What if LOTR was made during Hollywood's studio era?

This blogpost is not going to be a book review or a film review, rather a 'what if' discussion. After reading LOTR and thinking about how it had been adapted for the screen, it dawned on me how it would have been near impossible to do the books justice before CGI. Thousands of orcs and uruk-hai, how to make Shelob believable, how to make the landscapes of Rivendell and Lothlorien extra magical. It would have been very hard to show the epicness of landscape and numbers in battles before Jackson embarked on his own little adventure (or at least to do the books justice).

However I did wonder this: if the films had been made during the 1920s-1940s, who would have been picked for the roles? Choosing the male actors would be very difficult because the actors of that era were so very different from the male roles in the books. I've had a few ideas like Peter Lorre to play Smeagol/Gollum (sneaky, mischievous, large eyes, cunning) but other than that it was difficult to put an actor from that time in the role of Aragorn, Legolas, or Gandalf.

On the other hand, the actresses for the female roles seemed a lot more fitting. Now before anybody criticises - yes each of these women belonged to their own studio and were in their prime at various times so technically it wouldn't have actually happened. But still, if it were possible to have these women work at the same time in the same films, and the LOTR trilogy was made during the era of the studio giants, just who would have played Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn, and even Rosie Cotton? Here are my ideas. 

Galadriel - Greta Garbo.

This was an obvious one for me, and I'm sure that many of you will agree with my choice. Tolkien describes Galadriel in these words:

"Very tall [Galadriel and Celeborn] were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold… but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory."

Garbo has often been referred to as the most beautiful creature of the screen. Her face was one that revealed so much and yet said so little - expressing sorrow, anger, and all of the emotions more profoundly than most of her peers ever could; she told her story through her face. But aside from her physical beauty, height, and captivating eyes, Galadriel had characteristics that are resonant with many characters whom Garbo played, for example, Queen Christina. Powerful, strong, wilful, mysterious - each of these characteristics can be applied to both women. Even the final scene of Queen Christina where Garbo stares out at the front of her ship, it could easily be Galadriel on her journey to the Undying Lands. This image of Garbo from The Temptress is how I picture her as Galadriel except she would need much longer hair. Galadriel had more presence than anyone in Middle Earth with her incredible wisdom, as well as being dangerously intimidating; yet there she is hugely kind to those who are good. Nobody from that era could have played Galadriel other than Garbo.

Arwen - Vivien Leigh.

Arwen is supposed to be the most beautiful elf and being in Middle Earth; such a beauty that she is supposed to have spellbound Aragorn at first sight... who better to play this role convincingly than Vivien Leigh? To me, no actress could match Leigh's beauty therefore she has to play Arwen. When you compare Leigh's features there are certainly similarities between her and Arwen:

"...and there sat a lady fair to look upon, and so like was she in form of womanhood to Elrond that Frodo guessed that she was one of his close kindred. Young she was and yet not so. The braids of her dark hair were touched by no frost, her white arms and clear face were flawless and smooth, and the light of stars was in her bright eyes, grey as a cloudless night; yet queenly she looked, and thought and knowledge were in her glance, as of one who has known many things that the years bring. Above her brow her head was covered with a cap of silver lace netted with small gems, glittering white; but her soft grey raiment had no ornament save a girdle of leaves wrought in silver. "

The darkness of her hair, her porcelain skin - of course her eyes are a different colour but Leigh was famous for her cat-like eyes as well, so her eyes are equally convincing at being show-stoppers. Furthermore, her eyes are described to reveal much of the past and the future. In the film Waterloo Bridge, Leigh's eyes did most of the acting because they showed the emotions, sorrow, and the "sordid" past of her character. Leigh also had a very pixie like appearance with her dainty frame (see this image of her from a production of A Midsummer Nights Dream), whilst her achievements on film and stage gave her the air of royalty - it's fair to say that Leigh had presence and an enchanting quality in abundance even before her fame. To play Arwen convincingly you need to have an aura of royalty, grace, unmatched beauty, but also the sadness and wisdom of many years passed, and the knowing of the painful sacrifice you will have to make in order to be with your love, Aragorn.

Eowyn - Ingrid Bergman.

When wondering who would have played Eowyn, I couldn't think of any actresses suitable. Yes there were many actresses that could play strong, female roles, but to have that delicate balance of a flower and ice that the Lady of Rohan possessed is rare. However, when I thought about the scene were Eowyn confronts the Witch King, I could picture Ingrid Bergman (possibly because she played Joan of Arc) but Bergman played strong women in emotional turmoil so brilliantly, it suddenly became obvious that she would be perfect for the role. Because Eowyn had long blonde hair, Bergman would have to wear hers like she had it in Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde, but a lot lighter.

