J.R.R. Tolkien crafted a marvelous cliff-hanger to conclude The Two Towers. A living Frodo is abducted by orcs and imprisoned in a near-impenetrable tower. Sam is the new Ring-Bearer and refuses to go on the quest without Frodo. Gollum's malicious nature has reached its apex, and he lies dangerously near in wait for the ring. To only complicate matters, Tolkien's style of splitting each book into one part dedicated to Frodo and Sam and another to the remainder of the Fellowship ensures that the reader will have to wait all the way through Book 5 before the journey of the ring is picked up again. The end of The Two Towers is a masterful ending, and it is a genuine shame that Peter Jackson deviated from it as much as he did.
However, I understand why Jackson may have made the decisions he did. Had he decided to finish The Two Towers with Frodo's capture and Sam's difficult decision, he would have only been left with the skirmish at Cirith Ungol, the passage of Mordor, and the final destruction of the Ring in The Return of the King. After all, the majority of Book 6 of The Lord of the Rings takes place after the destruction of the ring. Still then, Jackson may have been able to fit more of the return journey back and the Scouring of the Shire had he stayed more faithful to the books themselves.
I am an avid fan of the movies, and I do not always turn up my nose at cinematic liberty (i.e., the elves at Helm's Deep). Still, I do wonder how directors decide what to keep from the original source and what they choose to change or even discard. Jackson added a visit to Osgiliath in The Two Towers but wrote out the takeover of the Shire by Saruman. The former served little purpose while the other would have dramatically shown the tremendous changes each of the hobbits encountered on their journey that prepared them to stand up to a rogue wizard and his motley band of thugs.
What are your thoughts on cinematic liberty? Why do you think directors are fine with "messing with" the order of events? Do you think the movies would have been better had they kept with Tolkien's design?
Hi Aragorn!
ReplyDeleteIn this instance I think cinematic liberty in this instance is welcome! I have mixed feelings about "messing with" the order of things usually, however I think I understand Jackson's point of view (...maybe). Jackson seemed to want The Return of the King to be more balanced between the rest of the Fellowship and leading up to the destruction of the ring. While I'm definitely happy with Tolkien's order of events, I think that this could have been a choice he even thought of at some point (albeit went with the more suspenseful one for clear reasons) I think Jackson ultimately wanted a bit of a different focus and feeling for Return of the King than what Tolkien was aiming for. Which in this case I can actually be content with.
In general I think a lot about the movies was done poorly. I had never thought about this particular sequence, because I only watched the movies once and it was a while ago, but you are very much right that Peter destroyed a cliffhanger, when usually people try to create more compelling ones that's a really strange choice, and I'm not sure what to think about it. I think that the scouring of the shire is one of the coolest parts of the books, and I was definitely sad it didn't make it into the movies.
ReplyDeleteI actually like most of these changes. I hate cliffhangers and I like that both the first and second movie end with Sam and Frodo just continuing on their long journey walking further and further into danger. It really cements how long their quest was in my mind. I also think that Jackson was saving any footage of Mordor aside from one or two scenes showing barad dur and so on.It builds more suspense to have them only reach the edge of it near the end of the whole ordeal. I also really like that the second movie ends with Faramir letting them leave from Osgiliath, I know some people dont like that Jackson had him initially decide to keep the ring but I think it actually works better because it shows how his devotion to his father and his brother initially cloud his judgement but in the end he realizes just how destructive it is and that it needs to be destroyed.
ReplyDeleteAs for the scouring of the shire it would have been interesting to see that in the movies. It could have been used to help explain why frodo cant stay in middle earth. Because the destroyed shire would serve as a metaphor for what happened to him.