Movies / TV Shows!

[Sephira]

That quotation probably sums up the film better than any other single quotation could. Block calls upon God, and there is no answer; he gazes into the abyss, and there is nothing there.

The others perforce make their peace with Death in the silence, but only simple Jof ("You and your visions!") can see that God has not abandoned the world, and nobody believes him.

If you need an antidote to The Seventh Seal, Bergman probably did too, because his next movie was Wild Strawberries. Or Smiles of a Summer Night; this reminds me of the non-canon story of Geralt and Yennefer's wedding.

Thanks Guy, now that you say that I am relieved to see that at least I have figured out some things, because I find the quote really good and you confirmed me that it is pretty much the backbone of the film.

I'm still absorbing the the contents of this movie, however. Also now I've completely figured out the role of Jof, apart for him and his family to be the "solution", the answer for all the questions Antonius asked. He saw Holy Mary, and he saw Death playing with Block, who understood that and "sacrifice" himself when Death won deceptively, that part struck me as the quote said before. All mocked Jof for his visions and he was the "right" point.

Thanks for the advice too, I've just found Wild Strawberries. I will watch it, I really need an antidote, heh. Then I'll search for Smiles of a Summer Night.

 

[gedierond]

I think Tauriel came out well, except there was no need to copy the plot from LOTR like helping with the morgul wound and so on. That felt cheap. They could be more creative and make something new after all.

I don´t mind the inclusion of a new character, if it fits in the setting and comes out interesting. The thing is that the execution was not very good, IMO.

You want a strong female character? That´s perfect by me: by all means include Tauriel, make her badass as they did, make her help the Dwarves escape, defying the King´s orders if you want, to show how strong-willed she is. But don´t include a half-assed romance subplot, which feels completely forced, and ends up actually doing more harm than good to the character.

I'm more critical about cases when they change existing characters significantly from who they are the books (there were quite a number of such problems in the Lord of The Rings).

Yeah, I agree. The LOTR movies are good adventure movies, but they made me lose my nerves sometimes. The whole "should I stay or should I go" Arwen business, for example, was absolutely unnecessary. And I won´t start ranting about Faramir and Denethor...

 

[Aditya]

I recommend watching Locke, starring Tom Hardy. Just brilliant!

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Yeh the only Elf - Dwarf romance Tolkien ever implied was the Gimli - Legolas bromance.

and aye the further the production team moves from the source the worse it all gets.

I sincerely hope they don't get the rights to the Silmarillion... that would be better as a completely new form of MMO... that includes for instance scheduled performances of all the important parts of the book by real actors, then the players act out the various battles etc. Or just left as the great book it is... we have to leave some reasons for kids to learn to read in the future.

edit: @Guy N'wah; You forget Galadriel, who is one of the strongest characters in LoTR, as someone born under the light of the Two Trees who led her people through the Helcaraxe, and founded Kingdoms, wore a ring, and had the potential to become a (dark-)goddess, her story through all the books shows her importance, her extremely strong personal character, and because of her & the other female characters I don't completely accept the argument that Tolkien didn't care much for females in his tales. I really don;t think he thought about it much, not the way his critics do anyway.

 

[GuyNwah]

I didn't, actually. Galadriel is not an ordinary woman, she is a goddess. Tolkien did not make character development an important feature of his storytelling, and most of his characters are not real characters (though when you make films of his stories, it becomes indispensable). To the extent that there are real characters and not mere figures in Lord of the Rings, none of them except Eowyn are women. But you're right in that the role of women in his stories was not much, and his critics did not consider that a matter of importance.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Well, see I wouldn't call her a goddess, neither would I call any of the immortal Elves gods, they are just as much characters to me as the mortal men. I guess we'll have to disagree on that subjective point, as I don;t see how the discussion could proceed.

Tolkien did view women as "the fairer sex", not necessarily weaker, but more emotionally directed... and personally I don;t see a problem with that. They still got major roles, though more in the Silmarrillion than LoTR.

 

[gedierond]

Well, see I wouldn't call her a goddess, neither would I call any of the immortal Elves gods, they are just as much characters to me as the mortal men. I guess we'll have to disagree on that subjective point, as I don;t see how the discussion could proceed.

I think Guy meant that the way Galadriel, not Elves as a whole, is portrayed in the books is more as if she is a goddess. At least in the LOTR trilogy. She´s this mystical being, with wisdom and power difficult to understand for lesser beings.
Legolas, on the other hand, while also being an Elf, is portrayed as a much more "terrenal" character. The same thing happens for other Elves, but Galadriel is something else...

 

[Alan989]

The same thing happens for other Elves, but Galadriel is something else...

Add to that, she was played by Cate Blanchett in the movies and she really does become something else! :clap:

 

[Aes Sídhe]

I think Guy meant that the way Galadriel, not Elves as a whole, is portrayed in the books is more as if she is a goddess. At least in the LOTR trilogy. She´s this mystical being, with wisdom and power difficult to understand for lesser beings..

Perhaps. I would still disagree though. I would've read LoTR before Silmarillion, and I never felt that way. Tolkien did differentiate between the Elves who saw the light of the Trees, sat at the foot of the gods, and those who didn't (Sindar like Legolas), but any explanation of this difference was in knowledge & wisdom (which of course gives power) but never equated them anything like gods. Galadriel is the oldest non-deity we know exists in the third age (excepting perhaps Círdan) so she is wise also from deep & long experience.

Tolkiens mythos is quite clear to me: Valar are the gods, Maiar are the demi-gods, Elves are simply the first race created by Illuvatar (and while they are long lived and we call them immortal due to their lifespans, we also know they really are not, i.e. while its hinted that they may return from the Halls of Mandos, we never hear of one doing so), with Men second, and Dwarfs awakening last. Feanor was the Elf with the greatest amount of Spirit in him, and he never returned.

Cate did storm that part though, incredible job.


edit: only by merging with Saurons power invested in the ring could she rival a Maiar, and if that had happened... wouldn't that just have been Sauron in drag?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@Kudos: In Silmarillion Valar and Maiar are also less abstract. The issue with Galadriel is not that she is one of the wisest and oldest being in the Middle Earth, but that she is not given attention from her own perspective in the Lord of The Rings. She is always perceived through they eyes of others, who can have hard time understanding her and so on.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

I didn't realise that was the issue we were discussing, and to be honest I don't quite understand the point, it appears to me to be over analysing the narrative (not a criticism I just can't quite get my head around that view). LoTR is essentially the Hobbits point of view, no other character is "in control" of the narrative, it is sourced from The Red Book of Westmarch after all

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@Kudos: I mean, saying that Galadriel wasn't a women but rather some higher being is wrong. Such perception can happen because the narrative is given from the point of view of others, who don't always understand her. If she'd be given her own narrative in the story, it could be different. That's what I was trying to say.

In Silmarillion Noldor and other elves get more primary focus in the story, and we see their personality better. They can be torn by doubts, have their own faults and aren't some perfect beings just because they are elves. In the Lord of the Rings they are described through perception of those who don't know much about them and that perception affects the narrative.

 

[Blothulfur]

Not another fucking Elf!

Edit: To paraphrase C.S. Lewis.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I actually don't like works of Lewis personally. Even though they were friends with Tolkien.

 

[GuyNwah]

@Blothulfur stated the point I'd been fumbling for in just four words

No matter what the status of Galadriel or the other elves is, they're just not characters, they're only figures. Characters have, well, character development. Maybe it just wasn't Tolkien's intent to develop them as characters, with feelings one can identify with and growth one can follow through a story, but as soon as you put them in a film, the new medium demands that at least a few of them become real characters.

Lewis and Tolkien both wrote with goals (Christian apologetics in Lewis, raising the status of myth in Tolkien) that made characterization secondary. But try to dramatize those works, and it shows.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

@Kudos: I mean, saying that Galadriel wasn't a women but rather some higher being is wrong.

I didn't say that though, did I? Otherwise I agree with you. LoTR is the Hobbits PoV, Silmarillion is epic language closest to what Tolkien was trying to achieve (well, slightly popularised or "streamlined" for the masses). Galadriel is a minor character in LoTR, nevertheless she still comes over as a strong female character to me (which is what I thought this convo was about).

edit: @Guy N'wah; I just can't get into this differenciation between characters & figures, sorry, it's too much analysis for me.

edir #2: Lewis was a bit of a twat. I can't actually stand his work personally, I prefer total fantasy far more than "a world next to our own".

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

No matter what the status of Galadriel or the other elves is, they're just not characters, they're only figures. Characters have, well, character development. Maybe it just wasn't Tolkien's intent to develop them as characters, with feelings one can identify with and growth one can follow through a story, but as soon as you put them in a film, the new medium demands that at least a few of them become real characters.

I disagree. Tolkien's style is heroic, epos-like. Where characters are usually more abstract and less realistic (you call that "figures"). It doesn't make them less characters because of that. You need to understand them through the medium they are presented with. His other characters aren't any less "iconic" so to say. If you try to view them through he prism of the literary realism, you'll have problems. Try viewing characters of Kalevala or anything similar using the same approach. You'll have problems with characters as well.

I didn't say that though, did I?

No, Guy N'wah did, and that was directed to him really. I mentioned you since you argued with Guy another way but you also don't agree with him

 

[Blothulfur]

Didn't mind Lewis as a lad, allright reads, but I fucking love that quote.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Yeh it is a cracker, and he has a few others, oh I wouldn't deny he was a good writer... just not my cup of tea.

(I also remember a time when Tolkiens work would have been considered "dangerous fantasy", and Lewis' "appropriate fantasy" by some, yet I see it totally opposite. The possibility of a world through your wardrobe is far more dangerous than total obvious fantasy).

 

[GuyNwah]

I disagree. Tolkien's style is heroic, epos-like. Where characters are usually more abstract and less realistic (you call that "figures"). It doesn't make them less characters because of that. You need to understand them through the medium they are presented with. His other characters aren't any less "iconic" so to say. If you try to view them through he prism of the literary realism, you'll have problems. Try viewing characters of Kalevala or anything similar using the same approach. You'll have problems with characters as well.



No, Guy N'wah did, and that was directed to him really. I mentioned you since you argued with Guy another way but you also don't agree with him

I guess we'll have to continue to disagree, because I distinguish (and stand by this distinction) between a dramatis persona who is written in a manner that is abstract and not quite realistic, for the purpose of promoting epic themes or stories, and one who is written in a manner that engages the reader in a way that promotes empathy and stimulates the reader's interest in following the personal history of that character.

And you can look all the way back to Gilgamesh to find an epic with a hero who is identifiably, poignantly human. Creating characters in the strict sense I have used may not be a convention in epic narrative, but neither is it so difficult as to be dismissed as unnecessary.