“It was an evil doom that set her in his path. For she is a fair maiden, fairest lady of a house of queens. And yet I know not how I should speak of her. When I first looked on her and perceived her unhappiness, it seemed to me that I saw a white flower standing straight and proud, shapely as a lily and yet knew that it was hard, as if wrought by elf-wrights out of steel."

This idea of fragility and steel is embodied in Bergman. She has a fairness, warmth, and soft appearance, yet there is definite strength and coldness visible in her features and expressions that give her a warrior like feel. Bergman challenged the star system - she didn't want to be typecast, she wanted a challenge; characteristics not to far from those belonging to Eowyn who thought it unfair that she should not fight in battle because she was a woman.

Rosie Cotton - Rita Hayworth.

Rosie Cotton has a very minor role in the books, but she is given importance in the films because she is Sam's sweetheart. At the beginning we see that he has a crush on her, and at the end of the film where he stands on the brink of doom, his thoughts are of her. This just made me think of those Second World War stories, where pin-up cards were sent to soldiers to help them hope that back home a beautiful woman was awaiting their return. Rita Hayworth of course was the second most popular pin-up of the war, and with her glorious red curls (Hobbit-like) and beautiful face - was there a more lovelier woman for Sam to come home to? I pictured Hayworth as Rosie from this photo of her in a dream sequence from the film You'll Never Get Rich. Hayworth was a terrific dancer meaning she would catch Sam's attention at Bilbo's birthday like in the film, and even though she was a sex symbol of her time, there was a wholesomeness to Hayworth that suits the homeliness and purity of the Shire.

If you have any thoughts or preferences of who you think would be more suitable, please let me know in the comment section. As I said, this isn't anything enlightening or analytical, I just thought I would share my thoughts on the subject and see if anybody had thought of it before too.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Enjoyment

BEWARE! SPOILERS OF THE FILM AND FUTURE FILMS!!

Even though I doubt that anybody will read this post amongst the masses of reviews and blogs that talk about this film, I wanted to share my thoughts on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey anyway...

I don't think that any film director has had more pressure on them, nor higher expectations to meet, than Peter Jackson did with his latest film. I have long understood that to expect the same excellence and success of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was beyond optimistic; there is no way that he nor anyone else would be able to create the same magic. Although some do have qualms with those films, every time I watch them, I see them as flawless pieces of masterful movie-making, and I can't imagine any other film, nor series of films, that can match it's sheer brilliance in storytelling. Jackson in that sense, is his own worst enemy, because he has set a benchmark that he will never again live up to, but in return for that he has the legacy of LOTR. So yes, there was a lot of expectation, and even though I knew it could never be met, I still had this speck of hope that somehow Jackson would conjure something equally mesmerising. 

After reading the book The Hobbit last week, it became obvious that in order to make the story into three, epic films, Jackson and his crew would have to make up their own narrative from events only assumed, mentioned, or hinted at in the book itself, whilst patching that with details from Tolkien's The Silmarillion. Having said that, I can't imagine how he will be able to make the next two films as long, nor as action packed. The second film of the saga I expect will be mostly concerning the journey through Mirkwood forest which does have a lot of action in it but will mostly be set in the forest itself... this may cause problems.  As for the final film, it it likely to primarily concern The Lonely Mountain. It will be very interesting to see how Jackson makes these next two films as full as the first. Anyway, enough of that and now onto the film itself. The first instalment of The Hobbit Trilogy. 

I was seriously concerned in the first 45minutes that I had made a huge mistake in paying to see this film. The beginning sequence telling of the dwarves and their plight with the dragon was really good - not quite as perfect as Galadriel's narration of events in The Fellowship of the Ring - but still it held my interest and looked glorious. Unfortunately, a good 45minutes of the film is taken up with the dwarves visiting Bilbo's home. Not only did I find the dwarves unfunny, as well as the dishes song irritating, but the whole scene just felt awkward and not very well thought out. This scene may have worked in the book, but for cinema it needed a lot more cut from it, and an entirely new structure. I was sat in the cinema thinking there may as well be a million dwarves, because I'm getting confused with their names and the whole scene is such a mess, I don't really understand what's going on. Their piggish eating habits and table manners were grotesque - I know we are supposed to get a real feeling of the dwarves but I don't need to watch dwarves throwing food around a room and stuffing their faces for nearly an hour. Yes The Fellowship of the Ring took 45 minutes for Frodo to leave the Shire, but time passed within those first minutes: Bilbo's birthday, Bilbo gives up the Ring, Gandalf researches in Minas Tirith, the Nine leave Mina Morgul, Gandalf explains to Frodo that he must leave... it is broken up instead of being set in one room and about one meeting like in The Hobbit. All in all, I didn't like the dwarves at all to begin with, and I was genuinely starting to worry about the rest of the film. 

