![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You occasionally hear the charge that FOTR is, in essense, "an action movie" dressed up in Middle Earth garb, and lost the epic scope of the books. There is also the opposite charge: that there isn't enough action in the film, that people got a bit restless in parts. *Any* truth to either?
The question this week was inspired by a panel that I attended at the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in March (You can visit the website for the conference here.). After a panel where the insidious classist, elitest anti-intellectualist agenda (the panel's opinions, not mine) of the Harry Potter books was dissected, I went to the FOTR movie panel. Most of the folks on the panel and in the audience found much fault with the film.
One of the most wrongheaded things that I heard was that the movie was little more than an action flick tarted up in Middle-Earth garb. This came at the end of a discussion that lamented the loss of Tom Bombadil and the inclusion of the cave troll battle.
In the Q&A that followed, I said that some of my students (and some non-Tolkien savvy friends) complained that the movie moved too slowly, that there wasn't enough conflict. It never ever felt like three hours to me. I would have gladly sat for more, especially more of the quieter moments (in Rivendell and Lorien especially). Oh, and also some of the songs/character interaction along the way, like establishing Sam's desire to see the Elves which the movie, of necessity, needed to gloss over.
Now a big part of the "it was soooo slow" accusation comes from the expectations (based on Xena/Hercules, The Scorpion King, and others of that brood) of what a fantasy film will deliver-action/swordplay. This is akin to a strong belief among many of my students that horror film = slasher flick.
So, I don't think FOTR is not an action film. When I talk about action films, I'm talking the real deal (Die Hard, Face Off, Rambo, etc.), not a film that incorporates action sequences but is not an action film (Minority Report, FOTR, The Matrix). So as I see it, action movies and FOTR (epic) are different in a lot of ways.
Purpose:
Action movies are really about one thing: the good guy taking out the bad guy. With guns, with bombs, with swords, with blasters. With teeth and claws if he has to. The hero's motive is to dispatch the wrongdoer in order to make the world safe again (OK, usually not the world but his little piece of it). There is a sort of simplistic comfort in the action movie. Good guys will overcome (even if they are killed in the process); order will be restored.
While epics also involve forces coming into conflict (What story isn't about that?), the emphasis in the epic is not so much on declaring the winner of the struggle as it is on the impact of the struggle on the participants and on the world of the story. The implications are much larger than an action movie takes up. I don't know if this makes sense but LOTR is about what happens when Sauron is opposed (epic), not about opposing Sauron (action).
Physicality/Violence:
The answer to problems in action movies, more often than not, is violence. Sure, intellect (especially cleverness) can set up or shape the final conflict: it can get the hero out of scrapes or serve to advance the villain's evil ends, but the resolution to the action movie will always come out of or as a result of physical conflict or violence.
OK, LOTR has its share of physical confrontation. There are battles aplenty in TTT and ROTK. But the violence is not the means to an end, and its use is necessary, rather than gratuitous. Simple violence is questioned, such as when Frodo tells Gandalf that is it a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum. Gandalf tells Frodo that pity and mercy stayed Bilbo's hand and makes him confront the enormity of what taking a life means. Life has more value in epic than in action, where it is more disposable.
Mood:
Hmmm, action movies can have atmosphere, enough to be window dressing for...well...the action. Just as the implications of the conflict are smaller (the killer is stopped and can kill no more), the mood is more shallow.
Epics have a greater sense of purpose (the fate of the world-or the way of life for many) and, therefore, gravity. In FOTR there is the sadness of the things that are passing: the Elves, an Age, the innocence of the characters.
Plot:
Bad guy does bad thing. As a result, good guy must go after him. Pursuit ensues. Each side has moments of glory and setbacks until final confrontation between the hero and villain. The hero will win. If he's still alive, he'll kiss the girl. If he has died, she'll never forget what he sacrificed for her.
Just isn't that simple in epic. In FOTR, each character has something he needs to confront and overcome. Sometimes this has a physical component (Gandalf confronts the Balrog). Often it does not (Frodo struggles to destroy the ring; Aragorn matches wills with Sauron in the palantir). Generally, the physical component mirrors an inner trial that the character must face.
Now, don't get me wrong: I really do like action movies. But FOTR was not one. I think that it needed the action that was there (battles with orcs and goblins and cave trolls, oh my!) because stories need conflict, and the inner struggles of printed fiction don't work particularly well on screen.
I never felt that the violence was gratuitous. In fact, while it's expected in action movies, here it had more audience impact-if the reactions of people around me during the Moria sequence, Boromir's last stand, and Aragorn's battle with Lurtz are an indication.
SO is LOTR epic? Hell yes. It takes more than physical conflict and action sequences to make an action movie. Ponderous and slow? Not to me, but to those expecting a fantasy action flick, I suppose it would seem so. My ray of hope for my poor students/friends who spent some of the film shuffling their feet is that all of them plan on going back this winter for TTT.
