ROTK: A Meekly-Offered Opinion of Dissent
Category: Movies...
Posted Sunday, December 28, 2003 at 07:00 PM [GMT-6]

We saw "Return Of The King" last Tuesday, and following six days of intermittent cogitation, I still haven't decided if it lived up to the hype. (And I'm just now getting the feeling back in my nether regions, courtesy of four hours in the less-than-plush seating at the local multicinemoviefilmoplex.)

Let me first state for the record that I'm a big fan of the LOTR movies, as well as the books, having seen the former and read the latter (including The Hobbit). I am of the opinion that Peter Jackson has brought the trilogy to life in a way that I previously thought impossible. ROTK is a fitting climax. It has almost everything: adventure, excitement, emotion, amazing f/x.

Everything, that is, except suspense. Aye, and there's the rub.

This is not the fault of the filmmaker or the actors. And it's not a problem for the multitude of moviegoers who have not read Tolkien's trilogy. But it does beg the question (for me, anyway) of whether movies which are adaptations of previous works deserve the same acclaim as those which are based on original screenplays.

In the latter instance, the director teams up with the screenwriter/author (and may, in fact, be the same person) in an exercise of "primary creativity." Putting aside the legitimate observation that there is, indeed, nothing new under the sun... that everything is derivative of something else in some form or fashion... such a movie is inherently more likely to mystify and challenge and surprise the viewer.

In the case of ROTK, and any other movie based on a previously published piece, "secondary creativity" is at work (assuming, of course, that the goal of the filmmaker is to remain true to the original piece). I define this as recasting or building upon the original creation, and it's a quite legitimate undertaking. It just yields a different product than primary creativity. And one of the things that's often lost is the aspect of surprise or suspense.

In the case of ROTK, we (who have read the book) know the outcome, and our knowledge is sure because we realize that it was the director's intention and desire to remain true to Tolkien's creation. Thus, the attraction and artistry of ROTK is not in its suspense, but in the vividness in which our own mental pictures of the story are brought to life on the screen.

But, is this enough to make a great movie? From an artistic and technical perspective, I think it is. From a storytelling perspective...well, I'm less sure about that. After all, the story was told admirably beforehand, albeit via a different medium.

Fortunately, it's not an "either/or" proposition for most of us. For every ROTK that appeals primarily on a "secondary creativity" level, there's an "O, Brother, Where Art Thou?" that appeals on a different, more original level. And from that perspective, the Matrix trilogy succeeds in a way that the LOTR trilogy does not. Is the latter inferior to the former? Not in my opinion, but I believe it's a legitimate question and reasonable people can differ.

In the end, ROTK remains a remarkable achievement, and the previous discussion is intended more to stimulate thought and discussion rather than suggest any deficiency. However, I still think "Pirates of the Carribean" was the most enjoyable movie of 2003!