Return of the Big Expensive Fanfic

[lavendertook]

I'll develop my points further in a later review, but I've seen RotK twice and my feelings about it are mixed. The film is a visual feast and its beauty will draw me back for a number of viewings, but in some ways it left me cold because there were parts of the storytelling that didn't work for me.

VISUALS, PACING, AND SATISFYING TELLINGS

Meduseld brought fully to life, the Gothic intricacy of Minas Tirith, the grandeur of the landscape, especially used to maximum effect in the scene where the watchtowers are lit, the Celtic detail of the encampments, the Gothic ruins of Osgiliath, more beautiful downtown Rivendell, the Mumakil, and crumbling towers, Gandalf and Shadowfax's charge, and the harbor at the Havens, as well as all the costuming--all incredibly magnificent.

There's never a boring moment, but some of the cuts are choppy and sudden, and characters wind up in positions that are unexplained. However I'm sure most, if not all, those problems will be solved and improved upon in the EE, as was the case with the first two EE's. The music, of course is wonderful throughout, except in a couple points where I think it swells in a way that overwhelms the scene and makes it melodramatic.

The storylines that are most satisfyingly developed to me are those involving Pippin, Eowyn and Aragorn. Pippin and Boyd really get to shine in this movie with all the humor and pathos of his development--and its very canon. However, I like the way Eowyn's story falls short of canon. They leave out some motivations Eowyn has for fighting in the book that undercut her agency. I love Otto's Eowyn. And I don't miss the presentation of her courtship with Faramir. It's nice to see a strong, beautiful woman who isn't paired up with a man in the end. I've loved the concerns the film adaptation added to Aragorn's struggles in FotR that aren't straight from the book and they're well carried through to the end.

MAKING COMPASSION LOOK STUPID

My main problems with the film are the presentation of Sam and Frodo on many levels. The lembas stealing scene is a development out of the story addition in TTT, where the larger part of Frodo's attitudes toward Gollum are more shaped by identification with Gollum than pity and compassion for him. This development undercuts both Frodo's character and the story's focus on the importance of compassion. Tolkien makes explicit that there is nothing naive about Frodo's compassion for Gollum and he is totally aware of his probable treachery despite Frodo being weakened by the Ring. It's not only the films presentation of Frodo's blindness to Gollum, either through naive hope or addiction, but his coldness to Sam's tears that make him a character of less substance than Tolkien's. I don't believe this Frodo would have gotten this far without having already claimed the Ring. Character matters.

The changes in Sam's character make me less able to believe that this character could do what he is portrayed as doing. Sam repeatedly beats Gollum out of frustration and anger, not in defence of Frodo. Instead of a mamma lion fighting to protect they turn him into a pitbull. I don't believe someone who has so little control over his impulses to violence could have relinquished the Ring when Frodo asked for it. I know they added the violence for the sake of visual drama for storytelling in the cinematic medium, but in this case it is destroying character and is out of place. This is very different than the violence portrayed on the battlefield.We live in a violent world. We don't need interpersonal violence normalized like this by having exemplary characters engage in it.

SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS AND THE LACK OF A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

The worst moment of conflict between Sam and Frodo in the book is when Frodo calls Sam a thief. Frodo's behavior is clearly protrayed as a result of the Ring's influence. It happens quickly and when he returns to himself, he apologizes to Sam. Only the Ring comes between Frodo and Sam, not Gollum. I know increasing the three-way conflict is more dramatic, but it undermines the quality of the bond of trust between Frodo and Sam. You can add in all the tender moment scenes you want, but if you undermine the trust, the relationship is lessened. When Frodo realized Gollum has betrayed him and calls for Sam for the first time after leaving him in tears, the strength of the relationship, whether you see them as lovers or platonic friends, is made into a joke.

There's many moments when Sam could have mentioned his desire to marry Rosie, like even canonical moments. Why have this declaration right before Frodo and Sam share the most loving embrace, but to make the moment heteronormatively "safe" and undercut its tenderness. They follow this moment with a long black-out, as if to say, "imagine queer-sex here and have your slashy kinks" right after making sure we know Sam will do the straight thing if he had a choice. I'll have to develop this point further because it's really complicated, but this presentation, together with the lack of mention that Sam will sail, really doesn't make the picture feel queer positive to anyone who cares about the love in same-sex relationships, rather than protraying them for illicit sexual thrills. The way Tolkien leaves Sam's marriage to Rosie and Frodo and Sam's relationship is much more open--PJ, Walsh, and Boyen's Rotk closes down the possibilities.