The question this week was inspired by a panel that I attended at the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in March (You can visit the website for the conference here.). After a panel where the insidious classist, elitest anti-intellectualist agenda (the panel's opinions, not mine) of the Harry Potter books was dissected, I went to the FOTR movie panel. Most of the folks on the panel and in the audience found much fault with the film.
One of the most wrongheaded things that I heard was that the movie was little more than an action flick tarted up in Middle-Earth garb. This came at the end of a discussion that lamented the loss of Tom Bombadil and the inclusion of the cave troll battle.
In the Q&A that followed, I said that some of my students (and some non-Tolkien savvy friends) complained that the movie moved too slowly, that there wasn't enough conflict. It never ever felt like three hours to me. I would have gladly sat for more, especially more of the quieter moments (in Rivendell and Lorien especially). Oh, and also some of the songs/character interaction along the way, like establishing Sam's desire to see the Elves which the movie, of necessity, needed to gloss over.
Now a big part of the "it was soooo slow" accusation comes from the expectations (based on Xena/Hercules, The Scorpion King, and others of that brood) of what a fantasy film will deliver-action/swordplay. This is akin to a strong belief among many of my students that horror film = slasher flick.
So, I don't think FOTR is not an action film. When I talk about action films, I'm talking the real deal (Die Hard, Face Off, Rambo, etc.), not a film that incorporates action sequences but is not an action film (Minority Report, FOTR, The Matrix). So as I see it, action movies and FOTR (epic) are different in a lot of ways.
Purpose:
Action movies are really about one thing: the good guy taking out the bad guy. With guns, with bombs, with swords, with blasters. With teeth and claws if he has to. The hero's motive is to dispatch the wrongdoer in order to make the world safe again (OK, usually not the world but his little piece of it). There is a sort of simplistic comfort in the action movie. Good guys will overcome (even if they are killed in the process); order will be restored.
While epics also involve forces coming into conflict (What story isn't about that?), the emphasis in the epic is not so much on declaring the winner of the struggle as it is on the impact of the struggle on the participants and on the world of the story. The implications are much larger than an action movie takes up. I don't know if this makes sense but LOTR is about what happens when Sauron is opposed (epic), not about opposing Sauron (action).
Physicality/Violence:
The answer to problems in action movies, more often than not, is violence. Sure, intellect (especially cleverness) can set up or shape the final conflict: it can get the hero out of scrapes or serve to advance the villain's evil ends, but the resolution to the action movie will always come out of or as a result of physical conflict or violence.
OK, LOTR has its share of physical confrontation. There are battles aplenty in TTT and ROTK. But the violence is not the means to an end, and its use is necessary, rather than gratuitous. Simple violence is questioned, such as when Frodo tells Gandalf that is it a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum. Gandalf tells Frodo that pity and mercy stayed Bilbo's hand and makes him confront the enormity of what taking a life means. Life has more value in epic than in action, where it is more disposable.
Mood:
Hmmm, action movies can have atmosphere, enough to be window dressing for...well...the action. Just as the implications of the conflict are smaller (the killer is stopped and can kill no more), the mood is more shallow.
Epics have a greater sense of purpose (the fate of the world-or the way of life for many) and, therefore, gravity. In FOTR there is the sadness of the things that are passing: the Elves, an Age, the innocence of the characters.
Plot:
Bad guy does bad thing. As a result, good guy must go after him. Pursuit ensues. Each side has moments of glory and setbacks until final confrontation between the hero and villain. The hero will win. If he's still alive, he'll kiss the girl. If he has died, she'll never forget what he sacrificed for her.
Just isn't that simple in epic. In FOTR, each character has something he needs to confront and overcome. Sometimes this has a physical component (Gandalf confronts the Balrog). Often it does not (Frodo struggles to destroy the ring; Aragorn matches wills with Sauron in the palantir). Generally, the physical component mirrors an inner trial that the character must face.
Now, don't get me wrong: I really do like action movies. But FOTR was not one. I think that it needed the action that was there (battles with orcs and goblins and cave trolls, oh my!) because stories need conflict, and the inner struggles of printed fiction don't work particularly well on screen.
I never felt that the violence was gratuitous. In fact, while it's expected in action movies, here it had more audience impact-if the reactions of people around me during the Moria sequence, Boromir's last stand, and Aragorn's battle with Lurtz are an indication.
SO is LOTR epic? Hell yes. It takes more than physical conflict and action sequences to make an action movie. Ponderous and slow? Not to me, but to those expecting a fantasy action flick, I suppose it would seem so. My ray of hope for my poor students/friends who spent some of the film shuffling their feet is that all of them plan on going back this winter for TTT.
