Showing posts with label 2001. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2001. Show all posts

Nov 24, 2011

"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" - 2001

"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is one of the great movies of the 21st century. The best by far of the three movies that make up The Lord of the Rings trilogy it hits all the right notes, achieves just the right balance between being faithful to the source material and doing what needs to be done to bring that saga to the screen and boasts a solid cast who flesh out their roles effectively.

Directed with confidence and imagination by Peter Jackson - who was little known by the general movie going public at the time - it transcends it genre limitations; an accomplishment that can be laid squarely at the feet of screen writers Fran Walsh, Philipa Boyens and Jackson himself. The characters are given room to breath, time to make themselves known and plenty of opportunities to showcase their various strengths and weaknesses before the story actually gets underway. None of it seems in the least bit contrived however because they are not only illuminating who they are, but who their people are, their place in the world and their relationship to it. All this setup will work marvelously to underpin the events that follow.

Though I'm not going to waste time and words recounting details of the story in the most general terms it goes like this: the Dark Lord Sauron was defeated by an alliance of men and Elves thousands of years ago. The ring from which he drew his power passed to the human King Isuldur who defeated him. Isuldur was corrupted by the ring and ultimately lost it. It was found 2,500 years later by a Hobbit named Smeagol, who was turned into the gruesome creature Gollum by the ring. After having his life extended by the ring's power for 500 years Gollum lost it to the Hobbit Bilbo, who because of his purity of spirit, was able to carry it around in his pocket for decades largely unmoved by the ring's corrupting powers. All of this is told over the course of a seven minute or so prologue.

We then jump to the "present" where Sauron is recomposing himself (though it's never really made clear how he's able to do that) and seeking the ring in order to complete his return. He's sent out agents to scour the landscape looking for it. Bilbo has turned the ring over to Frodo at the Wizard Gandalf's request and gone off to write a book. Frodo then as heir to the ring also becomes heir to its fate and must travel across the known world to destroy it by depositing it into the lava flows of Mount Doom which lies in Sauron's back yard of Mordor. In order to complete his task eight others (Gimli the Dwarf, Legolas the Elf, the humans Aragorn and Borimir as well as Gandalf the wizard and three other Hobbits; Merry, Pippin and Sam) join him in what is christened The Fellowship of the Ring and the film follows them through the first stages of their adventure.

It all sounds very Wizard of Oz-y and to a degree it is. What separates it from your standard fantasy fare however is the emphasis on character development, the creative facility of everyone involved and the lavish (though never intrusive) art direction and special effects. Special mention must also go to the unreal New Zealand landscape where much of the movie was shot as well as to Howard Shore's score which sets just the right tone throughout.

I was reluctant to see this movie when it first came out thinking there was no way anyone could do justice to the story, which takes place during an earth epoch that never was, tells the tale of imaginary creatures great and small and spans well over a decade but I was talked into it by a friend and by the time the prologue ended I was sold, 100%. The setup was so powerful in fact that it effectively blinded me to the films shortcomings, and there are several. Some, like the fact that the timeline is dramatically compressed and Frodo is way to young, were things that mostly bothered those who believed the books to be Holy Writ. Others, like Jackson's appalling disregard for continuity, were things that revealed themselves to me on repeated viewings after the glow of the spectacle had worn off sufficiently. Still, as a whole the film achieves magnificently its goal of establishing place and time, character and circumstance and, though it lacks a "proper" ending (being only one third of the overall tale after all) still manages to end on melancholy yet hopeful note that leaves you feeling both satisfied and wanting more.

In subsequent installments of the trilogy the Hobbits would become somewhat lost in the ever expanding landscape of creatures and events but in The Fellowship of the Ring they are right up front where they belong. Tolkien's tale is after all a story of ordinary men ("ordinary" and "men" being relative terms) being called upon to undertake extraordinary tasks and handling them with a courage and fortitude that often elude their high-born "betters". This first installment of the trilogy never forgets that and because of that it achieves a poignancy which allows it to take its place among the great cinematic epics ever made.

Oct 8, 2011

A.I. Artificial Intelligence - 2001

A.I. is a curious film to say the least. Part Stanley Kubrick, part Steven Spielberg it ultimately winds up belonging to the actors and special effects.

Kubrick labored to bring the story to the screen for 25 years but was never able to come up with a screenplay that worked for him. Several times the movie seemed on the verge of production only to have Kubrick wind up pulling the rug out from under it at the last minute. He even tried to pawn it off on Spielberg in 1994, though Spielberg respectfully declined to take it on at the time. Finally after Kubrick died in 1999 Spielberg agreed to make the picture out of respect for his late friend and wound up rewriting the script himself.

That script has at its heart a seemingly complex philosophical question: Are we responsible for the broken heart of a robot that we've programmed to mimic love? Like I said it seems like a complex question but at its core is an invalid conceit: that a robot can have a broken heart to begin with. If I were to believe that I'd also have to believe that I'm violating the civil rights of a lightbulb if I forget to turn if off when I go out. The fact that Spielberg's heavy, deep and real seeming question can be pretty effectively brushed aside by invoking the difference between man and his tools is at the heart of what's wrong with A.I. Spielberg is using the material to ask the wrong questions.

If instead of attempting to reinvent the emotional wheel Spielberg had used the robot David as a device to shed some light on the plight of parentless children adrift in a complicated and increasingly dangerous and exploitative world then he might have had a significantly moving and even important film on his hands. Instead he tries in vain to convince us that love is no more special than seeing or hearing and that a machine can be made to experience it just as a machine can be built and programmed to 'see'.

But does he really believe that himself? Does he really believe love can be reproduced using binary code and a couple of circuit boards? I have to think he doesn't based on the preponderence of his work. Nonetheless he tries his damnedest over the course of the movie to convince us with his efforts yielding naught but the feeling of a director trying to convince himself instead.

While it would be tempting to buy into the simplistic notion of love Spielberg seems to posit here the unfortunate fact is that its just not that simple. Love is one of the great mysteries of existence. It's also an incredibly fragile and often ephemeral thing. Two people who are swimming in the molasses of love one day might just as easily be coldly trying to destroy each other in court the next day. Former lovers move on, parents and children drift apart, we forget yet we retain the ability to love again. The fact that David never moves on demonstrates fairly convincingly that he isn't experiencing love, but rather that his hard drive has crashed and the screen is frozen.

And so with naive and unsatisfactory signals coming from the narrative and director the movie has little choice but to hand itself over to the actors and special effects artists and for the most part they comport themselves beautifully. Haley Joe Osment does a terrific job playing a life-like machine. Frances O'Conner and Sam Robarbs likewise are first rate as the emotionally conflicted parents and William Hurt embues the corporate slimeball with appropriate amounts of phony earnestness and cold-hearted calculation. The special effects are equally excellent and the cinematography compelling to the extent that you wish there were something going on on the screen that would take advantage of it.

But alas, Spielberg's heart never seems to be in this movie. Its one of the few cases I can think of where he just doesn't seem to be on top of what he's doing, maybe because he realized only too late that he'd turned down a dead end street with his interpretation. Or maybe he felt somehow forced to make this 'homage' to Kubrick. Or maybe his mind was on the several other projects he had on the board at the time he made this. Whatever the true reason for his disconnect the fact is that he could have had a Blade Runner type success on his hands but instead asked the wrong questions in a search for easy answers and failed.