Techniques for Writing Evaluations
Professional Writing
Peter Jackson’s Sorcery
By Richard Alleva
In evaluating the article by Richard Alleva on his evaluation of the three-part film The Lord of the Rings, right from the beginning he says it may or may not please readers of the epic trilogy. Really, you think? He then refers to the books “northness”, what? It is as if he is trying to write to a very narrow readership or over the heads of the average reader as you continue. Alleva states he loves the mental imagery the book offers but thought the prose was a bit too much. That is the way Tolkien wrote the book, it is what brought the story to life and helped make those images so real. He admits that “Tolkien could write well”; could write well? This is a bit of an understatement to say the least. An example taken from the book of a sentence which he thinks there is too many of is ridiculous. Again this is the book and the way Tolkien wrote it. Would you tell Mozart he had too many notes in any one of his compositions? He says “this is too much of a wet thing “, huh? Maybe I’m just not getting something here; after all I’m not intellectual elite.
A book is one thing and a movie is quite another, one cannot expect the literary style of a book to translate to a movie perfectly every time, nor would you want it to unless you were doing Shakespeare or something similar. Alleva says fresher language is needed, well Tolkien was not writing a screen play and he certainly wasn’t concerned, I think, with how his writing would come across as movie dialog. He (Alleva) seems to take delight that the prose of the book is missing in the film.
Much emphasis is placed on the differences between the book and the movie and that’s fine. This should be mentioned and expected, of course there are differences, but of today’s younger movie going audience very few have probably read the Hobbit trilogy and only those who have read it would have any idea of what he is talking about. The examples and explanations he gives are somewhat puzzling. After all the talk about Tolkien’s prose, Alleva tells us of the movie: “It overthrows our reading responses with a giant’s sneer and brushes aside our psychological collaboration with the author. So caveat lector.” [Let the reader beware] What is that all about? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Instead of a formal movie review Alleva tells us he is just going to walk around the film trilogy… and point out interesting features just as if walking around “a hydroelectric dam or a new skyscraper”. Maybe it’s just me but something about that concept and the way it is written just doesn’t sit right with me. He continues to try too hard to say what he wants to say instead of just saying it. I felt nearly exhausted from all the effort it took to read through and around all the obstacles in the intro alone.
The narrative review begins with a long explanation about how Tolkien’s book was a huge verbal Lego project…and ends with something about a toy monster or a train station? Whew! This whole opening sentence is long on words but weak on substance. He does a good job as far as describing the movie itself and getting quotes from some of the actors, but it is still difficult to discern how he feels overall. With some parts he seems pleased as with the cinematography and with other parts annoyed. He seems unhappy with the brevity and compression and then praises the scriptwriters for keeping a lengthy movie both richly textured and sleek.
Overall Alleva appears to be pleased with the acting as he brushes over the most well known in the cast and reveals an almost crush on Liv Tyler. He expresses a particular appreciation for the actor who portrayed Gollum, Andy Serkis, for managing such a complex role. Not to be overlooked the two princesses are given proper acknowledgement and praised for their strength of character, not quite as Tolkien had written them originally he says, very well.
The imagery gets somewhat mixed reactions from Alleva, he liked the computer-generated work but mostly enjoyed the camera angles and the more intimate details such as focusing on a single character at an especially poignant time in the story. He then complains about one aspect of the imagery, and says he may do himself in if he had to watch it again, I think for the most part he liked what he saw. Likewise Alleva did like the humor, what little there was of it, and pointed out two good examples.
The review ends with more book to movie comparisons, this time about the themes. Though he agrees to the movie keeping with the central theme of the book he has to make a political correlation, which is weak at best. If the theme as he puts it is good vs. evil, leave it at that and let the movie define it on its own terms. He did not need to draw a connection to conservative or liberal. This is supposed to be about a wonderful book built around a fantasy and the movie that became of it. Politics or your political affiliation has no place here and is totally unnecessary.
Alleva conveys a slight uneasiness with the ending or this is just a continuation of the confusing style in which he started the piece. He seems not to mind that the movie concludes the same as in the book but laments over the morally messy climax. He gives the reader the impression that he begrudgingly accepts the ending but it didn’t end quite the way he would have wanted it to, still one cannot be sure. Finally at the end he does say that the treatment given the movie was acceptable and did respect Tolkien’s work. He then gives Peter Jackson credit for making Tolkien’s archaic epic fresh for the modern screen. Is this finally the explanation of the sorcery of Peter Jackson we’ve been waiting for?
In conclusion the review got off to a very rough start, was a bit cryptic for the average reader and somewhat narrow. Alleva did not seem very concise, who was his audience for this piece? Someone who knows nothing about the books or Tolkien’s work would probably give up on this review after the first couple of paragraphs unless they had good reason not to. I didn’t see anything here very insightful or profound to pique my interest. The title is Peter Jackson’s Sorcery, so what about Peter Jackson’s Sorcery? I read a bunch of stuff about Tolkien’s book and his writing style and how it doesn’t translate well to a movie. Then an ineffectual example from Tolkien’s book was offered and other confusing colorful passages amounting to very little. If you can make it past the gauntlet of the first two paragraphs, you may find something redeeming in what follows but it is short lived, Alleva still doesn’t offer much in the way of giving us any astounding facts on the movie or background on the sorcery of Peter Jackson. He says that nonreaders of Lord of the Rings may occasionally be puzzled, well no more than I was trying to grasp the purpose of this review.
No comments:
Post a Comment