Would Sandra Bullock be a good Mrs. Isildur?: Re: Performing Tolkien

» isengar - Re: Performing Tolkien

In response to message posted by SAyleen:

Hi SAyleen, you've got me on a roll. Since we come from similar educational backgrounds, I'm sure you noticed my bias for Kubrick. That's not to say he's the only one that's done book adaptations, he's just the only one that I believe has achieved excellence. We are talking about films after all and I take that seriously. Kubrick, Tolkien and Kurt Cobain. Thems my boys.

Sean Astin's a part of my childhood. Remember _Goonies_? Great flick. I still watch it with my sister when I get the chance. I love Sam a lot, too. I'm not particularly fond of Frodo yet. There's just something about Sam. I wish there were more Sams out there. You know what gets me? How Tolkien and Sam cared about Bill the Pony. That's sweet.

I never saw _Meet the Applegates_. I did see _Heavenly Creatures_. Very disturbing and not as avant-garde during a second viewing as it wanted to appear. I will share my theory on this director. I read his last film _The Frighteners_ was a huge flop. He's using the huge Tolkien fanbase to guarantee himself three hits. It's pretty sick. He knows many like you will go see his films anyway for the chance to at least have the books visualized, since the opportunity might not come again for some time.

You know, we can complain about the little yet significant changes he makes as director of the movies, like leaving out Tom Bombadil or making the storm on Cardhras Saruaman's fault, but none of that is really the point. You can get away with significant changes from the original if they are intelligent and have an actual purpose besides saving screen time for the "good stuff." Kubrick did this superbly. Have you ever seen Federico Fellini's _The Nights of Cabiria_? It's a story about a prostitute seeking desperately for love and a way out of her dreary existence. That came out in 1957 and didn't have any special effects and for the most part was shot very simply. But do you know what makes that a film I will never forget? The love that director poured into that film. If you're not crying by the time the film ends, you're simply not human.

My point is the love permeates every frame of that film. You don't see this today. _The Lord of the Rings_ movie is so devoid of any emotion that you want to strangle the director. While the final scene is very heart-wrenching, that's because they stuck to what Tolkien wrote and because I love Sean Astin--I believe Sean Astin. And that's all it really takes, man. That's the point. The heart of cinema was never special effects but love in its creation.

As for stage adaptations of _The Hobbit_, I'm afraid I'm not as in touch with what happens in theatre as I'd like to but what you've been relating sounds horrendous. I'm excited to hear you're attempting an adaptation that does it justice. That's what we need. Just remember, it'll be good if you do it out of love, not ticket sales. Corporate America would have us think otherwise, but look how well they're doing.

Thanks for sharing,
isengar

P.S. I think _The Hobbit_ as a play could be very Shakesparean in its mix of tragedy and comedy. It's got a huge battle scene like _Henry V_, a mystical but dangerous forest like _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and Thorin Oakenshield can go out like Richard III screaming, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

-- posted by isengar