I wasn't disappointed, but I agree that there were many scenes I could have lived without in favor of including parts of the original plot. For example, I could have lived without endless footage of the beacons of Gondor, or without Legolas shooting an elephant.
Why not instead tell us why Denethor went mad? Or spend a few words expounding on Gandalf's achieivement as the Enemy of Sauron, or the West's general reverence for Frodo's accomplishment? Or show us Eowyn and Faramir meeting each other in the Houses of Healing?
My real criticism is that the movie was too short:-). Just have to wait a year for the extended edition I suppose...
I thought that the statement "even if those days are set in an Oxford don's fantasy life," in the article, "The Messages in a Battle," was a dead giveaway that his comments applied to ROTK.
In the review that you link to, Stephen Hunter does give us more on his opinion of the battles in ROTK: ""Return of the King," like many epic fantasies, decodes into straight combat stuff. We fight a big fight over here to keep from being overrun; meanwhile, our commandos try and sneak in and deliver a death blow over there."
So, for Mr. Hunter, "Return of the King" is only about a battle, and that battle is simply one with "a high body count, combined with moral righteousnes" where "enemies were demons, and best of all, killing them was holy work about which no one had to be guilty." Would Mr. Hunter have us feel guilty for Aragorn, Gandalf, etc. because all those poor orcs were killed?
Maybe we should, because we get the sarcastic "It's better that way, don't you think? It's certainly easier" comment about the portrayal of war in ROTK (and combat, as stated in Mr. Hunter's other review, is essentially what the story "decodes" into).
He may have won a Pulitzer Prize, but I still think that this reading of ROTK misses the other dimensions of the story. Like many critical works that seek to "decode" the artifacts of popular culture, "The Messages in a Battle" selectively analyzes only those elements that further its own political agenda.
It's only a movie review, I know, but LOTR is near and dear to me (there, I've revealed my own bias, but you probably guessed it anyway since I'm posting on/.;-) ), and I could not resist.
"In those days, even if those days are set in an Oxford don's fantasy life, war was war, war was man's business, up was up, down was down, enemies were demons, and best of all, killing them was holy work about which no one had to be guilty. It's nice to deal with a war that, though rendered in color, still plays in moral black-and-white. Thus one hallmark of the modern old-fashioned war movie is a high body count, combined with moral righteousness. It's better that way, don't you think? It's certainly easier."
I am so grateful that this reviewer took it upon himself to decode the real meaning encoded in the RotK battles for all of us ignorant non-semioticians. Now that I know, I can feel real guilty about rooting for the good guys, because war is always wrong.
No mention of the other "messages" in this battle: reflections of J.R.R.T.'s real-world experience of the horrors of WWI trench warfare; the concept that, even in this age of relativism, there are some things worth fighting for; the cost of war; etc.
Of course, it's nice to criticize a movie that, though rendered in color, still plays in moral black-and-white. Thus one hallmark of the modern movie critic is to snipe at any attempt to portray notions of absolute good and evil, combined with moral righteousness. It's better that way, don't you think? It's certainly easier.;-)
For an interesting counter-arguement, check out this,
an essay by writer Gene Wolfe (who, btw, wrote a
series of books, known as "The Book of the New Sun," as fantastic as Tolkien's but in a different way).
Slashdot Mirror
Why not instead tell us why Denethor went mad? Or spend a few words expounding on Gandalf's achieivement as the Enemy of Sauron, or the West's general reverence for Frodo's accomplishment? Or show us Eowyn and Faramir meeting each other in the Houses of Healing?
My real criticism is that the movie was too short :-). Just have to wait a year for the extended edition I suppose ...
In the review that you link to, Stephen Hunter does give us more on his opinion of the battles in ROTK: ""Return of the King," like many epic fantasies, decodes into straight combat stuff. We fight a big fight over here to keep from being overrun; meanwhile, our commandos try and sneak in and deliver a death blow over there."
So, for Mr. Hunter, "Return of the King" is only about a battle, and that battle is simply one with "a high body count, combined with moral righteousnes" where "enemies were demons, and best of all, killing them was holy work about which no one had to be guilty." Would Mr. Hunter have us feel guilty for Aragorn, Gandalf, etc. because all those poor orcs were killed?
Maybe we should, because we get the sarcastic "It's better that way, don't you think? It's certainly easier" comment about the portrayal of war in ROTK (and combat, as stated in Mr. Hunter's other review, is essentially what the story "decodes" into).
He may have won a Pulitzer Prize, but I still think that this reading of ROTK misses the other dimensions of the story. Like many critical works that seek to "decode" the artifacts of popular culture, "The Messages in a Battle" selectively analyzes only those elements that further its own political agenda.
It's only a movie review, I know, but LOTR is near and dear to me (there, I've revealed my own bias, but you probably guessed it anyway since I'm posting on /. ;-) ), and I could not resist.
I am so grateful that this reviewer took it upon himself to decode the real meaning encoded in the RotK battles for all of us ignorant non-semioticians. Now that I know, I can feel real guilty about rooting for the good guys, because war is always wrong.
No mention of the other "messages" in this battle: reflections of J.R.R.T.'s real-world experience of the horrors of WWI trench warfare; the concept that, even in this age of relativism, there are some things worth fighting for; the cost of war; etc.
Of course, it's nice to criticize a movie that, though rendered in color, still plays in moral black-and-white. Thus one hallmark of the modern movie critic is to snipe at any attempt to portray notions of absolute good and evil, combined with moral righteousness. It's better that way, don't you think? It's certainly easier. ;-)
For an interesting counter-arguement, check out this, an essay by writer Gene Wolfe (who, btw, wrote a series of books, known as "The Book of the New Sun," as fantastic as Tolkien's but in a different way).