Let's have some fun! These are 15 last lines from some of my favorite movies...get your answers to me via comments or face book. Whoever gets the most right wins a prize I will later reveal. I am trusting my readers to not cheat by looking on the internet for answers-I knew all these by heart, though on one or two I did look them up to get them exactly right....have fun!! And, if I got one or two words wrong, please, have mercy :)
1. "Let's see what else is on...yeah, where's the TV Guide?"
2. "She wouldn't hurt a fly"
3. "He's my brother"
4. "Son of a b***h, he stole my line."
5. "Louie, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
6. "Two more months..."
7. "No, it's for me."
8. "How much does it pay?"
9. "Maybe it was Utah..."
10. "As you wish."
11. "Yes...I can see now."
12. "You're a swine."
13. "That'll Do..."
14. "That's The Dumbest Thing I've ever heard."
15. "I'll be right here."
Friday, August 5, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Lord Of the Rings
We were home from Chicago for Christmas in 2001. It was 3 months after the World Trade Center had been destroyed, and Stephanie and I had made our way to LA to see our family. We had been awaiting the opening of "Lord of the Rings" with great interest, and we decided to watch the new movie with our families. As a venue, we chose a new annex to Hollywood's classic Chinese Theater. As we made our way into that theater, we left Hollywood and were transported elsewhere.
Awhile back, I wrote an entry about "Jane Eyre," and I began to talk a little bit about how one can rate a film that is based on a book. Coming to "The Lord of the Rings", this question obviously pops up again. What I found fascinating as I watched the three parts and then read the novel again was how well these movies did justice to the novel, even though they actually made some significant plot changes. I think that speaks volumes about how well Peter Jackson and company nailed the spirit of the characters first and foremost. The elements of the plot of any story are relatively easy to capture, since they are already written down for the filmmaker. But anytime you have to capture the spirit of a character on film, that is where the great test lies for the filmmaker attempting to translate a book into a movie.
The other thing these movies allowed me to do was have a new appreciation for JRR Tolkien's work. I am not a passionate fan of the verbose work of Tolkien, and the first time I read The Lord of the Rings, I found it difficult to follow the plot due to the overwhelming detail with which I was coming into contact. In a way, the films gave me the skeleton of the plot, so I understood it. Therefore, the next time I sat down to read the novel, I was thoroughly engrossed in the work, as I should have been the first time.
This epic tale has so much to say about what can go right with film making. First, the director found a distributor who was willing to pay up front for all three parts to be made at once, which turns out to be over 10 hours of movie. That kind of production is a huge risk, but it paid off. There are no cast changes, no changes in the writing or directing. Instead, you have one epic vision of this great novel. Second, the director clearly loves the material. We can all argue about certain elements that did not get their due in the film (I for one would have loved to see more of the restful elements of the novel to counteract the intensity), but one cannot argue that Peter Jackson and company cared deeply about the material with which they were working. Third, though the cast is made up of fine actors, there is not a superstar among them. This film is not a star vehicle, and the movie was cast as such. Because of that, each actor can more fully inhabit their character, and what we see on screen is an incarnation of the the spirit of the novel. Finally, and most importantly, it is amazing just how well each character was cast and realized. Take the character of Aragorn/Strider. In order for this character to work, the filmmaker has to find an actor who can portray a man who is at once good and mysterious, an outcast yet destined to be king. Somehow, Viggo Mortenson personifies this character so fully that we never doubt that we are watching Aragorn on screen. These four elements are just part of why this movie works so well.
And despite the unconventional nature of the film's production, it is classic Hollywood storytelling. It has an enormous canvas, and the movie reminds us of great epics like "Ben Hur" or "Lawerence of Arabia". These are movies that are works of imagination, yet also works that are realized by using exquisite locations in our world. In "Lawerence", David Lean used the desert. In this movie, Peter Jackson uses his home country of New Zealad to such a great effect that one almost doubts that we are looking at a real place. These settings seem so much like Middle Earth that it is hard to remember that they exist on our planet.
The film also is a tribute to vision and hard work. The set designs are amazing, and every detail of makeup and special effects help tell the story. The sets and effects don't become the point, but they lend veracity to the whole story.
So as we left the Chinese theater some 10 years ago, we all felt tired. We had just been through an ordeal, and we knew that the action only got more intense with the next 2 parts. Seldom have I left a theater so overwhelmed by the vision and excitement of one film. I felt that I had seen something truly groundbreaking in scope and imagination. I had.
Awhile back, I wrote an entry about "Jane Eyre," and I began to talk a little bit about how one can rate a film that is based on a book. Coming to "The Lord of the Rings", this question obviously pops up again. What I found fascinating as I watched the three parts and then read the novel again was how well these movies did justice to the novel, even though they actually made some significant plot changes. I think that speaks volumes about how well Peter Jackson and company nailed the spirit of the characters first and foremost. The elements of the plot of any story are relatively easy to capture, since they are already written down for the filmmaker. But anytime you have to capture the spirit of a character on film, that is where the great test lies for the filmmaker attempting to translate a book into a movie.
The other thing these movies allowed me to do was have a new appreciation for JRR Tolkien's work. I am not a passionate fan of the verbose work of Tolkien, and the first time I read The Lord of the Rings, I found it difficult to follow the plot due to the overwhelming detail with which I was coming into contact. In a way, the films gave me the skeleton of the plot, so I understood it. Therefore, the next time I sat down to read the novel, I was thoroughly engrossed in the work, as I should have been the first time.
This epic tale has so much to say about what can go right with film making. First, the director found a distributor who was willing to pay up front for all three parts to be made at once, which turns out to be over 10 hours of movie. That kind of production is a huge risk, but it paid off. There are no cast changes, no changes in the writing or directing. Instead, you have one epic vision of this great novel. Second, the director clearly loves the material. We can all argue about certain elements that did not get their due in the film (I for one would have loved to see more of the restful elements of the novel to counteract the intensity), but one cannot argue that Peter Jackson and company cared deeply about the material with which they were working. Third, though the cast is made up of fine actors, there is not a superstar among them. This film is not a star vehicle, and the movie was cast as such. Because of that, each actor can more fully inhabit their character, and what we see on screen is an incarnation of the the spirit of the novel. Finally, and most importantly, it is amazing just how well each character was cast and realized. Take the character of Aragorn/Strider. In order for this character to work, the filmmaker has to find an actor who can portray a man who is at once good and mysterious, an outcast yet destined to be king. Somehow, Viggo Mortenson personifies this character so fully that we never doubt that we are watching Aragorn on screen. These four elements are just part of why this movie works so well.
And despite the unconventional nature of the film's production, it is classic Hollywood storytelling. It has an enormous canvas, and the movie reminds us of great epics like "Ben Hur" or "Lawerence of Arabia". These are movies that are works of imagination, yet also works that are realized by using exquisite locations in our world. In "Lawerence", David Lean used the desert. In this movie, Peter Jackson uses his home country of New Zealad to such a great effect that one almost doubts that we are looking at a real place. These settings seem so much like Middle Earth that it is hard to remember that they exist on our planet.
The film also is a tribute to vision and hard work. The set designs are amazing, and every detail of makeup and special effects help tell the story. The sets and effects don't become the point, but they lend veracity to the whole story.
So as we left the Chinese theater some 10 years ago, we all felt tired. We had just been through an ordeal, and we knew that the action only got more intense with the next 2 parts. Seldom have I left a theater so overwhelmed by the vision and excitement of one film. I felt that I had seen something truly groundbreaking in scope and imagination. I had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)