OTHER CHARACTER GRIPES

Merry's story is a bit chopped (I know the EE will restore some of it), but Monaghan does great with what he is given. I hope the EE will give back some of Denethor's motivations that will make him more than a simple villainous mad person. While I like Arwen getting the chance to take Glorfindel's place in FotR and be Luthien-like, I particularly disliked what was done with Arwen's storyline in RotK. That her choice was decided by her future role as a child bearer and not her coming to grips with her own mortality, displays an even more conservative attitude toward women's agency than Tolkien evoked.

I warned you this would be a very mixed review. OK, I will develop many of these points further in an entry sometime after my friends Down Under have a shot at a viewing, but feel free to respond to this if you'd like to give me more to think about before I expand this review. What say you?

Comments

[seigneurdeloups.livejournal.com]

Sméagol's deteriorating beginning has no true transition into the film-- we see his little deterioration and then it cuts to Frodo and Sam. Perhaps it was trying to accent what could happen to Frodo because of the Ring, and in that case it works. But casual viewing would lead that as transitionless...a short film before the movie, almost. If the transition is to be taken as "look what could happen to Frodo", then it strengthens Frodo's identification with Sméagol rather than his pity or compassion for his 'addiction'.
The Frodo presented in the film is cold, and reminds me of MESPT Frodo (as we've said before). He seems terribly callouse towards Sam at times, and as if he doesn't need him--Sam becomes a conveniant pack mule that occasionally brays and kicks something for its 'rider'. He sided with Gollum far too often, making him (as you said) appear blind and naive to Gollum's treachery. This is especially seen not only with the scene with the lembas, but when we hear Gollum and Sméagol practically shouting their plans (Frodo sleeps like a rock apparently). Sam is chided and Frodo and Gollum walk off hand-in-hand. Hand in hand the addicts, the blind leading the blinder walk on.

Sam's character does seem to be going against himself-- in some cases, he does get near to what he is supposed to be (usually in the touching/endearing moments) but then immediatly hits the MESPT Sam button and begins punching again. He also struck me as being far more drear than Sam's character is. Perhaps that is just me, though.

I've already stated my views on the same sex issue elsewhere.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Yeah--it does lack transition--it feels all right there, but it does seem as if they could have stuck it in anywhere. And as I told you--I think it was a good scene, but the close-ups of fish eating could have been edited out without any loss to story or to the regret of the popcorn eating public.(-;

And yes, it does further their trying to develop the connection between Frodo and Smeagol through the transition. I think it's interesting, but should not have been used to the extent that it overshadows the differences in their two characters, and those differences are many. Not everyone in the same shoes will choose the same course of action (even if they don't wear shoes(-; ), and Smeagol is a murderous bastard upon first encounter with the Ring, even though he does elicit our sympathy--Frodo and Bilbo, aren't murderous bastards even if the Ring could have eventually wore them down and made them so.

Yup, film Frodo is half way between book Frodo and MESPT Frodo--way closer to MESPT in this movie than in the others. Ah well. Pass the lembas.

Film Sam is more sullen and too quiet, though I could deal with those changes because they don't make him unfit for the quest or make the two characters incompatible. Being quick to violence does make this version of Sam unfit. Book Sam talks and chitters contantly and is much more optimistic to Frodo's increasing fatalism. There are some changes I like--I'm glad Sam doesn't call Frodo master and make me cring like in the book in that way.

Yup, you have, and nicely.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I thought it was odd that the movie introduced the palantir, but then didn't indicate the role it played in Denethor's decline. Maybe in the extended edition--but I don't think the EE can be used to retroactively make the movie make sense.

I can see your interpretation that Frodo's and Sam's behavior--addiction and anger, respectively--shows basic flaws that would make them unfit as ringbearers. On the other hand, I can see arguing that the ring itself is bringing out those flaws, that almost anyone else would have done worse, and that the fact that they recover themselves at all, especially after that long with the ring and that close to Mordor, shows why they are fit to be ringbearers.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they used the plot thread Saruman's palantir provides to further Pippin's plotline and explain why he had to leave Rohan and be on his own without Merry, but totally left out Denethor's palantir which explains why he's such a crazy bastard. Maybe they will restore it in the EE, maybe not. The EE's don't help them with Oscars, but they've lead me to regard the theatrical releases as first drafts, and, as proved the case with the first two movies, I expect the RotK EE will be a better movie than the theatrical release. I don't know if you've seen the EE for TTT, but it really makes the changes to Faramir's character far more satisfying to me than in the theatrical version and corrects much of the choppiness--it's a far better movie. So the award granting institutions may have to catch up with this new practice if it gets to be widespread.

