Gandalf's treatment of Pippin at the well are just............strange. Gandalf gives him shit in the book, Gandalf gives him the same shit in the movie. 'nuff said.

And finally, her comparison of Frodo's fall from the Watcher's grip to Gandalf's fall into the abyss at the beginning of the Two Towers, asserting that the former "detracts" from the impact of the latter, is just SILLY. It's an absurd premise that actually serves more to diminish any of her valid points of criticism than to stand as a serious point of discussion.

For those in Europe interested in ordering this book if unavailable from Amazon.
Brief essay abstracts included.

http://www.mythsoc.org/croft.html

Back later for a duel with Ath.



ps: Oh, and Idylle my entire argument against Ms.Croft's ridiculous assertions are now rendered superfluous ... [/slightly miffed]

Thanks a lot.

just kidding

I wrote a long post here that got lost when the power went out

I'll try to at least hit the highlights.

I had been thinking that I was going to have to slog through Croft's essay for a good example of what I was talking about with her use of unfairly misleading characterizations of scenes from the film. But my dear friend Ath has already pointed to a good one, so I don't need to do that (though I will say that in the book she does "correct" it to say Frodo "is carried away by Boromir like a child having a tantrum, and no longer attributes the observation to Chance). Suffice it to say that the essay has more then a few similar points.

The bottom line for me, trancendentalist that I am, is that what is good about the Moria sequences are so good that they completely overwhelm the mild quibbles that I have with some aspects of them. The lovely mithril scene, the wonderful Gollum/Shadow of the Past scene, the nice little character moments ("Pippin: Are we lost? Merry: No. Pippin: I think we are. Sam: Shhh! Gandalf’s thinking. Pippin: Merry? Merry: What? Pippin: I’m hungry."), the awe-inspiring first view of the immensity of the halls of Khazad-dum, the iconic beam of light on Balin's tomb, and most of all the appearance of the Balrog and its confrontation with Gandalf, as well as the poignent grief of the fellowship after Gandalf's fall, are so brilliant that I'll happily tolerate Jackson taking "time to linger lovingly on Frodo's agony after the spear-thrust from the cave-troll" as Croft puts it, the Indiana Jones stairs sequence, or even the insectoid Orcs. Croft's because flaw in my view is that she intentionally blinds herself to that brilliance.

I thought we called them spider orcs?

Voronwe, I think we once again are looking at differing opinions that reflect a "glass half empty or glass half full" disposition regarding the movie. It's funny, but when I think of the Moria sequence, I NEVER conjur images of the Watcher in the water, or the falling staircase, or the cave troll, or Frodo's prolonged look of agony, all of which I don't particularly care for. It is, instead, precisely those scenes that you mention that are played through in my mind. Why? Because they are so "Tolkien" in look and feel. When the Company stands at the brink of that vast pit in the EE, with music soooo compelling and mysterious and (as I said earlier) ominous, more is conveyed about the history of the place than a page full of dialogue.

Hmmmmmm, I just noticed that Croft never mentions the use of music in her essay. I definitely feel that the score that accompanies the Moria sequence works to instil and enhance moods of disquiet, and foreboding, and tension. It is such a powerful part of the films, often used to convey the same emotive elements that Tolkien wrapped in his language, and to neglect to speak of its impact, is IMO, neglecting to compare text and film as fairly as possible.

Oh, and here's another bit of what I consider sloppy critiquing:

Croft wrote:

Jackson takes time to linger lovingly on Frodo’s agony after the spear-thrust from the cave-troll for nearly fifteen seconds all told; in the book, Frodo says “I am bruised and in pain, but it is not too bad” (Fellowship 342) .

This is actually Frodo speaking some time after being "skewered". The events in the Chamber from the movie actually echo more closely those of the book:

Tolkien wrote:

"........he charged at the Company and thrust his spear straight at Frodo. The blow caught him on the right side, and Frodo was hurled against the wall and pinned."

..........Aragorn picked Frodo up where he lay by the wall and made for the stair.......

"I am all right," gasped Frodo. "I can walk. Put me down."
Aragorn nearly dropped him in amazement. "I thought you were dead!" he cried.

Okay, I agree that the 15 second "linger" gets on my nerves, but the lines that follow it, when Aragorn reaches Frodo and turns him over to see the damage done by the spear, sound awfully familiar to this reader:

Frodo: I’m all right, I’m not hurt.

