I always knew that Peter Jackson was a stylistic director. She takes what she needs to take and sacrifices herself for a greater good. There's no scenario where Eowyn and Aragorn end up together, but by giving her dimensions of willpower, it makes the character so much more interesting. It's very cool, because that character could be considered burdensome in a movie that already has a love interest. Her entire love for Aragorn is shown through her actions and her lack of action. Eowyn once begrudgingly confronts Aragorn about her position having to defend the women in the caves and that's it. Similarly, there are characters like Eowyn who are new characters, who get their entire arc through their actions. Sure, there are moments where Sam and Frodo are just talking about the burden that the ring is and discuss their thoughts on Gollum, but these scenes are precursors to awesome moments like the journey through the swamp. I can kind of agree with that, but I think the Lord of the Rings novels and films show that character development can happen within the context of narrative storytelling. I'm taking a grad course right now that really stresses the value of character development over plot in great literature. Very little time is spent wholly on developing character in isolation, but rather in the midst of plot. I love character development, but the character development of The Lord of the Rings movies comes from indirect characterization and character actions. What makes the four hour runtime work is the fully developed plots that run simultaneously. Something just switched off and now I have to be wide awake to enjoy a film. Also, ever since I turned 30, I now havea harder time staying awake during movies. For a guy who loves movies so much, I also know that being lazy and looking at my phone is an option. Someone tells me that the runtime of a movie is over two hours, I'm sure my blood pressure goes up a little bit. Let's all call a spade a spade: a long movie needs to be great to really be watchable. What mainly makes the movie work is the fact that it crushes its four hour runtime. Not having watched The Fellowship of the Ring in at least a year-and-a-half, this reentry to the Lord of the Rings is great, if not super somber. The only reason that I lumped it in as a weaker film is because I kept on watching it immediately after the one I loved so much. What would it be like starting from what I considered a weak spot? It was a weird choice on my part because The Two Towers was always the weakest of the series for me. Why? Because it's been forever since I've watched it and I know everything that happens in Fellowship. This time, I just said start with The Two Towers. I get a little burnt out on these movies over time, so I can't ever sit down and review them. These movies, especially in their extended format, are just so long. I want to review all of them, but I just keep watching the first three-quarters of The Fellowship of the Ring (my favorite of the group). I keep starting The Lord of the Rings movies over and over. But I like that PG-13 can have people's heads being chopped off and their intestines thrown about willy-nilly and still manage to attract an audience. There's a lot of decapitations and dismemberment for a PG-13 film.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |