Why Peter Jackson is on my shitlist

For all the ones
Who bum me out
(Shitlist)
For all the ones
Who fill my head with doubt
(Shitlist)
For all the squares who get me pissed
(Shitlist)
You've made my shitlist
--"Shitlist" by L7

Awhile ago I made a crack about an upcoming post entitled "Why Peter Jackson is on my shitlist." I was joking at the time, figuring I wouldn't actually write any such post, but here I am realizing that I do indeed have that very post in me, just itchin' to get out. To clarify, being on my shitlist doesn't mean much. I created it for the only two people who are on it - George Lucas & Peter Jackson - and it's unlikely to ever expand.

So, on with my rant. We're a month away from the opening of The Golden Compass and while watching the trailers, I realized my expectations were skyrocketing as each scene looked more exactly as I thought it should. I suddenly had a depressing flashback to another time, a time when I easily got what I wanted out of most movie experiences, and if I didn't, at least my only injuries were the loss of a couple hours and a few bucks. Then, several years ago, I learned of the crushing disappointment that accompanies uncritical expectations. *sigh* In hindsight, it seems so obvious.

When The Fellowship of the Ring was released in 2001, I had just finished my first reading of Lord of the Rings and I thrilled at knowing it would be a series of movies. I was beyond excited, desperately eager to see these characters and this amazing story brought to life. And, based on the expansive trailers, I believed Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book was not too dissimilar from my own. I knew there would be differences that might throw me, but I didn't expect anything really significant. I did, however, expect to love it, because I gullibly believed the really important things would be "right."

Seeing the movie, being faced with the reality of how very wrong I was, was a distinctly sour experience. Oh, it looked beautiful, a truly stunning recreation of Middle Earth. The roles were, on the whole, very well cast, the few moments of blatant CG were only minimally irritating, and the Balrog absolutely blew me away with how awesome it was. And yet, such points only served to underscore the aspects I saw as sorrowfully lacking.

I'll start with the least virulent of my gripes, and address some of the CG. At one point, Jackson said he was excited that the tech finally existed to do Tolkien's work justice, but I can't agree that he really succeeded on that count. As genuinely cool as Gollum looked, he still looked undeniably not right. Though it's not my thing, I have a vague understanding of the work and skill that goes into creating really good CG, so I definitely don't want to dis the labour or talent of any of the artists. However, all that labour & talent resulted in a creature that was just short of looking "real." Unfortunately, I had the same feeling about Shelob when she finally showed up in Return of the King.

My second issue with the CG has more to do with the choice to use it at all than with how it was executed. Two scenes in Fellowship stand out as particularly bad: Gandalf looming in Bilbo's house, and Galadriel's refusal at the mirror when Frodo offers her the ring. The latter scene was dubbed "Radioactive Galadriel" on messageboards. In both instances, the effects careened the scenes out of context for me. I'll compare these scenes to the one on Caradhras when the ring flies off Frodo's neck and Boromir picks it up. Without any cheesy f/x, in an atmosphere of strained quiet, it's clear that Boromir is deeply affected by the ring and is not sure at that moment that he can resist it. The impact of that scene rests on the acting, as it should. I'm pretty sure Ian McKellan & Cate Blanchett could have pulled off the gravity of their scenes through their talents, without the sledgehammer effect the CG delivered. I gripe on this in particular because in so many ways, the movies were overblown enough. By throwing in ridiculous and out-of-place effects, I think Jackson made Gandalf and Galadriel look silly and diminished their presence.

Speaking of diminishing characters, Arwen's rescue of Frodo at the ford disappointed me intensely. I think that scene in the book - Frodo's mad dash to safety, as he's terrified, falling more ill by the minute and pointedly alone - helps introduce readers to what exactly makes this diminutive creature capable of undertaking a task that has broken the strongest of men. Surprising even to himself, Frodo is a Hobbit of extraordinary strength, endurance and commitment. Arwen's rescue in the movie undermines his strength and in the process raises a question that I don't think was ever adequately answered through three movies: why is Frodo, of all people, tasked with this journey? I also had some issues with how the role of Arwen was expanded. I understand Jackson's choice to make the female roles more prominent, what with Tolkien's story being a total sausagefest. However, I wish he'd used what Tolkien wrote about Arwen & Aragorn's romance (see Appendix A in the book), instead of using hacked apart and hokified snippets of dialogue from the book.

What I see as Jackson's greatest sin, however, has to do with his utter butchering of a sub-plot within Lord of the Rings that I think went to the very heart of the story. While all the good races of Middle Earth are coming together to fight Sauron, the friendship forged between Legolas & Gimli parallels that growing alliance. Instead of watching them gradually let go of their racial animosity and develop a relationship founded on mutual respect and love, as in the book, the movie gave us the quick & dirty cliche of a "buddyship" with all the depth of a pint of ale. Also, I'm so disappointed that Gimli was turned into comic relief. The movie version was a mocking caricature of the proud, noble Dwarf of the book.

Finally, I'll leave off with a little bit of backpedalling. I actually liked these movies. After getting over my initial shock at how wrong I thought Fellowship was, I went back & saw it a few more times, because it was a really fun, definitely beautiful movie to watch. The Two Towers and Return of the King were both more palatable when they came out because I had adjusted my expectations accordingly, and like the first movie, they were also exciting and gorgeous. And there were even things that were different than how I'd envisioned them, but were great nonetheless. I already mentioned how awesome the Balrog was. Geekdom has long raged with the debate over the Balrog: winged, or sans wings? For myself, the text gave me the image of a beast with wings not of flesh & bone, but of dense, acrid smoke. Then when I saw Jackson's Balrog, I easily accepted the corporeal wings, they fit so perfectly. And as much as I liked Tom Bombadil, I didn't think it was a horrible sin to keep him out of the movie. In fact, given the overall atmosphere of the film, such a bright & colourful character could easily have been jarringly incongruous.

I am all in favour of people creating what they want to create. These are Peter Jackson's works and I wholly appreciate that they are all about his interpretation of Tolkien's writings. However, I am sincerely disappointed that these will be the definitive Lord of the Rings movies for the next few generations, at least. *sigh*

So, that's it, that's why Peter Jackson is on my shitlist. Maybe someday I'll muster what it takes to explain George Lucas' presence on that list, but perhaps if you've seen Episodes I, II or III, or know in your heart that Han shot first, no explanation is necessary.