Reading the Ring as a metaphor for addiction is definitely canon, but it's only one element of what the Ring represents. Because the Ring is also a symbol of domination over others and violent control, how the characters react to and use violence is a very important story element that really gets mucked in the film's telling of the story. Perhaps they are leaving that element behind and are just focusing on the addiction aspect--but that makes it a far less interesting story to me. And again, I simply don't see the need for making Sam's character more quick to violence or Frodo's embracing of compassion as naive and self-interested--it frankly really bugs me that they did that.

[barbary-coast.livejournal.com]

The movie trilogy really is one big fanfic, isn't it?

I just saw the movie again and have posted some thoughts in my own LJ. Bad thoughts. Unhappy, grumbly thoughts. Mainly about Frodo.

I agree with you that this movie made Frodo appear to be far less compassionate than he is in the books. My main complaint is that Frodo seemed so very passive in all 3 movies, but particularly so in RotK.

I understand your point about the 3-way conflict, but I think that PJ played it this way because it was easier for him to show Gollum coming between Frodo and Sam than it would have been to show the ring itself coming between them. If I recall correctly, book Sam was concerned about Frodo's increasing reliance on Gollum. I'll have to check.

There's many moments when Sam could have mentioned his desire to marry Rosie, like even canonical moments. Why have this declaration right before Frodo and Sam share the most loving embrace, but to make the moment heteronormatively "safe" and undercut its tenderness.
I think that I understand why Sam's declaration of love for Rosie occured when it did. I truly don't think that there was an conscious or subconcious intent to make the scene het-friendly.

It seemed to me that PJ was using Rosie to symbolize Sam's interior emotional growth. At the beginning of the movie, Sam is clearly enamoured of her. He gazes at her in mute longing, but lacks the courage to even dance with her. As he faces what he thinks to be his death, he can admit what a great fool he had been to have been afraid of pursuing his love for that woman. At that moment, Sam thinks that he is about to die, and he is overwhelmed with regret at his own timidity. He has faced down legions of evil, but was too afraid to say 'I love you' to the woman he longed for.

It's a pretty mature near-death insight, for all that he didn't die. I don't think that it at all cheapened the spontaneous and genuinely loving embrace between Sam and Frodo immediately after Sam's speech about Rosie. Sam loves Rosie. True. Sam also equally loves Frodo. Also true. Frodo knows this, even if Sam cannot articulate it. Whether or not that love includes sex is anybody's guess. To me, the point is irrelevant. Sam and Frodo clearly love each other.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

It is a big fanfic.(-:

I didn't mind the change that made him more passive--I didn't think the change interfered with what is crucial in his character as a ringbearer. I missed his cranky quippiness, wit, scholarliness, curiosity and cosmopolitanism more, but I could let go of them as long as they retained his quality of kindness, resoluteness, graciousness and ability to listen and learn--essentially a compassionateness with a certain amount of wisdom. They messed with both those qualities in the film of RoTK and so essential "Frodoness" was lost, as far as I see it.

I understand what you're saying about it being appropriate for someone to speak their regrets when their demise is looking imminent. Frodo's line that Sam's regret is getting paired with, however, is significant, and this studio is in no way innocent of the attention the fans and many critics have given to the quality of the same-sex relationship between Sam and Frodo. PJ and Walsh have written about same-sexed themes before in Heavenly Creatures, and viewing these two films together, I question their agenda. I think they are treating same-sex relationships as something that should be left behind--in other words, I'll go as far as to say that the treatment is homophobic. In other words the queer dynamic of the book is being evoked to pander as well as to better contain it in the end. For whatever reasons, Tolkien left things so much more open.

[barbary-coast.livejournal.com]

I agree that the film producers are not oblivous to the homoerotic undercurrent that may be read into the story, but this does not mean that they are obligated to act upon it. I didn't find the film to be either homophobic or homoerotic. To me, the film clearly expressed the emotional love and profound bonding between Frodo and Sam. This is canon. They also clearly showed Sam's love for Rosie, which is also canon. The film ultimately expressed no more or less than the book. Had PJ done any less, book fans would have been in an uproar. Had he done anymore, and explicitly shown that Frodo and Sam were in love, there would also have been an uproar among book fans. That they love each other is beyond doubt. That they are in love is just an interpretation. As you point out, Tolkien left things very open to interpretation. The film does the same.

That said, I will be extraordinarily disappointed if the EE does not reveal that Sam will ultimately go west and join Frodo in the Undying Lands. Sam's line, "Well, I'm back," is not the end of his story. As I see it, Sam's true last line is, "Well, I'm here," when he joins Frodo again.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

My wish here is not that the film validate one interpretation over another, but leave the same possibilities open that the book did--I think the book itself, especially if you include the appendices (and even moreso if you include the epilogues Tolkien's beta readers discouraged him from including) really leaves lots of room for Frodo/Sam, Sam/Rosie, as well as Frodo/Sam/Rosie, all as canonical interpretations.