The best bit about this scene was Thorin (Richard Armitage). He is very convincing as a dwarf king who has lost what is rightfully his, and Armitage plays him with a fantastically regal, moody manner. However, even I felt that Armitage held back or was limited by the material he was given. Don't get me wrong I found him really cool and he is instantly likeable, but I didn't find myself rooting for him like I did with Aragorn in the LOTR.  The Misty Mountains song that the dwarves sang added great atmosphere to this dull meeting - it was darker, gloomier, moodier, and did more for the woe of the dwarves and their plight than any of them had in the last 45minutes. 

Martin Freeman as Bilbo is perfect from the word go. I warmed to him straight away and really felt like this was Bilbo when he was young. For one he is adorable, and his naivety makes us feel similar to him because we don't really like the dwarves or know what is going on ourselves. What I really thought was done well was the showing of Bilbo's personal journey and experiences as he transforms from someone who doesn't like surprises and who doesn't leave the Shire, to a brave and adventurous person. When the dwarves descend on him and make a mess of his house, Freeman really looked irritated but also a little hurt at the rudeness of the people who have ruined his home. I'd say that Freeman is the best thing about The Hobbit; without him I don't think the film would have been as effective. He gives a flawless, well-thought out performance that is bound to improve with every film. Thankfully, you can breathe an enormous sigh of relief once the dwarves have left Bilbo's home, because the film picks up from that point onwards, and it gets better and better with each scene. 

The journey takes Bilbo, Gandalf (reprised brilliantly again by Sir Ian McKellen), and the dwarves over the edge of the wild, and Jackson and his team definitely create the feeling that these lands are untamed and mysterious. Even though the Middle Earth in LOTR was always scary and dangerous, it still had a feeling of order. Gondor, Rohan, Lorien, Fangorn, Mordor... it all felt like there was civilisation there, and people had good knowledge about each place, even if it was an evil one. With The Hobbit, however, there is a feeling of the unknown. There is an evil in the forest of Mirkwood that has poisoned all that lives there, a Necromancer (we know who that is) dwells in Dol Guldur, a ferocious dragon still lives in The Lonely Mountain and terrifies all who live near him... yes the lands travelled in The Hobbit give a sense of the wilderness and immense danger. All credit to Jackson, I was consistently nervous and scared of the surroundings and landscape which we'd encounter in The Hobbit.

That saying, I did feel like each new location was not introduced well. In the LOTR I felt that the camera always set-up to us that we were in a new place or new realm, e.g. now we're in Rivendell, this is Moria, or here is Lorien. In The Hobbit the locations weren't properly introduced, leaving me slightly confused and guessing where they were - but then maybe that was purposefully done to mirror the wildness of the locations. 

I thought it was brilliant how they made the three trolls on the mountain side cockney. I don't know why but somehow it worked, they all sounded like East-End thugs and even though most of the orcs in LOTR had a cockney twang of some sort, these trolls would have looked right at home in the soap opera EastEnders. Although they were stupid they were also frightening; I felt a little sick at the thought they were ready to eat the horses, the dwarves, and Bilbo.

One character I did not like was the Goblin King. To me he seemed like a complete imbecile that just waved his arms around all the time and cracked really bad jokes. He didn't scare me at all, when in reality he should have been terrifying. Why make a villain an idiot? It ruins the atmosphere completely, especially if you want us to feel that everyone is in danger. The goblin caves were impressive though, and the final chase of Gandalf and the dwarves out of the caves was spectacular. Quick and fast, I felt as if I were being chased by goblins too, and the immense speed of it all, as well as the camerawork, are something to behold. 

Of course, one cannot talk about this film without mentioning the scene between Bilbo and Gollum. If you don't know what cinema magic is then this was it. Looking around the cinema as Gollum appeared in The Hobbit, you could clearly see the smiles on peoples faces. He's back! Andy Serkis returning to a role that he has so completely made his own was wondrous to watch and what I hate is that he really doesn't get enough credit for his talents in this role. Sure Gollum is a computer image, but they model his facial expressions on Serkis' own, and the voice and mannerisms are all acted by Serkis. It is all Serkis, and without him Gollum would never have been effective. I liked how they had made Gollum appear younger; we forget that this story happens nearly 100 years (I think?) before Frodo and the Ring, so Gollum is a good deal younger. They show this via making his eyes brighter and skin less wrinkled. 

Regardless of how happy I was to see Gollum, or how riveting the riddles were, even this scene dragged with one or two riddles too many. I kept expecting them to end, but there were more. I have a feeling that Jackson included every single riddle from the book that is exchanged between the pair, but again - don't think that that worked cinematically. I suppose by using all of the riddles revealed to us how clever and resourceful Bilbo is, as well as how angry, murderous, and devastated Gollum becomes when he loses the ring. What it does do brilliantly, is reveal how deep in the Misty Mountains Gollum lived for so long - alone with the ring. Nor wonder he became so consumed and corrupted by it. 

