storytelling

There are many things to like about the Rings Trilogy, and even more to admire in the way the films were put together. Assuming for a moment that a person likes the genre -- which I do -- then there's not much to complain about here. The camera work, editing, special effects, settings, costumes, all fantastic.

The acting, too, is pretty much without flaw, and there's not a misstep in the casting anywhere. Nothing like the Harry Potter movies where the inexperience of some of the actors really jumps out at you; these are all dyed in the wool professionals, easy in their roles, in command.

The obvious sore point must be the common problem to any movie like this, when a long book or series of books are adapted for the screen. Choosing among storylines, balancing conflicts, leaving details go or emphasizing others. But even in this most difficult of areas, they did very well indeed.

A few things I could have done without: the jaunt into the mountain to recruit the dishonored soldiers (I won't say anything more here, except, it was an addition, and one that distracted, I thought, rather than adding to the story); and the long, long, long treatment of What Happened Next to the Hobbits. Really, we didn't need to see it all in such excruciating detail. I for one would have much much more interested in seeing The King settled down with (well, okay, I won't go into it. But it would have been good to see more of that, and less of tearful goodbyes).

I do like this trilogy, but it's not something I'm in a hurry to see again. Simply because it's hard to sit still for so long and retain a congenial frame of reference.

Posted by at 8:47 PM | Permalink

Critics are so predictable. I knew most of them would sniff loudly at this movie. Here's my theory: it's okay to be sentimental about teaching if the teacher in question is a male. Goodbye Mr. Chips, Dead Poet's Society, To Sir with Love, all of these movies were guilty of sliding into the maudlin, but nobody said so (or at least nobody I can find online said so).

So here's Julia Roberts as a young academic who wants to go teach at Wellesley because she's got the idea (in 1953) that women there are smart and aware and not caught up in the fairy tale. She finds out things are more complicated than she expected, and we follow her through the year as she struggles with her conception of herself and her goals and the way she approaches the world.

I liked this move, though it was clumsy at points. It didn't take cheap shots or resort to easy answers, for the most part, and Julia Roberts gains more presence with every movie.

Posted by at 8:45 PM | Permalink

An editor (who shall remain nameless, except to say she isn't my American editor) made the comment that 'nobody likes letters... cut them?' and then later in her comments for the same manuscript 'more letters. cut?'

I personally like letters. No, I love the occasional letter between characters. But maybe I'm wrong about this. Anybody?

Posted by at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)