Doji Grovesai

LotR: Return of the King

Hey, look at me! The last one in the civilized world to see Return of the King!

Of course, this isn't entirely my fault, as the first opportunity found us without money, the second time Juli didn't feel well, and the third time was today. Wee.

On a quick side-note, I think that movie theaters in general should put an age cap on seeing movies. Like, under 5. We saw the 8:10 show (that's p.m.), and somebody came in with a 3 year old and an infant. Yes, an infant. The kid didn't even last through the previews before the crying and whimpering started. We will not be those parents, believe you me.

But back to the movie. This third installment was very good. While I felt that Two Towers dragged a bit and carried on a little too long, I think Return of the King, with its even additional length was very well done. As an adaptation of a novel, I think RotK (and the trilogy in general) was much better than average. As a movie in its own right, I think it was superb.

When it comes to adaptations (novel, comic, what have you), I am not a purist by any stretch of the imagination. I think that the staff needs to have some measure of control over the direction of the film, so long as key parts stay in tact. In the entire Tolkein trilogy, nearly everything is a key element. I think this is one reason that Tolkein's work has become akin to modern classical literature. Or something. In any case, to see things like Sam not talking with Galadriel (Fellowship) or having no epilogue (Return of the King) I was disappointed. The other issue I have with the trilogy as an adaptation was the pacing. Granted, every book has parts that are hard to get through, but that's the measure of the author: the less "hard" parts the better the author. And there were distinct parts of the movie (especially this last one) where things just didn't fit right. I felt like they were taking unnecessary breaks in action to bring out some other thing which may or may not have been better placed within the chronology.

The good, however, more than outweighs the bad. The cast was excellent. Additionally, there are many things that can only be experience by appealing to the senses. Again, the measure of an author: how well they can bring you into the scene, and if they can make you feel something for the characters. The acting and imagery did this job perfectly. And lastly, any adaptation (regardless of its "purity" to the original work) must evoke feelings for the original work (provided you have experience with said work). As I watched the movie, I remembered those days spent at Hillside Junior High, reading the trilogy and discussing it with my friends. Peter Jackson did a phenominal job of making sure that the movie carried the same weight as the book (regardless of "purity") and the same emotions that the novels evoked.

Relating back to that last point, about feelings for the original work, I thought of the trilogy (written work and screenplay) and the allegories that lie within. The themes of loyalty and friendship, loss of innocence, redemption, and the classic good vs. evil. Back then (reading the novels in the 7th grade), they were clear. About 11 years later, life makes some interesting changes in the way you look at things. And it changed the way I looked at The Lord of the Rings. It's a little late to be getting into that, but needless to say that the last thing that makes good literature (or any media, really) is whether or not you learn something and/or are better for the experience. Again, the trilogy passes the test.