XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article ,
Paul S. Person wrote:
> Kind of like the "spaghetti western" music in /Kelly's Heroes/ -- it
> was so clearly /bad/ "spaghetti western" music that it immediately
> made it clear that the "spaghetti western" music in actual "spaghetti
> westerns" (particularly those with Eastwood) was /good/ "spaghetti
> western" music, a category which, up to that time, was not generally
> acknowledged to exist.
"Spaghetti Western" was used throughout the sixties, and was in
reference to the typical italian director + spanish/italian actors
which was joined by american actors like Clint Eastwood when the genre
grew. The Dollar Trilogy ('64 - '67) is mostly used to define the
genre, even though it was larger than those.
Kelly's Heroes came in 1970, and it's really just the "standoff" with
the Tank that is an obvious nod to Clints spaghetti western heritage.
And it's mean as an ironic remark or a tribute rather than a serious
attempt at that genre.
> I am not, myself, much of a "fantasy" fan; I am more of a "science
> fiction" fan. But, in a discussion with a colleague many years ago, it
> came to my attention that there are "science fiction" films which are
> really something else set in a "science fiction" environment (that is,
> using "science fiction" elements), and then there are a very small
> number of films that actually /are/ Science Fiction. My colleague
> liked the former; he did not like the latter.
>
> Perhaps "fantasy" works the same way: most "fantasy" films are really
> something else with "fantasy" elements, and only a very few are actual
> Fantasy.
Fantasy movies or Fantasy stories are defined by having a strong
presence of magic and supernatural phenomenons. It seems to me that
you want to claim that (to you) Lord of the Rings is not Fantasy,
while it is generally acknowledged that Lord of the Rings pretty much
defined that genre - or rather it's current form at least.
But I'm fear it may be with deeper motives than such - that it's not
Lord of the Rings that you consider not to be Fantasy, but rather that
it's the film adaptation that is not Fantasy (for reasons unknown).
Also, I may be totally wrong. :)
> This is, of course, a matter of personal taste, but the only suspense
> I felt was when Aragorn went over the cliff -- and that was because I
> entertained the joyfull thought that we were done with that loser and
> that the film would undergo a great improvement as a result. Alas, it
> was not to be.
I'm beginning to suspect more and more for every post I read from you
that you're not justified to comment on any work of art at all. Why
the childish attitude? What debating points do you imagine you're
scoring? It is well known that you dislike the movies with poorly
articulated reasons, why keep dragging it up all the time? Let it go -
no one is trying to persuade you of anything.
> The "miserably" was aimed at the use of attempts to create tension
> pre-emptively: by having Saruman show us a Balrog (which he claims
> Gandalf is well-aware of, something that is clearly not so in JRRT's
> story)
How so? Why would Gandalf not be aware of the faith of Durin? Even if
the dwarves could not identify a Balrog, Gandalf could very much guess
the source of his demise.
> or by having Galadriel warn us of Faramir by attacking his
> character before we even meet him.
So, uh, when does this happen? Galadriel warns Frodo about malice from
within the fellowship, when does she ever speak about Faramir? I'm
assuming you're talking about some voice-over that I can't remember?
> I've seen this in a few other films, and it always ends up
> relieving the tension because you already know what you is going
> on.
It's a way to tell a story. You may not like it and I may agree to
some point. In the case of the Balrog, it serves the same purpose as
when Boromir says "And they have a cave troll".
It's also pretty widely used. Obi Wan saying "That's no moon", or even
the golden statue base slowly sinking when Indiana Jones have placed
the bag. The big stone ball doesn't immediately come rolling, but we
know that something will happen. It's called a buildup where a plain
reveal is actually less suspenseful. I.e. if we just keep approaching
the death star and no one on the ship mentions it, it's actually less
of a reveal.
A big fiery monster jumping up in front of Gandalf is enough of a
reveal in itself, granted, and there was enough of flames and
rumblings to create enough of a buildup up until then, but it's no
less of a buildup than to hear Gandalf speak of Mount doom before Sam
and Frodo arrives there (i.e. in the book).
> It should also be kept in mind that we both had read the book at some
> point before seeing the film. A person who had never read the book
> might feel differently about this.
Naturally. But it's still just a way to tell a story. I think you
imagined it taking suspense away because you already knew what was
coming (or at least, you probably had assumed that a film adaptation
of LotR would lean towards the "huge winged fiery monster" version of
the Balrog, much like the illustrators had for decades).
As such, the buildup seems unnecessary and too much of a giveaway
since Saruman is outright showing a picture of it, which to you isn't
very ambiguous at all, but to someone who hasn't seen decades worth of
illustrations of a Balrog may not be.
Think of it when Brett in Alien finds the skin of the alien in the
cooling room. It's pretty much the same kind of buildup. I.e. it
prematurely shows the audience something about the appearance of a
monster they have barely seen. Now imagine this was a film adaptation
of a novel and in the book - the reveal of the Alien having grown in
size is a complete surprise (conveyed by dialogue or thoughts), in the
movie it's built up with this layer of skin found, which makes the
audience accept the size difference more easily in a visual media.
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