One thing which I detested was the character of Azog. He looked super computerised, and so did many of the other characters in the film. I was really amazed at how horrific and scary the make-up department made characters in the LOTR, like the deformed orc Gothmog in The Return of the King. So much effort was made so that he looked like a real monster, and yet with Azog here, he just looked like an uglier version of Voldermort. I know that prosthetics and make-up cost time, money, and are uncomfortably as hell to wear but the effect is so much stronger. It is because of that that they fell short here... Azog was not scary, primarily because he looked fake. It didn't help that he just seemed to grunt and had boring lines to say. Even the moment where Azog and his gang of orcs surround Bilbo and the gang on trees that are on fire and falling off of a cliff, he just seemed really dull and hardly the huge force to reckon with that he is made out to be. 

Leading on from that, there was one major problem with this film. There are endless near death misses and traps, but Jackson and his crew failed to show them as seamlessly in a flowing narrative like they did with LOTR. Let's compare, in The Fellowship of the Ring we have so many close shaves: the hobbits with the Ringwraiths in the woods, Arwen and the wraiths, the Crebain on the mountain side, Saruman making the mountains avalanche and force the fellowship into the mines, the giant squid, the goblins in the mines and the troll, the Balrog, and finally the Uruk-hai. Not once in that film did I feel like the narrative was disjointed and wobbly, and like 'here we go again, another near death experience.' However in The Hobbit it did. It felt so stop and start-y, that I found myself thinking 'oh no, not another near death experience'. This is nothing wrong with the story itself, but it does show that something wasn't quite right in the script, or the way that Jackson planned the film. 

That saying, all in all, I actually really enjoyed the film - much more than I expected. Yes it started awkwardly, the narrative did not flow flawlessly,  the Goblin King and Azog were disappointing, CGI seemed to almost completely replace prosthetics... indeed there is no doubting that a lot is wrong with this film. I have heard Jackson in an interview say that they made this film in a year due to changes etc, and I think that's what caused the problems. There is a sense that the film was rushed and not as thoroughly thought through as LOTR. It's just a bit of a mess. It is far from perfect, and I hope that Jackson and co. improve for the next two instalments, because regardless of its flaws, I really enjoyed it. I was so sad when it ended. From the moment Bilbo and his gang set off on their adventure the film improves exceedingly with every minute. I was scared, on the edge of my seat, curious as to where we were going to end up. I left the cinema happy, and wanting to talk about it. I wanted to see it again straight away. I started reading the book almost immediately. I found myself being annoyed that I had to wait for the second and third films. I even believe that I would enjoy it even more on the second watch, and other watches after it. 

I am so curious to see how they show the dragon Smaug (although we do get a glimpse of his eye at the end of this film) and am very interested to see how they develop the story with the Necromancer. I am dreading the scene with the great spiders in Mirkwood though - beware all fellow arachnophobes, this will probably be our worst nightmare if the book is anything to go by. Give me Shelob anyday! 

I asked a friend what he thought of The Hobbit before I went to see it, and he said The Hobbit is a child's book. Don't expect seeing something as serious as The Lord of the Rings. And he was completely right. It is a children's tale. 

Additionally, for people who complain about changes made from the original story, I read a fascinating article where the writer explained how Jackson's alterations and amendments to the story were to help merge and connect the story of The Hobbit more fully with LOTR. We have to remember that The Hobbit was written first, and it was only when his publisher's asked him to write more that Tolkien wrote LOTR. If he had LOTR in mind before he wrote The Hobbit then it would have fitted together more perfectly, but Jackson has done that for us here. This is the article for anyone who is interested in a comparison between the film and the book: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/12/a-tolkien-nerds-thoughts-on-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/

This is not a flawless masterpiece like the LOTR trilogy. I honestly don't think anything will ever match the grandeur, magnificence, and wonder that was those films - and I definitely can't see Jackson matching his work. That said, this film, with all of its faults, was exciting, thrilling, and I can't wait for the next two. The fact that it got better and better with each scene makes me hope that the same goes for the next two films - that The Hobbit Trilogy will go from strength to strength. As per, Jackson showed some breathtaking scenes and gave us a real adventure, and the chance to visit Middle Earth again. And Freeman as Baggins is undoubtedly the star of the picture. I really need to see this film a second time, without the expectations of its predecessor, nor the doubts of the poor reviews I had heard from others. I enjoyed it immensely, and cannot wait for the release of the next two.

Overall, I happily give this film a rating  of 7-7.5/10.