33440, RE: some issues with this...|
Posted by , Sat Dec-17-05 12:54 PM
>>opinion, the LOTR films are not the definitive triumphs of
>>filmmaking that they are praised as. I see Jackson's work as
>>an empty text. His own unique voice and style appear
>well, his unique voice and style appear in the translation of
>the vision of the book to the vision we saw on the screen.
>this is no easy feat. i also don't think the films are
>"definitive triumphs of filmmaking" but it is hard to deny
>that they are incredibly well-made action movies. that may
>not be your cup of tea, but Jackson's skill, voice and style
>remaking a book into a movie, by definition, is not
At least we're both in agreement that the LOTR films are not what they are hyped up to be in our culture. I hear way too often that they're the greatest films ever made. I was referring to our society's perception of the films when I was talking about them being "definitive triumphs of filmmaking," for example, when Empire magazine did their reader's poll top 100 films of all time 2 summers ago, all three LOTR films were in the top 10. IMO, he never really adds his distnct voice as a filmmaker. I think any of the "top" action directors with access to the technology and money that he had could probably do the same thing. I wouldn' argue that they're not well made action movies, but that's only surface deep. Unfortunately, in our culture that's all we look for. We're willing to accept any old bullshit as long as it's entertaining. I also agree that making a book into a movie is acceptable. I think it is important to add your own views and to change the text if need be in order to say what you are trying to get across. All of Stanley Kubrick's films after The Killing and Killer's Kiss were adapted from books. Kubrick was able to use the text as a blueprint, but made what he saw as the necessary adjustments to the text in order to make it his. I think that is acceptable, if you're just taking someone else's text and putting it on the screen you have very little distinctive voice as an auter, as you are allowing another artist's personal views/feelings to dominate your work.
>you're ignoring the studio's role here. you can't make the
>kinds of films Jackson is making without huge studio funding,
>and that deal with the devil brings along with it some
>baggage, such as "moichandizing, moichandizing, moichandizing"
Good point and i love the yogurt reference. I just hate seeing what is supposed to be art in our culture intertwined with corporate products. I think that any filmmaker who cares enough about his craft should fight to avoid this. Jackson already proved he could be profitbale with LOTR. If he cared enough, he could have easily argued against corporate tie-ins.