Aragorn: You should be dead! That spear would have skewered a wild boar.

Sheesh!

Quote:

The bottom line for me, trancendentalist that I am, is that what is good about the Moria sequences are so good that they completely overwhelm the mild quibbles that I have with some aspects of them.

Yes, but if we continue agreeing on everything there will be nothing left to discuss.



This is me: when I examine the films very closely, bit by bit, line by line, shot by shot, scene by scene I become almost hyper-critical. But this is when I am outside and thinking about the flow.

When I am inside, actually watching, more often than not I am transported
and there are now considerably less problematic scenes.

So I don't know how to catagorize myself. Purist/pragmatist on the one hand and transcendentalist on the other.

I'm so confused.



My feeling, and I could well be wrong, is that Croft approached the films with a pre-determined negativity and so in writing her essay she had reached a forgone conclusion; all she needed was to retroactively find examples to prove her point. In my first post after reading the essay I said that I thought by concentrating on the details she missed the transcendant whole. I still hold to that.

Nevertheless, I agree with Croft, and disagree with Ath that the opening Moria sequence adds to the tension.

The passage twisted round a few turns, and then began to descend.
It went steadily down for a long while before it became level once again.
The air grew hot and stifling, but it was not foul, and at times they felt currents of cooler air upon their faces issuing from half-guessed openings in the walls. There were many of these. In the pale ray of the wizard's staff, Frodo caught glimpses of stairs and arches, and of other passages and tunnels, sloping up, or running steeply down, or opening blankly dark on either side. It was bewildering beyond any hope of remembering.

It's all a matter of personal preference but I would have much rather seen something like Tolkien's description than have the inner chambers littered with corpses and halloweenish type cobwebs. The lovely and evocative mithril mines could still have been shown, most of the dialogue could have stayed ( I wasn't particularly taken with Gimli's 'red meat off of the bone' speech ... but that's just me). And how much more ominous to not see what they are walking into? Playing it this way would in no way invalidate later actions (Pippen and the skeleton) and consequences (doom, doom and the appearance of the orcs.

Quote:

As for the battle itself. I'll pass. I don't much like discussing battles. It lasts a few minutes, it's loud and intense, my son loves it, who really cares if a cave troll or a "huge orc chieftan" skewers Frodo.........I mean, really

A few minutes? Felt much longer to me. It's immaterial whether Frodo was struck by either the great orc chieftan or the cave troll, really it is.
The fight itself though is another matter entirely. I hated it. Not for any purist reasons. I hated it because it rudely jerked me out of Middle Earth and it was badly done. Badly directed, badly chorographed and bad CGI.
Every time that cave-troll face appears in excruciating close-up around the pillar with a squirming Frodo on the other side, I cringe. Maybe you don't Ath, but I do. And one more time I find myself wishing that PJ was not quite so attatched to his monsters.

Where I will wholeheartedly concur is that from the moment Legolas widens his eyes at the Balrog's approach (nice touch, that) just about everything that follows is close to perfect. The staircase is a bit of gratuitious nonsense although it doesn't take me out of the film the way the cave-troll does and I don't really object to its inclusion.

The confrontation You Shall Not Pass! is cinematic glory
<shivers>
and the brilliance continues all the way through to the Dimrill Dale.

Um, I rambled a bit didn't I?
That's what comes of replying to a post while similtaneously watching a baseball game.

Hi Sass and Voronwe and....ummm.......everybody else!!

I'm afraid I won't be able to join in again for a couple of days. I'm heading off to do teacherly type things (I actually got myself roped into working on a rather immense project -- writing problem-based math diagnostic tests for intermediate students. )

I'll check back in on Tuesday evening.

(Maybe by then I'll actually be ready to post in your "Temptation" thread, Voronwe.............maybe. )

Have fun.

Sassafras,

Sorry to have been of help. It must be time for

Voronwe>>>Here's an interview with Ms. Croft about the book that I found while looking to see if there was anyplace else Semprini could find the Imperial Cinema essay.

Thanks for the effort Voronwe!

I myself have some issues with Moria similar to some indentified in Ms. Croft article, but I think that PJ did overall a good job with Moria. My biggest issue concerning dark tunnels in PJ's film is with Shelob's lair and the POTD where PJ did not make the right stylistical choices IMO (in particular, Shelob's lair should have been pitch black, and POTD should not have been a horror film parody). Hitchcock's directing either one of these sequences would have been fabulous.