XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > It's always nice to have an alternative opinion.   
   > >   
   > > > This reads as if you have not read the books. So I will confine   
   > > > myself to pointing out that /most if not all of what you   
   > > > criticise is in the book/.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > I've read the first book, though. Didn't enjoy it. Poorly written   
   > > and uninteresting story/characters.   
   >   
   > Then why would you expect the movies to be any better?   
      
   I didn't :)   
      
   > Why deliberately watch a film of a book you didn't enjoy?   
      
   The kids wanted to see it, and I won't let me prejudice get in the way of   
   their desires :)   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > And I'm not sure what you mean by "character development".   
   > > > Katniss' charater is pretty much the same in the Epilogue as it   
   > > > is at the start of /The Hunger Games/. She is very resistant to   
   > > > change, and, without change, there can be no development.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > But that's the problem. Character development doesn't necessarily   
   > > mean change, it means that the audience gets to know things about   
   > > a character. In a book, this is easy most of the time, especially   
   > > if it is written in first person. This way, the reader gets to   
   > > experience the events form inside the head of the protagonist, so   
   > > her thoughts and feelings are character development even if they   
   > > don't change over the course of the story.   
   >   
   > > In a movie, and especially a movie adaptation, this needs to be   
   > > conveyed by the script and more specifically the actor. The   
   > > thoughts and feelings of the character needs to be visualized so   
   > > the viewer gets an idea of what the character is thinking and   
   > > feeling. Jennifer Lawrence just isn't a good enough character to   
   > > do this in a convincing way. But it works both ways, the director   
   > > is equally responsible.   
   >   
   > That would be a pity, if true, since one of the special features   
   > that came with the film states that they choose her because they   
   > wanted an actress who can handle the emotional range.   
      
   Oh, yeah, that's ironic. The only other actress I can think of that has   
   less emotional range is Kirsten Stewart. Mind you, there was one scene in   
   the last movie were she at least gave the appearance of emotion, even if it   
   was illogical. It's when she thought Gale had been captured/killed in the   
   tribute center and she got all torn up over possibly having lost them both.   
   There was emotion in that scene, even if it was out of the blue and nothing   
   in the movies prior to that would give the viewer any reason to think   
   that's how she would react to possibly losing them both. But still, some   
   emotion. Other than that, she's a flat wall of expressionlessness.   
      
   Mind you, Lawrence *has* given good performances. If you haven't seen it,   
   you should watch Winter's Bone.   
      
   > I disagree with you. Take a careful look at Katniss in the early   
   > part of the first film: in the "farewell" room, before anyone   
   > enters, she is clearly just realizing what she had done to herself.   
   > On the train, after Haymitch leaves, she not only says "nobody can   
   > help" but is clearly totally discouraged by her situation. In the   
   > launch room, we see that her self-control (well, except for the   
   > arrow) and calm nerves were all just an act, as she reacts to Cinna.   
   > One way to enjoy the first film is to watch the changes in Katniss'   
   > mental state -- and her mental state, after two trips to the Arena,   
   > is front-and-center at the start of this movie (Mockingjay 1).   
      
   Well, I disagree with most of the above. I won't claim there is *no*   
   emotion (for that, hire Kirsten Stewart), but it's generally on cue and   
   "now there's an emotional scene here, Jennifer, you need to do X and Y,   
   instead of an ongoing performance from her throughout the movie.   
      
   I think the problem is that Katniss/Jennifer has no character traits to   
   begin with. I mean, to keep this slightly OT, take Martin Freeman for   
   example, in the role of Bilbo. I won't claim he's the perfect actor or the   
   perfect Bilbo or anything, but even without any stimuli, he is a character,   
   he has a way to speak, a way to react and a presence in a scene. Now, this   
   isn't necessarily *Bilbo* character traits, more like Martin Freeman   
   traits, seeing how he has the same traits in Sherlock as well.   
      
   But that's why you pick a certain actor, to give a character a baseline to   
   work from. Some actors doesn't have a baseline because they build the   
   character from the ground up (method acting), but most actors already have   
   a demeanor which is why they're chosen for a part. Jennifer Lawrence   
   doesn't have, or haven't developed a baseline and she's not a method actor   
   either. That means that her performance hinges greatly on the director, and   
   in this case, it falls flat.   
      
   She reacts on cue, in specific scenes, but unless the script says so, she   
   has a blank stare and shows nothing to the audience about her inner   
   thoughts and feelings.   
      
   To go back to Martin Freeman, which is an example I choose because he's NOT   
   a great actor, but he has a comedic style which colors his performance   
   throughout the movies, and THEN you have the emotional scenes, like when he   
   stabs the albino-beetle-whatever and claims the ring, which swiftly turns   
   into a very expressive "what am I becoming" moment where you know EXACTLY   
   what he is thinking and feeling without him saying a word. It's a good   
   example of a baseline of a quirky, funny and rather uncomfortable character   
   that is added depth in key scenes by nothing else than the actors ability   
   to act. :)   
      
   > > > > Sandman:   
   > > > > The Hobbit has the same problems, but it actually   
   > > > > *has* more story outside of the book to incorporate for those   
   > > > > unneccesary scenes.   
   > > >   
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > Indeed it does -- but it's not JRRT's story is it?   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, uh, sure it is. It's just spread out over different books   
   > > and texts. That is - the parts of The Hobbit movies that ARE lent   
   > > from other sources, not the superflous added stuff.   
   >   
   > The first film was fairly close (for PJ & accomplices, but then,   
   > IIRC, Chris Columbus had a screenwriter credit and may have insisted   
   > on following the book more than the others liked). The second film   
   > diverged considerably (think: Smaug's gold bath), and the third is   
   > likely to continue its divergence, although we shall have to see   
   > when it actually is released.   
      
   Apples and oranges, here.   
      
   We have three movies, that contain:   
      
   1. Material from the book The Hobbit   
   2. Material from other JRRT books/sources   
   3. Added made up stuff by the movie makers.   
      
   The gold bath falls into category 3, while I was talking about category 2.   
   My meaning was that the third Hunger Games book does not have material to   
   support two full length movies, which is why the first part was so slow and   
   eventless. The Hobbit doesn't have enough material to support *three*   
   full-length movies, but the movie makers have addressed that by drawing   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)