I really find that Sam's line about marrying Rosie right smack before Frodo's saying "I'm glad you're with me" and their loving embrace undercuts rather than affirms both possibilities. Again, it's not a level playing field--put them right smack against each other, and homosexual relationships, with their outlaw status are really depriviledged next to acknowledged heterosexual ones. And, at the same time, heterosexual ones really need to be problematized, because you never know if they are presented by obligation only. (-;

Anyway, because I consider PJ and Walsh to be very savvy in how they are presenting all these relationship possibilites, I think they had to have been aware of the juxtaposition of the marrying Rosie line in that scene and how it would undercut Sam and Frodo's embrace. I've just seen this technique too many times, and I'm a wary queer viewer.

OK, to be totally honest, I wouldn't mind if they closed down interpretations to only include Sam/Frodo-- it would be quite a surprise indeed. There.(-;

I sure hope they restore that line in the EE--see? Leaving it out also undercuts the importance of Sam and Frodo's bond, whether you read it to involve sexuality or not. I like your true last line.(-: And you must positively read the appendices!!!! Sam's future sailing is made explicit there and Elanor compares Sam's feelings for Frodo with Celeborn's for Galadriel and Aragorn's for Arwen. Too cool! No wonder Tolkien's beta readers wouldn't let him keep it--it makes F/S too explicit even for the 1950s.(-;

[barbary-coast.livejournal.com]

I think that I need to read these epilogues. I read the appendices each time I read the books, but it has been years.

In my own personal view, Sam loves Rosie and Frodo equally. I truly don't think that Tolkien included the Sam/Rosie pairing out of any sense of het-friendly obligation. I think that it was meant to be a genuinely loving relationship, complete in itself, though not completely all that Sam needed. Sam also completely loves Frodo. His heart is truly torn in two. Frodo knew this, which is why he wanted Sam to live that portion of his life with Rosie. When Sam ultimately does come to Frodo, Sam will have no regrets. He will come to Frodo with happy memories, an enriched life, and the ability to give his heart over completely to Frodo.

Forgetting the appendices and the dropped epilogues for a moment, I think that Tolkien did leave enough clues in the text to justify a same-sex, loving relationship between Sam and Frodo. One could also intprepret this relationship as an expression of completely idealized platonic love. Both interpretations, to me, are equally valid. Were I to view it through the lens of my own personal view of idealized love, I'd say that Sam is bi-sexual and simply doesn't see gender as an issue when it comes to love. Were I to view it through what I think that Tolkien consciously intended, I'd say that he intended the relationship to be platonic. If anything, to me he was making a very conscious statement about crossing class lines, not gender lines. Were I to view it through what I think that Tolkien unconsciously expressed, I would put a bi-sexual spin on the relationship.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

I didn't adress your second point. I do understand it's easier depicting Gollum coming between Frodo and Sam than the Ring, but I wish they stuck to the harder path then. Having Gollum come inbetween weakens the bond between Sam and Frodo. And book Sam is concerned about Gollum--there is definitely three way strain going on, and Sam thinks that Frodo's compassion toward Gollum is somewhat naive--Tolkien is explicit about that being a misinterpretation on Sam's part of kindness for weakness. So then the film turns around and makes the same misinterpretation as Sam did.

And I will wander over to your LJ soon. (-:

[barbary-coast.livejournal.com]

There are so many times when I'd wished that the films had stuck to the 'harder path' as you put it. I regret almost every instance that PJ simplified the story to make it more assessible.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Yes. Again, I'm not by any means a purist it's just that the changes I liked best were in FotR, and the changes in that film that I didn't care for did not undercut what I found most valuable about the story and characters--the changes in TTT, and moreso in RoTK, did undercut.

One interesting thing I've learned, though, by viewing the film trilogy, is that something I always considered a structural flaw in the books, really isn't. I always thought Frodo and Sam's quest should have been integrated with the other storylines in the books, and the films did just that. The problems you and I have with Frodo's portrayal as well as my problems with the relationship's portrayal aside, I think Frodo and Sam's quest really suffers when juxtaposed with big epic battle scenes and councils of state. You lose the sense of it's grueling relentlessness. It's hard to present the more subtle hardships of sleep deprivation, starvation, exhaustion and chill, next to rolling heads and falling battlements, without them seeming trivialized. I'm not sure if it could be done really effectively--dunno. So PJ focused more on dragging out the fight with Shelob, and three way struggle, and Frodo's final struggle with Gollum instead. Tolkien really did right in setting the quest sections apart from the other storylines.